Bookmark and Share

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

Viewed 6528 times

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:23:00 GMT(9/20/2011)

    Post 2041 of 4249
    Joined 8/11/2003

    VAT 4956 - COMPARISON OF THE LUNAR THREE TIME INTERVALS FOR YEARS 568/7 B.C.E. AND 588/7 B.C.E.

    The online Sky View Café (SVC) and the Cartes du Ciel* (CdC) astronomy programs have been used for these results.

    Observer's location: Babylon, 32° 33' N / 44° 24' E.

    SR = sunrise; SS = sunset; MR = moonrise; MS = moonset.

    568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    SVC

    Difference

    CdC

    Difference

    I.14

    May 6 a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    4°

    3.75°

    0.25°

    3.5°

    0.5°

    II.26

    June 17 a.m., 568

    MR-SR

    23°

    23°

    29.25°

    6.25°

    III.1

    June 20 p.m., 568

    SS-MS

    20°

    22.75°

    2.75°

    19°

    III.15

    July 5

    a.m., 568

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    8.25°

    0.75°

    10.75°

    3.25°

    XI.1

    Feb 12 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    17.25°

    2.75°

    19.25°

    4.75°

    XII.1

    Mar 14 p.m., 567

    SS-MS

    25°

    26°

    27.75°

    2.75°

    XII.12

    Mar 26 a.m., 567

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    0.5°

    0.25°

    1.25°

    Comments:

    SVC's range of difference between its results and that of the text is 0° to 2.75°. Average difference 1.2°.

    CdC's range of difference between its results and that of the text is 0.5° to 6.25°. Average difference 2.8°.

    Conclusion:

    Even though the CdC program seems to be a little more erratic with the accuracy of its time interval results compared to SVC, every 568/7 B.C.E. Lunar Three time interval is accounted for and mostly agrees with the text's figures. This set of lunar data confirms the year as correct.

    588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar)

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    SVC

    Difference

    CdC

    Difference

    I.14

    May 16 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    4°

    !

    !

    !

    !

    II.26

    June 27 a.m., 588

    MR-SR

    23°

    27.75°

    4.75°

    35°

    12°

    III.1

    June 301 p.m., 588

    SS-MS

    20°

    5.5°

    14.5°

    4.75°

    15.25°

    III.15

    July 15 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    !

    !

    !

    !

    XI.1

    Feb 22 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    9.75°

    4.75°

    12.25°

    2.25°

    XII.1

    Mar 24 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    25°

    21.5°

    3.5°

    23.25°

    1.75°

    XII.12

    Apr 52 a.m., 587

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    !

    !

    !

    !

    Notes:

    ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to these programs' simulations.

    1 This measurement could not have been taken on this date as it was before first lunar crescent visibility. Still, the computed values are included.

    2 Furuli has April 3/4, but this would be a counting error on his part if Addaru 1 = March 24. There is some confusion with his dates for 587 B.C.E.

    Comments:

    SVC's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 3.5° to 14.5°. Average difference 6.9°.

    CdC's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75° to 15.25°. Average difference 7.8°.

    Conclusion:

    These Lunar Three time intervals, omitted from Furuli's (and thus the Watchtower's) study of the tablet's lunar data, clearly confirms that the May-based year 588/7 B.C.E. can be confidently excluded as a match for VAT 4956.

    588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein's tables)

    Month/Day

    Julian Date

    Interval

    Text

    SVC

    Difference

    CdC

    Difference

    I.14

    Apr 17 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    4°

    !

    !

    !

    !

    II.26

    May 29 a.m., 588

    MR-SR

    23°

    17.5°

    5.5°

    24°

    III.1

    June 1 p.m., 588

    SS-MS

    20°

    13.5°

    6.5°

    11.5°

    8.5°

    III.15

    June 16 a.m., 588

    SR-MS

    7.5°

    5.75°

    1.75°

    6.75°

    0.75°

    XI.1

    Jan 24 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    14.5°

    16.25°

    1.75°

    20°

    5.5°

    XII.1

    Feb 23 p.m., 587

    SS-MS

    25°

    27.75°

    2.25°

    29.5°

    4.5°

    XII.12

    Mar 7 a.m., 587

    SR-MS

    1.5°

    !

