anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
Jeffro
No writing credit is given in the Watchtower article, and there is no evidence that Furili wrote the article, but it is highly likely that the unnamed ‘researchers’ in the article alludes to Furuli.
---
This is mere speculation on your part. LOL!
scholar JW
anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
Rocketman123
Then he must be tritely stupid for there is a overwhelming amount of information from various sources to support the year 586 BCE.
----
The only overwhelming evidence is found in the Bible and because of the 70 years it is proved that Neb's 37 th year was 588 BCE leading to the correct biblical date of 607 BCE and not 586 BCE for the Fall.
scholar
anybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
Vanderhoven
there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations.18 There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.18a
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies on a certain date in the past.19 What did their analysis reveal? While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.
Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.
▪ The tablet describes astronomical events that occurred in the 37th year of the rule of King Nebuchadnezzar II.
▪ Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year.—Jeremiah 32:1.
If the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II was 568 B.C.E., then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
610 B.C.E.
600
590
580
570
560
If his 37th year was 588 B.C.E., then Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., the date that is indicated by Bible chronology.
▪ VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E
---
Absolutely, Well said!
scholar JW
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Jeffro
Ditto. we will battle again.
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Jeffro
'Oh no... something actually fits the Bible's description of Babylon's 70 years... quick, replace it with an obviously flawed straw man argument.'
--
'Oh no.. I receive a nonsensical comment as a flawed argument not dealing with the issue.-
---
Nope, wrong again. There were 6 months between Cyrus' accession until arriving in October. Plenty of time for arranging provisions and making the four-month trip. Your assertion that "they were still travelling or had not then left" is based on absolutely nothing. There are no 'WT scholars', and Josephus states that the temple construction began in Cyrus' second year, which is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's claims.
---
What evidence that there was a six month period from Cyrus accession year until arriving in October for this is just speculation in order to fit into a tight frame ignoring the time required for the proclaiming, writing and publishing the Decree throughout the Empire. Josephus gives the temple construction in Cyrus' second year which was a year after the Return in 537 BCE..
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Jeffro
Yes, you're right - that is nonsense. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society actually put it best on this one in Isaiah's Prophecy, volume 1, page 253:
No irony needed for a period of 70 years was associated with Tyre as Isaiah foretold but how about Jeremiah's prophecies about the nations. Notice no 70 years here!!!
---
Of course, it would be a fallactious argument from silence to assert that 70 years can only be applied to Judah because specific periods of desolation are not known for every nation (or any particular subset) that was subject to Babylon.
---
Well do not complain about the silence just pay attention to what the biblical record is telling you.
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Jeffro
Not quite. 2 Kings 23:36 gives Jehoiakim's reign as 11 years (counting his accession year), and we know his last year was 598 BCE. So his 3rd year using Nisan-based dating (not counting his accession year per the Babylonian and subsequent custom) was 605 BCE (up until early 604 BCE prior to Nisan), which is when Nebuchadnezzar returned to the area to demand tribute after he claimed the throne.
Jehoiakim's last year of his 11th reign ended in 618 BCE so that means that his 1st year began in 628 BCE.His vassalage/kingship cf.Dan 1:1 of three years to Neb. began from his 8th ending at the 11th year of his total reign.
---
he 70 years (of nations serving Babylon, not Jewish exile) ran from Babylon's conquest of Assyria in 609 BCE (conquest of Haran following the earlier conquest of Nineveh in 612) until Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.
This statement is problematic because nowhere in the Bible is the Fall of Assyria associated with the 70 years and that is why many scholars date the 70 years from Neb's reign which began according to their reckoning in 605/604 BCE so this latter date would be a better fit than 609 BCE which historically is a 'fuzzy date. The difficulty is that scholars cannot agree as to the 'beginning' of the 70 years as no definitive date can be assigned. The date 609 BCE meets the arithmetic; 609 BCE - 70 years = 539 BCE or alternatively, 605 BCE - 70 years=535 BCE not the posited date of 539 BCE. BIG POBLEM HERE !!!!!!
---
The Jews returned in 538 BCE, not 537. This was during the first year of Cyrus with temple construction beginning in 537, as confirmed by Josephus.
---
Incorrect: The jews could not have returned in 538 BCE because they were still travelling or had not then left so it must have been in 537 BCE having already resettled in their cities by the seventh month in 537 BCE.- Ezra 3:1. Josephus agrees with WT scholars that the 70 years ended with the Decree of Cyrus which led to the end of the Exile and the 70 years and not the fall of Babylon previously..
----
Entirely wrong. 1914 is based on superstitious nonsense and nothing more (and the fact that something was 'supposed' to happen suddenly in or after October of 1914 is generally ignored by JWs and they just focus on the fact that 'something' significant happened in that year). The context of Luke 21:24 refers to a period that had not started in Jesus' time, and the duration of the 'appointed times of the nations' (when Jerusalem was 'trampled') is identified in Revelation as 3.5 times, 42 months and 1260 days, all being 3.5 years, and refers to the period from the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in 66 CE culminating in Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE.
--
Entirely wrong: October 1914 CE marked the end of the Gentile Times a definite historical/ prophetic/eschatological period of a calculable 2520 years based on Dan. 4, Luke 21:24 and the relevant texts in Revelation. There is nothing in or about Luke 21:24 that can be interpreted to a 'trampling' by Rome but by the 'nations' which is plural until the appointed time. So, Jesus' words are quite explicit that the trampling of Jerusalem would be continuative long into the future and beyond the events of 70 CE In short, the wording of this verse takes us beyond the events between 66 CE to 70 CE.
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Rocketman123
When you closely examine the events concerning the ancient Israelites of that era and that of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it clarifies the difference of servitude, desolation and exile.
---
Historically and theologically there is no difference between the three elements of the 70 years namely exile-desolation -servitude which is an exact description of what Jeremiah foretold, witnessed by Daniel and Ezekiel, confirmed by the historians Ezra and Josephus.
---
There was a lot of historical subsequent of events which happened to the inhabitants of Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar from the beginning of servitude to him right to their return from exile which JWS are dishonestly dismissive about .
---
Exactly and that is what you should pay attention to that detailed history in the Bible and not try to harmonize with NB Chronology.
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
Jeffro
Actually, the order of the chapters of Jeremiah in the Greek Septuagint (with the proclamations against individual nations inserted between the first and second halves of what we call chapter 25) makes it even more clear that the 70 years applied to all the surrounding nations serving Babylon and definitely not just ‘Jewish exile’.
---
Nonsense: If this is really the case then you should be able to tabulate historically when each of those nations served Babylon. The only nation that we have a precise history of Babylonian servitude is Judah as correctly prophesied by Jeremiah.
The use of the LXX is valuable but it is important to compare that with the main or principal text- Masoretic Text when it comes to any historical analysis and exegesis.
i hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
MeanMrMustard
In the end, if you read the relevant scriptures grammatically, then the plain meaning that comes from that grammatical reading, as opposed to reading into the scriptures an ideology, is easy to see, and there are no contradictions with the historical evidence.
---
Does this comment indicate your skill in linguistics and in Hebrew and Greek?
