Posts by scholar

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Jeffro

"fact"? Nothing about the claim in the article indicates a "fact" about the "researchers". The 'researchers' could be Furuli (who may have had an assistant) or could just be some lads at 'Bethel' who were tasked with fudging some results to fit the Watch Tower Society's narrative

---

Nonsense boofhead. The facts are that the researchers (plural) as explained in footnote 19. p.28 of the article used three computer programs examining the lunar positions only and excluding the planetary observations because these were open to interpretation and speculation.

---

hahaha... 😂 the only citation anywhere near the claim about the anonymous 'researchers' is the name of a software program, with no identification of the 'researchers', their credentials (or even evidence of basic competency), or their affiliation with Watch Tower, nor is any evidence provided that supports the findings asserted... but okay then, since you say they followed the "appropriate methodology", this must mean I missed where they cited their sources identifying the researchers... feel free to enlighten us all as to the identity of these 'researchers'... 🤣 Worst of all, the article does provide some citations (some of whom are misrepresented, including Brown, Sack and Steele), so it's not that they weren't trying to give the appearance of the "appropriate methodology". So their failure to properly cite the identity of the key "researchers" for their claims is particularly suspect.

---

Incorrect boofhead. Three sources and not one as you wrongly assert were used as described in the footnote. Further, the researchers are not identified but if that troubles you then you can always write a letter seeking the information that you require. The articles provide a list of references which all have been correctly quoted in support of the article's viewpoint adhering to normal academic conventions recognizing that the sources have differing views on the matter.

The simple fact is that you do not like this research because it clearly provides solid proof for 607 BCE causing wt critics much angst.

scholar JW

.

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Jeffro

No, doofus. I only indicated that it is highly likely, which is an entirely accurate assessment based on the fact that Furuli is the only known source for the claim. Of course, if the Watch Tower Society weren’t so dishonest, they would properly credit their alleged source.

--

No, boofhead. Your comment is mere speculation without any facts to hand. The very fact that there were researchers- plural indicates that there are others competent to make an assessment in this matter. The WT has noted this fact with the appropriate methodology employed by these other experts so no dishonesty to hand.

scholar JW

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Rocketman123

The bible has long list of events which coincides with archeological findings such as the times when Nebuchadnezzar placed as king of Jerusalem .
All of what the JWS have done is make up a selective time table to suit their 607 BCE which to them verifies their dating of 1914, there is no intellectual honesty to been seen.
The siege of Jerusalem was a military campaign carried out by Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, in 597 BC. In 605 BC, he defeated Pharaoh Necho at the Battle of Carchemish, and subsequently invaded Judah. According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, King Jehoiakim of Judah rebelled against Babylonian rule, but Nebuchadnezzar captured the city and installed Zedekiah as ruler.
Contents
Siege[edit]
To avoid the destruction of Jerusalem, King Jehoiakim of Judah, in his third year, changed his allegiance from Egypt to Babylon. He paid tribute from the treasury in Jerusalem, some temple artifacts and some of the royal family and nobility as hostages.[1] In 601 BC, during the fourth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar unsuccessfully attempted to invade Egypt and was repulsed with heavy losses. The failure led to numerous rebellions among the states of the Levant which owed allegiance to Babylon, including Judah, where King Jehoiakim stopped paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar[2] and took a pro-Egyptian position.
Nebuchadnezzar soon dealt with these rebellions. According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle,[3] he laid siege to Jerusalem, which eventually fell in 597 BC. The Chronicle states:
In the seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar, 598 BC] in the month Chislev [November/December] the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar [16 March] he conquered the city and took the king [Jeconiah] prisoner. He installed in his place a king [Zedekiah] of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent forth to Babylon.[4]
Jehoiakim died during the siege, possibly on December 10, 598 BC,[5] or during the months of Kislev,[6] or Tevet.[7] Nebuchadnezzar pillaged the city and its Temple, and the new king Jeconiah, who was either 8 or 18, and his court and other prominent citizens and craftsmen, were deported to Babylon.[8] The deportation occurred prior to Nisan of 597 BC, and dates in the Book of Ezekiel are counted from that event.[9]
Nebuchadnezzar installed Jeconiah's uncle, Zedekiah as puppet-king of Judah, and Jeconiah was compelled to remain in Babylon.[10] The start of Zedekiah's reign has been variously dated within a few weeks before,[11] or after [12][13] the start of Nisan 597 BC.
Chronological note[edit]
The Babylonian Chronicles, which were published by Donald Wiseman in 1956, establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on March 16, 597 BC.[14] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BC,[15] but other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BC.[16]
Biblical account[edit]
The siege is described in 2 Kings 24:10–16 in the Old Testament. The deportation was the start of the exile and of the Jewish Diaspora.
----
What you post is falsified by the 70 years which your information omits any mention thus must be read as pure bunkum. Try again but a little harder.
scholar JW

