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:
The 9th day of the 3rd month is necessarily two full lunar cycles plus 9 days (inclusive) after the 1st day of the 1st month. A lunar cycle is 29.5 days. The solstice was on 29 June in 512 BCE. 67 days before 29 June is 23 April.And that made no sense at all. Again, doesn't explain why someone would try to pass off the 20th day of a lunar month as a match to line 1.
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.
