Posts by scholar

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.

scholar

Jeffro

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

---

Poor Jeffro cannot resolve his .

internal contradiction regarding the date for the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem and resolve the difference between his date/s and that of the real scholar and chronologist Edwin Thiele Phd.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

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.

--

Not really. 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. All that you have done is prove to your satisfaction 587 BCE is the correct date based on your methodology. A little honesty is required.

--

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.

--

Thiele and most other scholars have already done that based on a methodology similar or identical to your methodology. There is no need for the said scholar to try to determine a precise date for the Fall as it is easily proved to be 607 BCE and not 588, 587 or 586 BCE.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

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.

--

False. 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.

You need to do better so get to work.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Jeffro

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.

--

Your blog on this subject does not address the alternative 586 so all that you have done is an attempt to prove 587 thus it is simply a one-sided approach. You need to do better.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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