by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
‘scholar’:
Thank you and now the said scholar can pursue the issue with the expert, Dr. Rolf Furuli
If your favourite apostate says the solstice occurred on 9 July, he’s simply wrong. And if he says VAT 4956 must be an elaborate fake, he’s veering into conspiritard territory, and also invalidating his own efforts to make it appear consistent with 588 BCE.
Jeffro
It’s not merely ‘my position’. 🙄 And it’s 15 Simanu, not 3, which can literally never be 15 July in any year of the neo-Babylonian period, for the same reasons that Nisan can never begin in May and the solstice can never be in July. So much for “WT scholars”. The only option for the JW position, despite their 2011 claim that researchers found it consistent with 588BCE, is to claim VAT 4956 ‘must be all wrong after all’. 🤦♂️
--
The corrected typo for the tablet indicates that it is the 15th Simanu, the 3rd month for that lunar eclipse.which means it fell on the 15 JULY 588 BC- Julian calendar. Therefore, this means that 1 Simanu must have begun 30 July, 588 BC and the new year beginning with the first month Nisanu is pushed forward to May 2/3 588 BC. The matter of the solstice mentioned in 9 Simanu is yet to be resolved which is a question not only for WT scholars but also for its critics. So, let us hear from the critics as to why this matter has not been discussed.
scholar JW
Jeffro
If your favourite apostate says the solstice occurred on 9 July, he’s simply wrong. And if he says VAT 4956 must be an elaborate fake, he’s veering into conspiritard territory, and also invalidating his own efforts to make it appear consistent with 588 BCE.
--
Let us not be presumptuous on this matter for the said scholar will contact expert Furuli but scholar will also make his own inquiries and research into this matter but is somewhat bemused that this matter has escaped the attention of critics such as COJ.
scholar JW
‘scholar’:
The matter of the solstice mentioned in 9 Simanu is yet to be resolved which is a question not only for WT scholars but also for its critics.
The solstice on 9 Simanu in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year corresponds to 29 June 568 BCE, exactly as expected and completely correct. Well that was easy. Quite a conundrum for the JW version though. 😂
Jeffro
The solstice on 9 Simanu in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year corresponds to 29 June 568 BCE, exactly as expected and completely correct. Well that was easy. Quite a conundrum for the JW version though
--
At this stage, this is only your own personal opinion for WT critics have no mention of this which perhaps is quite telling as to whether this observation has any significance. The said scholar will solve this matter in due course as this is what scholar does.
scholar JW
‘scholar’:
somewhat bemused that this matter has escaped the attention of critics such as COJ.
It’s unlikely that it escaped his attention, but as he was responding to the claims made in the Watchtower articles, and those articles avoid mentioning the solstice, it was possibly out of scope. But a Google search finds that the correct date of the solstice has indeed been mentioned previously. In any case, the issue with the solstice exists independent of any tedious fallacious arguments from authority or incredulity.
‘scholar’:
At this stage, this is only your own personal opinion for WT critics have no mention of this which perhaps is quite telling as to whether this observation has any significance. The said scholar will solve this matter in due course as this is what scholar does.
Not a single part of that is true. 😂
A cursory web search shows that https://aperimentis.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/vat4956/ from a few years ago also indicates that the solstice date is a problem for the JW mangling of the chronology.
-From page 127 of Eric Michael Wilson's book:
"Exactly how accurate is the timing of planatary orbits? They are so accurate and so predictable that scientists have been able to create algorithms which will allow us to know exactly where each planet in the solar system was at any time in recorded history. In fact, there is an excellent app that you can download and run on your smartphone or tablet called SkySafari 6 Plus, which is available on the web or from the Apple and Android stores. With it, you can see precisely where a particular planet described on VAT 4956 was in the sky on a given date to see if the positions match. If they match, then the data on VAT 4956 are proven to be accurate .
"I would recommend you download it yourself so you can do your own research. Make sure you get the Plus version of the app as the cheaper version does not allow calculations for years before Christ."
Jeffro
I have sent an email to Rolf Furuli concerning the implication of the summer solstice mentioned in VAT 4956. In the meantime my research has shown that such solstices were not observed but calculated, the opinion of a number of scholars and astronomers as noted by Furuli for the solstice mentioned in VAT 4956'
Also, Ihe said scholar came across an interesting comment regarding the Babylonian Calendar: "Since the need for the extra month was probably determined by observation made by officials who had political interests and political power, we may be sure that the assignment of the extra month was somewhat erratic. It has been estimated that the first day of the year might have come any time from the middle of March to the middle of June in middle Babylonian times". The Crimes Of Claudius Ptolemy, Robert R. Newton, 1977, p.396.
Very interesting!!
scholar JW
😂 The sound of desperation as ‘scholar’s’ cognitive dissonance gnaws at him. Newton’s claims about Ptolemy’s supposed unreliability, including when the new year started, aren’t widely accepted. And your cherry picked source is made redundant by Parker and Dubberstein’s tables anyway.
Worse still (for you), the solstice definitely occurred on 29 June, in 568BCE and 588BCE. VAT 4956 places it on exactly the right day in 568BCE, irrespective of whether it was observed or calculated. The Watch Tower Society’s alternative nonsense requires the solstice on a date that is impossible, for which the solstice could neither be observed nor calculated.
