A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

Advertisement

Viewed 1376 times

    VM44 posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 11:33:07 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 6530 of 6619
    Joined 7/1/2001

    A JW wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by VAT 4956. Comments on the author's logic would be appreciated. --VM44

    Does Vat 4956 Prove 587?


    Many point to Vat 4956 as proof that Jerusalem was desolated in 587BCE. After all Vat 4956 is an eyewitness account of celestial phenomena that occured in the 37th year of Neb. It is so detailed that the astronomical events that are recorded in this tablet could have only occured in the year 568BCE. And since it was written in the 37th year of Neb.....Wait! What's that you say? It was not written in the 37th year of Neb by an eyewitness to the celestial events?

    Well, maybe not. But it was observed in the 37th year of Neb and written a little while later while Neb was still king or shortly thereafter during the rule of other Babylonian kings by a very reliable and trustworthy person. No? It was written then either?

    You might be very surprised to learn that the tablet known as Vat 4956 is admittedly a copy dated during the Seleucid period and the time of Berosus some 300 years after the supposed events that it records. The fact is we do not know how many times it was copied and handed down. We do not know if there really was an original tablet. We do not even know if 'in the 37th year of Neb' was originally in it or if the copyist added those words perhaps to reflect what they thought or what Beorosis thought at the time because amazingly it does reflect the beliefs of Berosus whose beliefs may have well been popular at the time. Who can really say? And remember this, it is not an inspired record from God.

    It is much like this conclusion reached by one who thoroughly studied Vat 4956:

    "VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular chronology. It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period, which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication, compiled during the Seleucid period, possibly from a badly damaged tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king."

    So then what really does Vat 4956 prove? It proves that there surely were people living almost 300 years after Neb that believed that his 37th year occured in the year that we now consider to be 568BCE only about 30 years before the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus. It proves that Vat 4956 may reflect well what was believed by Berosus and probably others at the time. But the simple fact is that any astronomer could research and describe events that occured in a certain year and then date it to any date they wanted such as in the 37th year of Neb.

    Are you aware of another tablet that has been discovered which says something different. This tablet shows many celestial events that could have only happened in the year 588BCE. This tablet says these events occured in the 37th year of Neb also. If this tablet was written about 300 years after Neb then we have conflicting stories. Perhaps this person believed that Neb's 37th year was about 50 years before the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus in the year 588BCE as we know it. Can it really be so? Where is this tablet?

    You will find it sitting on my dining room table as it is on a Big Chief tablet belonging to my preschooler and written by someone of modern times. But it well illustrates the nature and reliability of Vat 4956. An astronomer who lived in the time of Berosus could have very well written a document describing the celestial events of 588BCE and dated it to the 37th year of Neb and who would have known? Who could have argued with it?

    Why would such a document as Vat 4956 be written if it is not true. Was it a conspiracy against the Watchtower which they knew would rise up in the future to proclaim 607 as the year of Jerusalem's destruction? That is the argument used in an attempt to discredit and show the foolishness of JWs. But consider.

    Perhaps Vat 4956 was written for one of the following reasons. It could have been written to support those beliefs popular during the time. Or perhaps it was written to show that the sacred Jewish writings at the time concerning the 70 years of desolation and restoration were inaccurate. Or even consider that perhaps it was an attempt by Satan the Devil to obscure the date of Jerusalem's destruction in order to make Jehovah's prophets appear to be wrong about the 70 years of desolation and it has worked for the most part. Or even looking at the bigger picture, to confuse the starting and ending point of the seven Gentile times, to put forth the lie that 1914 is not the date of Christ's presence at all, in order to bring forth the notion: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'

    As the Watchtower accurately put it way back in 1972:

    "It should not be overlooked that the source of corroborative evidence should bear the earmarks of dependability. Can this be said about “VAT 4956”? Not really. The text is not an original and it contains numerous gaps. Certain terms found therein cannot even be understood now. Twice in the text the notation hi-bi (meaning “broken off, obliterated”) appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that he was working from a defective copy.

    Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents a true picture of the original, this would not establish the correctness of the historical data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place astronomical data, so the copyist of “VAT 4956” may, in line with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the ‘thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.’ As admitted by the German scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the translators of this text), the scribe evidently changed words to conform with the abbreviated terminology common in his day. But he was both inconsistent and inaccurate. So he could just as easily have inserted other information to suit his purposes. Hence both Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956” might even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share mutual errors."

    But if Vat 4956 is inaccurate then doesn't this also undermine the evidence that Babylon was conquered in 539BCE? No it does not. For the 37th year of Neb can still be 588BCE and it does not effect 539 in any way. 539 as the date of Babylon's conquest is proven historically with the backing of Biblical evidence in many different ways.

    In conclusion we might ask a few simple questions:

    Who was the copyist of the VAT 4956? Was he an astrologist? Was he inspired by God? Did he have an agenda? Did he have any qualms about adding his own thoughts? Did he mind adding words to prove what he believed? Did he know Nebuchadnezzar? Was he there during the 37th year of Neb? Did he really copy it from anything or just make it up using known astronomical happenings from the year 568BCE? Was he a Godly man?

    On the other hand:
    Who wrote Ezekiel? Who was Isaiah? Who was Daniel? Who was Jeremiah? Who was Ezra? Who did they worship? Were they inspired of God? Did they add their own words?

    Who should we believe? These Bible writers approved by Jehovah and inspired by him? Or some unknown copyist?

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:04:43 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 3511 of 4348
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Is this from a private source or online somewhere? I'd like to know who the author is.

    You might be very surprised to learn that the tablet known as Vat 4956 is admittedly a copy dated during the Seleucid period and the time of Berosus some 300 years after the supposed events that it records. The fact is we do not know how many times it was copied and handed down. We do not know if there really was an original tablet. We do not even know if 'in the 37th year of Neb' was originally in it or if the copyist added those words perhaps to reflect what they thought or what Beorosis thought at the time because amazingly it does reflect the beliefs of Berosus whose beliefs may have well been popular at the time. Who can really say? And remember this, it is not an inspired record from God.

    Hold it!

    What about the Bible? You may be surprised to learn that the earliest Bible manuscripts are also copies dating to the 4th century BCE (when the Seleucids ruled) some hundreds of years after the supposed events they record. We do not know how many times they were copied and handed down. We do not have any of the original autographs and we do not really know to what extent the originals were redacted and added to by later editors ...

    ... AND YET YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM TRUSTING THE BIBLE'S TESTIMONY, DO YOU?

    Why the double standard here?

    (Back in a while, I'm just getting warmed up.)

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:18:53 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 3512 of 4348
    Joined 8/11/2003

    But the simple fact is that any astronomer could research and describe events that occured in a certain year and then date it to any date they wanted such as in the 37th year of Neb.

    Nonsensical. This would have ramifications for their calendar and time-keeping, their (and other nations') history and their 'science.' How could the Babylonians have developed their mathematical/planetary/lunar theories if they deliberately assigned observations to the wrong years? What could they have bequeathed successive generations of astronomers (like the Greeks) if the observations did not fall in the correct year?

    An astronomer who lived in the time of Berosus could have very well written a document describing the celestial events of 588BCE and dated it to the 37th year of Neb and who would have known? Who could have argued with it?

    Who? His fellow scribes and mathemeticians using the tablet's data for their calculations and getting wonky results. No serious astronomer would fake such a document. A 20-year discrepancy doesn't even fit the repeating Metonic and Saros cycles, for heaven's sake!

    Perhaps Vat 4956 was written for one of the following reasons. It could have been written to support those beliefs popular during the time. Or perhaps it was written to show that the sacred Jewish writings at the time concerning the 70 years of desolation and restoration were inaccurate. Or even consider that perhaps it was an attempt by Satan the Devil to obscure the date of Jerusalem's destruction in order to make Jehovah's prophets appear to be wrong about the 70 years of desolation and it has worked for the most part. Or even looking at the bigger picture, to confuse the starting and ending point of the seven Gentile times, to put forth the lie that 1914 is not the date of Christ's presence at all, in order to bring forth the notion: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'

    La-la land. 'Perhapses' and 'could bes' - no evidence - only fanciful imagination. Perhaps there's sentient life on Jupiter that could have been obscured by the clouds all this time.

