Thanks Ann for all your work, and for informing us so well.
I was just wondering, are J W Apologists a dieing breed ?
We haven't had one on here for an age, and one of at least some intellectual skill for even longer, and they really are such fun !
A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956
by VM44 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
Dear Ann,
I am relatively new to this board. Irving Finkel ( German/Jew I believe ) has been the curator or assistant curator of the British Meseum's collection of clay tablets from Mesopotamia. I am trying to aquire all of his papers and works. He is a specialist in ancient magic and medicine in the region. He is often credited or quoted from, in others works as well. My interest on his projects in literature, medicine and magic described in cuneiform inscriptions opened up some possibilities in my opinion, to relative dating parameters. Some ceremonies or medical practices came about during certain periods. So in short it seems possible to me that these can be evaluated along with all the other methods used for dating. No one (scholars) ever talks about this except in broad terms with respect to dating, and mostly about only this genre. I have not posted on your threads before to my knowledge. I crossed horns on a few subjects with poster Lailola (spelling ??) several years ago on other boards and learned a lot. Doug Mason's work has helped me on some subjects as well. I have so much to learn. One and a half years ago now Rolf Furuli mentioned Finkel was looking at these tablets and might publish? So I have been expecting to see something one of these days. My guess is that he is working with a team and on broader subject material than just our discussion.
-
AnnOMaly
Thanks for the extra info, itsy. Do you mean the one where he's teamed up with Prof. van der Spek and looking at tablets from the Hellenistic era?
(Btw, Dr. Finkel is British/Jewish.)
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
No. I believe it is a look at tablets pertaining to 500 bce era. ??
-
AnnOMaly
Oh OK. I don't know about that one. Are there any more details?
-
moggy lover
Great work, as usual AOM. I believe that the premise on which this poster based his/her conclusions is a false one. And this is that if an archeological document is a copy of an original then it must be questioned for its authenticity and, based on conclusions that defy any quantifiable logical analysis, should rightly be discredited. On this basis, however, one can question anything, even a round earth, and making false conclusions from such questioning, one can discredit the accepted position by scholars that science proves the earth circular, not flat.
In order for an ancient artifact to be discredited it must be done on the basis of verifiable data that is accessible to all, and not a select few. To really discredit VAT 4956 we need such verifiable data. But all we have been given is artificially rigged questions that then lead to false conclusions which themselves are without any factual basis. What this poster is obviously doing is proving something that he/she has already assumed to be true, and from this he/she builds a theme.
The only REAL way to discredit VAT 4956 is to produce a genuine archaeological tablet with the exact same celestial phenomena mentioned in VAT 4956, but instead, attributing it to the year 625 BC!! THEN and only THEN can the Watchtower and it apologists ARGUE THEIR CASE. In the absence of such data they are what Aussies call "all piss and wind".
Can we verify whether an astronomical tablet is a fake or at least if its data has been corrupted? Yes, as you pointed out, astomomical phenomena which has been recorded, verified, and attributed, becomes absolute, hence the expression "absolute date". Carl Olof Jonsson does provide one such example of a corrupted astronomical tablet.
The Watchtower, in an attempt to verify the date 537 BCE as the date for the Jewish return to Judah, have often quoted an astronomical document catalogued as "Strm. Kambys. 400" now residing in the Berlin Museum, I believe. It details celestial phenomena which is attributed to the seventh year of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus. The Insight book volume 1, page 453 approves of this document and says:
"Thus this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses as beginning in the year 523 BCE. This is an astronomically confirmed date"
Jonsson states:
"If the society's criticism of such documents as VAT 4956 are valid mainly because it is a later copy of an original, then such criticism would apply with equal force to their own favoured document, the Strm. Kambys 400".
He points out that as early as 1903 scholars such as one FX Kugler have pointed out that this document is a copy of a text that can be verified as defective. Indeed the copyist, having many gaps in the original, filled in these gaps [called "lacunae"] with his own sloppy calculations!! Jonsson quotes Kugler as saying:
"Not one of the astronomical texts I know of offers so many contradictions and unsolved riddles such as the Strm. Kambys 400"
Thus for a tablet to be true it must be:
Recorded. Verifiable. Attributed.
The problem with Strm. Kambys 400 is that although it has been recorded and attributed to a certain year, only a small fraction of the data is verifiable. Much of the celestial phenomena, including the lunar eclipses quoted by the Insight book are private calculations of the copyist hence are NOT verifiable!
