Rolf Furuli's accusation about VAT 4956 being tampered with? (page 2)

AnnOMaly

Not as yet, no. The 3rd edition only came out this year.

I also don't understand why Furuli believes the tablet would say "57" rather than "37" considering Neb never had a 57th year. Would people have even had the ability to change the tablet back in 1915 (which I do believe is when the first photograph of vat 4956 was taken)? Does Furuli at all intend to have someone look at the tablet and confirm whether or not it was tampered with, or is he just going to leave it as a hypothesis, because until he does this I don't know how anyone can take his "hypothesis" seriously until he does.

possiblepineapple

It also looks on the picture on lavia, that there are multiple references to 37 on the tablet rather than just the one at the start, along with the number 38, so surely this proves that it is most likely dated to the 37th year?

AnnOMaly

The reason for suggesting a year '57' is to add an extra 20 years by introducing a hypothesis that, even after Neb's death, the scribes continued to count years according to Neb's reign ... or perhaps that somebody erased part of the '50' sign to make it more like a '30.'

Whether people would have been able to change a tablet in 1915 is commented on in the post and link above.

Does Furuli at all intend to have someone look at the tablet and confirm whether or not it was tampered with, or is he just going to leave it as a hypothesis, because until he does this I don't know how anyone can take his "hypothesis" seriously until he does.

All that is necessary, from his side, is to put sufficient uncertainties in JW readers' minds about the chronological worth of those astronomical tablets contradicting the WTS's chronology. If the doubt is hovering away at the back of their minds, they'll be more open to accepting the possibility the WTS might be right.

I must clarify this:

"In his recent 3rd edition of Vol. II ... "

It's actually titled as his "second edition" even though his 1st one was published in 2007, his 2nd and 'slightly revised' one was in 2008 and his 3rd revised and expanded one is 2013. It's this latest one I was referencing.

Comatose

Londo that must have taken a long time! Fantastic job, it was very helpful.

Splash

The thing that really chills me is that if the GB suddenly revise their timetables and teachings to say that, yes, Jerusalem WAS destroyed in 587BCE and not 607BCE, there will be hardly a murmur.

Everyone will say how great it is that light has increased, and all of the old reasoning, articles, talks, and explanations will be dropped like a hot potato.

There is no thinking about teachings, only defending teachings, and it really doesn't matter what those teachings are.

Splash.

possiblepineapple

also whats this about the Addagoppe stele? I can find almost no information on it via the web but I've seen that she died at 104. If we were to push dates back 20 years would this make her 124?

AnnOMaly

Adad-guppi stele info click HERE and HERE (go to p. 113) <--- sorry, hyperlink won't stick - try http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/5%20gtr4%20rev%20kap3.pdf

There is no allowance to push the dates back. The stele counts the lady's age using kings' regnal years.

possiblepineapple

Doesn't that pretty much shove a huge hole in the extra years of Nebuchadnezzar? Considering that thing is from the time as well, wouldn't it also dispell any idea of other kings inbetween (since I think the babylonians would know their own bloody kings)

hamsterbait

Furuli is a teacher of languages in Sweden, I believe.

He is not qualified to evalute the astronomical data. (Which backs up 587)

He is not qualified to assert that tablets have been tampered with, and NOT consult an EXPERT (that means somebody with credetials to prove he can be trusted)

Furuli is a JDUB. He knows that to disagree with the eight popes will get him DF, and he will lose all his friends and family.

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

Share this