    Besides, s/he's focusing on one tablet as if the whole of neo-Babylonian chronology depends on it. What about the other astronomical texts that fix regnal years? Were they all part of the same cosmic, diabolical conspiracy to make the BSs/JWs of the distant future look bad? Isn't this the same kind of argument some Young Earth Creationists use about Satan making the fossils look old to deceive us?

    In addition, the conventional chronology works well (even better) with the Bible's testimony. Again, the writer makes the mistake of equating the 70 year period with the length of time the land was 'desolate, without inhabitant' and thus creates a problem where there isn't one.

    [From the WT 1972] "Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents a true picture of the original, this would not establish the correctness of the historical data."

    We may not be able to independently verify that a fox ran through the city on a certain date or that there was an outbreak of disease on such-a-day or the river levels indeed rose and fell by so many cubits or what the price of barley was at the end of the month. However, for any astronomical information to be meaningful and useful for 'scientific' research, it has to be dated correctly. That means the correct king, his correct regnal year and the correct month and day have to be given.

    Who was the copyist of the VAT 4956?

    We don't know. Who were the copyists of the books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra? Does the writer know?

    Was he an astrologist?

    Probably. Astrology and astronomy were parts of the same discipline in ancient times. Daniel knew all about that too.

    Did he have an agenda?

    Yes. To faithfully transcribe the contents of a damaged tablet in order to preserve them for posterity.

    Did he have any qualms about adding his own thoughts?

    He didn't add his own thoughts. He was a copyist.

    Did he mind adding words to prove what he believed?

    This wasn't a political, historical or theological treatise. This was a list of data collected in a particular year.

    Did he know Nebuchadnezzar? Was he there during the 37th year of Neb?

    The writer just said the copyist lived during Seleucid times. Does s/he think he was 200 years old?

    Did he really copy it from anything or just make it up using known astronomical happenings from the year 568BCE?

    Answered above already. From where would he have obtained 'known astronomical happenings'? An astronomical tablet which had a record of astronomical happenings from 568 BCE, perhaps?

    Was he a Godly man?

    He would have had a fear of the gods. If he misrepresented their signs and movements in the sky, I guess he'd feel the gods wouldn't be best pleased with him!

    Londo111 posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:46:46 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 2096 of 3502
    Joined 11/9/2011

    And we could throw out all the astronomical tablets like VAT 4956 and still derive at the standard chronology based on the thousands of economic tablets, the Addagoppe Stele—all writings from that time.

    clarity posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:51:32 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 2724 of 4032
    Joined 8/9/2010

    HHmmmmmm ....... very thought provoking ........but

    too early for me ....where is my morning coffee

    erbie posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:24:33 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 338 of 412
    Joined 9/3/2011

    They still need to prove that they are right and that is impossible so it is an empty argument. I've combed through all this stuff so many times it now makes me tired just to think of it.

    If they are right and Jesus did return in 1914 (which is what they are trying to sell) then where is he???

    Don't waste time even contemplating it!

    BroMac posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:35:06 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 683 of 725
    Joined 10/13/2011

    AnnOMaly I would love to see your face as you were reading through this. LOL

    VM44 posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:45:11 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 6531 of 6619
    Joined 7/1/2001

    Here is the complete text written by the "one who thoroughly studied Vat 4956."

    http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
    For complete access to all the files of this collection
    see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
    ==========================================================
    Astronomical Dating

    The chronology placing the date for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587
    BCE is derived from records which have come down to us in the form of
    clay tablets, the majority of which are documents made during the
    Seleucid period (4th century BCE). Many of these documents make
    reference to astronomical events, such as eclipses of the sun and moon,
    which are numbered to the years of various kings; however, the accuracy
    of the year numbers (and in some cases the king so named) in these
    documents is of a questionable nature.