    !

    !

    !

    Notes:

    ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to these programs' simulations.

    Comments:

    SVC's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75° to 6.5°. Average difference 3.5°.

    CdC's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75° to 8.5°. Average difference 4°.

    Conclusion:

    These 588/7 B.C.E. Lunar Three results fare better than those in the previous table. However, it's clear that 568/7 B.C.E. remains the far better match out of the three scenarios.

    * In The Watchtower, November 1, 2011, p. 28, note 19, Cartes du Ciel is referenced as one of the programs used to analyze VAT 4956's lunar data.

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:31:00 GMT(9/20/2011)

    Post 2042 of 4249
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Comments, questions, constructive criticism and the results of anyone else's research are welcome

    Please also compare the results of Stephenson and Willis as well as Prof. Hunger, which can be found HERE (scroll ¾ of the way down).

    There are a couple of members on this board who, I'm sure, will post the fruits of their research in due course too.

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:51:00 GMT(9/20/2011)

    Post 2049 of 4249
    Joined 8/11/2003

    bttt

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:34:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1356 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    AnnOMaly --

    Beautiful charts and splendid work! Thanks so much for posting these!

    As you know, I have been re-checking my figures from 2007, using Sky View Cafe (SVC). I completed my calculations tonight, and I agree with you exactly on almost all of your figures. I had slightly different results for two of your SVC results:

    On your first chart, 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23,

    Here is what I have for Month XII, day 1:

    Month XII, day 1
    March 14, 567 BCE [-0566-03-14]
    sunset 18:06
    moonset 19:50
    SS-MS = 104 minutes = (104/4)º = 25.75º
    VAT 4956 = 25º

    You have 26º using SVC and I have 25.75º

    ---------------------------------

    On your third chart, 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein's tables)

    Here is what I have for Month XII, day 1:

    Month XII, day 1
    Feb 23, 587 BCE [-0586-02-23]
    sunset 17:53
    moonset 19:42
    SS - MS = 109 minutes = (109/4)º = 27.25º
    VAT 4956 = 25º

    You have 27.75º using SVC and I have 27.25º

    Could you recheck those two and tell me whether you agree with my figures?
    I was practically seeing cross-eyed by the time I compared my results to your results to the VAT 4956 results for all three years!

    Marjorie

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:08:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1357 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Note to casual readers whose eyes are glazing over ---

    If you look at the second chart AnnOMaly posted for Rolf Furuli's hypothetical year 588/587 BCE with New Year on May 2/3, you will see that in some places she has an exclamation point instead of a numerical result.

    In her Note, AnnoMaly explained the exclamation point:

    "
    No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to these programs' simulations."

    I tried to explain this to Neil (Scholar) about four years ago. It is very simple and it explains why Furuli's proposed year DOES NOT WORK!

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/145519/5/587-607-Question

    In post 1176, I wrote:

    Neil, let me give one example. On dates near the middle of a lunar month, the moon sets in the western sky shortly after the sun comes up in the east. So you have sunrise in the east, and then a little later you have moonset in the west. You can measure how much time passes between sunrise and moonset.

    VAT 4956 gives measurements on two* different days (Month I, day 14 and Month XII, day 12) for the time-interval between sunrise and moonset.

    Furuli's dates are absolutely impossible, because on his days, the moon actually set before sunup! You can't measure the interval between sunrise and moonset if the moon has already set before the sun comes up.

    I hope this helps.

    *[Note: When I wrote this I left one out. There are actually three middle-of-the-month measurements on VAT 4956 that are absolutely impossible in the year that Furuli proposes.
    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:32:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1358 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/145519/5/587-607-Question

    In post 1176, I wrote:

    Neil, let me give one example. On dates near the middle of a lunar month, the moon sets in the western sky shortly after the sun comes up in the east. So you have sunrise in the east, and then a little later you have moonset in the west. You can measure how much time passes between sunrise and moonset.VAT 4956 gives measurements on two* different days (Month I, day 14 and Month XII, day 12) for the time-interval between sunrise and moonset.

    Furuli's dates are absolutely impossible, because on his days, the moon actually set before sunup! You can't measure the interval between sunrise and moonset if the moon has already set before the sun comes up.
    I hope this helps.