Link Dislike Like

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

MeanMrMustrad

70 years of servitude, of many nations, as vassals. You're still wrong.

--

You only have one-third of the story for you have forgotten the 70 years of Exile and the land desolate for the Exilic period.

scholar JW

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Jeffro

No writing credit is given in the Watchtower article, and there is no evidence that Furili wrote the article, but it is highly likely that the unnamed ‘researchers’ in the article alludes to Furuli.

---

This is mere speculation on your part. LOL!

scholar JW

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Rocketman123

Then he must be tritely stupid for there is a overwhelming amount of information from various sources to support the year 586 BCE.

----

The only overwhelming evidence is found in the Bible and because of the 70 years it is proved that Neb's 37 th year was 588 BCE leading to the correct biblical date of 607 BCE and not 586 BCE for the Fall.

scholar

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

scholar

Vanderhoven

Originally Answered: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses claim that VAT 4956, written in Nebucadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 BC? Any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 BC.

there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations.18 There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.18a

Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies on a certain date in the past.19 What did their analysis reveal? While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.

Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.

▪ The tablet describes astronomical events that occurred in the 37th year of the rule of King Nebuchadnezzar II.

▪ Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year.—Jeremiah 32:1.

If the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II was 568 B.C.E., then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.

610 B.C.E.

600

590

580

570

560

If his 37th year was 588 B.C.E., then Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., the date that is indicated by Bible chronology.

▪ VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E

---

Absolutely, Well said!

scholar JW

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

Ditto. we will battle again.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

'Oh no... something actually fits the Bible's description of Babylon's 70 years... quick, replace it with an obviously flawed straw man argument.'

--

'Oh no.. I receive a nonsensical comment as a flawed argument not dealing with the issue.-

---

Nope, wrong again. There were 6 months between Cyrus' accession until arriving in October. Plenty of time for arranging provisions and making the four-month trip. Your assertion that "they were still travelling or had not then left" is based on absolutely nothing. There are no 'WT scholars', and Josephus states that the temple construction began in Cyrus' second year, which is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's claims.

---

What evidence that there was a six month period from Cyrus accession year until arriving in October for this is just speculation in order to fit into a tight frame ignoring the time required for the proclaiming, writing and publishing the Decree throughout the Empire. Josephus gives the temple construction in Cyrus' second year which was a year after the Return in 537 BCE..

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

Yes, you're right - that is nonsense. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society actually put it best on this one in Isaiah's Prophecy, volume 1, page 253:

No irony needed for a period of 70 years was associated with Tyre as Isaiah foretold but how about Jeremiah's prophecies about the nations. Notice no 70 years here!!!

---

Of course, it would be a fallactious argument from silence to assert that 70 years can only be applied to Judah because specific periods of desolation are not known for every nation (or any particular subset) that was subject to Babylon.

---

Well do not complain about the silence just pay attention to what the biblical record is telling you.

scholar

Posts by scholar

Contents

Siege[edit]

Chronological note[edit]

Biblical account[edit]