VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly 53 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Side by side comparison of Lunar Three interval SR -MS for Month I, day 14, year 568 BCE and year 588 BCE.*
    * Where New Year, Nisanu 1 = May 2/3, 588 BCE.

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Inquiring minds may wonder why East is on the left side of the Sky View Cafe picture and West is on the right.
    (In the previous posts you can see pictures showing sunrise with the sun on the left side.)

    Here is the answer from www.skyviewcafe.com:

    Some people might wonder why the E for East is on the left of the Sky display when the selected view orientation puts S for south is on the bottom. This takes a little getting use to for some people, but you have to realize that you're seeing a representation of a view that you'd see looking upward into the sky. In fact, it's useful to imagine yourself lying flat on your back with your head pointing North, gazing up into the sky.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Hi Alleymom,

    Sky shots - fantastic! Thanks for doing these!

    Regarding the differences in figures:

    For 567 BCE, XII.1 - I get the same figures as you do, and 104m / 4 = 26º ... (25.75º x 4 = 103m).

    For 587 BCE (P&D), XII.1 - I get the same figures as you, but I copied in the wrong fraction (dammit!). You are correct and it should be 27.25°. The difference between the text and computed figure remains 2.25°.

    A word about the mid-month sunrise to moonset intervals. There is a potentially contentious one for Month XII, day 12 - even for the correct year 567 BCE. Fortunately, SVC and CdC calculated that this measurement could be taken but, as you can see, the figure is very small. The text only has 1.5° (6 minutes) and the two calculated results are fractions of a degree (2 minutes at most) - it's really cutting it fine!

    Some other astro-programs' simulations show that the moon set before sunrise and so this measurement couldn't be taken on this date. Had I used e.g. TheSky (see the Caeno site's result where moonset was 3 minutes before sunrise) I would have had to have put exclamation marks on the XII.12 line for 567 BCE too, despite there only being 2.25° (9 minutes) difference with the text's figure! This shows how results can vary a little between programs. Of course, a couple of degrees or so is acceptable. If we're talking about the moon setting e.g. more than 10° or 40 minutes before sunrise (as is the case with 587 BCE and Furuli's scenario for XII.12) then it's a clear mismatch.

    No matter what program we're using (preferably one that is reasonably accurate in simulating ancient skies - not all are), we're looking for consistency and which year, overall, produces the better match.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Alleymom!

    Absolutely brilliant!

    Magnificent!

    Doug

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    AnnOMaly:: Regarding the differences in figures:

    For 567 BCE, XII.1 - I get the same figures as you do, and 104m / 4 = 26º ... (25.75º x 4 = 103m).

    For 587 BCE (P&D), XII.1 - I get the same figures as you, but I copied in the wrong fraction (dammit!). You are correct and it should be 27.25°. The difference between the text and computed figure remains 2.25°.

    Thanks! It's easy to make careless mistakes when dealing with a mass of figures, but I can't believe I goofed that one. Color me red.

    The good news is that we now agree on all 21 results for Sky View Cafe.
    I will change my worksheet to reflect that.

    Marjorie

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    Most of this goes over my head, but surely the writing dept must be monitoring all this and burying their heads in their hands and saying "God! Why did we ever open this can of worms?"

    George

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    LOL at George's comment!

  • Alfred
    Alfred

    Alleymom... you have a PM

  • wobble
    wobble

    George, they are laughing all the way to the Bank, lets hope they pick a Bank that fails.

    They are cynical enough to know that the average Dub will swallow what they have written and believe the whole subject is done and dusted, they have spread so much Bull S**T over the matter that no JW is going to unravel it, or even touch it.

    They opened the can of worms because so many derisory comments were appearing on line about their claim to be God's Org based on this 607BCE trash, that they needed to counter these.

    Now they can say "The Faithful Slave has dealt with this matter, are you saying you know better than them ?"

    Any R&F JW will be cowed by the fear of being DF'd in to not looking any further at the question,then the WT can carry on for years hoovering up the $$$.

    Thanks to all for your hard work on this, any sincere JW who really wants to know the truth can be referred to this thread, Great Work , thanks.

  • diamondiiz
    diamondiiz

    marked