the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
No, it's definitely this thread.
Unless you mean that god, one person, or three are three separate options, in which case the first option cannot be established to exist, and the second option leaves out a large number of people, but 'three' is definitely a thing.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
I smell a false dichotomy.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
I think I demonstrated enough here to show that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year can not be -567 and is actually -511 (512 B.C.E)
đ€Šââïžđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
I won't be back here for awhile
We can only hope.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
So as you can see both text had the same problem. Since the Moon is actually BEHIND and not in FRONT of.
(Actually in this particular case the newer translation says B Virginis, and the observation is corrected by noting that the day is actually one day off, already noted in the 1915 translation. But there are similar issues for lines 11 and 14 so weâll let it slideâŠ)
Note the hypocritical inconsistency. For his own position with its blundering interpretations of other observations in VAT 4956 (not to mention the rest of his nonsense), he jumps through hoops to try to justify problems, or simply ignores problems altogether. From using a wrong definition of âin frontâ or âbehindâ as âcloser to west on a compassâ, to claiming identification of the solstice âreallyâ means âstart looking for the solstice 3 weeks beforeâ, to claiming âMars entering Praesepeâ was backwardly identified despite the fact there is no corresponding observation in his own nutty interpretation at all, to completely ignoring most of the planetary observations altogetherâŠ
But when the tablet has some (actually a total of 3) minor inconsistencies in wording for observations among literally dozens of correct matches for 568/7 BCE? â568 must be wrongâ. đ€Šââïž VAT 4956 is expected to be perfect when he says so, but wrong or misinterpreted when convenient.
The cognitive dissonance is beyond disgusting.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
As before, he continues to ignore all the massive problems with his nonsense and cling to what he imagines are points in his favour. And he relies on an inferior translation from 1915. And heâs still wrong.
Bear in mind that this joker claiming that line 3 is a âmajor problemâ is the same person who claimed early in this thread regarding the mammoth problems in his own interpretation of VAT 4956:
Any portions of the Tablet that are not translated to what can be simulated in software for year 512 BC is either a scribe error, transcribing error, translation error, or software or algorithm error or intentional corruption of the tablet.As is frequently the case with this type of fanatic, there is a blatant double standard when it comes to expectations of accuracy.
Youâre going round in circles and preaching utter nonsense. Just go away.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
So I think for the readers that I have given enough information to thoroughly see that the Jews observed the lunar sabbaths at the time of Christ and before.
You think that, do you? đ€Ł Iâve thoroughly trounced you on every aspect. It was also plain that that was the particular site you copy and pasted from for the quotes taken out of context. What a joke.
moved away from the lunar-solar calendar in the 4th century
Another irrelevant distraction that has nothing to do with the determination of sabbath days. The Hebrew calendar remained lunisolar, but it was changed to base months on calculations rather than observations only.
the relationship of the festivals to the 15th day and the lunar month
The fact that the 15th day of a lunar month is related to⊠the lunar month is yet another self-evident distraction from the fact that your nonsense about âlunar sabbathsâ (in either the neo-Babylonian period or the first century) has been shown to be completely wrong. Your own cited sources make it clear that sabbaths were only based on a lunar cycle in a very early period of nomadic Semites prior to Jewish settlements.
But if you really think youâve âgiven enough informationâ, feel free to finally just go away.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Following is a summary of the major inconsistencies between the nutter chronology offered in this thread and the content of VAT 4956. Various 'minor' inconsistencies (mostly lunar observations) are not included. Note that other sources may have different criteria and margins of error for what I consider a 'major inconsistency'. Because the nutter chronology is unreliable, some dates may vary by a day, but none of the problems are resolved by the difference of 1 day. Where there are interpolations in the translation indicated by square brackets [], a best-case match is indicated for the alternative chronology where possible. (Apologies for any table formatting stripped out by the forum.)
