Posts by Jeffro

Your charts are problematic because it shows a one year difference beteen the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim synchronized with the 0yr and first year of Nebuchadnezzer.

Go learn about accession and non-accession dating systems. Sheesh... not much of a 'scholar'.

(Apparently you didn't notice the errors in the reign of Nabopolassar on the chart. Those were typos while recently in the process of correcting that chart for the month Nabopolassar's reign started (probably too complex for you), but have no bearing on the import of the information about Nebuchadnezzar or Jehoiakim.)

you do not know what calendation Jeremiah used

He used Tishri-based years for kings of Judah (this can be proven mathematically). He most likely used Nisan-based year for Babylonian kings. However, as shown in the chart, the result is the same whether he used Nisan- or Tishri-based years for Babylonian kings, as Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in Elul (August/September) of 605.

I do not know the names of those researchers so I cannot help you.

It was hardly a scholarly article then was it? Not citing their source for their main claim! Shameful!!

I do not consider you to be an authority

I don't care what you think. I show readers the flaws in your arguments. That is all.

I correct dilemma to dilemna

Why would you change a correct spelling to an incorrect one?? And it doesn't change the fact that you weren't actually describing a dilemma.

77

An official Jw.org YouTube channel.

by His Excellency in

jw
friends

an official jw.org youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jehovahswitnessesen/videos,

Jeffro

Yay. Sparlock is back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObQSmG9gtV8

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Jeffro

scholiar:

If you wish to discuss BM21946 then please provide a specific link for all of my documents and papers are in storage.

I already linked the page previously. But OK, I'll spoon-feed you this one...

The date 537 BCE is provable and the proof is outlined in our publications- Refer to Insight volumes under Chronology and Cyrus.

No. It's not. You've already admitted several times on this thread that it's not proven. Insight just claims it's "very probable" and "likely", with no evidence at all.

Because according to Steinmann is the usual date for those who accept Ezra's chronology as accurate.

I've already shown that many sources give 538. Additionally, I've already demonstrated that 538 is the only year compatible with a comparison of Ezra and Josephus.

Yes 539 BCE is provable and is necessary for Bible chronology and well demonstrated according to methodology.

You're still misusing the word methodology.

Daniel 1:1 refers to the vassalage of Jehoiakim' reign as the third year of his kingship. You left a big empty space in your last post or does this illustrate the state of your mind?

There is a diagram in one of my earlier posts. Perhaps you use a primitive browser. No gaps in any of my recent posts on 2 different browsers tested. You'll have to be more specific. Or maybe you're just lying again.

73

DID YOU KNOW the latest Brooklyn sell-offs will take total Watchtower earnings to $804 MILLION since 2004?

by cedars in

jw
friends

hi folks.

i apologize if this is old news to some, but it's news to me.. i stumbled on a comprehensive list of all the sold properties on wikipedia on this link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/watch_tower_bible_and_tract_society_of_pennsylvania#brooklyn_property_sales.

it's just a mind-boggling amount of money, and useful information to have handy when talking to witness relatives.

Jeffro

factfinder:

The factories must print thousands of different print orders and they are on a tight deadline schedule to complete them and get them shipped out on time, just as a commercial printery would be.

Yes, it is a lot like a commercial printery, isn't it... Except they don't pay their staff.

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Jeffro

scholiar:

Jeffr for in any event o

Hmmm...

I can't put Furuli's name to those researchers because he was not one of them.

So who were they? Surely a "scholarly" article would provide a source for the most significant part of its claims.

It is not a matter of being thick it is simply a matter of examining your claims with other authorities for in any event your claim that these dates can be more wrong when in fact you already have a much larger problem with the twenty year gap!

Um... nice run-on sentence. The "other authorities" are consistent with what I've said. The "twenty year gap" is not consistent with the "other authorities". Take your own advice. Idiot.

The twenty year gap does not exist between any particular reign but is present when you compare the overall NB period with that of the Judean period thus yielding a difference of twenty years for

Seriously?! Do you ever read back what you've written? I provided all the possible combinations for where the Watch Tower Society might place its hypothetical 20 years ("between the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Nabonidus, in some unstated hypothetical combination of before, after, between or extensions of the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk"). Are you claiming there was no Babylonian king during the magical 20 years?

Continuity of reigns does not solve the dilemna nor does minor technical differences which are open to interpretation such as the reign of Jehoiakim.

Wrong. I've already shown that the period is entirely resolved, and records of the continuous reigns completely disprove the supposed 'twenty year gap'. And you may need to learn the definition (and spelling) of the word dilemma.

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Jeffro

scholiar:

The only fixed end point that is provable is that for Judah alone in 537 BCE.

No, it's already been established that you can't prove 537. However, the fall of Babylon in 539 is not only provable, but also required for your chronology. Idiot.

If you saw it happen then they must have been naughty.

Idiot.

Regarding the reign of Jehoiakim and the details of when he paid tribute and when he became a vassal king ot Nenuchadnezzer is problematic for Dan.1;1 states that it was in his last three years of his reign that he was a vassal king, this means that his vassalage coomence in his eight year which is confirmed by Josephus and many Jewish commentators.

Liar. Daniel 1:1 says nothing at all about vassalage or the "last three years" of anything:

In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi′a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.

If you want to debate the historical details of BM 21946 then why don't you provide a transcription of what the document contains then I can compare your comments with Jonsson and Furuli. I am confident that such documents can be harmonized with Bible chronology for if you can do it then so can we.

Already linked in previous post.

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Jeffro

scholiar:

All of dates listed above including those from 624 -609 BCE need to adjusted by twenty years

Are you thick? The dates I've indicated in JW chronology are even more wrong independently of the '20-year gap'.

because new research has revised the dating for Nebuchadnezzer's 37 th year by some twenty years

You mean the anonymous uncited 'researchers' mentioned in the November 2011 Watchtower? Or are you willing to put Furuli's name to it? LOL

adjusted by twenty years as has been done by Bible chronology right up to the end of NB period

Um... no... the 20-year gap is ambiguously inserted somewhere between the reigns of Evil-Merodach and Nabonidus, in some unstated hypothetical combination of before, after, between or extensions of the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk, not "up to the end of NB period".

Contemporary Babylonian records prove continuity of the reigns without the 20-year gap.

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Jeffro

Prove at what time that each of the nation's servitude began and ended in respect to Babylon.

Red herring. You know the period of 70 years has a fixed end-point and is of a fixed length. Should I quote the Society's Isaiah publication again for you that says the 70 years represents Babylon's period of domination?

Naming a date just cut the mustard.

Did it? Um... ok...

Yes such scholars make such a claim for the simple reason that they resent the fact that our writers source their material and use it in a fair and scholarly manner.

What possible motivation would someone have for objecting to their work being used in the manner it was intended? Idiot.

If readers write to the Society they will not be hounded by elders

Wrong again. I've seen it happen.

Such a period parallels the biblical period up to and beyond the Fall with the exception that NB history and chronology omits any reference to the seventy years. A gap of twenty years is noted when you compare both together

Idiot.

I've just indicated explicitly where the JW chronology is not consistent with BM 21946 apart from the JW's '20-year gap'.