Posts by Jeffro

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

The date was moved up to 164, to coincide with new data on the death of Antiochus as no battle in 165 can be confirmed.

Antiochus certainly didn’t ‘just give it back’ after he was dead, and he died in (what is now part of) Iran. The timing of the rededication of the temple is consistent with 165 BCE, though the actual events are certainly in question. Whether the battle of Emmaus actually happened as described (in 165 BCE), it was (purportedly) led by Lysias, while Antiochus was going to Ecbatana, so there isn’t a need to move the event based on the death of Antiochus (who wasn’t at Jerusalem in or around December of either year).

I merely pointed to the later article in MyJewishLearning that uses the new dates to save time.

My conclusions are not based on the citation from MyJewishLearning. I simply cited that site to demonstrate that there is variation in what sources say. But it is not at all new for sources to vacillate between 165 BCE and 164 BCE for the rededication of the temple.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

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.

Jeffro

Just go away.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

What You Need to Know About the Hanukkah Story, MyJewishLearning.com:

In three years, the Maccabees cleared the way back to the Temple Mount, which they reclaimed. They cleaned the Temple and dismantled the defiled altar and constructed a new one in its place. Three years to the day after Antiochus’ mad rampage (Kislev 25, 165 BCE), the Maccabees held a dedication (hanukkah) of the Temple with proper sacrifice, rekindling of the golden menorah, and eight days of celebration and praise to God. [Proper] Jewish worship had been reestablished.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

Sources vary between 164 BCE or 165 BCE but 165 BCE is the correct year for the rededication of the temple in the December prior to Antiochus’ death in the 149th year of the Seleucid empire, which began in 312 BCE.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

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.

Jeffro

Also, there is Tablet LBAT1420 which contains eclipses during the reign which also are aligned from 512 BC as the 37th year.

Not going to go into too much detail with this because this guy is wrong all over the place, but the following eclipses cannot be reconciled with his claim that LBAT1420 matches his alternative chronology:

-0543 Mar 13 Not a partial eclipse as described in tablet
-0543 Sep 05 Too early to fall in correct month
-0542 Aug 26 Too early to fall in correct month
-0521 Jan 10 Too early to fall in correct month
-0521 Jul 06 Too early to fall in correct month
-0521 Dec 30 Too early to fall in correct month
-0519 Nov 08 Not a total eclipse as described in tablet

Note years are astronomical, e.g. -543 is 544 BCE, etc.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

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.

Jeffro

jwposter:

In my astronomy program however, it doesn't have a year zero, so I researched year 511 BC. And seen enough to know that it was a match to the Tablet VAT4956.

The solstice in 512 BCE was on 29 June (Julian calendar). This solidly identifies where the other observations must fit on the Julian calendar, irrespective of the date on which the Neo-Babylonian calendar might have begun for that year (since the person who started this thread obviously does not recognise the dates assigned by scholars for the Neo-Babylonian calendar). Line 16 on the front of VAT 4956 identifies the solstice on 9 Simanu. The same line says early in the next night, the moon was visible 3.5 cubits above α scorpii. It wasn't. The moon was below the horizon (in Cancer) and nowhere near Scorpio.

Lines 12-14 on the front indicate observations including the moon being in Cancer, along with specific descriptions about the positions of Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter (in Scorpio) during Simanu, prior to the 5th evening of that month. There is no possible match for those observations in 512 BCE. During the required interval, the moon was nowhere near Cancer; Mercury and Jupiter were never both observable together in the required period, Jupiter was always below the horizon when Mercury was observable at night, and Jupiter was in Leo.

Well that was easy. I'm not convinced this person has verified anything about VAT 4956 in an astronomy program, and it is not worth expending the effort to continue checking the other observations in the tablet.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

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.

Jeffro

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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

In other words, ‘my conclusion looks right if you ignore any details that aren’t consistent with my conclusion’. See also ‘unfalsifiable claim’.

Please go away before my brain implodes. If it amuses me and/or when time permits, I’ll point out all the details of VAT4956 that are not consistent with your pet theory.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

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.

Jeffro

Definitely incorrect.

Not only are the claims about astronomy obviously wrong, but this is clearly an attempt to ‘force’ details to fit a particular superstitious interpretation about Jesus.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

Jeffro

KoW:

the first Chanukah celebration and the death of Antiochus in 164 BCE, when the Temple was liberated and rededicated

Temple was rededicated in December 165 BCE, prior to the death of Antiochus IV in 164BCE.

144

Hailstone message AND everyone will be saved? Questions

by slimboyfat in

i’ve not been paying close attention to watchtower developments, but talking to a jw yesterday it occurred to me the society (yes, still use that term - old school) have been sending out mixed messages in recent years.

from what i gather, a few years ago the gb announced that during the great tribulation jws would be required to preach a “hailstone message of judgement” which involved telling people it was too late for them to repent and they were definitely going to be destroyed.

there were hints that this could be very soon, “any day now” preaching could stop and the hailstone message come in, kind of thing.

Jeffro

That good news will become more hard-hitting as time goes on, causing people to make a decision one way or the other, whether they accept the Kingdom or not.

Maybe they should focus more on saying things that are actually true rather than (hypothetically) trying harder to intimidate people into their nutty religion with fallacious appeals to fear.