https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/36782/dating-conspiracy-exposed
This is another thread claiming 511 is the right date. Is this jwposter under an another name?
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
Hmmm… the nutter in the other thread was spruiking 511 BCE, whereas the current one is going for 512BCE. And the current one is more obsessed about jubilees than the other. But there were 21 years in between, so it’s possible that the old drivel has been adapted over time. Hard to be sure.
-
jwposter
joey jojo:
This is another thread claiming 511 is the right date. Is this jwposter under an another name?
Thank you for posting that link. It is not me and I didn't even know about the VAT until recently and that post looks like it said 21 years ago. I only skimmed through it but they did mention they concluded that the 37th year was a match to 511 BC. Not sure if they were using the astronomical year or the actual year but I assume it had to be the astronomical year. Also, they said something about the 70 weeks coming to 29 AD or something. I disagree with that. The 70 weeks take you to the cross. I think people use 29 AD because they believe the quote from Isaiah is a Jubilee reference. Many of those people believe in a 3.5 year ministry of Christ of which I do not. I'm going to read it further. There is some manipulation in the findings from the the original analysis from N & W that I speak about it bit soon. -
jwposter
Ok, been reading through more of that link that Jojo posted. I'm not analyzing any of their astronomical findings just yet though I already encountered some of the same things mentioned in that regard. But in the narrative surrounding their timeline they mentioned that the 70 weeks started in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. I disagree with this. After the Temple was destroyed and Judah's king was killed there was no longer a king over the House of Judah. At that point, the captain of the guard was the overlord of the area. Additionally, at that time the land was enjoying its rest. This is evidence because the people that were left behind (not deported) were the poor.
Exo_23:11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.
2Ki 25:12 But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen.
So the fact that the poor were left is not a disqualifier of it being the time of the 70 years but a confirmation that the time had started. Leviticus 26 is really fulfilled in what happened thereafter in that 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
Not sure if they were using the astronomical year or the actual year but I assume it had to be the astronomical year.
Of course you assume that, because you want it to be more consistent with your view. But no one who knows anything about astronomical years says “511 BCE” if they are actually talking about the astronomical year -511 (510 BCE). The old thread never mentions astronomical years. 512BCE and 511BCE are both dismal failures for the observations in VAT 4956.
There is some manipulation in the findings from the the original analysis from N & W
Oh, the irony. 🤣
joey jojo:
This is another thread claiming 511 is the right date. Is this jwposter under an another name?
The old thread seems to have been pasted from some other source and is introduced with a question about whether anyone else has heard about it. It isn’t clear whether it is the view of the person who actually posted it on the forum.
-
jwposter
Found this video: I'm guessing it belongs to the same guy from the link that jojo posted since they both said that Xerxes and ArtaXerxes are the same person:
-
Jeffro
I won’t be watching the video. Suffice to say they’re wrong since 511BCE and 512BCE are both invalid years for VAT 4956. Let alone the required rewrite of all of antiquity.
-
Jeffro
(There was a glaring error in one of my comments earlier today, due to typing on mobile while distracted. The remainder of the comment makes it obvious I intended the correct year.)
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
So this tells you that 1 Kings 6:1 where it mentions the 480 years is not from the Beginning of the Exodus but from the End of the Exodus. We know this because the dedication of the Temple is in the 60th Jubilee. ... Now since the Temple was dedicated in 950 BC, we can see that the 50th Jubilee was 490 years earlier in 1440 BC (crossing of the Jordan).
The temple reportedly took 7 years to build, so this word salad about the temple being dedicated 490 years after the end of the exodus (which is wrong anyway) would mean either that the 480 years ended 3 years before the end of the exodus, or that the temple was completed 487 years after the exodus ended.
Still waiting for those details about Praesepe...
-
jwposter
Going to respond to the two things that Jeffro stated. Dont' get use to me responding to him/her because I don't typically respond to spirits of opposition but for the sake of the readers and to them I'll respond. Don't confuse the completion of the temple with the year in which it is dedicated. The year the Temple was finished being built (not furnished) was completed in the 8th month. Let's remember the dedication occurred in the 7th month. And then in that month would the new year declared for the Jubilee also on the Day of Atonement. Obviously, you can see that the Dedication was not in the year of the completion of building the Temple.
Now for Praesepe, this one is rather simple because its the cart before the horse situation. Did the astronomy lead the astronomer to the year? - likely it did but the wrong year in that. So then they let the year lead them to the astronomy and used the year to identify what they didn't understand. This is fact. I don't have a problem with this method, it makes sense. The only way in which that can fail is if you get the year wrong. Which they did. In fact, in N & W they admit it:
'Praesepe‟s position is given as i Cancri. i Cancri is in the eastern part of Praesepe. The match is so outstanding, that the new, important correspondence Nangaru = Praesepe can be regarded as certain.'
You can see from above that they simply looked at where Mars was and concluded it is in Praesepe and then let that be the NEW meaning of Nangaru.
Let's remember that moon doesn't line up for them as they claim. Even in line 8 of N/W they claim that Mercury set. They would never have seen Mercury set as it set IN the brightness of the sun. However in -511 (May 4th, 512 B.C.E). We do see Mercury set just before the moon on its evening observation and the moon is thick.