KalebOutWest
I teach Jewish cultural studies, and have even done a thesis on VAT 4956.
--
If you are so confident about and you think that Jeffro's interpretation is rock solid then why not make your thesis on VAT 4956 publicly available?
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
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.
-
-
scholar
-
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.
-
-
scholar
joey jojo
es, but it is a smoking gun that casually disassembles the whole 607 - 1914 doctrine of the WT. The deceit they employ to try to discredit vat4956 is shameful.
In their article - When was Jerusalem destroyed? (2011), they mention planets but do not cite what the tablets say about them, choosing to focus on the moon eclipses, which are prone to error and mis-interpretation.
Using a program like Sky View Cafe , anyone can see for themselves what the unidentified Babylonian observer saw in the night sky in the year 567 BCE
--
Utter nonsense. The clay tablet notwithstanding its provenance is open to interpretation and to translation. There are at least four translations in English from the original German article and this tablet has been rigorously examined by Dr Rolf Furuli who is an expert in the Akkadian language
using several different astro programs concluded that Neb's 37th year was in 588 BCE rather than the widely accepted date of 568 BCE which of course validates 607 BCE as the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
Jeffro on his blogs simply provides his interpretation of the astronomical data in the tablet and there is another website that also provides an alternative interpretation -www. VAT 4956. com
Yes, this tablet could be a 'smoking gun' in that it affirms 607 BCE rather than the controversial 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall but the 'jury is out' on this matter.
scholar JW
-
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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
I didn’t mention any site. And the site ‘scholar’ referenced is trash.
---
Any information or site that presents an alternative viewpoint or interpretation is 'trash' just like your website with its pretty coloured charts.
scholar JW
-
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.
-
-
scholar
jwposter
I looked at that site already Jeffro - previous to your mention of it. I disagree with its analysis but I love the work and effort they put into the presentation. Again, I have an advantage in that I have an alignment of the Chronologies, the Priestly courses, Sabbatical years and Jubilees to the VAT4956 in 512 = 37 year of Nebuchadnezzar. The evidence I have for 530 BC as the year of the destruction of the Temple is far greater than any evidence the VAT4956 can provide.
----
Your methodology for determining 530 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is nonsense. The primary evidence for determining a date for the Fall must utilize the biblical 'seventy years of Jeremiah' for anything other method is problematic.
scholar JW
-
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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
You are in big trouble with your claims about VAT 4956 which conflicts with the research by Dr. Rolf Furuli and that of the 'celebrated WT scholars who have proved that Neb's 37th year mentioned in the tablet was in 588 BCE and not 568 BCE as a far better fit using the astronomical data available.
To show the complexity of trying to interpret the lunar and planetary data into a modern calendar system perhaps you should examine the website VAT 4956.com
scholar JW
-
48
The Date for the Memorial is WRONG this year!
by Kelley959 inan interesting video was on youtube with a person claiming that the memorial date for 2024 was wrong.
so i consulted three different jewish calendars online and sure enough, he appears to be right.
i went back to 2014 and forward to 2027. they have the future dates listed.
-
-
scholar
Kelley959
Your belief that the Memorial date for 2024 is wrong based on some YouTube video is simply bunkum. The 'celebrated' WT scholars at least from 1907 have demonstrated competence in establishing the precise date for the Memorial since that time by means of a full disclosure of the methodology used for its determination. The simple fact is that it begins with the month of Nisan with the observation at Jerusalem of the new moon in the spring nearest the equinox either before or after with the full moon coming fourteen days later. This was the ancient method of determining the Passover. This is not the astronomical new moon listed on a calendar or astronomical table because the thin sliver of the new moon is not visible until 18 to 30 hours after the moment of the astronomical new moon.
scholar JW
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Happy to take a poll to see if anyone else thinks the whole site provides no lines of evidence against JW 607 dogma. 🤣
--
A poll won't let you off the hook because scholar is on your case!
scholar JW
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Poor ‘scholar’, still beating the same tired drum. It can only be jealousy.
--
Poor Jeffro still beating the same tired drum. It can only be fear
scholar JW
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
scholar
Duran
He is right in it being incorrect. The WTS by their pointing to recent events and WW3, etc... shows that it is wrong and pointless to debate 607/587. They used 607 to get to 1914 because WW1 occurred then. Using 587 didn't work so they added 20 magical years. But now if peace is being taking away because of recent events and world war with nuclear weapons is on the horizon with the GT to follow then all that was said about WW1 timeframe was not the case.
---
If Jeffro is so smart and is right in that 607 BCE is incorrect then how come with all his pretty blogs he is unable to provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
scholar JW
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
scholar
Duran
What is the relevance of 607 now being that the WTS are no longer pointing to WW1 as the point the horsemen started their ride?
--
Tell that to Jeffro for he has a vested interest in 607 BCE being incorrect!!!
scholar JW