VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jwposter

  A major problem with -567 is that it doesn't fit line 3:

  3: it rained? Night of the 9th (error for 8th ), beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of β Leonis. The 9th, the sun in the west [was surrounded] by a halo 3: [ .... The 11th ]

  The moon is actually behind Beta Leonis at the time mentioned and not in front as specified. Since the moon determines the beginning of the month this is a big deal because we can't trust the subsequent findings. Now in -511, the moon is in front of Beta Leonis.
• 

  Jeffro

  As before, he continues to ignore all the massive problems with his nonsense and cling to what he imagines are points in his favour. And he relies on an inferior translation from 1915. And he’s still wrong.

  Bear in mind that this joker claiming that line 3 is a ‘major problem’ is the same person who claimed early in this thread regarding the mammoth problems in his own interpretation of VAT 4956:

  Any portions of the Tablet that are not translated to what can be simulated in software for year 512 BC is either a scribe error, transcribing error, translation error, or software or algorithm error or intentional corruption of the tablet.

  As is frequently the case with this type of fanatic, there is a blatant double standard when it comes to expectations of accuracy.

  You’re going round in circles and preaching utter nonsense. Just go away.
• 

  jwposter

  So the newer translation that I posted earlier from 1988 by S/H is an echo of the same problem reported in the earlier text from 1915 as seen below:

  3. ... At the beginning of the night of the 8th, the moon 1 cubit in front of the star at the rear foot of the Lion. On the 9th, the sun was surrounded by a halo in the west.

  So as you can see both text had the same problem. Since the Moon is actually BEHIND and not in FRONT of.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  So as you can see both text had the same problem. Since the Moon is actually BEHIND and not in FRONT of.

  (Actually in this particular case the newer translation says B Virginis, and the observation is corrected by noting that the day is actually one day off, already noted in the 1915 translation. But there are similar issues for lines 11 and 14 so we’ll let it slide…)

  Note the hypocritical inconsistency. For his own position with its blundering interpretations of other observations in VAT 4956 (not to mention the rest of his nonsense), he jumps through hoops to try to justify problems, or simply ignores problems altogether. From using a wrong definition of ‘in front’ or ‘behind’ as ‘closer to west on a compass’, to claiming identification of the solstice ‘really’ means ‘start looking for the solstice 3 weeks before’, to claiming ‘Mars entering Praesepe’ was backwardly identified despite the fact there is no corresponding observation in his own nutty interpretation at all, to completely ignoring most of the planetary observations altogether…

  But when the tablet has some (actually a total of 3) minor inconsistencies in wording for observations among literally dozens of correct matches for 568/7 BCE? ‘568 must be wrong’. 🤦‍♂️ VAT 4956 is expected to be perfect when he says so, but wrong or misinterpreted when convenient.

  The cognitive dissonance is beyond disgusting.
• 

  jwposter

  Ok, I think I demonstrated enough here to show that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year can not be -567 and is actually -511 (512 B.C.E) I won't be back here for awhile as I write up more analysis on this and do more studies as I get together the ones that are ready and getting ready. I came for those users that are are JWs to give them another look at the VAT. Was a pleasure to be here. If anyone needs to get a hold of me just message.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  I think I demonstrated enough here to show that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year can not be -567 and is actually -511 (512 B.C.E)

  🤦‍♂️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  I won't be back here for awhile

  We can only hope.
  
  
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro's calculations are off: Jeffro from page 15 of this thread:

  
  This misdirection is so nonsensical that I had to actually laugh. Of course I’m quite aware that the dedication followed the completion of the building, and would have been in October 959 BCE following the completion in November 960 BCE (Tishri dating). And… that still leaves his math off by two years for the 480/490 years.

  Maybe Jeffro hasn't done the math to see the problem with that and his position of -567 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I'm hoping that others that know the Bible history and chronologies can see the problem. Solomon dedicated the Temple after he completed it his 11 year. We know that Solomon only reigned for 40 years. So if it was his 11 year when he completed it and Jeffro is using the next year as the dedication that would mean that the dedication took place in Solomon's 12th year. Now we take the 40 year reign of Solomon and minus those 12 years and we have still another 28 years (40 - 12 = 28) of Solomon's reign left after the dedication. This means that his last year or 40th year would have been 931 B.C.E (according to the timeline that Jeffro gave for the dedication of the Temple). Now we know that the House of Judah reigned for 390 years until its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in his 19th year as King of Babylon. Therefore, at a minimum we would take 931 - 390 = 541. See that? It comes to 541 just to get to the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar using Jeffro's logic. So Nebuchadnezzars 37 year couldn't be in -567 or 568 B.C.E. Again, -567 (568 B.C.E) doesn't fit. And if you were to continue to take off another 18 years to get to the 37th year in that scenario you would get to 523 B.C.E approx. Therefore, this is a miss by over 50 years to the year -567 which Jeffro claims the VAT 4956 Tablet represents.
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ I thought you wouldn’t be “back here for awhile”. I knew it was wishful thinking.

