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 have Isaac born in 1910 BC
Nope. Isaac is more of a legendary character rather than an actual historical person. Aside from that, dating biblical characters prior to the exodus depends on how the ‘430 years in Egypt’ is interpreted (though both interpretations are internally contradictory). Neither places Isaac’s birth in 1910 BCE.
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.
Notice how he picks and chooses the bits he likes from the different translations. (There’s also no reference to Piscis Austrinus in the transliteration, but who cares, right? 🤦♂️🤣)
Anyway… Praesepe…
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 have to have the Sabbatical years line up, the Jubilees line up, the 24 Courses of the Priests must line up.
Entirely false. Superstition and tradition don’t trump what actually happened. Even if you really really want it to.
We have to remember that the week is referencing 6000 years of rule for man.
Good grief. We really don’t. It’s a myth. It’s a culturally significant myth. But it is not an accurate description of human history.
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:
Since the Dedication of the Temple was a Jubilee year
Citation needed. 🤣
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:
By using that means of calculation, you can easily read the Book of Jubilees.
The book of Jubilees, a work of the second century BCE, contains spurious information about myths up until the purported time of Moses. It isn’t about Solomon’s temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, or Jesus.
I thought this thread was about how amazingly VAT4956 confirms 530 BCE for the destruction of the temple.
I’ve confirmed you’re using an impossible date for the solstice, invalidated your interpretation of the fish, demolished your incorrect use of ‘in front’ and ‘behind’, and shown Jupiter wasn’t acronychal. Now… Praesepe…
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:
(29 * 49) + ( 3 * 7) + 2 = 1444th year from the days of Adam.
How come you can process this but couldn’t understand how the date of the solstice on a specific Babylonian date dictates the first day of the same Babylonian year?
Are you just parroting someone else’s nonsense?
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:
Also, for those that are studying the timeline that I provided.
No one in their right mind is doing that. At least not for any reason you would like.
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:
the dedication of Solomon's Temple was a Jubilee year. 950 BC.
Wrong. It was 959 BCE (It may be argued that it was November of 960 BCE for Tishri dating or 959 BCE for Nisan dating, but historicity of Solomon is in doubt anyway.)
That was the 60th Jubilee.
Also wrong. Jubilee years were instituted in Leviticus (traditionally ascribed to Moses though it was actually completed in the 6th century BCE), but your nonsense would place the period before the ‘first jubilee’ far earlier than the spurious story of the exodus. It therefore seems you are counting back to your own contrived dating (around 3890 BCE) for the mythological character Adam.
The 70th Jubilee was in 460 BC.
Also wrong. Obviously you’re going with the jubilee year being in the 49th year rather than the 50th year (the more direct reading), but it’s neither here nor there and not the worst part of your nonsense.
That was 70 years after the destruction of the Temple.
Very wrong. There were only 49 years from the destruction of Jerusalem until the return from exile (though many stayed in Babylon anyway).
That is also 490 years from 31 AD when Jesus was crucified and resurrected.
It’s likely Jesus was executed (more likely in 30CE rather than 31) but there is no evidence for the Christian tradition that he was resurrected. Return from exile until Jesus’ death would be about 567 years.
the Temple was destroyed was on the 60th Jubilee
You said the 60th jubilee was when it was built, and you say it was destroyed at the same time. Either obvious nonsense or a typo. Based on your other nonsense, the destruction of the temple was 70 years before a jubilee year and can’t itself also be in a jubilee year, which you’ve indicated to be intervals of 49 years. Particularly ironic since the actual basis for jubilee years is ultimately derived from the actual period from the destruction of Jerusalem (587 BCE) to the release from exile (49 years later in 538 BCE), and laying the temple foundations (537 BCE, 50 years after the temple’s destruction).
unto the 120th (declared in 1991)
Declared by who? Obviously nonsense, but the choice of words suggests you’ve borrowed this drivel from someone else.
Sept of 2040
That’s rather longer than I would like to wait before reminding you that this was nonsense all along. Hopefully you’ll find your way back to reality before wasting too many years on this delusional fantasy though.
That literally sounds like the ravings of a crazy person.You SEE? Can you SEE?
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 (quoting 1915 translation of VAT 4956):
Jupiter apparently rose acronychally. On the 14th, the god was visible with the god; 16m passed between sunrise and moonset on the next morning
The imaginary chronology asserted by jwposter indicates 14 April 512 BCE as the evening to check for the 'apparent' acronychal rising of Jupiter. (At a stretch he could try to wriggle a couple of days earlier if he misinterprets the meaning of "or" at the beginning of the line, but it's no better.)
Jupiter was already high in the sky at sunset. Not remotely consistent with an acronychal rising, 'apparent' or otherwise. It would be difficult for it to be more wrong. Oh dear.
And not forgetting that it requires an impossible date for the solstice. But at least the moon was in the right phase. 🙄
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.
No. An ‘apparent acronychal rising’ would not be far off an actual one, but with some difference due to glare, atmospheric conditions etc. There is nothing resembling an acronychal rising for Jupiter on the expected date in 512 BCE. Of course, in your imaginary chronology, you could be using a wrong date. If so, provide that and I can verify for it when time permits.
So… Praesepe…
