by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
'scholar':
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
This is obviously wrong, because the Babylonian calendar had no mechanism or purpose for years of only 11 months (or 10 if starting from June).
Jeffro
This is obviously wrong, because the Babylonian calendar had no mechanism or purpose for years of only 11 months (or 10 if starting from June).
--
You are talking nonsense so you are well advised to read the reference that the said scholar has given to you as Newton's discussion was on the Babylonian Calendar.
scholar JW
Jeffro
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.
--
The said scholar is quite relaxed and Newton's observation does make the possibility of a New Year beginning in May as shown by means of the lunar eclipse in VAT 4956. PD does not discuss VAT 4956 but Newton does use PD as part of his thesis. The solstice was not observed but calculated thus rendering such an event redundant.
scholar JW
Poor addled 'scholar', always on the back foot, immediately leaps to the first dumb assumption he can find that he thinks seems to fit his incorrect view, piling on top of his fallacious presumption of his conclusion as a starting point. (In particular, this idiotic circular reasoning: "as shown by means of the lunar eclipse in VAT 4956".) 🤦♂️
The assertion of a solstice falling in mid-July, observed or calculated, is simply impossible, and further demonstrates that 'scholar' doesn't understand the concepts involved. It is really quite telling that he claims that a solstice was incorrectly 'calculated' for '588 BCE' that is wildly incorrect for that year but that just by 'coincidence' falls on exactly the right date for 568 BCE. 🤣
Back in reality, neo-Babylonian years couldn't begin in May (and certainly not June) because if they did it would eventually require rectification by having a year with only 11 months. PD's tables shows that Babylonian years never began in May, and that they always had at least 12 months. As shown by PD, all the intercalary months for the 6th century BCE are attested from cuneiform records. VAT 4956 very neatly places the eclipse on the correct date of July 5 and the solstice on the correct date of 29 June in the very well established 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE.
‘scholar’:
The solstice was not observed but calculated thus rendering such an event redundant.
Citation needed. 😂
Of course, as already stated, it doesn’t actually matter whether the solstice for Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year were observed or calculated because it is still wildly inaccurate for 588BCE but exactly correct for 568 BCE.
Poor old ‘scholar’ pounced on the first thing he could find that said solstices were sometimes calculated, and his chosen source is one that says Ptolemy did so. But VAT 4956 isn’t from Ptolemy, and ‘scholar’s’ assertion that the solstice in VAT 4956 was calculated rather than observed is entirely speculative. But if it were calculated, it wouldn’t be wildly inaccurate anyway. Intellectual dishonesty typical of ‘scholar’.
We shall wait to see ‘scholars’s’ evidence that the specific solstice mentioned in VAT 4956 was actually calculated rather than observed, and then we can watch him flounder as he tries to explain why it’s wrong for 588 BCE anyway but perfectly accurate for 568 BCE.
We know, of course, that Furuli's works are those of a Watch Tower Sociey shill. But what about Newton? Here's an excerpt from a review of Newton's The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (link to full article below quote).
Science (24 February 1978, vol. 199, issue 4331, page 872), by Bernard R. Goldstein, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh:
Unfortunately, Newton's arguments in support of these charges are marred by all manner of distortions, misunderstandings, and excesses of rhetoric due to an intensely polemical style.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.199.4331.872.a
Importantly, though, we should not lose sight of the fact that VAT 4956 isn't the work of Ptolemy, and 'scholar' still has no evidence that the solstice in VAT 4956 was calculated rather than observed. And regardless of whether it were observed or calculated, assigning 9 July 588 BCE for the solstice in question is impossible.
I would like to see evidence that vat 4956 is authentic or “inspired”.
Fisherman:
I would like to see evidence that vat 4956 is authentic or “inspired”.
I’d like to see evidence that the Bible is ‘inspired’. Also need a valid definition of ‘inspired’ including the supposed method of transmission. Also required is a meaningful definition of ‘spirit-directed’, including its specific mechanism of transmission and how it specifically differs from ‘inspiration’. (However, biblical chronology for the neo-Babylonian period is consistent with secular history for the period anyway, and identities the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE relative to the known dates of other events.)
Experts widely recognise the content of VAT 4956 to be genuine. It is generally considered to be a Seleucid era copy of a neo-Babylonian original. And you’re veering into tinfoil hat territory if you think it was a convenient forgery just to make JWs look bad.
Experts widely recognise the content of VAT 4956 to be genuine. It is generally considered to be a Seleucid era copy of a neo-Babylonian original.
(Everything else you posted is fallacy)
Kindly post evidence showing how experts conclude 4956 is authentic and keep your rhetoric and remarks to yourself. Experts also believe Jerusalem fell circa -586 but that is a conclusion, interpretation like -607. So again, I am looking for evidence that substantiates the authenticity of the related VAT. I assume it is authentic but what do I know. Maybe it is not. Thus far the analysis is based on the authenticity of the vat without going into irrelevant tangents that it ain’t—like you do when yiu don’t like something.
🤦♂️
I understand that you need to be able to discredit VAT 4956 because it contradicts your religious superstitions. And I also know that even if someone went to the trouble of authenticating it, you would continue to ignore what it says anyway. Just like all the other evidence that categorically disproves the JW dogma about 607BCE (including the Bible itself).
Also, I committed no fallacy. I really would like evidence for the claim that the Bible is ‘inspired’ (whatever that means).
