Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday

by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Though 'scholar' has already been thoroughly trounced, it's also worth noting that VAT 4956 identifies the summer solstice on the 9th day of the 3rd month.

  The solstice is usually 20 or 21 June in recent years on our modern calendar; it can be as late as 23 June but no later. For Julian dates in the distant past, the period shifts because the Julian calendar differs by about a day for every 400 years compared to the Gregorian calendar. Hence, for the Neo-Babylonian period in question, the Julian date of the summer solstice must fall within the range of 26-29 June (or 30 June if we round up the difference between 588BCE and now to 2800).
  

  For 568BCE, the 9th day of the 3rd month corresponds to 29 June (Julian calendar), which is a perfect fit for the solstice in that period.

  But for the Watch Tower Society's nonsensical assertion about Nisan beginning on 3 May in 588BCE, this would put the summer solstice on 9 July, which, again, is impossible.
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Barbour was an Adventist you doofus. (I suppose you'll try to irrelevantly 'argue' that he wasn't a Seventh-day Adventist, probably not understanding that Adventism is broader than just SDAs.)

  --

  Barbours's religious affiliations were complex moving from Methodism-Millerites and Second Adventism. best left to a competent historian. Refer to Nelson Barbour The Millenium's Forgotten Prophet, 2009, Schulz and De Vienne.

  ---

  Correct year is definitely 587BCE. Not 586BCE. And very obviously not 607BCE. I've already demonstrated that the Watch Tower Society's mangling of VAT 4956 is impossible.

  --

  There is no correct year, for scholars to date are undecided whether it is 586 or 587 BC. The date 607 BC is the only correct date.

  --

  VAT 4956 identifies a year that had an intercalary month prior to Nisan, and no intercalary month at the end of that year. 568BCE fits both criteria. 588BCE fails both. Not to mention the more specific observations of the stars and planets that definitely disprove the JW dogma, which is why they pretend the names for the planets are ambiguous.

  --

  VAT 4956 refers to a lunar eclipse which is datable to our modern calendar and the mention of an additional month for that year thus these two simple lines of evidence validate 588 BC for Neb's 37th year in combination with the other lunar and planetary observations.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Though 'scholar' has already been thoroughly trounced, it's also worth noting that VAT 4956 identifies the summer solstice on the 9th day of the 3rd month.

  --

  Indeed

  --

  For 568BCE, that corresponds to 29 June (Julian calendar), which is a very good fit for the solstice in that period. (The solstice is usually 20 or 21 June on our modern calendar, but the period shifts because the Julian calendar differs by about a day for every 400 years compared to the Gregorian calendar.)

  --

  What about 588 BC?

  --
  But for the Watch Tower Society's nonsensical assertion about Nisan beginning in May in 588BCE, this would put the summer solstice on 9 July, which, again, is impossible.

  --

  Really, then you must explain why? If in fact, the summer solstice has any relevance as our critics make no comment on this fact. Perhaps this is just a 'red herring'!

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  Really, then you must explain why?

  Wow. 🤦‍♂️The summer solstice is an astronomical event. Changing the date of the solstice so extremely would require a significant alteration to the earth's axial tilt and/or distance from the sun (very significantly more than the range of its elliptical orbit).

  Even if it is argued that such a catastrophic change did occur, any such change would make it impossible for modern researchers to accurately predict the positions of any stars or planets in the Neo-Babylonian period.

  If in fact, the summer solstice has any relevance as our critics make no comment on this fact.

  Maybe other commentators haven't raised it because the other problems with the Watch Tower Society's flawed analysis are generally sufficient to show them to be wrong. But I am quite clever as well, so I don't mind being first.
  

  Perhaps this is just a 'red herring'!

  You wish.
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Wow. 🤦‍♂️The summer solstice is an astronomical event. Changing the date of the solstice so extremely would require a significant alteration to the earth's axial tilt and/or distance from the sun (very significantly more than the range of its elliptical orbit).

