Rolf Furuli's accusation about VAT 4956 being tampered with?

by possiblepineapple 93 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • possiblepineapple

    I saw thirdwitness say that the first Hillah Stele had a 6 for the year of Nab's rain in which she died rather than a 9. Is there any truth to this?

  • possiblepineapple

    Any help on this would be a great help, I do believe Ann posted a book that may or may not have contained info on this but I cannot find a free version and to buy it would be £90, which is far too much.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    My two cents,

    If anyone tampered with VAT4956 they would have had to modify almost every line of the tablet. I believe that Furuli only questioned few places of the tablet. When you test the lunar observations, the planet observations and the time intervals with a modern astronomy program, you realize that in many cases some of those observations can only happen once every several hundreds of years, especially planetary positions. If just one observation is rare, imagine almost all those observations (more than 30) matching within a very small margin of error for the same year (587/586 BCE). The chances of that tablet corresponding to any year other than 587/586 BCE are tiny at best, even if we take out the "suspicious" places pointed by Furuli. He is as dishonest as the Goberning Body. They know they are wrong, but their continuos lying is easier than admitting they are wrong.

  • AnnOMaly

    possiblepineapple, I responded in your other thread.

    Which book are you referring to?

    Also did the WT count back 70 jewish years to get back to 607? Surely the difference between jewish and modern years would make a difference?

    'Jewish years' were luni-solar years - the years were lunar-based but had to be 'corrected' every 3 years or so to stay in sync with the solar year (upon which our modern calendars are based). A normal year would be 354 days long, whereas a leap year would be 384 days long. It balances out - 70 years are 70 years.

  • possiblepineapple

    the book I was referring to was the ANET one, but you've cleared that one up. Sorry for the two threads I just assumed this one was pretty much dead so I tried another.

  • AnnOMaly

    PP, I've sent you a PM. Click on the little envelope next to your name at the top of the page.

  • Phizzy

    Dear AnnOmaly, I would like to thank you for your contributions in the form of erudite posts on this matter. Without your knowledgeable, and clear and understandable, input here we would all be in danger of being bamboozled by people like Furuli.

    As it is we can see the plain evidence of History.

    Thank you.

  • possiblepineapple

    Aah thanks for that. So I read it and it does say the 6th year of Nab, however I'm guessing this was a writing error in the book itself rather than what the tablet actually said

  • Londo111
  • hamsterbait

    The Insight books easily prove the date of jerusalems fall, simply by referencing the Kings going back from Belshazzar.

    They cannot provide the names of even one missing king.

    There is a lot of obfuscation around the reign of nebuchadnezzar, regnal v accession years, but they know they have successfully inculcated inability to think, ignorance and gullibility in the sheeples, so they can never crawl through the tangled web they put in those volumes. They cleverly removed passages in the Aid book that could give clues to their deception, with regard to Nineveh and the fall of Tyre.

    I just got sick of their increasingly strident screaming "Listen obey or die"


Share this