Posts by Jeffro

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

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 He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).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

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.

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

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.

Jeffro

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

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Your Blog has as its title '586 or 587?' Thus a reader would expect a discussion of both sides of the debate. This you have not done.

Indeed, rather than tedious debate based on conjecture, I provide logical premises based on data in the source material to reach logical conclusions. Complain all you like, but if you want to say the conclusions are incorrect, you need to identify errors in the logic.

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

3rd year of Jehoiakim was in 607/605. That started the clock counting 2520 years. ending in 1914/1916 with Jesus enthroned as king.

Your assessment of Jehoiakim’s 3rd year is quite wrong. And your superstitions about 1914 (and 1916) are entirely baseless.

See here for more information.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

Bleat all you like ‘scholar’, but you can’t actually demonstrate any errors in my analysis that shows 587 BCE to be the correct year. Instead you defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s that has since been supplanted by comparison with Babylonian records. You do this not to try to confirm the correct dating but to imply doubt about the correct chronology, because you imagine that gives support to the nutty JW chronology. You are entirely dishonest.

Poor Jeffro cannot resolve his .
internal contradiction regarding the date for the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem

‘scholar’ claims I have an “internal contradiction” regarding the start of the siege but is unable to specify the supposed contradiction because it does not exist. He earlier quoted a statement from the analysis about 588 BCE or 589 BCE, demonstrating that ‘scholar’ misunderstands that the analysis necessarily does not assume later premises and therefore doesn’t explicitly exclude potential candidates until there is reason to do so. The analysis goes on to demonstrate the specific correct year. ‘scholar’ is a liar, inept, or both.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

'scholar':

Your Blog of pages has little mention of 586 BCE all that you have done is pushed your agenda on 587 without giving any serious consideration to the alternative - 586 BCE.

Poor 'scholar' imagines that I have some 'agenda' for 'preferring' 587 BCE over 586 BCE. My only 'agenda' in the matter is that the evidence indicates that 587 BCE is the correct year. Unlike 'scholar', with his pitiful attempt at projecting his own distorted motivations on to me, I have no superstitious 'requirements' for any specific year to be the 'right' one.

But let's see 'scholar's' case for 586 BCE... I suppose he needs the practice for if his Watch Tower Society overlords give up on 607 BCE. 🤣

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

I have demonstrated that 587 BCE is the correct year, and I have shown why 586 BCE is not the correct year. Why would I continue to pose it as a valid alternative after I have already established that it is not? But I have provided logical premises that show why 587 BCE is the correct year, without earlier premises relying on subsequent premises or the conclusion (which would be circular reasoning). But the entire concept of valid logical premises seems to beyond your capacity.

If you want to build a case for 586 BCE go ahead, and then I'll show you why and where you're wrong. But I expect analysis, not just parroting. Get busy.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

The page demonstrates that 586 BCE is not a valid alternative. That fact that you can’t parse clearly presented information isn’t my concern.

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

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.

Jeffro

586 or 587?

No obfuscation. Straightforward sequence of logical conclusions. But poor ‘scholar’ has to resort to quoting or of context and trite nonsense. Yet to see him provide any valid analysis supporting his (borrowed) position.