Posts by Alleymom

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

Even thought he goes into a lengthy discussion of a myriad of tiny details from the the text of VAT 4956, Furuli does not even mention the significance of the Lunar Three observations.
He does not discuss them or calculate them or print them in his charts.
He passes over them in complete silence.
I have done the calculations for the year he favors, 588/587 BCE. The numbers are not even close.
The "Lunar Three" observations recorded in VAT 4956 totally demolish his argument in favor of the year 588 BCE.

I have a small correction. I shouldn't have said that Furuli passes over the Lunar Three observations in "complete" silence. On page 320, where he quotes the text for Addaru 1 (line 12'), he does include the phrase "sunset to moonset, 25 [time-degrees]."

However, he offers no explanation or discussion of this time interval, and it is not included in the chart for Addaru 1 on the next page.

Here are the places where he omits the time-intervals:

On page 314 he jumps from an entry for Month 1 (Nisan) and skips to an entry for Month 2 (Ayyaru 1, line 8) without ever quoting or discussing the time-interval for Month 1, day 14 (Nisan 14, line 4). He omitted: "sunrise to moonset, 4 [degrees]."

Also on page 314, he omits the time-interval for Ayyaru 26 (line 11). "Moonrise to sunrise, 23 [degrees]."

Page 315, he quotes from part of the text of line 12 (Simanu 1), but omits the time interval "sunset to moonset: 20 [degrees]."

Page 317, he quotes from part of the text of line 5' (Sabatu 1), but omits the time interval "sunset to moonset: 14 [degrees] 30"."

Page 320, mentioned at the top of this message, he quotes the text accurately and includes the time-interval "sunset to moonset, 25 [degrees]" but does not discuss it or provide a calculation for any of the three years he considers in his charts.

Page 323, he quotes from part of the text of line 16' (Addaru 12), but he omits the time-interval "sunrise to moonrise: 1 [degree] 30"."

According to the scientists I have cited in my previous posts, these "Lunar Three" time-intervals are so specific that they make it possible to accurately date the astronomical texts.

It is hard to understand how Prof. Furuli could devote so much discussion to the details of VAT 4956 --an entire chapter, pp. 94-123, plus a 60-page appendix, pp. 266-325 -- and never touch upon the significance of the Lunar Three time-interval observations.

Regards,
Marjorie Alley

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

Scholar: You mention recent research that you believe supports current dating of the data for Vat 4956. I cheked Furuli's bibliography and it appears that John Steele is cited but not the others. If you believe that these articles are important then why not forward or convey this information to Furuli for comment. It is probably the case that this recent research is simply based upon older or recent translations of VAT 4956. Furuli based his new research on his own independent transalation of the document hence the data is shown to different.

See my post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/2656255/post.ashx#2656255

Neil,

The authors I cited "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data in VAT 4956.

In addition to the article "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428, in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster, the information has also been published in several different professional journals since 1999 (including the Journal for the History of Astronomy and Astronomy and Geophysics.) It has been reviewed by scholars from a number of disciplines, including physicists, Assyriologists, and archeo-astronomers.

FWIW, I also verified the authors' results myself by inputting them into an astronomy software program.

As you know, Furuli has a lengthy discussion of the lines of text in VAT 4956 which give various planetary, stellar, and lunar positions for different months and days and of a certain Babylonian year.

What you are probably NOT aware of is that Furuli deliberately chose to completely ignore an entire series of highly important data in VAT 4956, data which pinpoints the exact day on which the observations were made.

You may recall that Furuli discusses line after line of the text of VAT 4956, even going into great detail about how clearly each cuneiform sign was written, and whether it might be read another way.

However, he just skips over the places in the text where the Babylonian astronomers give very precise measurements for a set of time-intervals called "the Lunar Three."

The Babylonians kept careful track of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset. Then they recorded time intervals between these occurrences. (For instance, they recorded the time interval between moonrise and sunrise on day 26 of Month 2. )

These time intervals can be calculated using modern astronomy programs. It is actually very easy to do. All you have to do is find what time the sun rose and set and what time the moon rose and set, and then subtract to find out how many hours and minutes passed between these events.