[Taken from "Gentile Times Revisited - 4th Edition page 85 ff]
To defend an indefensible astronomical position the Watchtower [and its apologists] indulge in a curious blend of conjecture and double standards. Until verifiable astronomical data can be shown to prove VAT 4956 to be false, it must be held in the higest regard that it so richly deserves.
-
Bart Belteshassur
As this is my first time posting on this site I will try and be as brief as possible.
I have been looking at this whole question for sometime, and come to the following conclusions:
Why is it that the harmony of the "inspired word" is not used to resolve this issue. If one requires to get to any date one wishes to chose and work backwards from the preconception almost any date for the destruction of jerusalem is possible. J Brown, Miller, Russel and others have been doing this for 200 years. The same issues are apparent in various constructs for the "70 weeks".
We must always start with the facts we do know, determine the information we have but do not understand, and produce an answer that fits the information as it is and not that which would like it to be.
The bible contains the timeline which dates Josiah's death (start of calamity) with Cyrus' release of all captives which is 70 years and within the harmony of the text is shown to be so. It is as follows:
Cyrus declares liberty (Jubilee) seventh month 539bce
Jehovah declares liberty (atypical Jubilee) seventh month 10th year of Zedakiah 588bce
Josiah's death 21 years earlier (11 Jehioakim + 10 Zedakiah) end of 6th month 609bce
Is this the 70 years? Please let me have your thoughts.
-
Londo111
Welcome, Bart!
We’ve several topics floating around on the Bible’s viewpoint. It’s important to consider all the evidence, both from the Bible and the Historical record. Since the Bible contains no absolute dates, we need the historical evidence in order to synchronize events in the Bible with history.
For instance, we could never know when Babylon fell by examining the Bible alone. From the Bible, we know this is tied to the assession of Cyrus over Babylon, followed by his first regnal year. It is the historical evidence that tells us this was 539 BC. The historical evidence allows us to synchronize the year 539 BC with that event.
In regard the 70 years, these were 70 years “for Babylon”, a time when "these nations shall serve Babylon seventy years", that is, it was Babylon’s time of Dominance as a worldpower. See Jeremiah 25:11,12. The 70 years come to an end when Babylon falls, which was in 539 BC.
Therefore the 70 years can be considered either:
(1) 609 BC to 539 BC, from the fall of Assyria to the fall of Babylon, an exact period of 70 years.
(2) 605 BC to 539 BC, from the battle of Carchemish which allowed Babylon control over Judah and the nations roundabout…to the fall of Babylon. In this case, the 70 years would be an approximation or symbolic.
-
Bobcat
Bart:
Why is it that the harmony of the "inspired word" is not used to resolve this issue.
Are you familiar with the book, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," (Edwin R. Thiele, see here). Thiele approaches the chronolgy subject by attempting to harmonize the various king lists in Kings and Chronicles. His book is not about 607/587 per se, but he arrives at 587/6 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem by following the dating of the kings of Judah and Israel starting from the division in the kingdom just after Solomon.
I've found this book to be a good complement to "Gentile Times Reconsidered" because it approaches the subject from a different angle than COJ and yet arrives at the same conclusion as him. Moreover Thiele never mentions anything about the WT, so no one could ever claim that he has an ax to grind. He simply wanted to see what the Bible's king chronology would lead to for dates.
Welcome, and Take Care
-
Bart Belteshassur
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Londo111: I agree 100% with your general point,and thanks.
Bobcat: I have not read the book, however I understand his work and admire the step forward he made in the understanding of biblical chronology.
However I thought his date for the destruction of the temple was 5th month 586bce as apposed to Wiseman at 587, I will check up. By 587/6 I take it you mean 5th 587bce using N-N dating? Unfortunately this date assumes Jerimiah used nonaccession dating which he clearly demostrates he does not (JER 25-3). There are 5 years between the death of Josiah June/July 609, 18th year of Jerimiah's minitry and his 23rd, which he places in the 4th year of Jehoiakim thus there must be an accession year.
In order that Jer 25.1 & 46.2 & Dan 1.1 do not contradict each other the Judean kings reign's must start in the seveth mounth,T-T AC dating and the Jerimiah uses the standard babylonian/Isreal first month start, N-N AC dating throughout his book. Therefore Zedekiah's 11th year is Nebuchadrezzar's 19th and places the destruction in 5th month 586bce.
This date does not contradict any other data as far as I am aware, however I am always willing to be educated. By the way until I worked this out I have been a firm accept of 587, it appeared to fit the Jubilee theory better, although it appears to make more sense now in relation to Jerimiah's second confinement in the house of detention.
COJ and his colleges write very good articles I just wish I had their knowledge of Hebrew to understand the syntax of the MT script.
Thanks again for your welcome as well.