    In fact, contemporaneous astronomical texts, sufficient to construct an
    accurate chronology for the period in question, are wanting. It is very
    likely that such contemporaneous texts were also lacking in the Seleucid
    period as well, which is the reason why the historians of that period
    would have compiled documents in an attempt to construct a chronology
    thought to address the earlier period.

    In addition to the information presented on the clay tablets from the
    Seleucid period, several astronomical events are listed in the canon of
    the first century astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. Ptolemy's canon contains
    astronomical events which are aligned with certain year numbers for
    specific kings who ruled in the earlier period. However, out of all the
    eclipse data that Ptolemy provides only one extant document matches the
    eclipse and year number with the data listed in his canon, and that is a
    copy made during the Seleucid period dealing with an eclipse in the
    seventh year of Kambyses.

    Furthermore, it has been mathematically proven that Ptolemy's method of
    calculation could not have yielded the dates for many of the eclipses
    that he listed in his canon. Thus, Ptolemy fabricated much of the
    information that he presented in order to align the astronomical
    information with what was then the popular chronology. (The mathematical
    proof that Ptolemy fabricated his data can be obtained from Robert R.
    Newton's /The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy/, published by The Johns Hopkins
    University Press, ISBN 0-8018-1990-3.)

    Some believe that Ptolemy received his data from Hipparchus, who is
    thought to have transferred data into the Egyptian system from records
    "brought over" from Babylon, which had been transferred into the Greek
    system developed by Kallippos; yet there is uncertainty concerning which
    Greek calendar Hipparchus used in his works. It must also be noted that
    Hipparchus, from whom Ptolemy might have obtained some of his data, is
    suspected of having obtained his information base by working backward
    from the results he expected. This would mean that Hipparchus was
    working only with astronomical records made in a later period, and that
    he assigned a king's year number based on the opinion popular in his time.

    Moreover, Ptolemy produced a list of Babylonian kings with the lengths
    of their reigns. His numbers agree with those of Berossus, who was a
    Babylonian priest during the Seleucid period. For this reason many
    believe that Ptolemy obtained his historical information from sources
    dating from the Seleucid period and not from contemporaneous Babylonian
    manuscripts. This was also the opinion of Edwin Thiele, who states:
    "Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical
    purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers
    of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning
    of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct
    allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical
    data which were then available."-/The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew
    Kings/, page 293.

    From this it can be seen that the year numbers for the Babylonian kings,
    which Ptolemy listed in conjunction with the astronomical data in his
    canon, were based on records available in the Seleucid period; and
    although the astronomical data may be somewhat accurate, the accuracy of
    the year numbers is questionable. Additionally, several sources prior to
    the time of Ptolemy give different numbers for the lengths of the
    Babylonian kings.

    Surprisingly, astronomical records from the Seleucid period differ
    radically from astronomical texts contained in /Enuma Anu Enlil/ (a
    document containing astrological reports to Assyrian kings from Babylon
    and Assyria). The earlier records are rarely dated to the year of a king
    as they were written primarily for astrological purposes. Some of the
    records contain eclipse predictions, which either came about as
    predicted or did not occur ("passed by"). From this we can conclude that
    the early Babylonians had some empirical knowledge of astronomical
    events; but the records do not indicate that they used this knowledge to
    establish a chronology, that practice was taken up by astronomers in the
    Seleucid period who were far more proficient in calculating eclipses.
    This fact is evident when one compares records from the two different
    periods. Thus, astronomers in the Seleucid period were able to produce
    tables of ancient eclipses, to which they assigned year numbers based on
    king lists available at that time. Thus, the alignments between year
    numbers and eclipses were only accurate to the extent that their king
    lists were correct. Missing one interregnum at any point would
    invalidate their whole chronology prior to the interregnum.