One time-degree equals 4 minutes. So if 92 minutes, for example, passed between moonrise and sunrise, you divide by 4 and convert 92 minutes to 23 degrees.

Scientists have computed and verified the Lunar Three measurements in VAT 4956. They are extremely accurate, on the order of 1 time-degree ( = 4 minutes), for the year 568/567 BCE.

Even thought he goes into a lengthy discussion of a myriad of tiny details from the the text of VAT 4956, Furuli does not even mention the significance of the Lunar Three observations.

He does not discuss them or calculate them or print them in his charts.

He passes over them in complete silence.

I have done the calculations for the year he favors, 588/587 BCE. The numbers are not even close.

The "Lunar Three" observations recorded in VAT 4956 totally demolish his argument in favor of the year 588 BCE.

Regards,
Marjorie

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

Scholar: I take your point that Nisan 1 did not fall in May however Furuli has shown that the data says differently. So, either Furuli has made a typo or the that is what primary data indicates. As I have said before you must take up this matter with Furuli himself and see what is going on. I cannot help and I cannot understand why you do not do whar common sense should impell you to do. Write to Furuli!!!!!!

Hi, Neil --

No, it's not a typo; it's an integral part of Furuli's "new chronology." He proposes a totally new (and unsubstantiated) list of dates for the entire year 588 BCE. Every single day of his proposed year 588 BCE differs from the standard charts for 588 BCE used by all Assyriologists, archeo-astronomers, and historians.

Furuli does not claim that he has found any new primary data (such as a tablet showing evidence of a previously unattested intercalary month) which would indicate that Nisan 1 fell in May in 588. (And, remember, this would be very, very unlikely, since according to the standard charts used by all scholars, there was never a single instance in 700 years of Nisan 1 falling on May 1.)

No, he does not have any new data. On page 312 of his new book, he explains how he has retro-calculated to come up with the date of May 2 for Nisan 1, 588 BCE.

His starting point is the last line of the front side (obverse) of VAT 4956. "...there is a break where a lunar eclipse most likely is reported on the fifteenth day of the month." This lunar eclipse is mentioned on the line for Month III (Simanu), day 15.

Ok, so since the tablet mentions a lunar eclipse on day 15 of Month 3 of the Babylonian year, he has to find a year in which there really was an eclipse on (or about) Month 3, day 15.

568 works. There was an eclipse on July 4, 568 BCE. And 568 is the year accepted by all scholars (other than Furuli) for the astronomical data in VAT 4956.

But Furuli would like the data to fit 588 instead, because of the 20-year gap between his (i.e., the Watchtower's) chronology and the traditional chronology.

So he looks in 588 to see if there was some other lunar eclipse. There was. It fell on July 15. But the problem is that the eclipse mentioned in VAT 4956 was in Month 3 of the year. Counting backwards, that means Month 2 would start around June 1, and month 1 ( Nisan) would start on May 2.

Now remember, according to the standard charts used by all Assyriologists, archeo-astronomers, and historians, Nisan 1 NEVER fell on a date in May.

Bur Furuli is stuck. If he wants the data in VAT 4956 to fit 588 (and it doesn't... but more on that, later), he has to go with the only lunar eclipse he can find which is anywhere in the neighborhood at all, the one on July 15.

So then he comes up with May 2 for Nisan 1 by ASSUMING that VAT 4956 has data from 588, and then he counts backwards (retro-calculates).

Now this creates huge problems. All those pages of chart after chart of calculation showing the various planetary, star, and lunar positions for the year 588/587BCE are based on the totally hypothetical year he has created. None of his dates for 588/587 match the dates in the standard tables, Neil. It's not a typo. It's a deliberate.

So when he input dates into the astronomy software program he used (TheSky6), he input dates from his own hypothetical year 588.

Regards,
Marjorie

40

+++ VIGIL - TUESDAY 20TH NOVEMBER +++

by Sad emo in

jw
friends

please join in sending your prayers, good thoughts, reiki, healing vibes, lighting a candle or just taking a moment to think of all those named and unnamed who are fighting cancer or in any other need.

also their loved ones and caregivers.. - has been fighting mantle cell lymphoma for three years.

he received an allogeneic cell transplant and his latest blood and bone marrow results have shown no trace of cancer!!

