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.
Jeffro:
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.Exactly! The moon is BEHIND Taurus. This is because Taurus is to the WEST of the moon. 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.
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.
Jeffro:
I didn't choose the date. The date is dictated by the date of the solstice. Your alternative chronology is simply wrong.That is just nonsense. 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? Again, you're picking April 23rd which is 20 days into the lunar cycle. You do realize right that the months are by the LUNAR cycle and not the Solar cycle. Even then, I think someone that didn't know that wouldn't be as far off as you are.
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.
Jeffro:
LOL, no, your wrong. In that context you posted Saturn would be BEHIND the Swallow. You do realize you can't pick and choose. Are you going to tell me that the moon was in front of Taurus on day one of Month 1? You see you're just making arguments without thinking because your a -567 apologist.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).
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.
jeffro:
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.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. Get that yet? Do you not see how easy it is for everyone reading this to just open their Stellarium and refute you? Therefore, you either don't get it or have the wrong month.
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.
Jeffro:
But of course, you’ve dreamed up some convenient excuse for why ‘the solstice isn’t really the solstice’ in the tablet 🤦♂️, so there’s no way of knowing what date you’ve drummed up for the start of the year in your imaginary nonsense.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.
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.
Jeffro:
No, doofus. I used the right year. But because of your wild departure from scholarship, the only way to identify a starting date for the year is anchored around the date of the solstice.No you used the wrong year because in -511 April 23rd would be 20 days into the lunar cycle. And obviously, line 2 is referring to the first through 3rd days of the month. Go back and study the correct year and come back and ask questions.
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.
jeffro:
Good grief. Thanks, genius. 🙄 I definitely checked the right year. Come back when your rewrite of all scholarship is peer-reviewed. 🤣No, you used the wrong year. The first of the month would not have started April 23rd in 512 BCE. Go check it again and come back with more of your critical analysis.
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.
jeffro:
Yes, I did, sorry for the mix up. To clarify, my software does have a year 0 which is equivalent to -1 BCE. And the year that I'm using in that software for the 37th year is year -511 which correlates to actual year - 512 BCE.O…K… 🤷♂️ you’re the one who said your astronomy program had no year zero.
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.
jeffro:
You see your not even looking at the right year. You are looking at year 511 BC and not 512 BC. Maybe you don't understand when people use -511 in the context of an astronomy discussion. When someone uses a negative sign before the year in an astronomy discussion, they are denoting that the year is in relation to a year earlier in the B.C.E era. Therefore, when I say -511, I'm referring to 512 BC but in Astronomy software and context, the year is one year earlier as there no year 0 in B.C.E designations. Haven't you ever notice that the Nasa site marks the years in B.C.E one year earlier for their eclipse data? Get in the right year and then come back to the debate.As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.
So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.
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.
jeffro:
Wanted to give you more time to bring up the Solstice mention. You see I waited for you to do so and then ignore the position of Saturn, and the Retrograde of Mercury under Mars. You see by doing so, you have shown that your not a skill craftsman in the application of logic. You focus on the more questionable aspect of the Solstice translation. I'm not disputing that it should say Solstice but what you are ignoring is that you're focus on the Solstice which is highly debatable on when it is declared is being preferred over the less questionable aspects of the translation as it relates to the location of Saturn and the retrograde of Mercury under Mars. You see in doing so you are ignoring the weightier matters of the evidence, showing that you are acting in the capacity of an apologist instead of a skillful craftsman in the application of logic. Those that support the -567 year dating of the Tablet will say that Saturn fits the translation but they use the translation where the Swallow is the constellation in the narrative. But that narrative says that Saturn is FRONT of the Swallow but yet the astronomy shows that Saturn is BEHIND the Swallow. And Mercury is not in retrograde under Mars on the first of the 3rd month. Therefore, those are far weightier matters than the questionable start of when the Babylonians start their Solstice during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Solstice (if you studied this) has been defined in MUL.APIN as one means but various schemes have since been suggested. Meaning we don't know if a point was being used in the translation to indicate the Solstice should be sought or the very Solstice itself. Which in some schemes was related to the sighting of the arrow (Sirius). Therefore, the logical person would gravitate to the less questionable evidence that has a far more statistical relevance as in the location of Saturn and the retrograde afore mentioned.As previously explained, the indication of the solstice in VAT4956 locks in the other dates for the observations in the tablet. The date referenced in Line 2 of the obverse was before sunrise on 23 April. Saturn was behind Capricorn on that date in 512 BCE, and wouldn't be described relative to Pisces. Similarly, the observation of Saturn for Line 9 would more accurately be described as in front of Aquarius or behind Capricorn for 512 BCE. Things went downhill very quickly from there. Line 1 - the moon was in Capricorn, not Taurus. Line 3, the moon was in Aries, not anywhere near Virgo. Line 4, neither Jupiter nor any other planet was acronychal on the required date. Line 8, the moon was in Aquarius, not Gemini. Line 10, Mars was nowhere near Praesepe. I didn't bother continuing to check at that point.
So either our 'esteemed' astronomer has completely fudged the dates or is just completely dishonest.
