Notice how he ignores all the problems and just moves on to the next thing he imagines he’s right about (variation of ‘Texas sharp shooter’ fallacy.) Bored now and don’t currently have access to astronomy software. Will comment later if I see fit.
Posts by Jeffro
-
271VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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.
-
-
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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:
Also, of course Mars was nowhere near Praesepe in -511.
More tedious misdirection. Mars didn’t ‘enter and leave’ anything notable in the required period in your doofus chronology.
And the moon is not thick.
It was as thick as it could be expected to be on the specified day of the month.
Never said that Mercury didn't set.
Irrelevant misdirection, as is a picture of Mercury before sunset. The observation in question simply says Mercury had set prior to the time of the observation, not that Mercury was observed to set.
their 7th month wouldn't be in November
Didn’t say it was. 🙄 Temple construction was completed in the 8th month per 1 Kings 6:38. Try to keep up. (And yes, I know it corresponds to part of October and part of November, but the 8th month is mostly during November.) Maybe he just doesn’t understand what ‘Tishri dating’ means. 🤦♂️
Really getting the sense that you’re just trolling at this point.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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
Me:
Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question
He’ll probably leap on this because of the ambiguity of ‘could’, which is intended in the sense of maybe rather than was. 🙄 As previously stated, it is more likely that they simply knew Mercury had already set at the time of the observations in line 9 of VAT 4956, because they knew about Mercury’s position on previous nights.
And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.
I’m also aware that if Nisan dating is used, he can twist it to just one year out, which doesn’t normally matter too much for normal ancient history purposes, but is critical for his type of numerological nonsense.
(Also, when I indicate years for when the temple was ‘actually’ built, I mean based on the Bible. The historicity of Solomon is disputed, and the temple may have been built considerably later than the period claimed in the Bible.)
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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:
They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.
Just for completeness... Mercury (mentioned in line 9, not line 8) could in fact have been seen to set earlier in the evening in question, setting below the horizon a few minutes behind the sun on 23 May 568 BCE (or they could have just known where it was from previous nights).
In either case, the observation says Mercury was not visible because it had already set rather than that it was explicitly observed.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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:
The year the Temple was finished being built (not furnished) was completed in the 8th month. Let's remember the dedication occurred in the 7th month.
This misdirection is so nonsensical that I had to actually laugh. Of course I’m quite aware that the dedication followed the completion of the building, and would have been in October 959 BCE following the completion in November 960 BCE (Tishri dating). And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.
You can see from above that they simply looked at where Mars was and concluded it is in Praesepe and then let that be the NEW meaning of Nangaru.
More misdirection. Notice that he doesn't say what Mars did supposedly 'enter and leave' in his mangled chronology. On the required date in the imaginary chronology, 5 May 512 BCE (ignoring the impossible date for the later solstice), Mars was nowhere near Praesepe, nor was it near Cancer. For the 12 minutes that Mars was observable before sunrise on the morning of 5 May or 6 May, Mars was behind Taurus, not in Cancer. Worse still, for him, Mars didn't 'enter and leave' anything notable in the dates required in your chronology, and was only visible for a few brief periods before sunrise each morning in that period.
Even in line 8 of N/W they claim that Mercury set. They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun.
Mercury did in fact set after sunset behind Gemini on 31 May 568 BCE as expected (most of Gemini having set before Mercury). You're just outright lying at this point.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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:
So this tells you that 1 Kings 6:1 where it mentions the 480 years is not from the Beginning of the Exodus but from the End of the Exodus. We know this because the dedication of the Temple is in the 60th Jubilee. ... Now since the Temple was dedicated in 950 BC, we can see that the 50th Jubilee was 490 years earlier in 1440 BC (crossing of the Jordan).
The temple reportedly took 7 years to build, so this word salad about the temple being dedicated 490 years after the end of the exodus (which is wrong anyway) would mean either that the 480 years ended 3 years before the end of the exodus, or that the temple was completed 487 years after the exodus ended.
Still waiting for those details about Praesepe...
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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
(There was a glaring error in one of my comments earlier today, due to typing on mobile while distracted. The remainder of the comment makes it obvious I intended the correct year.)
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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
I won’t be watching the video. Suffice to say they’re wrong since 511BCE and 512BCE are both invalid years for VAT 4956. Let alone the required rewrite of all of antiquity.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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:
Not sure if they were using the astronomical year or the actual year but I assume it had to be the astronomical year.
Of course you assume that, because you want it to be more consistent with your view. But no one who knows anything about astronomical years says “511 BCE” if they are actually talking about the astronomical year -511 (510 BCE). The old thread never mentions astronomical years. 512BCE and 511BCE are both dismal failures for the observations in VAT 4956.
There is some manipulation in the findings from the the original analysis from N & W
Oh, the irony. 🤣
joey jojo:
This is another thread claiming 511 is the right date. Is this jwposter under an another name?
The old thread seems to have been pasted from some other source and is introduced with a question about whether anyone else has heard about it. It isn’t clear whether it is the view of the person who actually posted it on the forum.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin 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
Hmmm… the nutter in the other thread was spruiking 511 BCE, whereas the current one is going for 512BCE. And the current one is more obsessed about jubilees than the other. But there were 21 years in between, so it’s possible that the old drivel has been adapted over time. Hard to be sure.