Jeffro
His intellectual deficiency here must be a result of that ‘college level education’ from reading Awake
--
Clearly, you have not been to University.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Poor doofus doesn’t understand that the page in question outlines a progressive series of steps that subsequently pinpoints the correct dating systems. The quoted statement in question does not assume the later steps, which would be circular reasoning.
His intellectual deficiency here must be a result of that ‘college level education’ from reading Awake!
--
The above comment is a clear example of Jeffro's obfuscation, runs away when the going gets to tough and hides behind his stupid pretty coloured contrivances.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
The Battle of Carchemish occurred in the summer of 605 BCE (confirmed by relative astronomical observations during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in LBAT 1420), which Jeremiah 46:2 says was during Jehoiakim’s 4th year. This constrains the possible dating systems in Jeremiah to Nisan/accession (starting from the year that began in Nisan of 609 BCE) or Tishri/non-accession for kings of Judah. Zedekiah's 11th year in either reckoning necessarily corresponds to 587 BCE.
--
What you post on your various blogs on your website are simply a contrivance with pretty coloured charts attempting to synchronize two different calendars with two different regnal dating methods similar or identical to the method used by Edwin Thiele in his MNHK as with other chronologists. That is fine for all schemes of chronology are a contrivance.
Your Blog on '586 or 587? does not address the difference between the two proposed dates but is simply an attempt to prove 587 as a matter of preference. The simple fact is that one cannot prove the date of the Fall by using such methodology for all that can be done is to design a table that proves or demonstrates a particular date/dates for a specific event/events. It simply amounts to nonsense. For example, you assign for the beginning of the siege the date 27th January 589 BCE whereas Thiele proposes the date 15th January 588 BCE. You admit however "Additionally, the reference to Zedekiah's 9th year in verse 1 restricts the beginning of the siege to around January 589 BCE or 588 BCE" . So, what is it? Your methodology along with Thiele's is hopeless and that is why Rodger Young abandoned such methods in trying to resolve the 586/587 dispute.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
ScenicViewer
How can 'Watchtower Scholars' be 'celebrated' if no one knows who they are?
--
'Celebrate' can have the meaning: 'to make known publicly, proclaim'. The scriptural basis for the theological term 'celebrated WT scholars is based on Dan. 12: 3-4.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
It’s evident that many of my abilities exceed yours.
--
If that is so then please provide a summary or succinct explanation why 587BCE rather than 586 BCE is the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. Let us see how smart you are!
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
I don’t see the Watch Tower Society abandoning their 1914 nonsense any time soon, but if they do it will be funny watching ‘scholar’ flounder about pitifully.
--
Your imagination exceeds my imagination.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
False equivalence. The Bible contains references to calendar systems, they aren’t ‘alternative methodologies’. Worse still, poor ‘scholar’ doesn’t seem to understand that the ambiguity he asserts would necessarily apply to the WT dating. And even worse, the WT nonsense is based on circular reasoning for their dogmatic selection of 537 BCE as the end of the period (which Russell just as dogmatically said was 536 BCE).
--
Indeed it does. The Bible describes at least two calendrical systems, the Sacred calendar beginning in the Spring and the Secular calendar beginning in Autumn. There is no ambiguity in connection with these two systems for the purpose of constructing a modern scheme of Chronology as our system rather uses historical events in connection to regnal data. Confusion abounds with a Chronology that is based on regnal data alone as shone by your contrivance using different calendars in trying to resolve the 586/587 BCE pwoblem. It all comes down to methodology.
The date 537 BCE for the Return has wide acceptance within scholarship so circular reasoning is unnecessary!
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Sanchy
Could you please list the the names of these "Celebrated WT Scholars"?
---
The said scholar would like to help you but his understanding is that they wish to remain anonymous akin to the NWT Committee.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
According to your blog 586 BCE is just as feasible as 587 BCE according to your methodology..WT methodology based not on numerous calenders but the Bible proves 607 BCE is the correct date.
scholar JW
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably 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.
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
As there are no known secular records that provide a specific date for the event, information from the Bible must be used. Whilst one might question the reliability of the Bible, if the details therein are not considered reliable for determining the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, then no specific year can otherwise be asserted with any certainty.
---
Your words not mine as an admission that there can be no certainty about 586 or 587 BCE.
scholar JW