A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC (page 21)

Jeffro

scholiar:

Those who share Jeffro's opinion are called Higher critics and the consequence of their thinking is confusion and muddled thinking so it is better to seek the views of scholars who have a different philosophy.

Idiot.

Jeffro

scholiar:

What non-existent king are you talking about?

LOL. Isn't that what you're supposed to answer? Just who was ruling Babylon during that 'mysetrious' '20-year gap'?

scholar

MrFreeze
I'll have to look up my research... don't have time right now as I am off to work. Will check back and post later unless someone else has the WT timeline of Babylonian kings handy.

Thats Ok.

scholar JW

Phizzy

Blimey Scholiar (I approve his new name Jeffro), is a glutton for punishment !

I just laugh as he trots out all the old stuff that has been disposed of years ago on here, and shows his lack of knowledge. Scholiar, look up "Higher Criticism" on WIKI, for example).

The other thing is all the old JW phrases that just really "don't cut the mustard", such as "Bible Chronology" , there ain't no such animal.

To take the view, based on no evidence whatsoever, that the Bible is always right, especially on matters of History, and then to try to align this view with the evidence is to put the Cart before the Horse, and is silly in the extreme.

Thank you Jeffro, and Ann, for your efforts in showing that the WT "chronology" is simply nonsense where it is at varience with the evidence.

2+2=5

Scholar:

They are celebrated by means of reputation and doing a good job. It is similar to the fact that the NWT is the most brilliant Bible the world has ever seen.

Says the delusional liar who's contradictory ramblings have taken up 5+ pages of this thread.

Scholar:

How is that for praise and celebratory speech?

Pathetic. But consistent with the usual crap that you come out with.

Scholar:

Well you can forget science and historians but you will remain in ignorance.

it is better to seek the views of scholars who have a different philosophy.

Thanks, but I will stick with reality. You can have your philosophy, and that of the 'mysterious celebrated WT scholars'.

Jeffro

scholiar:

Your attitude to the Bible and Jesus Christ is deplorable and undermines anything you say.

Notice how scholiar uses a trite ad hominem attack to conveniently sidestep the fact that the scriptures he claims to accept as true (except where they contradict JW dogma) were selected in the fourth century by 'apostate Christendom'.

But because I consider the biblical texts about the Divided Monarchy and Babylon's 70 years to be historical records written by people rather than a magical book from space, my 'attitude' is apparently "deplorable".

AnnOMaly

You're a baffoon, Neil!

Let's summarize.

- you do not know who the 'celebrated WT scholars' in order to determine, by your own nonsense criterion that a scholar can only be termed such if s/he has a degree, whether any of them are indeed scholars;

- you do not know who the WT researchers are who looked at VAT 4956, so you have no idea of their scholarly credentials either;

- you refuse to do any research yourself in order to investigate the validity of the WT's and Furuli's claims, citing pathetic excuses;

- and then you have the bare-faced chutzpah, without any knowledge of what I have or have not studied, to dismiss my scholarly examinations! My work stands on its own merits. At least I have done the research, which is worlds away from what you have done. Moreover, Furuli is no expert in astronomy or history - he says so himself. His rudimentary knowledge on astronomical matters has been, at times, embarrassingly inadequate.

you have not corresponded with Furuli directly but you had some communication with him on a website but it all seemed to evaporate into nothing. It is some time since i lloked at the website so perhaps yopu can refresh me so I can have a peep.

I did address Furuli directly, you klutz. The discussion evaporated into nothing because he reneged on his agreement to continue it.

You can pull out your clicking finger and find the exchange yourself. I'm not helping you in your present obnoxious state of mind.

AnnOMaly

The missing WT king?

It was King Nevvawaza, of course!

MrFreeze

Unfortunately, the research I had done which was neatly laid out was on a HDD that died on me last year. From what I can remember the historical list of kings are:

Nebuchadnezzar (ruled 43 years)

Evil-merodach (ruled 2 years)

Neriglissar (ruled 4 years)

Labashi-Marduk (ruled 9 months)

Nabonidus (ruled 17 years)

Counting back from 539 this leads us to Nebuchadnezzar starting his rule in 606.

The following quotes have the WT admitting that Nabonidus ruled 17 years(the ruler they put into question as there being two Nabonidus'):

"Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 [Footnotes]"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus' reign . (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus." Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 491

"Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion. Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.457 Nabonidus

The WT has to follow up with their faulty timeline by saying there were actually two Nabonidus'. There was one that ruled over a city 8 years into Nebuchadnezzars reign (and eventually was ruler of Babylon). WT timeline puts it at 616 to fit their timeline meaning he would have been way too old to rule a city back in 616 and still be ruling at 539 so they had to invent another Nabonidus for which there is no historical record whatsoever. They know that Nabonidus ruled directly after Labashi-Marduk and that there was a Nabonidus ruling when Babylon fell. So that must mean there are TWO of them since he would have been too old to have been ruling Babylon when it fell. To quote them:

"Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-na´id as the one "who is over the city," and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.)." Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.457 Nabonidus"

Of course there is no need for a second Nabonidus if you go by ACTUAL history. They attribute 36 years to the two kings... without any shred of historical evidence to back it up except that it is the only way their absurd timeline fits.

scholar

AnnOMaly

The first rule of posting on this forum is not to use insulting and provoking language and I find your tone and direct remarks insulting and unbecoming to someone who has been referred to as a scholar. If you are in fact a true scholar then mind your language, Please!

1. I am aware of the identity of the celebrated WT scholars as a group. They are publicly recognized. Information as to their identity has been discussed in two part scholarly article published in a Leading academic journal some decades ago. I was priviliged to be present when the author of the foresaid article was awarded the title Professor Emeritus. These are the only clues I will give . Somepne wrote to the Society about this matter and they received a reply indicating a lack of knowledge about such a group. This is a waste of time because the mail clerk who reads such a letter would not know anything about the matter. Let us be content with mystery for it is somewhat like the group of researchers who checked the asto-programs and the NWT Committee. We all have our secrets.

2. I do not know the identity of those researchers but what I do know is that they were a group independent of Furuli who by the way could be classified as celebrated WT scholar so there is one name for you. Don't you think he would qualify for such an elite group?

3.iI have spent decades researching chronology at least from the early seventies so don't tell me that I do not do research. But I cannot research everything for example I am no expert in ancient calendation,ancient astronomy nor in the ancient languages. Anyone of these subjects would be useful to a chronologist but one needs to draw the limit. I am happy to defer to those who have expertise such as Furuli, Hunger and others. Your motive in bullying me to pursue a study of astroprograms is simply a bait so that you can beat your own drum. Scholar will choose his own agenda at his good time. Thankyou!

4. Again you praise your own scholarly examinations. Bully for you! Yet when asked you do not state your academic qualifications so why should I take any notice of your so-called research. There is a credibility gap just akin to the Babylonian gap of twenty years.Yes your work does stand on its own merits along with the work of Jonsson and others but your statue was toppled by the two articles on Chronology published in the Watchtower. Further, the two part critique by Jonsson cannot be trusted. My experience with Jonsson is that he is incompetent in using scholarly sources. I have caught him out before and in his opening comments on the very quote on the historical source referred in the frist paragraph of the first WT article did it for me. When a person becomes so churlish about a significant piece of history then that shows that his motives are not fair and scholarly.

5. You have not dealt with Furuli by mail or email but only through the medium of a website. That may be direct to you and would qualify as a casual form of communication for nothing beats a direct letter. Besides I have asked you to do it this way because of your continuous bully tactics so that is the way it must be. If not, then move on.

scholar JW

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

Share this