    According to the conventional chronology, Nabonassar ascended the throne
    in 6 February, 747 BCE. Ptolemy (or one of his predecessors) would have
    had no trouble picking an eclipse for what was thought to be the
    ascension year of Nabonassar; then it would have been a simple matter to
    construct a chronology from that date by aligning eclipse records with
    year numbers based on king lists available at that time. Ptolemy also
    listed the dates for the eclipses in the first and second years of
    Merodach-Baladan as 19 March, 721 BCE, 8 March, 720 BCE and 1 September,
    720 BCE. Nevertheless, Newton concluded that Ptolemy may have fabricated
    both the eclipse in the first year and the late eclipse in the second
    year. He also concluded that Ptolemy definitely fabricated the early
    eclipse in the second year; and, as was previously demonstrated, is it
    uncertain that the year numbers assigned to these eclipses are accurate.
    Ptolemy lists the eclipse in the fifth year of Nabopolassar as occurring
    on 22 April, 621, but this is another eclipse that Newton concluded was
    fabricated, and, once again, there can be no certainty about the year
    number. Ptolemy also stated that this eclipse had a magnitude of 3.0,
    yet it appears in Oppolzer's canon as only 1.6.

    Another document used to support the popular chronology is known as BM
    32312, which describes the positions of Mercury, Saturn and Mars datable
    to 652 BCE. The document also mentions a battle which took place between
    the Assyrians and Babylonians at Hirit on the 27th day of an unknown
    month. Because the name of the king and the year number are broken off
    from the tablet some conclude that this document cannot be a copy made
    in a later period. Another document, BM 86379, known as the "Akitu
    Chronicle," mentions a battle at Hirit on the 27th day of Adar in the
    16th year of Shamashshumaukin. Based on the assumption that both
    documents speak of the same battle at Hirit on the 27th day, many
    conclude that BM 32312 assigns the 16th year of Shamashshumaukin to 652
    BCE. The "Akitu Chronicle," however, when considered in the light of
    another document, BM 96273, known as the "Shamashshumaukin Chronicle,"
    reveals an anachronism that would establish 652 BCE as the 16th year of
    Kandalanu! (See artilce on "The Akitu Chronoicle.")

    VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular
    chronology. It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period,
    which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to
    the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. There is, however, no evidence to
    support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE
    from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the
    possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication,
    compiled during the Seleucid period, possibly from a badly damaged
    tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king.

    Yet another document considered a pillar in the conventional chronology
    is BM 76738 + 76813, known as the "Saturn Tablet," which contains
    observations of the planet Saturn datable from 647 - 627 BCE. The name
    of the planet Saturn does not appear in the text, and the name of the
    king is restored (from only a few traces in the first line) to
    Kandalanu. The data found on the document is thought to have been
    extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/ and aligned with the year numbers for
    Kandalanu. A mark on the tablet indicates that the scribe was copying
    from a broken tablet. As with a previous example, this document was
    copied at a later period from an earlier document, which contained data
    extracted from /Enuma Anu Enlil/, that had been aligned with year
    numbers for Kandalanu (?) for the purpose of constructing a
    chronological scheme based on the assumption that year numbers from
    Kandalanu's reign should be synchronized with the extracted data.

    A similar, but somewhat older document, Tablet 63 of /Enuma Anu Enlil/,
    known as "The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa," contains observations of the
    planet Venus, for which several dates have been proposed - 1702, 1646,
    1582 and 1419 BCE. Only the most recent date, 1419 BCE, aligns with the
    smallest percentage of error, 8 percent, with calculations that meet the
    requirements for the data found in the text. While the percentages of
    error for the two dates which align more closely with the popular
    chronology, 1646 and 1582 BCE, are 44 and 28 percent respectively!

    The Assyrian Eponym List contains an entry in the 9th year of Ashurdan,
    in the eponym of Bur-Sagale, which notes that "the sun had an eclipse."
    This eclipse is often placed in 763 BCE according to the popular
    chronology; however, the eclipse of 809 BCE aligns perfectly with the
    chronology derived from the Biblical record, which places the fall of
    Jerusalem in 608 BCE prior to a full 70 years' desolation.

