Medjutim ono sto je problem jeste da Sedekija NIJE zarobljen 607.kao sto uci Kula strazara vec 586.civaih 20 godina kasnije!To rusi celo prorocanstvo Kule strazara oko prorocanstva o 2520godina.
To moze da se potvrdi istorijski a i arheoloski,jer podaci na otkrivenoj plocici poznatoj kao V.A.T.4956 koja se cuva u Berlinskom muzeju,a koja bez sumnje dokazuje da je 586.god ispravan datum a ne 607.kao sto misli Kula strazara..
Professor E. R. Thiele writes:
"Ptolemy’s canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year's Day were not mentioned."
.......
Nevertheless, someone may ask, Is there not an ancient astronomical tablet, "VAT 4956," that places the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign exactly in the same year as does Ptolemy’s Canon?
It should not be overlooked that the source of corroborative evidence should bear the earmarks of dependability. Can this be said about "VAT 4956"? Not really.
The text is not an original and it contains numerous gaps. Certain terms found therein cannot even be understood now. Twice in the text the notation hi-bi (meaning "broken off, obliterated") appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that he was working from a defective copy.
Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents a true picture of the original, this would not establish the correctness of the historical data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place astronomical data, so the copyist of "VAT 4956" may, in line with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the 'thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.'
As admitted by the German scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the translators of this text), the scribe evidently changed words to conform to the abbreviated terminology common in his day. But he was both inconsistent and inaccurate. So he could just as easily have inserted other information to suit his purposes. Hence both Ptolemy’s Canon and "VAT 4956" might even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share mutual errors. Opposed to Ptolemy’s Canon and "VAT 4956" stands the unanimous testimony of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and the writer of 2 Chronicles, that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate for seventy years. Thousands of ancient manuscripts of these writings contain the identical testimony.
So, because of the problems inherent in Ptolemy’s Canon and "VAT 4956," it takes more faith to accept them than it does to accept the Bible’s testimony, which would place the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 BCE.
takođe:
Perhaps Vat 4956 was written for one of the following reasons. It could have been written to support those beliefs popular during the time. Or perhaps it was written to show that the sacred Jewish writings at the time concerning the 70 years of desolation and restoration were inaccurate. Or even consider that perhaps it was an attempt by Satan the Devil to obscure the date of Jerusalem's destruction in order to make Jehovah's prophets appear to be wrong about the 70 years of desolation and it has worked for the most part. Or even looking at the bigger picture, to confuse the starting and ending point of the seven Gentile times, to put forth the lie that 1914 is not the date of Christ's presence at all, in order to bring forth the notion: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'
You might be very surprised to learn that the tablet known as Vat 4956 is admittedly a copy dated during the Seleucid period and the time of Berosus some 300 years after the supposed events that it records.
The fact is we do not know how many times it was copied and handed down. We do not know if there really was an original tablet. We do not even know if 'in the 37th year of Neb' was originally in it or if the copyist added those words perhaps to reflect what they thought or what Beorosis thought at the time because amazingly it does reflect the beliefs of Berosus whose beliefs may have well been popular at the time. Who can really say? And remember this, it is not an inspired record from God.
It is much like this conclusion reached by one who thoroughly studied Vat 4956:
"VAT 4956 is one more document often cited to support the popular chronology.
It is alleged to be a copy made during the Seleucid period, which lists many astronomical events from 568 BCE that are assigned to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer.
There is, however, no evidence to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's 37th year occurred in 568 BCE from any contemporaneous documents. Thus, no one can exclude the possibility that this document was nothing more than a fabrication, compiled during the Seleucid period, p
ossibly from a badly damaged tablet that lacked the name and the year of the king."
toliko o verodostojnosti i laži.
ostale nebuloze nemam želudac da čitam niti da komentarišem.
,ili ce svi da ti veruju na rec,posto ti ne lazes
