in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Jeffro
You are in big trouble with your claims about VAT 4956 which conflicts with the research by Dr. Rolf Furuli and that of the 'celebrated WT scholars who have proved that Neb's 37th year mentioned in the tablet was in 588 BCE and not 568 BCE as a far better fit using the astronomical data available.
To show the complexity of trying to interpret the lunar and planetary data into a modern calendar system perhaps you should examine the website VAT 4956.com
scholar JW
an interesting video was on youtube with a person claiming that the memorial date for 2024 was wrong.
so i consulted three different jewish calendars online and sure enough, he appears to be right.
i went back to 2014 and forward to 2027. they have the future dates listed.
Kelley959
Your belief that the Memorial date for 2024 is wrong based on some YouTube video is simply bunkum. The 'celebrated' WT scholars at least from 1907 have demonstrated competence in establishing the precise date for the Memorial since that time by means of a full disclosure of the methodology used for its determination. The simple fact is that it begins with the month of Nisan with the observation at Jerusalem of the new moon in the spring nearest the equinox either before or after with the full moon coming fourteen days later. This was the ancient method of determining the Passover. This is not the astronomical new moon listed on a calendar or astronomical table because the thin sliver of the new moon is not visible until 18 to 30 hours after the moment of the astronomical new moon.
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Jeffro
Happy to take a poll to see if anyone else thinks the whole site provides no lines of evidence against JW 607 dogma. 🤣
--
A poll won't let you off the hook because scholar is on your case!
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Jeffro
Poor ‘scholar’, still beating the same tired drum. It can only be jealousy.
--
Poor Jeffro still beating the same tired drum. It can only be fear
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Duran
He is right in it being incorrect. The WTS by their pointing to recent events and WW3, etc... shows that it is wrong and pointless to debate 607/587. They used 607 to get to 1914 because WW1 occurred then. Using 587 didn't work so they added 20 magical years. But now if peace is being taking away because of recent events and world war with nuclear weapons is on the horizon with the GT to follow then all that was said about WW1 timeframe was not the case.
---
If Jeffro is so smart and is right in that 607 BCE is incorrect then how come with all his pretty blogs he is unable to provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Duran
What is the relevance of 607 now being that the WTS are no longer pointing to WW1 as the point the horsemen started their ride?
--
Tell that to Jeffro for he has a vested interest in 607 BCE being incorrect!!!
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Jeffro
Poor ‘scholar’ keeps irrationally bleating his demands for ‘one line of evidence’, which is simply a smokescreen for the fact that his position is entirely unsupportable under the slightest scrutiny. He can’t even get past the fact that his position requires a solstice on a physically impossible date. Instead he pleads ignorance and insists no one else understands the subject because he doesn’t. Then he returns to his inane mantra about ‘one line of evidence’. Pathetic.
---
Pathetic well describes you in your inability or refusal to simply provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for this is something that neither COJ or yourself can do!!
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Phizzy
Of course we have proof, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof, that the 607-1914 Doctrine of the Org. is FALSE. Undoubtedly the most unarguable is what we get from the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets, the "Heavens"do not lie, and establish beyond argument and doubt the true dates !
"Scholar" therefore tells a blatant lie in the Post above where you provide your link. He strikes me as being of the same ilk as ultra Right Wing Republicans, and Right Wing Conservatives here in the U.K, deep down they know they are uttering untruths, but that is all they have, coupled with insults.
Truth and "Scholar" are completely estranged.
--
Now that you have been enlightened by Jeffro's website with all of its incontrovertible and irrefutable proof that 607 BCE is so wrong it should be now possible as you read the various blogs on the website to simple present at least one line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. This is my challeng for you
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Jeffro
‘scholar’ is so pitifully wrong that the best he can do to ‘refute’ the information I’ve provided is to complain that the many problems with his dogma aren’t only ‘one line of evidence’ (which is just bizarre). He can never discuss specifics because he always gets backed into a corner, so he instead makes trite remarks about ‘pretty colours’ and false claims of plagiarism. His recent desperate attempts to plead ignorance about dating systems regarding the impossible solstice is particularly amusing.
---
If what you say is true with such information showing the many problems with 607 BCE then how is it that you are unable to provide only one line of evidence that refutes 607 BCE? Surely this should be a simple task for you to do!!
scholar JW
things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
Jeffro
Your website is simply a rehash of COJ's nonsense along with the same old tired misinterpretation of the bibllical evidence for 607 BCE and 1914 CE.
Further, your blogs on the website do not contain a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. So, where is it?
scholar JW