    Herodotus reported an eclipse of the sun at the sceen of the battle
    between Lydia and Media. According to the chronology which places the
    fall of Jerusalem in 586 or 587 BCE that eclipse had to have occurred in
    585 BCE. Yet the eclipse in 635 BCE was adequate enough to produce
    noticeable darkness, which would have provided a portent sufficient to
    end the war as recorded by Herodotus. (See artilce on "The Lydian-Median
    War.")

    A translation of the text of the Ugarit Eclipse Tablet reads, "was put
    to shame the day of the new moon of Hiyyaru entering in of the sun
    gatekeeper of her Rashap." Some understand the wording of the text to
    mean that an eclipse of the sun occurred at sunset by reading, "The day
    of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to shame (at the) going down of the
    sun, her gatekeeper (was) Rashap." But two separate clauses are
    intended; the first, "The day of the new moon of Hiyyaru was put to
    shame," and the second, "(at the) going down of the sun her gatekeeper
    (was) Rashap." In the Hebrew (a Canaanite language similar to Ugaritic)
    Rashap means "flame;" thus, Rashap is a participle/noun meaning flaming
    one, which meets the discription of the planet Mars. The solar eclipse
    of 20 May, 1078 BCE began at 7:40 AM (local time), it was almost total
    at 9:00 AM and ended at 10:45 AM. The eclipse would have produced
    darkness such that bright stars would have been visible at Lon 35:37 deg
    E and Lat 35:47 deg N (Ugarit). The sun set with Mars becoming visible.
    The Ugarit Eclipse Tablet was found in a room next to the palace entry
    way of King Nikmaddu (II) bearing evidence of having been in a fire.
    Rohl notes that the date of the fire, which destroyed half of the palace
    of Nikmaddu (II), is determined by an entry in the Amarna letters
    recording a message to Akhenaten from the King of Tyre; other entries
    indicate that Akhenaten received word of the fire just after the death
    of Amenhotep (III) when Nikmaddu (II) ruled Ugarit. He further
    synchronizes the reign of Akhenaten, after an exhaustive analysis, with
    the death of Saul at Gilboa. Thus, the eclipse in 1078 BCE aligns
    perfectly with the Biblical chronology placing the beginning of David's
    reign 80 years before the division of the kingdom in 998 BCE. (David and
    Solomon reigned 40 years each.)

    The Biblical chronology aligns nicely with the astronomical data found
    in /Enuma Anu Enlil/. Several examples can be cited. (See article
    "Astronomical Records from Ancient Assyria.")

    Placing the return of the Jews from exile in 538 BCE, allowing for a
    full 70 years' desolation of the land and using the total of the reigns
    of the kings of Judah, which is 390 years, I have constructed the
    Biblical chronology set forth on my charts. In addition to listing the
    reigns of the kings of Judah, I have also synchronized them with the
    reigns of the kings of Israel, Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

    /Back <998-538.html>/

    Emery posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:07:48 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 578 of 759
    Joined 6/21/2012

    AnnOMaly, I love you.

    Londo111 posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:13:23 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 2098 of 3502
    Joined 11/9/2011

    She has many admirers.

    thomasaquinas posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:01:36 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 10 of 40
    Joined 2/13/2013

    The thing is.... as far as the Bible is concerned. Historically Critical Thinking should dictate ones interpretations in my opinion. That is, not reading more into the text than is there and appreciating what is going on at that point in time. Then you get ....that people were writing about events confronting them at thiis time in their lives or in their near future and not writing about symbolically relevent things to come in the distant future. As Ann said, many things were written even "post dated" so to speak, about events or people important to the early followers of Christ. Writers took on names of relevent people, wrote about the way things should be or could be, about the desire to enjoy religious freedom or cultural freedoms etc.. and so on.... Vat 4956 should be viewed as an indicator of a possibly accurate picture of history then, or at least a strong counter argument for the WT societies standalone theories on all of this, but does all this argumentation about Bible Cronology actually have meaning as far as 1914, 1975, or 120 years since 1914, or on and on and on??.... no way...as far as I can see. Yes the JW will say...yes but all the connecting prophesies and the mysterios connections between the books of the Bible all of this fits together as a big puzzle, and we have the TRUTH...What you have is a bunch of free labor and printing presses. If people just woriied about not shunning those who are different, or think freely, knowing their neighbors and helping strangers, being generous, avoiding violence unless required by rules of self preservation, and standing up for their principles maybe it would seem more like in their minds that the Kingdom was already here. sorry for any typos

    F AnnOMaly posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:01:37 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 3515 of 4348
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Aww shucks, guys.

