Why JWs suddenly like the VAT4956? This is beyond belief. It's a FLUKE! What happened was that in Line 3, there is a reference to the "Moon being 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa UR-A)" That was falsely translated by Hunger as "1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis." This reference does is not a match for 568 BC and is so noted by the translators. But by strange and unfortunate coincidence, the moon is in that position in 588 BC! So now, all of a sudden, the WTS likes the VAT4956 since they can claim that there is a lunar match for Line 3 for 588 BC. And it is, but only coincidentally so. Why?
Because hermann Hunger lies about the star assignment in Line 3. Line 3 is a reference to the "Rear Foot of the Lion" meaning the rear foot of Leo, which is SIGMA-LEONIS, not beta-Virginis. Lines 14 and 18 prove that beta-Virginis in this text is called the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TiL GIR UR-A). Thus line 3 and lines 14 and 18 refer to two different stars. The Bright Star Behind the Lions Foot is beta-Virginis. But the Rear Foot of the Lion is sigma-Leonis, the natural rear foot of Leo. So when this was pointed out to Herman Hunger who translated this text, he had to admit he was wrong and he had to correct this.
The CORRECTION for Line 3 is to assign the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) to the proper rear foot of Leo, which is sigma-Leonis. So actually, the text match for Line 3 would be the moon 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis and not "beta-Virginis" as Hunger incorrectly states. Thus the WTS who jumped onto claiming there was a match for Line 3 in 588 BCE, have matched the wrong star based on Hunger's error. They found a coincidental match for the moon 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis in a text that actually requires a match to 1 cubit in front of sigma-Leonis. So the WTS only found a coincidental match based on Hunger's lies and deceptions in the translation and star assignments. But when this is corrected, of course, the match evaporates.
But what does that matter when the 70 years begin in year 23 rather than year 18? 607 BCE is wrong and 588 BC is wrong academically and fundamentally, long before the errors and misrepresentations in the VAT4956 by Hunger come into play.
Bottom line, dealing with the VAT4956 is very complex and ends up being a very big joke if you don't correct the transliteration, which most are clueless to do.
The VAT4956 doesn't happen to work for 607 BCE, but you can dismiss that date as a total false date using the Bible, which begins the 70 years in year 23, or using Josephus who also begins the 70 years in year 23, not year 18.