  My assessment of the chronology has no such errors. And someone who gets definitions of ‘in front’ and ‘behind’ wrong probably shouldn’t be giving advice on timelines.

  jwposter:

  Now we know that the House of Judah reigned for 390 years until its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in his 19th year as King of Babylon.

  No, we don’t ‘know’ that at all. ‘390 years’ is only alluded to in Ezekiel in reference to ‘the sin of the house of Israel’, explicitly distinguished from ‘40 days for the house of Judah’. It has absolutely no bearing on reigns of Judah up until Jerusalem’s destruction. In the timeline I provided, the 390 years very neatly begins with the division of the kingdom in 929 BCE and ends with the capture of Babylon in 539 BCE. That action appropriately marks the end of ‘Israel’s guilt’ and coincides with the end of Babylons 70 years, after which they would repent, and then attention would be given to their return (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

  Aside from that significant error in your claims, your little ‘back of an envelope’ calculations don’t trump what is plainly indicated in the timeline I provided. Your errors partly stem from your failure to recognise Tishri dating for kings of Judah and the previously unified kingdom, and partly because of your obviously false assertion about the application of the ‘390 years’.

  Just go away.
  
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro's timeline fell apart. Now trying to say that Ezekials reference to 390 years is simply alluded to and the 70 years of captivity was part of the 390. Not realizing that scholars have counted the years of the Reign as anyone can do by reading accounts in Kings and Chronicles.

  From John Gills commentary:

  "three hundred and ninety days; which signify three hundred and ninety years; and so many years there were from the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam, and the setting up the calves at Dan and Bethel, to the destruction of Jerusalem; which may be reckoned thus: the apostasy was in the fourth year of Rehoboam, so that there remained thirteen years of his reign, for he reigned seventeen years; Abijah his successor reigned three years; Asa, forty one; Jehoshaphat, twenty five; Joram, eight; Ahaziah, one; Athaliah, seven; Joash, forty; Amaziah, twenty nine: Uzziah, fifty two; Jotham, sixteen; Ahaz, sixteen; Hezekiah, twenty nine; Manasseh, fifty five; Amos, two; Josiah, thirty one; Jehoahaz, three months; Jehoiakim, eleven years; Jeconiah, three months and ten days; and Zedekiah, eleven years; in all three hundred and ninety years."

  So REGARDLESS of how Jeffro wants to FEEL about Ezekiel's "alluding" to 390 years. The 390 years were chronologically the ACTUAL years from Rehoboam to the destruction of the Temple. They don't include the 70 years of captivity and nobody I know believes that EXCEPT for Jeffro but I suggest that is because she/he sees the bind they are in.

  Furthermore, apparently Jeffro doesn't understand why there is 70 years of captivity. If she/he did, they would realize that the land was supposed to rest during the 70 years and not have Kings of House of Judah reigning during that period in those lands. It is apparent that Jeffro is lacking knowledge here or incapable of holding himself/herself in error. If it is the latter, I'm sure we will see further fudging of the numbers.
• 

  Jeffro

  Deferring to your preferred Protestant commentary (Gill died in 1771 and his chronology is not the consensus of scholars at all) is quite irrelevant, especially when it erroneously misconstrues the days for ‘Israel’s guilt’ with reigns of the house of Judah. (This is also cherry picking because Gill does not support jwposter’s bizarre revision of the entire neo-Babylonian period.)

  Additionally, the Bible never once mentions ‘70 years of exile’, and it instead explicitly identifies Babylon’s 70 years as a period that ends when Babylon is called to account, not the subsequent return from exile.

  jwposter:

  Ezekiel's "alluding" to 390 years

  The use of quotes around ‘alluding’ suggests he thinks he has a point. Back in reality, Ezekiel chapter 4 only actually states a period of “390 days”, which indeed alludes to a period of 390 years.