    *[Note: When I wrote this I left one out. There are actually three middle-of-the-month measurements on VAT 4956 that are absolutely impossible in the year that Furuli proposes.

    Repeated with new emphasis.

    Say it is the middle of the lunar month in ancient Babylon. Remember, the first day of the month is when you can see the sliver of the crescent moon, the new moon, for the first time. So around the middle of the month you are looking at a moon that is just about a full moon.

    If you wake up early, a little before sunrise, it is still dark and you can see the full moon in the western sky. The sun rises in the east (duh!) and a little later the moon sets in the west. VAT 4956 measures the time BETWEEN sunrise and moonset. We abbreviate this SR - MS.

    If the moon sets BEFORE the sun comes up, then the interval SR - MS is meaningless! You can't measure the interval between sunrise and moonset if the moon has already set and IS NOT THERE IN THE SKY!

    In footnote 18a of the article, "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two", WT 11/1/2011), the WT tries to discredit the Lunar Three time intervals. The WT claims the Lunar Three time intervals were supposedly unreliable measurements because those ancient waterclocks were not accurate.

    Folks, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the water clocks does not matter if the MOON WASN'T EVEN IN THE SKY to be measured!

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:31:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1360 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    I'm not sure if this will display well, but here is a shot of Sky View Cafe showing Month 1, Day 14, year 568 BCE.
    This is the first of the Lunar Threes recorded on astronomical diary VAT 4956.
    The ancient Babylonian astronomers recorded a time interval of 16 minutes between sunrise and moonset.
    The modern astronomy program Sky View Cafe shows that there were 15 minutes between sunrise and moonset, which is quite accurate.

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:46:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1361 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Let's see if this picture is any sharper.
    Once again I am showing a picture of sunrise on May 6, 568 BCE.
    Pay attention to the full moon on the right side of the picture in the western sky.

    In a minute I will show the view from the WT's proposed year of 588 BCE.
    In 588 BCE you will not see the moon in the sky at sunrise because it had already set.

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:21:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1362 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Okay, this is moonset on the same day as the previous picture.
    Moonset was at 5:29 am, 15 minutes after sunrise, which was at 5:14 am.
    Year is still 568 BCE, the year that all scholars accept.

    Next up will be Month I, day 14 in the WT's proposed year of 588 BCE.

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:43:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1363 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Okay, I have been leading up to this one!

    VAT 4956 records a time-interval of 16 minutes between sunrise and moonset (SR - MS) on Month I, day 14 of Nebuchadnezzar' 37th year.
    We have seen that a modern astronomy program, Sky View Cafe (SVC), shows the interval SR - MS was 15 minutes on that date in 568 BCE, which is the year accepted by all scholars.

    The WT proposes the alternate year 588 BCE.

    That date is IMPOSSIBLE because on Month I, day 14 of 588 BCE (where New Year was on May 2/3), we cannot measure the time that elapsed between sunrise and moonset because the full moon was NOT VISIBLE IN THE SKY AT SUNRISE! It had already set.

    This is the meaning of the ! in AnnOMaly's charts Two and Three in the first post of this thread.

    The WT tries to confuse matters in their discussion of the Lunar Threes in footnote 18a on page 28 of "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two," WT 11/1/2011 by saying the measurements taken by the "ancient observers" using "some sort of clock" were "not reliable."

    It does not matter what kind of clock you have if you cannot measure SR - MS because the moon is NOT EVEN IN THE SKY. It does not matter if you have a Timex, or a Rolex, or an atomic clock, or an ancient water clock, or if you just count ONE-Mississippi, TWO-Mississippi --- you cannot measure moonset for a moon that is not there!

    Here is the picture:

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:18:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1364 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Side by side comparison of Lunar Three interval SR -MS for Month I, day 14, year 568 BCE and year 588 BCE.*
    * Where New Year, Nisanu 1 = May 2/3, 588 BCE.

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:41:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1365 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    Inquiring minds may wonder why East is on the left side of the Sky View Cafe picture and West is on the right.
    (In the previous posts you can see pictures showing sunrise with the sun on the left side.)