    The Saturnian Cosmology page made me want to do some googling. It turns out that the JW apologist in the OP is none other than T-wit who blogged the above in 2006! That means the quote from the ' one who thoroughly studied VAT 4956' pre-dates 2006. The Saturnian link looks like it has mirrored a page from the old internet days. One thing's for sure: the 'thorough' student of VAT 4956 is not a JW. He favors 538 BCE as the year of repatriation and 608 BCE as Jerusalem's fall (I hasten to add that I think he means the 597 BCE deportation). Many (if not all) his objections to the evidence have long been refuted.

    friendaroonie posted Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:49:19 GMT(9/3/2013)

    Post 42 of 148
    Joined 7/25/2013

    Basically he is sayig that it is 1914 that proves 607BC correct and not the other way around. They start with the premise that 1914 is an absolute date.

    Crazyguy posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:17:57 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 498 of 2311
    Joined 3/28/2013

    I think like others have mentioned just throw back all the evidence that VAT does not show the date they want and then back up your statemennt and proofs with all the other data that proves 587, when one takes it all into account its hard for anyone thats thinking clearly to deny the obvious.

    M steve2 posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 01:38:42 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 6139 of 8639
    Joined 10/31/2004

    No matter how long-winded and convoluted the pro-JW apologetics is, it cannot make "true" something that is false. Next.

    F Dagney posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 02:15:05 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 4304 of 4661
    Joined 8/14/2006

    Go git em Ann!! xx

    thomasaquinas posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 02:37:36 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 12 of 40
    Joined 2/13/2013

    Yes I have to agree Ann you have quite an array of information collected.

    I am not saying I agree with it all but thanks for the reminders.

    I've talked with Furuli a few times and others who have studied these tablets in person.

    There is a German professor doing an interesting take on them right now.

    Oh how we strive for truth, or strive to disprove others truths.

    It is required I guess.

    M Jeffro posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 03:37:34 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 3836 of 4495
    Joined 5/21/2005

    I haven't read all the responses, but after reading the apologist's comments about VAT 4956, it's clear that it was written prior to the Watch Tower Society's 'new light' claiming that the tablet's indication of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is actually accurate. Instead, the apologist relies on Watch Tower claims from the 1970s that it's an 'unreliable copy' (the apologist cites his source as "the Watchtower", but it was actually the Awake! of 8 May 1972). See also here.

    JakeM2012 posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 04:36:14 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 478 of 609
    Joined 1/23/2012

    http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review.htm

    Carl Olof Jonnson himself weighs in on VAT4956

    F AnnOMaly posted Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:02:09 GMT(9/4/2013)

    Post 3516 of 4348
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Hey thomasaquinas, have we crossed paths elsewhere?

    There is a German professor doing an interesting take on them right now.

    Interesting. Please tell me more.

    ------

    There has been a faint bell tinkling in the deepest recesses of my memory, so I did some more googling. Although I could not find the mirrored page (about astronomical dating) anywhere else on the 'net, the only one I could see who believes the 70 years run from 608 to 538 BCE is on bric.uk.com.

    "The 70 years punishment began not in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar but in his 8th year (2 Kings 24:12). The punishment and subjugation to Babylon began when Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin and 10,000 the 'cream' of the nation captive into exile in 608 BC ending 70 years later when the angel wrote on the wall prescribed the overthrow of the Babylonians by Cyrus in 538."

    The author's name wasn't to be found anywhere but I knew I'd come across his stuff before. Anyway, long story short, it turns out to be the work of an ex-JW from the UK called John Denton who predicts that Armageddon will happen in 2033.

      Close

      Confirm ...