Posts by Jeffro

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:

How does picking April 23 of -511 as the first day of the first month get derived from the Solstice being indicated on the 9th day of the 3rd month?

🙄 If you don't understand why, you're definitely not qualified to be making a vast rewrite of all of antiquity.

The 9th day of the 3rd month is necessarily two full lunar cycles plus 9 days (inclusive) after the 1st day of the 1st month. A lunar cycle is 29.5 days. The solstice was on 29 June in 512 BCE. 67 days before 29 June is 23 April.

Please go away.

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:

Are you going to tell me that the moon was in front of Taurus on day one of Month 1?

22 April 568 BCE, sunset. Moon is behind Taurus, as stated in Line 1 of VAT 4956. Taurus sets within half an hour after sunset. Moon sets another half hour after, that is, behind.

Just go away.

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:

If you chose the date of April 23 on -511 as the first of the month you would be wrong because it is NOT the first crescent.

I didn't choose the date. The date is dictated by the date of the solstice. Your alternative chronology is simply wrong.

You do realize that in -567, that the solstice would be even farther away from a true solstice than that reported in -511 don't you? So based on your argument you can't be supporting -567 since that would be farther away from the true solstice.

It is indeed becoming very evident that you do not know how to use an astronomy program.

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:

But that narrative says that Saturn is FRONT of the Swallow but yet the astronomy shows that Saturn is BEHIND the Swallow.

You're just wrong. (Your entire thesis is wrong, but you're also very wrong on this specific point.)

Position for line 2, 23 April 568 BCE, before sunrise. Saturn is in front of the Swallow (Pisces).

Position for line 9, 23 May 568 BCE, before sunrise. Saturn is in front of the Swallow (Pisces).

Either you don't know how to use an astronomy program, or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'in front' means for astronomical observations.

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:

No you used the wrong year because in -511 April 23rd would be 20 days into the lunar cycle.

I used the right year. The fact that the start of the year can’t be aligned with the lunar cycle for that year is your problem, not mine. The date of the solstice is fixed, and the ‘justifications’ for your vast reinterpretation of history (including but not limited to dismissing the date of the solstice) exist only in your own mind. Come back when your work is peer-reviewed.

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

Downloaded to read later.

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

It’s too early for beer. Need coffee.

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

🙄 How gracious. That’s the type of response I expect from someone who thinks everyone else is beneath them, including the false dilemma that someone must either know everything or nothing about a subject. (The aim here is to make Pete angry at me if Kaleb leaves, rather than calmly acknowledging that scholarship has varied regarding some dates.) I didn’t make any claim of being more versed in the subject, I was just right about one point that you don’t like. Get over it.

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:

No, you used the wrong year. The first of the month would not have started April 23rd in 512 BCE. Go check it again and come back with more of your critical analysis.

No, doofus. I used the right year. But because of your wild departure from scholarship, the only way to identify a starting date for the year is anchored around the date of the solstice.

But of course, you’ve dreamed up some convenient excuse for why ‘the solstice isn’t really the solstice’ in the tablet 🤦‍♂️, so there’s no way of knowing what date you’ve drummed up for the start of the year in your imaginary nonsense.

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:

You see your not even looking at the right year. You are looking at year 511 BC and not 512 BC. Maybe you don't understand when people use -511 in the context of an astronomy discussion. When someone uses a negative sign before the year in an astronomy discussion, they are denoting that the year is in relation to a year earlier in the B.C.E era. Therefore, when I say -511, I'm referring to 512 BC but in Astronomy software and context, the year is one year earlier as there no year 0 in B.C.E designations. Haven't you ever notice that the Nasa site marks the years in B.C.E one year earlier for their eclipse data? Get in the right year and then come back to the debate.

Good grief. Thanks, genius. 🙄 I definitely checked the right year. Come back when your rewrite of all scholarship is peer-reviewed. 🤣