aqwsed12345
Are you Jacob Halsey?
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
aqwsed12345
Rebuttal 1:
The debate of 605 vs 609 BCE is hardly minor for any definite historic period surely must have a definitive beginning and end, but if you are into fuzzy business, then that is OK. The Bible writers who wrote about the 70 years make no mention of the battle of Harran or the battle of Carchemish as the beginning of the 70 years. Ezra who wrote long after the 70 years linked the beginning of the 70 nit with Neb and events during his reign but that of King Zedekiah, who rebelled against Neb, thus bringing about the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE- 2 Chron. 36 11-20'
Further, Jeremiah the Prophet, who prophesied against Judah in Jehoiakim's 4th year and Neb's 1st year, linked the beginning of the 70 years with Judah's destruction- Jer. 25:9 and the land becoming desolate -Jer. 25:11.
Such biblical facts prove s that the 70 years had a definite beginning which could only be the destruction of Jerusalem and the desolation of Judah.
Rebuttal 2:
You merely overemphasize 'the statement 'these nations will serve the king of Babylon' at the expense of the previous statement 'And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror'. You must interpret the verse in its entirety and not pick and choose part of the verse that is made to fit your argument. Jeremiah includes the surrounding nation that would have been caught in the Babylonian maelstrom and along with Judah would come under Babylonian domination.
Further, Jer. 29: 10 confirms the fact that the Jews were exiled to Babylon for 70 years after that period had ended would return home which of course was in 537 BCE with the Return under Cyrus as confirmed by Ezra-2 Chron. 36: 22
Rebuttal 3
Our claim is not confusing but quite clear. Jer 25:12 is directed to Babylon and describes Jehovah's judgement quite clearly, which included three things:
1. Judgment against the king of Babylon
2. Judgement against the nation of Babylon
3. Judgement against the land of Chaldeans
Now, the question when did such events occur? Was it at the time of Babylon's Fall? Clearly not because Jeremiah introduced this prophetic judgment with this condition: 'But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account..." No, these 70 years was the prophecy of Jeremiah who in the previous verse 11 described the 70 years as the following:
1. Destruction of the land, surrounding nations and its inhabitants, the land will be reduced to ruins -Jer. 25: 9,11
2. Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years
The prophecy clearly shows that the 70 years would have a composite end, which would include the land of Judah having been desolate; thus, it could only be after the return of the jews from captivity or Exile and returned home to resettle the land that the judgement against Babylon in a full way according to Jeremiah's prophecy would be accomplished from 537 BCE and not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE
Rebuttal 4.
Josephus records that in Neb's 18th year, he took Jerusalem and according to accurate bible Chronology this could only have been 607 BCE and not the false date of either 586 or 587 BCE.Josephus in his many descriptions of the 70 years mirrors JW interpretation of the 70 years as to its nature and its chronology
Archaeology is always a work in progress, but it has made discoveries in Judah and surrounding areas that support the Biblical prophecies that the land would be desolate and suffer immediate destruction. However, archaeologists use traditional chronology and affix the date 586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction rather than 587 BCE, which highlights the 'fuzziness' about the dating using secular chronology as opposed to accurate bible chronology.
Astronomy, as with all other sciences, is too a work in progress. Rolf Furuli PhD, along with other WT researchers,s have analysed VAT 4956 which traditionally dates Neb's 37 the year to 568 BCE However, recent research has proved that the astronomical data contained in the tablet proves 588 BCE rather than 568 BCE
In short, Josephus, Archaeology and Astronomy all support 607 BCE rather than 586 or 587 BCE despite what current scholarship claims. The fact is that scholarship does not believe in Bible prophecy or that the Bible is God's inspired Word, so there is a major problem here for the honest inquirer.
Rebuttal 5.
Daniel describes the fact that Neb was vacant from the throne for 7 years, which, although discussed in the Bible, is unaccounted for in secular history except for Josephus, despite the fact that this event was well published in literary form at that time throughout the Empire. Yet, WT critics would have us believe in the supposed integrity of the Babylonian history and records. What bunkum!
Rebuttal 6.
The simple and obvious fact is that COJ in his GTR omits any discussion of the Exile, and the word rarely appears throughout the many editions of his published work. He discusses everything else in some detail but omits the 'elephant in the room' - the Jewish Exile and this is supposed to be scholarship. What a joke!
Rebuttal 7.
Counting back 70 years from 537 BCE as the date for the return of the Jews under Cyrus to the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE is a work of beauty, arithmetic and utter genius. Its simplicity in argument or rhetoric is outstanding and irrefutable. WT critics hate this simple logic WT critics hate the fact that celebrated WT scholars have selected the established fact of 539 BCE - Fall of Babylon as a suitable anchor point for our strong cable of Chronology. This date nicely 537 BCE as the only possible date for the Return which nicely bookends the 70 years beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
Rebuttal 8.