    Here is the answer from www.skyviewcafe.com:

    Some people might wonder why the E for East is on the left of the Sky display when the selected view orientation puts S for south is on the bottom. This takes a little getting use to for some people, but you have to realize that you're seeing a representation of a view that you'd see looking upward into the sky. In fact, it's useful to imagine yourself lying flat on your back with your head pointing North, gazing up into the sky.

    F AnnOMaly posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:04:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 2050 of 4249
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Hi Alleymom,

    Sky shots - fantastic! Thanks for doing these!

    Regarding the differences in figures:

    For 567 BCE, XII.1 - I get the same figures as you do, and 104m / 4 = 26º ... (25.75º x 4 = 103m).

    For 587 BCE (P&D), XII.1 - I get the same figures as you, but I copied in the wrong fraction (dammit!). You are correct and it should be 27.25°. The difference between the text and computed figure remains 2.25°.

    A word about the mid-month sunrise to moonset intervals. There is a potentially contentious one for Month XII, day 12 - even for the correct year 567 BCE. Fortunately, SVC and CdC calculated that this measurement could be taken but, as you can see, the figure is very small. The text only has 1.5° (6 minutes) and the two calculated results are fractions of a degree (2 minutes at most) - it's really cutting it fine!

    Some other astro-programs' simulations show that the moon set before sunrise and so this measurement couldn't be taken on this date. Had I used e.g. TheSky (see the Caeno site's result where moonset was 3 minutes before sunrise) I would have had to have put exclamation marks on the XII.12 line for 567 BCE too, despite there only being 2.25° (9 minutes) difference with the text's figure! This shows how results can vary a little between programs. Of course, a couple of degrees or so is acceptable. If we're talking about the moon setting e.g. more than 10° or 40 minutes before sunrise (as is the case with 587 BCE and Furuli's scenario for XII.12) then it's a clear mismatch.

    No matter what program we're using (preferably one that is reasonably accurate in simulating ancient skies - not all are), we're looking for consistency and which year, overall, produces the better match.

    M Doug Mason posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:40:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1181 of 1503
    Joined 1/20/2007

    Alleymom!

    Absolutely brilliant!

    Magnificent!

    Doug

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:01:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1366 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001
    AnnOMaly:: Regarding the differences in figures:

    For 567 BCE, XII.1 - I get the same figures as you do, and 104m / 4 = 26º ... (25.75º x 4 = 103m).

    For 587 BCE (P&D), XII.1 - I get the same figures as you, but I copied in the wrong fraction (dammit!). You are correct and it should be 27.25°. The difference between the text and computed figure remains 2.25°.

    Thanks! It's easy to make careless mistakes when dealing with a mass of figures, but I can't believe I goofed that one. Color me red.

    The good news is that we now agree on all 21 results for Sky View Cafe.
    I will change my worksheet to reflect that.

    Marjorie

    St George of England posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:26:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1148 of 2513
    Joined 3/22/2010

    Most of this goes over my head, but surely the writing dept must be monitoring all this and burying their heads in their hands and saying "God! Why did we ever open this can of worms?"

    George

    Alleymom posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:38:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 1367 of 933
    Joined 10/19/2001

    LOL at George's comment!

    Alfred posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:56:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 409 of 954
    Joined 9/10/2010

    Alleymom... you have a PM

    M wobble posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:03:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 5282 of 5745
    Joined 2/20/2008

    George, they are laughing all the way to the Bank, lets hope they pick a Bank that fails.

    They are cynical enough to know that the average Dub will swallow what they have written and believe the whole subject is done and dusted, they have spread so much Bull S**T over the matter that no JW is going to unravel it, or even touch it.

    They opened the can of worms because so many derisory comments were appearing on line about their claim to be God's Org based on this 607BCE trash, that they needed to counter these.

    Now they can say "The Faithful Slave has dealt with this matter, are you saying you know better than them ?"

    Any R&F JW will be cowed by the fear of being DF'd in to not looking any further at the question,then the WT can carry on for years hoovering up the $$$.

    Thanks to all for your hard work on this, any sincere JW who really wants to know the truth can be referred to this thread, Great Work , thanks.

    diamondiiz posted Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:13:00 GMT(9/21/2011)

    Post 959 of 1522
    Joined 3/15/2009

    marked

      Close

      Confirm ...