Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar') (page 4)

scholar

Leolaia

Post 13670

My proposal consiisted of 4 points but mainly ureger to list her fundamental citticisms, write to Furuli about these matters, providing me with copies of her letter and reply from Furuli and any information from Jonsson if relevant to the points raised.

scholar JW

wha happened?

'scholar'

I was hoping for a decent answer but no such luck

xcellxior

Urgh. There is absolutely no point in trying to reason with Scholar. Unless he can face the possibility that everything he has ever learnt from the WT has holes in he will keep on dodging and relying on "experts" (sorry I mean "an expert") with biased viewpoints. I won't pretend to know all the ins and outs of certain tablets and their implications but I had a real hard time finding any unbiased independent real expert who says 607 is the right date.

This is manufacturered like 1914.

Scholar: Specifics aside (because as you suggest you aren't an expert). Do you think that God would require his true followers to rely on historical records to prove the return of his Son?? The most significant date in all of human history. Historical records can be wrong... I mean if the bible is inspired shouldn't we just be able to use that?? We now have to rely on artifacts produced by pagans?? Last time I checked these weren't inspired.

If you cannot take the bible in one hand and Gods Holy Spirit to figure out 1914 with that alone then you are on the wrong path. This "wisdom" by the FDS is misleading and attempts to give God a timetable. Wake up man.

X

AnnOMaly

Billy - Like Leo, I'd like to see Neil mention just one non-JW or non-BS affiliated scholar who believes the evidence points to 607 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year. Then we can take it from there.

Leolaia - Yes the Babylonian dates are converted to Julian ones. Of course, one has to determine when the new year began and consequently when a new month began based on first lunar visibility criteria. Nevertheless, the bottom line: the Julian dates and UT times entered in the table are the ones Furuli uses to calculate his positions - he even gives the Julian day numbers and they check out - and the dates follow from his premise that September 18 was Day 1 of Month VII - in other words, he hasn't accidentally counted wrongly (he's been known to do that sometimes).

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

scholar 1815: "Why is it the case that there are so many hands on the 'brush', would not one suffice?"

Ann, I think scholar has accepted your reasonable request and will finally come forward with just one non-JW, non-pyramidologist scholar who believes the evidence points to 607 BCE. I'm sure he will present the name VERY, VERY SOON now!

The naming is at hand!