Posted by Sachs might be lying [GLamotta] on April 03, 1999 at 18:48:44 {Ed9c7782HMbfhNhPm81IboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: *IS WTS LYING ABOUT VAT4956? posted by Satire warning! on April 03, 1999 at 18:12:46:
Oh, one more thing.
Carl shouldn't be blamed for quoting
A.J. Sachs.
But who knows if A.J. Sachs can be
trusted? We have to wonder if A.J.
Sachs and Hunger are purposely lying
about things when we look at the
VAT4956.
That's because of two issues:
1) The Watchtower, as noted above, clearly shows why the VAT4956 is not to be trusted, because it is not a contemporary document but a "copy" from the Seleucid Period and thus could obviously be a revised fraudulent document. This is what the Society has taught us and would not lie about this. But Sachs is trying to say it is older than it is, as quoted by Carl Jonsson. But Carl may not have known that Sachs was lying about this.
2) A.J. Sachs is suspected of lying about other things, such as Line 3 of the VAT4956 which he clearly describes the "rear foot of the Lion" as "Beta-Virginis" when in fact it is not, it is Sigma-Leonis. The problem is, that Line 18 clearly describes a planet beneath what is called the "bright star beneath the Lion's foot" and Venus was in that position on the 15th, proving that the "Lion's foot" of Line 3 is actually "Sigma-Leonis".
What is suspicious is that there was a blank in the text as to exactly which planet was beneath the "bright star at the end of the Lion's foot" but in SACHS/HUNGER's translation, it was not left blank nor was Venus filled in but the "MOON" was placed into that blank space. Of course, the Moon had long ago left this vicinity around the 5th. So how is it that an expert in ancient astronomy would make a mistake like this?
It is easily explained if you want to distract from the obvious "choice" made
to covert the "rear foot of the Lion" to Beta-Virginis. And that is because there is so much of the text remaining that it is quite easy to see it would be just a matter of identifying the planet beneath the "bright star" in order to
identify which star was being referred to. But Sachs had manipulated the document so that it made it look like the bright star was behind Beta-Virginis in order to make it fit 568BCE instead of being a miss-match.
Placing the "moon" in
that blank space would prevent idle curiosity from looking closer at this misrepresentation.
So was Sachs deliberately lying?
We can't say that since elsewhere it appears true that the "rear foot of the Lion" is a reference to Beta-Virginis. Thus Sachs could have been in his academic right to "choose" in this case to define Line 3 as "Beta-Virginis." However, he must have been aware that Line 18's reference to a planet directly below the "bright star at the end of the Lion's foot" would clearly show that star to be Beta-Virginis and thus the "rear foot" in Line 3 to be, PER THIS TEXT, actually Sigma-Leonis. In which case, Sachs would have two miss-matched texts in the VAT4956, a text which is very important to the dating of the fall of Jerusalem in 568BCE.
When you combine that with his lying claim that this is an old document, it makes you very aware of how manipulative some of these so-called experts can be.
But we mustn't be so quick to judge. The astro programs were not available then as they are now and Sachs may have been doing the best that he could. It is just good that we can clear these things up.
The important thing, though, is to focus on what the Watchtower has to say about this document. It is a copy from the Seleucid Period and that means that even though the astronomical information could be accurate, the reference to "year 37 Nebuchadnezzar" could have been placed there on purpose to try to confuse the chronology of this period to agree with the revised chronology that would reduce the Neo-Babylonian period by at least 20 years, in direct contradiction with scripture.
We should also pay close attention to the scriptures! They clearly show that the 70 years was a 70-year period of land desolation to pay back the sabbaths. And Josephus in "Antiquities" confirms that this 70-year period began in the 23rd year.
So somebody is LYING!
Either the Bible is lying that this was 70 years or the VAT4956 is lying.
Obviously, the VAT496 is lying and thus must be a fake document. But also that means the entire chronology the VAT4956 is part of, all that revised chronology must be wrong as well.
So just remember, when thinking about conspiracies, that the Watchtower Society must claim there was a conspiracy to redate the VAT4956 text. So the idea of massive revision of dating during the Seleucid Period is directly supported by the organization and their dating of the 70-year desert period or sabbath-payback period is definitely consistent with the scriptures.
So weigh the scriptures versus fake documents and perhaps lying translators who have their own motives, or perhaps just incompetent translators...
The choice is yours.
Okay, you can all go back to sleep now...
Cheers,
Nobody