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?.
Your claim that the dates don’t fluctuate is simple wrong. For example, in the JW Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy (1999) they use 167-164 but in their other literature, all before 2015, they use 168-165.
See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267150
You can apologise now, you smarmy so-and-so.
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:
-543 Mar 13 was a FULL eclipse. The tablet doesn't state that it was partial. It says it was omitted.
🙄 Based on your distorted chronology, the corresponding eclipse from LBAT 1420 would be the one in lines 8-10, Obverse I. It states:
[Year 4. M]onth I, the 13th, middle watch, 3 bēru 5° after sunset, it began in the west and north. Three quarters [was covered.] It cleared in the north. The north wind blew.The full eclipse on 13 March 544 BCE (which is in any case too early to correspond to an eclipse in the first month of the Babylonian calendar) doesn't match, and nor does the tablet say the eclipse in question was omitted. Back in reality, the eclipse in question very neatly corresponds with the partial eclipse (84% covered) on 11 April 601 BCE.
But feel free to specify some other line of LBAT 1420 that you imagine this eclipse corresponds to, and then I can tell you why that is wrong too. 😒
(With some massaging, there is one possible line in LBAT 1420 that could be very awkwardly wrangled to align an 'omitted' eclipse with this particular eclipse in his broken chronology, but let's see where he's going with this... suffice to say, that one option breaks everything else for that portion of the tablet 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.
jwposter:
Therefore, I went directly to what I had as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in my studies which was 512 BC. In my astronomy program however, it doesn't have a year zero, so I researched year 511 BC.
Huh? If your astronomy program allows you to specify dates as BC (rather than astronomical years including a year 0), then 512 BC… is 512 BC! 🤦♂️
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:
Joey Jojo, let's take a look at Saturn in the VAT4596. Where is it located. It is located opposite the southern fish which means it is next to it.
As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.
So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.
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 other tactic employed here is focusing attention on details in the tablets that appear consistent (in isolation) or that the person imagines are consistent, and ignoring other details that show their position to be wildly incorrect. This is a form of the ‘Texas sharp-shooter’ fallacy.
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.
joey jojo:
In 588 , Saturn wasnt anywhere near the swallow. This stuff is not hard to understand.
True, but this guy is bringing a different brand of nonsense and saying Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was ‘really’ 512 BCE. Which is even more wrong than the JW nonsense. I’ve already demonstrated that the planetary positions in VAT4956 are not consistent with his novel drivel.
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.
Indeed. Note that jwposter conveniently ignored my post on the first page of this thread about the solstice and planetary observations that conflict with his novel hypothesis.
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:
Calling me superstitious is just an Ad Hominem attack.
That would only be the case if my assessment of your claims were based on the fact that you are superstitious. I have specifically demonstrated that your views are incorrect based on your incorrect assessment of the sources.
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:
Based on what Scholar said
That’s never a good start
am I to assume that Jeffro is the one that owns the vat4956 site?
Obviously not. And why would I say my own site is trash? What is wrong with you?
At this point I have to conclude either that you’re a troll or otherwise not competent to discuss these topics.
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:
You see the omitted is for the eclipse occurring 6 months later. But not for the first one (May 14th). That first occurrence IS observed otherwise it would have said omitted for that one also. Obviously there is 2 eclipses since they occur 6 lunar synodic cycles apart. It is that 2nd one that is omitted and not visible.
Entirely wrong. There were only two eclipses in 603 BCE (Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd year), and LBAT1420 references both of them. The ‘omitted’ eclipse in question is mentioned before the reference to the insertion of an intercalary month after month VI, and necessarily refers to the eclipse in May. The 2nd eclipse in that year was explicitly observed.
(There are some Saros cycles not mentioned at all in LBAT1420, but they are cycles for which none of the eclipses were visible from Babylon, as distinct from eclipses indicated as ‘omitted’ for Saros cycles they knew about.)
You’re not good at this. Just go away.
