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:
Again, the timeline I posted gives me an advantage because I know that the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is 512 BC without VAT4956.
You don’t ‘know’ that at all. You’ve made up a chronology, which deviates wildly from all scholarship in various fields, to suit your superstitions about Jesus, and you are desperately trying to make things fit around it. Come back when your thesis is peer reviewed.
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:
And that made no sense at all.
Wow you’re even worse at this stuff than ‘scholar’. It made perfect sense. If you don’t understand how months work, you definitely shouldn’t be trying to rewrite all of antiquity.
Again, doesn't explain why someone would try to pass off the 20th day of a lunar month as a match to line 1.
Indeed. So stop insisting on an obviously nonsensical chronology that requires it. 🤷♂️
Better still, 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:
And this ALSO, why Saturn is BEHIND the Swallow and not in FRONT of the Swallow because the Swallow is to the WEST of Saturn.
You're delusional. That isn't what 'behind' means. 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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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?.
Downloaded to read later.
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?.
It’s too early for beer. Need coffee.