Alleymom

PS ---

SadEmo, how is your brother-in-law doing? (I apologize if you have already posted an update, but I have not seen it.)

Marjorie

40

+++ VIGIL - TUESDAY 20TH NOVEMBER +++

by Sad emo in

jw
friends

please join in sending your prayers, good thoughts, reiki, healing vibes, lighting a candle or just taking a moment to think of all those named and unnamed who are fighting cancer or in any other need.

also their loved ones and caregivers.. - has been fighting mantle cell lymphoma for three years.

he received an allogeneic cell transplant and his latest blood and bone marrow results have shown no trace of cancer!!

Alleymom

Lots of hugs and prayers for all of you!

I know that it's not just Ian who has these roller-coaster ups and downs --- all of you on the list are suffering from illnesses which take their toll, both emotionally and physically, not just on you, but also on your families and friends.

We love you and are thinking of you! I am so proud of each and every one of you!

Blessings,
Marjorie

32

Letters and cards for Sunspot (Annie) ??

by bem in

jw
friends

everyone that chimes in on the card and letter exchanges are so upbeat just getting their pm's lifts my spirts, so.... i had an idea .

i asked the deary and she said yes she would so love that!!.

i have her mailing address so pm me and i will send it to you!

Alleymom

BTT!

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

A further note ---

The data in astronomical diary VAT 4956 was analyzed and verified by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis. Their paper on VAT 4956 was presented at a conference on "Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East," held in June 2001 at the British Museum. The research papers from the conference were published in 2002 in a book edited by Dr. John Steele, an archeo-astronomer in the Department of Physics at Durham University.

The title of the book is Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. The name of the article is "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428.

They discussed VAT 4956 again in an article with the same title, published in December 2004 in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 45, issue 6, pages 6.15 - 6.17: "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis."

I have read (and have copies of) both articles.

The authors "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data found in VAT 4956.

They especially emphasize that the results of the "lunar threes" observations in VAT 4956 are not observations that would have been repeated at Metonic-cycle intervals. They give a very clear explanation of the "lunar threes" --- briefly, these were three time-intervals which were tracked and recorded each month: 1) the interval from sunset to moonset (on the first of the month); 2) sunrise to moonset (middle of the month); moonrise to sunrise (near the end of the month) --- and they explain that these usually enable one to arrive at the exact date by comparing the observed time-intervals with computer calculations. The authors conclude that "the various lunar threes in the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1[degree] - no mean achievement." p. 424

The authors corresponded with Christopher Walker of the British Museum and Assyriologist Hermann Hunger (who published a translation and analysis of VAT 4956 in 1988 in volume 1 of Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia) on points regarding the Akkadian.

The charts and diagrams present the data very clearly and succinctly. The authors give three examples of conjunctions of the moon with 3 of the 31 "normal stars" appearing in Babylonian observations. The three figures illustrating these conjunctions are very well done and I think they make the situation quite clear, even to those readers who may not be astronomy buffs.

Furuli himself acknowledges (p. 308) that "in all the instances, the [planetary] positions are approximately correct" [for the year 568/567 BCE.] Anyone who merely looks at the charts, particularly Table C3 on pp. 308-309, without reading the explanation in the text, would never know that Furuli has chosen to label planetary positions as "Wrong" even though they are -- "in all instances" (!) --- "approximately correct." He explains that he calls them "wrong" if they do not fit exactly. [emphasis his] He omits his own proposed year from chart C3 entirely; a reader who is bogged down with the mass of detail in the text will never realize by looking at Chart C3 that the planetary positions for 588 don't fit at all.

Furuli's argument ultimately devolves into a two-pronged conspiracy theory:
1) He posits (p. 105) the existence of a Seleucid-era scribe who fudged the numbers because of an unspecified, mysterious chronological agenda.
2) He believes the tablet was tampered with in modern times by someone who had a grinding tool or drill.

Marjorie

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

Hi, Neil --

Could we please take another look at one of the points I made in my message #1148?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/2643289/post.ashx#2643289.

I was responding to the following statement ---
Scholar: I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1.

