539 BCE and an astronomical tablet

by Doug Mason 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  Thanks for responding, Larry.

  I have copied the thread so that I can spread your material into several paras, perhaps with headings, so I can make out your mesage.

  I touched very lightly on other tablets but did not pursue them in detail since that would have distracted from the intention, as I set out in the Paper's title. I wrote this with a particular personal friend in mind.

  The expression "cliffnote version" is meaningless to me; it's the first time I have seen the expression.

  Have you seen the pictures of the eclipse traces that are available at:

  http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipses.html

  I have now included the relevant pictures into my original Paper.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/539_BCE_and_an_astronomical_tablet.pdf

  Why should I have any interest in the correct date of Jerusalem's destruction? Perhaps we could tease that out in a separate Thread?

  You will know my understanding of Daniel 9, which I have set out at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_GM_on_Daniel_9.pdf

  Can we work out the reason your submissions finish up as a single para? What program do you write it in? Can you solve the problem by using a couple of "soft returns" at the end of each para?

  Doug
• 

  Larsinger58

  Hi Doug, I have no idea why my paragraphing doesn't work. Your main point was very well made. Why does the WTS use the SK400 to support/prove ancient dating but reject the VAT4956 as fraudulent? That's hypocritical. Besides that, only one of the eclipses can ever work once you adjust the timing. That's the downfall of precise "earth times" to calculate lunar events--it virtually limits you to a very specific match year. So both the SK400 and the VAT4956 being "copies" 200+ years later are automatically considered to be fraudulent and representing false dates, which both do. But fortunately, they are also "safety texts" which use "errors" for the primary year to point to the original dating. Both amazing link back to the original dates for Neb2 which match the Biblical dating. Thus the Bible, the VAT4956 and the SK400 all support the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE, and because of that, those thinking any other dating is credible are just incompetent at this point. The proof of the revision AND the original dating are contained in these two amazing texts! LS
• 

  Doug Mason

  Larry,

  You are sitting by the side of the River Euphrates, enjoying the peace. Suddenly some nearby children excitedly say they have discovered a clay tablet with some scratches on it.

  Putting your pith hat on, magnifying glass in hand, you quickly see that it is an ancient astronomical tablet.

  "Please Sir! Please Sir!", the little children excitedly call out, "What is the date of it so that we can understand?"

  You tell them that even though the name of the king has been chipped off, you are still able to tell them the date in terms of the Julian Calendar, and likely will even be able to work out the king's name.

  So with little children sitting in a half-circle in front of you, computer left at the hotel, you explain the method, step by little step, so simply that they will all understand.

  Doug

  -----------

  This competition is open to others, with a guaranteed prize to each who enters.

  Once you have provided the children with the sequence, you are entitled to go to the nearest shop and buy yourself a Mars Bar. (If there are Babylonian Bars or Lunar Bars in your district, the choice is yours)
• 

  Doug Mason

  Larry,

  My main point, in my eyes anyway, is that the WTS does not make any computations of its own to determine the eclipse dates but accepts them on face value from the people it cited as the authorities. Yet it never again employs that process, presumably because they have the end point in view. This drives them to ridicule the sources it had relied on, which is gross dishonesty.

  Second point is that they need a secular king list (such as Ptolemy) to be able to tavel to 539, and we know what they think of that.

  Thirdly, by listing these authorities but without telling the JWs what these sources are really saying, the WTS is playing foul.

  Three out of three is not nice.

  Doug
• 

  Doug Mason

  Deist,

  If I may be so bold as to speak on Lars' behalf he is not an apologist for either 607 or for 587/6.

  He has his own agenda, which I will not enter into here today, since that would muddy the waters and introduce unwanted distractions.

  Doug