| Date | Line | Comments |
| 13-Mar | 6 | Impossible reference to 8th of month XII2; there was no intercalary month the previous year |
| 5 Apr (am) | 2 | Saturn between Aquarius and Capricorn, not in front of âthe Swallowâ (Pisces) |
| 15-16 Apr | 4 | Jupiter not anywhere near acronychal |
| 18 Apr (am) | 4 | Sunrise to moonset 55 minutes (39 minutes longer) |
| 5 May (am) | 9 | Saturn between Aquarius and Capricorn, not in front of âthe Swallowâ (Pisces); Mercury had set, not visible |
| 6 May (pm) | 10 | Mars did not enter Praesepe or anything else significant |
| 9 May | 10 | Mars did not go out of Praesepe or anything else significant |
| 21 May (pm) | 11 | Venus near Cancer, not below α Leonis |
| 30 May (am) | 11 | Moonrise to sunrise 58 minutes (22 minutes shorter) |
| 2 Jun (pm) | 12â14 | Mars and Mercury not visible in evening; briefly visible before next sunrise, but not in front of α [anything]; Mercury passed below Mars to the East; Jupiter in Leo, not above α Scorpii; Venus in west far below Ξ Leonis |
| 6 Jun (pm) | 14 | Moon in Virgo, not near âend of Lionâs footâ |
| 11 Jun | 16 | Impossible date for solstice |
| 11 Jun (pm) | 16 | Moon between Virgo and Leo, not above α Scorpii |
| 14 Jun (pm) | 16 | Mars visible for less than an hour in the morning, not notably above [anything] to warrant measurement in cubits |
| 18 Jun (am) | 17 | Sunrise to moonset 118 minutes (88 minutes longer) |
| 14 Jan (am) | 3' | Venus in Sagittarius, not below Capricorn |
| 24 Jan (pm) | 5' | Sunset to moonset 102 minutes (44 minutes longer) |
| 25 Jan (am) | 5' | Jupiter in Virgo, not behind elbow of Sagittarius |
| 3-4 Feb | 7' | Moon in front of Cancer, not relative to α Leonis |
| 7 Mar (am) | 16'-17' | [Mercury] in front of the âbandâ of âthe Swallowâ (Pisces) behind Venus, too far from Venus to match observation |
| 7 Mar (am) | 16'-17' | Moon already set before sunrise |
| Between 7 Mar and 14 Mar | 17'-18' | [No observable planets] above Mercury and below Venus in required period; Mars below [?] granted due to ambiguity |
| 15 Mar (am) | 19'-20' | Mercury in Pisces but not observable, Venus did not enter the âbandâ of âthe Swallowâ (Pisces) |
| 21 Mar (am) | 20' | Neither Mercury nor Venus [entered or left] the "band" of Anunitu (Pisces); Mercury was not observable |
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
The actual quote from Clement is as follows:
And that it is said, that we and the Greeks know the same God, though not in the same way, he will infer thus: "Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day."
Clement is saying that neither Christians nor Greeks worship in the same manner as the Jews. Clement is not referring to weekly sabbaths at all, nor associating weekly sabbaths with lunar cycles. The reference to the 'sabbath' as part of the expression "the Sabbath, which is called the first" is in reference to the 'feast of trumpets' (Rosh Hashanah) marking the 'Sabbath' (that is, rest) commanded on the first day of the (civil) new year. See also Leviticus 23:24.
It would be redundant to say the first day of the seventh month is also a sabbath if the first day of every month were a sabbath anyway.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
The Sabbath depending, in Israelâs nomadic period, upon the observation of the phases of the moon
I already explained this. As the Jewish Encyclopedia explains, the nomadic period relates to a much earlier Semitic period, not Jewish practice in the Neo-Babylonian period, and certainly not in the 1st century. Specifically, "When the Israelites settled in the land and became farmers, their new
life would have made it desirable that the Sabbath should come at
regular intervals, and the desired change would have been made all the
more easily as they had abandoned the lunar religion." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Sabbath)
The moon was the beneficent⊠[herald] of the shepherds
There's those ellipses and interpolations again... you're copying and pasting from nutter websites, not the actual sources. The Jewish Encylcopedia actually says "The moon was the beneficent deity of the shepherds in the region" in that earlier nomadic period. Little wonder the nutter sites, wanting to stick to an illusion of a monotheistic history, want to disguise that...
Just stop.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
1899 edition
đ and even that is taken out of context. For exampleâŠ
so that the New Moon no longer coincided with the first day [of the month ]
This is talking about the ânew moonâ as the first observable crescent being differentiated from the ânew moonâ as no visible moon at all. It is nothing to do with the date of the sabbath.