I don't know whether you looked through all of the charts, but if you go back and look at pages 27-47, you'll find that Parker and Dubberstein give the dates on which Nisanu 1 fell for 700 years, from 626 BCE to 75 CE.

And you will see that not even once in those 700 years did Nisanu 1 fall in May.

The Babylonian New Year's festival, the "Akitu" festival, was a very elaborate ceremony involving the king and the temple priests. The Babylonian creation myth was read and re-enacted. It goes back in history to the Sumerians, and one of its names is the Festival of the Sowing of Barley. It was a springtime ritual, Neil. It took place close to the vernal equinox.

In his (unsuccessful) attempt to make the astronomical data on VAT 4956 fit some year other than 568/567 BCE, Furuli proposes a calendar year like no other in history, in which Nisanu 1 fell in May. This finds no scholarly support. The charts which you consulted are referenced by all scholars in the field, and they show that Nisanu 1 always fell in March or April, never in May.

Regards,
Marjorie

32

Letters and cards for Sunspot (Annie) ??

by bem in

jw
friends

everyone that chimes in on the card and letter exchanges are so upbeat just getting their pm's lifts my spirts, so.... i had an idea .

i asked the deary and she said yes she would so love that!!.

i have her mailing address so pm me and i will send it to you!

Alleymom

BTT!

Hugs,
Marjorie

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

Alleymom

Yes, there are numerous examples of simple errors in the charts. Just to spell this out for lurkers, I am talking about simple mistakes such as the one I mentioned above, from p. 318 and p.319:
If Sabatu 1, 587 = Feb. 22 (as Furuli says on p. 318)
then Sabutu 2 = Feb. 23
Sabutu 3 = Feb. 24
Sabatu 4 = Feb. 25
Sabatu 5 = Feb. 26
and Sabatu 6 = Feb. 27.
But on p. 319, Furuli says Sabatu 6 = Feb. 26.
There are lots of these errors. The charts are hopelessly confused.

Here is another example. The numbers in Furuli's charts for the month of Ayyaru do not add up. These are simple errors. No Akkadian or knowledge of astronomy is required to see that the numbers are wrong.

Month of Ayyaru, year 588 BCE, according to Furuli's chronology.(Taken from Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, volume II, Rolf Furuli, 2007.)

If Ayyaru 1, 588 BCE = May 31, 588 BCE, as Furuli says on p. 297,
then:

Ayyaru 2 = June 1
Ayyaru 3 = June 2
Ayyaru 4 = June 3
Ayyaru 5 = June 4
Ayyaru 6 = June 5
Ayyaru 7 = June 6
Ayyaru 8 = June 7
Ayyaru 9 = June 8
Ayyaru 10 = June 9
Ayyaru 11 = June 10
Ayyaru 12 = June 11
Ayyaru 13 = June 12
Ayyaru 14 = June 13
Ayyaru 15 = June 14
Ayyaru 16 = June 15
Ayyaru 17 = June 16
Ayyaru 18 = June 17
But Furuli’s own numbers disagree:
Furuli, p. 299 Ayyaru 3 = June 4Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 10 = June 10 Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 18 = June 17

The first list was of Furuli’s dates for the month of Ayyaru in the year 588 BCE.
Now, look at the same charts forthe month of Ayyaru in the year 568 BCE.

If Ayyaru 1, 568 BCE = May 21, 568 BCE, as Furuli says on p. 297,

Then:
Ayyaru 2 = May 22
Ayyaru 3 = May 23
Ayyaru 4 = May 24
Ayyaru 5 = May 25Ayyaru 6 = May 26
Ayyaru 7 = May 27
Ayyaru 8 = May 28
Ayyaru 9 = May 29
Ayyaru 10 = May 30Ayyaru 11 = May 31
Ayyaru 12 = June 1
Ayyaru 13 = June 2
Ayyaru 14 = June 3
Ayyaru 15 = June 4
Ayyaru 16 = June 5
Ayyaru 17 = June 6
Ayyaru 18 = June 7

But Furuli’s numbers are once again inconsistent:

Furuli, p. 299 Ayyaru 5, 568 BCE = May 26Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 10, 568 BCE = May 31
Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 18, 568 BCE = June 8

Marjorie