Jefffro
I wasn't quoting the table when I correctly referred to the Babylonian custom of reckoning the day from sunset. Anyone with a basic understanding of the subject would realise that my reference to "the evening of 3 April" is the day of "4 April", and that this is why other sources (including The Watchtower) use notation such as "3/4 April" for this purpose.
--
That is fine and I applaud your explanation thus you should follow the WT's example and use such similar dating method.
---
t's things like this that show 'scholar' to be thoroughly inept or brutally dishonest. 🙄
'scholar', maybe read this slowly so you understand... When referring to years BC, smaller numbers are more recent than larger numbers. The intercalary month in early 587BCE only more strongly confirms that there was no intercalary month before Nisanu of 588BCE.🤦♂️
---
That is your opinion I simply notice that the intercalary month is featured on the same line as the year 588 BCE and its insertion thereof in my mind raises a legitimate question regarding the beginning of the following year of 588 BC.
---
But here's another hint for you... the year that normal people call 588BCE is actually called 608BCE in JW chronology, so you shouldn't be looking for an intercalary month there anyway. The year that JWs call '588BCE' is what normal people call 568BCE, and it does have an intercalary month before Nisanu. That intercalary month is the reason why Nisanu of 568BCE began on 23 April instead of 25 March. (I have considered the possiblity that the dimwitted Watchtower writers looked at the PD table for 568BCE, saw "5/23" for the start of Aru for that year, and took it as "2/3 May" instead of "23 May". In any case, the JW reckoning is quite impossible
--
Frankly, you are no expert in these matters and neither is the said scholar. The issue at hand is the proper identification of the lunar eclipse in VAT 4956 for Simanu 15 as to whether it is July 15, 588 BC or July 5, 568 BC and the evidence via the WT article and its footnote 17 convinces the said scholar that 588 BC fits the bill for Neb's 37 th year. The intercalary month in VAT 4956 must have some significance and WT scholars have accounted for it by fixing that year beginning in early May.
---
The date 608 BCE is simply your contrivance and has no relevance in WT Chronology in respect of properly dating Neb's reign but if you choose to use that date then go for it.
--
Yes, VAT 4956 here refers to an eclipse in Simanu, which always begins in May or June on the Julian calendar in the Neo-Babylonian period.
--
At last we agree on something.
--
Well, strictly speaking, 1 Simanu was 14 days earlier. But I wouldn't expect you to start being accurate now..
--
The 'expert' speaks but who cares.
--
You've already committed the fallacy of assuming your conclusion, but let's see where this goes... 🤣 Since Simanu always begins in May or June, July 15 can never be 15 Simanu, so an eclipse on July 15 in any year of the Neo-Babylonian period cannot be the eclipse on 15 Simanu. And you're referring to a year from PD's tables that would actually be called 608BCE in JW chronology.
--
We are dealing with the data in VAT 4956 and not the data of P & D and that data demonstrates that regarding Neb's 37 th year that Simanu began in May.
---
Which is, of course, impossible.
But when we look at the correct year, 568BCE, we see there was indeed an intercalary month before Nisanu as confirmed by PD & VAT4956, and the eclipse on 15 Simanu is readily identified as the one that occurred on 5 July 568BCE.
--
No for WT scholars have come to a different conclusion with an explanation of the facts.
---
PD already includes all the intercalary months, including Adar II starting on 5 March 568BCE. There was no need to add an extra month immediately before Nisanu of 588BCE, and the PD tables show that Adar II never begins in April (hence the Watch Tower Society's 'requirement' for one here is special pleading).
--
The WT is not discussing the tabulation in P&D but the data in VAT 4956 and if special pleading is required then so be it.
--
Any honest person with a decent understanding of the subject would immediately recognise that you have the wrong year if you're trying to make Nisanu start in May. Hence, you are again shown to be inept, dishonest, or both.
--
Other people can read the WT article and come to their conclusions on the matter and if there is a question relative to the points raised in the article then such ones can write directly to WT for an answer and if you have a criticism then you too can write a letter.
scholar JW
