Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  On the other hand for a beginning date for the siege against Jerusalem we see this:
  Jeffro -27 January 589 BCE
  Thiele- 15 January 588 BCE
  Lipschits - early January 587 BCE
  Finegan - 15 Jan 588 BCE
  Steinmann - 27 January 589 BCE - Tuesday
  Jones - 588 BCE 3416 AM

  Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.

  (Great citations by the way. 😒)
  
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  nicolaou:

  I don't think anyone is denying that it istaught (like a hoop to jump through or a box to tick) but I think the consensus is that no-one cares about it.

  In principle that is shifting the goal posts (and many JWs being apathetic about it isn’t new either). In practice, I don’t think ‘scholar’ got the memo. 🤣

  They are producing less printed content overall, so all of their doctrines are mentioned less than they used to be. Most of their video content is appeal to emotion.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  scholar’:

  You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.

  Lamest excuse ever. Seriously… ‘can’t refer to a specific paragraph because ads’. 🙄🤣 I’m not going to change the format just to pander to your special needs, nor do I see the need to pay more for hosting just so you don’t have some minor inconvenience.

  Back on topic, poor ‘scholar’ seems to imagine I haven’t considered Thiele’s view. In the 1940s, Thiele’s chronology placed the Battle of Carchemish in the summer of 604 BCE. However, in 1956 after publication of the Babylonian chronicles, Thiele was forced to acknowledge that the battle was actually in 605 BCE. But he was desperate to retain his claims about the fall of Jerusalem occurring in 586 BCE. Thiele correctly deduced that the books of Kings and Jeremiah use Tishri dating for kings of Judah, but incorrectly concluded it was Tishri/accession dating so that Zedekiah’s 11th year would align with 586 BCE. However, to apply consistent reckoning for Jehoiakim’s reign would require either that Jehoiakim had a 12th regnal year (13 including accession year) or that the battle of Carchemish was in the summer of Jehoiakim‘s 3rd year (depending on Thiele’s deliberations about whether Jehoiakim began to reign before or after the start of Tishri 609 BCE, though it is now known it could not have been before anyway). Neither conclusion is consistent with the Bible.

  On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Gorb:

  This goes about nothing. 607 is a meaningless issue for current jw's.
  It's rearly mentioned and an absolute non issue.

  Except for the fact that it is specifically covered in a chapter of the ‘study’ publication that all new JWs go through. 🤷‍♂️

  Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  It is impossible to refute your 'proof' of 587 as it is your contrivance based on your assumptions and methodology.

  You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism. 🤣
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Nathan Natas:

  And IN FACT, the early WT used Napoleon as the "pivot man" for their "Bible Based Chronology."

  Shh… ‘scholar’ would prefer that everyone forget that ‘God’s chosen people’ were saying the ‘time of the end’ began in 1799, up until they changed it in 1929. And Russell also didn’t believe that Jesus’ presence began in 1914, or that Jesus became king in 1914, or that Satan was thrown out of heaven in (or after) 1914.
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  But all that you have posted on your blog concerning 587 is simply conjecture and assumptions no matter how logical it may appear to you, do not make it so. A contrivance composed pf pretty coloured charts unlike the stark black and white of Thiele is what it is.

  See how ‘scholar’ continues to bleat with empty words but fails to demonstrate either an understanding of the material or any refutation of any premises (fallacy: poisoning the well). He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  To refute your methodology which is the basis for your proof for 587 BCE is impossible

  See, ‘scholar’ admits that it is impossible to refute my proof of 587 BCE. Unless he supposes that a subsequent statement of his places that statement in a particular context. But that would make him a dishonest hypocrite. 🦆
• 
  153

  When JW.org drops 607BCE...

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

  in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

  " by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Thanks for once again demonstrating that you don’t understand how to either form or assess a cogent logical premise, conclusion or argument.