Posts by AnnOMaly

93

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

by possiblepineapple in

i'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.

i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?

how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?

AnnOMaly

So even I am having trouble with RF's actual posotion regarding the tablet as he appears to argue three seperate cases

Bart, I think Furuli would say he is presenting different hypotheses about what may have happened to account for the problems he perceives with the tablet. He leaves the reader to make up his/her own mind. However, his own conclusions in his 3rd revised version are as follows:

"The following principle conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times; or it may have been made in modern times [in previous edition: 'but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern times;'], the obverse side by help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side being written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of 13, or most likely all 14 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because three planetary positions are wrong, but not far from being correct, they may represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and the planetary positions, or some of them, seem to be backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67." - p. 416

So untangle that.

Does he believe every astronomical tablet has been tampered with? I'm not sure how he thinks he can prove all of this when it corroborates with the rest of the evdience

Tampering? No, PP. He either tries to undermine the chronological usefulness of other astronomical tablets by quibbling over the interpretation of the signs for e.g. kings' names or the astronomical data, or he tries to redate them to fit with his preferred years.

93

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

by possiblepineapple in

i'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.

i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?

how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?

AnnOMaly

This is the latest we've been given by Furuli - the full paragraph on p. 293:

David Hauer has a MA in technical conservation, and he is working for the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage. He has also studied how forgers work and how one can identify a forgery. I posed the question to him of whether it is possible to add signs to a dried or burned clay tablet, and in his written answer he said that this is possible. He wrote: "One method would be to reactivte the workability of the dried clay by adding moisture to the area where signs were to be incised, and to work in accordance not to alter the reinforcement fibers. To optimize a homogenous concentration of salts at surface level of the tablet, that is to make the alteration more difficult to trace, one may bring the whole object to exceed the moisture level of saturation for the salts present." Thus, according to this expert, it is possible to add signs to an old clay tablet.

That's all we got.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

AnnOMaly

Just added a bit to my previous post.

It is therefore evident that other factors were considered for dating their findings.

That is what I'm curious about. Radiometric, for example?

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

AnnOMaly

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

As I see the situation at the moment, all the earthquake (if it is an earthquake) corroborates is Amos' testimony that one occurred in Jeroboam II's and Uzziah's time. To find out when they reigned, one needs to access other means to establish that.

I don't know the specific methods of chronostratigraphy involved.

Then we are both in the dark here :-)

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

AnnOMaly

I know what your saying about the luni-solar years AnnOMaly but why didn't the WTS. include those extra days in their

final calculation of 70 x 360 to reach to 1914 ?

Where are those extra days/months to equalize to the Gregorian calendar years of 365 1/4 days ?

The formula in Rev 12:6, 14 is simply 1260 days = 3½ 'times,' so 2520 days = 7 'times.' The 'day for a year rule' converts those days into years. The Israelites wandered the desert for 40 normal years. Judah's error spanned 40 normal years (as Ezekiel symbolized by lying on his side).

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

AnnOMaly

No, you misunderstand, I'm not saying they're 'trying' to make it fit. I'm saying 'Junk from such-a-stratum belongs to such-a-king's era. We know the dates when that king was around so the junk must also be such-a-date.'

Now, you talk about 'geological methods' in pinpointing the date. I'm ignorant of the methods geologists use when dating layers of dirt, so how do they date strata independently, scientifically, without being influenced by historical chronologies?

93

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

by possiblepineapple in

i'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.

i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?

how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?

AnnOMaly

Well, on the one hand, F's conjectures that a drill or grinding machine altered the signs ... in which case there would be tell-tale evidence because, as Hunger points out* (as well as common sense telling us), a drill or grinding machine cannot make the same marks on dried clay that a stylus does on wet clay ...

... but on the other hand, in response to another of Hunger's rebuttals about adding signs to a dried tablet† F's brings forward an expert who says it is possible for a forger to "reactivate the workability of the dried clay by adding moisture to the area where signs were to be incised" ...

... so we're left wondering which hypothesis F. is going with: wet clay tampering or dried clay tampering?

*F. makes much of the different appearance of the number 38 on the edge of the tablet when compared to other numbers “8”. However, this difference can be explained by the fact that this line is written on the edge. In order to write on the edge, the tablet must be held with the edge up, and the hand cannot be put on the tablet to find support in writing. But whether this explanation is true or not, the number is clearly 38. To assume a different tool is not necessary, but if so the tool can only have been a reed stylus. A drill or grinding machine would never have produced marks like those of a stylus. Since the 37 on the edge is quite normal, F. admits that it may be original, but still supposes that someone may have tampered with the tablet and in this case may have had “a better result than in the case with the number 38” (p. 299).

On p. 300, F. says, “The conclusion is that there are several clues that the dates were incised into the tablet in modern times, but the evidence is not conclusive either way.” Rather, the conclusion must be that incisions made in modern times are not proven. There exist experts in such matters who could have determined with certainty by which tool the impressions were made. No such experts were consulted by F.

------

†As for someone adding the numbers 37 and 38, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. The tablet would be too hard to produce a neat writing as is preserved on VAT 4956. There are examples of tablets which were inscribed after they had started to dry; this can be recognized easily (see e.g. Diaries III pl. 209 No. -104 Rev.).

Also, only trained scribes can produce writing that looks like the ancient one. The modern fakes which F. discusses on p. 96f. are produced from molds, so they are not pertinent. - SOURCE

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

AnnOMaly

The difficulty is going to be, though, that the archaeologists say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II reigned, of course, in the mid-8th century BCE as has been established. Ergo, the debris dates to the mid-8th century BCE."

All the WTS does is say, "Yes, the debris appears in this stratum which is c. Jeroboam II level. Jeroboam II, of course, reigned during the 9th century BCE according to 'true Bible chronology.' Ergo, the debris dates to the 9th century BCE."

In other words, and in line with Bart's earlier question, can the debris be dated apart from just lining it up with the known chronology? If not, then the timing of the earthquake may not prove anything either way regarding WTS chronology here.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

AnnOMaly

[Re: the post-but-one] The contention seems to be, though, whether the debris is a result of a quake in the first place. That is what Danzig wonders considering how the digs were interpreted. More modern archaeoseismological methods may resolve this. I wonder if anyone has published a review or replied to Danzig's article yet.

93

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

by possiblepineapple in

i'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.

i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?

how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?

AnnOMaly

But does Furuli explicitly state the reason for this alleged conspiracy ?

As I said a few posts above:

Furuli doesn't give any plausible motivations for the modern day tampering of this tablet other than either just to create a forgery and mislead people, or to correct the year figures to agree with the 'accepted chronology' (p. 108, 113-115, 137 [3rd revision]).

There seems no good motive for what is claimed by Furuli.

He presents nothing convincing as to motive. Speculation. Muddying the waters. All designed to further undermine the trustworthiness of 'worldly' sources (that disagree with WTS dogma) in an already suspicious JW mind, AND as you said before, he can do so without legal backlash because those he implicates in the (hypothetical) forgery are dead.