  --

  Indeed. thus you need to provide precise information and sources for the date of the summer solstice for both 568 BC and 588 BC if you believe it is relevant.

  --

  Even if it is argued that such a catastrophic change did occur, any such change would make it impossible for modern researchers to accurately predict the positions of any stars or planets in the Neo-Babylonian period.

  -

  OK so let us get this matter sorted and explain how the summer solstice is relevant to the matters at hand of the proposed beginning of the New Year, Nisanu, 588 BC or is this just a red herring for none of our critics including COJ have raised this point and this too demands an explanation. Ann oO' Maly with her discussions of the sky positions in comparison between 568 and 588 BC is silent on this matter.

  Let us go!

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Maybe other commentators haven't raised it because the other problems with the Watch Tower Society's flawed analysis are generally sufficient to show them to be wrong. But I am quite clever as well, so I don't mind being first.

  --

  How come you have not mentioned this matter in your Blog on your website? Further, you need to provide a scanned copy of such tabulations for the solstice for the years 586 and 588 BCE. The said scholar is of the opinion that changes concerning the Earth's orbital distance from the Sun has no impact on observations of the Moon either observed or computed thus such a solstice has no relevance to the subject at hand and that is why WT critics are silent on this matter- a red herring!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Well aren't you are a demanding one! 🤦‍♂️

  I couldn't be bothered jumping through too many hoops for the likes of you, since I've already demonstrated the range of possible dates for the solstice, but a quick search shows the dates to be in the range I stated (note that a couple do extend into the very early morning of July 1, the latest being 1:07am, but those are back around the 8th century BCE). But it sufficiently demonstrates that for the period in question, the solstice was indeed consistently around 29 June (Julian calendar).

  Jedael, S. (2016). Counting Days in Ancient Babylon: Eclipses, Omens, and Calendrics during the Old Babylonian Period (1750-1600 BCE). Unc Charlotte Electronic Theses And Dissertations. (Though the solstice dates are not central to the article's purpose.)
  

  

  'scholar' will, of course, bleat that I haven't included the exact year of 588BCE, but it is physically impossible for the solstice dates to have wildly varied for just those years.
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Thank you and I accept the omission of 588 BC for scholar is not too difficult and hard to please.

  Now all that you have to do is explain the relevance of the date of the summer solstice of 'the 9th' on Line '16' of the tablet and the lunar eclipse of the 15th' on Line '17'.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  How come you have not mentioned this matter in your Blog on your website?

  It hadn't seemed necessary. Like others, I had only responded to what the Watch Tower Society had actually claimed, and of course they don't mention that the date of the summer solstice in VAT 4956 immediately shows them to be wrong. But, at my own leisure, I will add mention of this additional issue just to even more thoroughly show the Watch Tower Society's position to be completely and utterly wrong.
  

  Further, you need to provide a scanned copy of such tabulations for the solstice for the years 586 and 588 BCE.

  Do I just? 🤣 I don't really need to do any such thing. But if I find a conveniently accessible source, I might do so if I feel like it. Irrespective, the range of possible solstice dates is quite definite. (And it's 568BCE, doofus. Not 586.)
  

  The said scholar is of the opinion that changes concerning the Earth's orbital distance from the Sun has no impact on observations of the Moon either observed or computed

  Once again demonstrating your ignorance. But obviously it would affect the position of the moon relative to the various constellations.
  

  thus such a solstice has no relevance to the subject at hand and that is why WT critics are silent on this matter- a red herring!

  Again, you wish.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  Now all that you have to do is explain the relevance of the date of the summer solstice of 'the 9th' on Line '16' of the tablet and the lunar eclipse of the 15th' on Line '17'.

  I don't actually have to do anything, and the request is somewhat banal.
  

  But since it is established that the summer solstice necessarily occurs around 29 June (Julian calendar) for the given period, the 9th day of the 3rd month must correspond to around that date. And it does exactly correspond for the established chronology of 568 BCE. Of considerably less importance, the eclipse 6 days later is therefore reaffirmed as falling on 5 July.