The multiple deportations listed but not described in detail by Jeremiah in ch, 52 are consistent with exile and the Exile of 70 years.Hence the formula Exile= Deportation + Vacancy or E = D+ V.
Jeremiah explicitly prophesied that the land would become desolate- an object of astonishment - a horror - without an inhabitant throughout, and again Ezra described the land as having been desolate, in order to pay off its sabbaths for 70 years.
The biblical and historical fact is that Judah was desolate for a fixed period of 70 years.
Rebuttal 9
It makes no difference what other scholars believe or think about the Gentile Times. The Bible teaches this and history, both ancient and modern, confirms this reality despite what other scholars, critics try to spin or deceive the many. The Gentile Times is anchored to a secure, well-established chronology that is simple and readily understood by the common man. This teaching is not in isolation but is part of bible Chronology and right from the 1870's Bible Students had well demonstrated their competence in Chronology right up to the present. in WT chronology its has been published chronology on the Birth and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ as well as coherent tables on the Divided Monarchy which has given scholars much grief and perplexity.
One Line of Evidence That Is Claimed to Disprove 607 BCE
VAT 4956 fails because recent research has proved that Neb's 37th year was not 568 BCE but 588 BCE which directly proves 607 BCE
A proof for your claim is a letter by Jacob Halsey in 2018, but I ask the following questions:
1. Did he receive a reply, and if so, why is it not published?
2. What is his methodology in the analysis of VAT 4956?
3. Did he critically examine Furuli's research?
4. Why did he not use the same astro=programs as Furuli, and did he use the same methodology as Furuli?
In conclusion, one must follow the evidence wherever it leads. Careful exegesis is necessary for proper biblical interpretation of the Bible, and this applies well to the many 70-year texts that describe the 70 years in detail. The date 607 BCE is based on the Bible, and it is based on the 70 years - a definite historic period with a known beginning and end described by the prophets- Jeremiah, Daniel and Zexhariah and the historians Ezra and Josephus as a period of Exile - Desolation-Servitude.
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
aqwaes12345
Response 1
The 605 vs 609 BCE cannot be construed to be of a minor difference for it undermines the integrity of secular chronology and its history. WT critics are very dogmatic that our beginning of the 70 years is wrong but they cannot give a definite beginning of the 70 years. Further, as you outline, there are many interpretations of the 70 years, each one differs to the other so you cannot be dogmatic that the JW interpretation is wrong.
Your claim that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon is wrong as it disagrees with Ezra in his 2 Chron 36:22 where he ends the 70 years with the Cyrus' first year.
Further, your scholarship faces a major problem with the 586 or 587 Bce as to what precise year Jerusalem fell. So, you cannot define the precise year when the 70 years began nor can you define exactly the year of Jerusalem's fall.
Respose 2
A careful reading, even a casual reading, proves that the 70 years pertain to Judah and only in part refers to Babylon's dominance by means of the expression serve the king of Babylon.
You fail to recognize the distinction contextually between vs. 11 and 12, with the former is a judgment against Judah and the latter being a judgment against Babylon, which is clearly shown in a recent commentary on Jeremiah -Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.26, pp.361, 367.
Jer. 29:10 clearly is addressed to those future Exiles in Babylon that they would remain in exile for 70 years under Babylon's domination hence 'for Babylon' which indicates relation or 'at Babylon' indicating location.
The 70 years can only be viewed as a definite historic period of three elements:
Period of servitude to Babylon
Period of Exile at Bbabylon
Period when the land of Judah lay desolate and depopulated.
The 70 began with a definite event, namely the Fall of Jerusalem under the reigns of Zedekiah and Neb and ended with Cyrus; thus, the 70 years is bookended with a precis historical beginning and a precise historical end without scholarly fuzziness.
Response 3.
The 70 years could not have ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE because the Jews were still captive to Babylon for it was not until the jews were released by means of Cyrus' Decree that they returned home in 537 BCE and all of this was confirmed by Josephus.
2 Chron. 36: clearly shows that the 70 years ended when the kingdom of Persia began to reign which was in fact Cyrus' first year after Babylon fell in 539 BCE with the ist year of Cyrus who gave the Decree. The text reads, "In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia in order that Jehovah's word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled" and that word mentioned in vs.21 makes no mention of Babylon or its fall but refers to the desolate land paying off its sabbaths.
In summary, the idea that 70 years represents solely Babylon domination is false and a blatant lie.
Response 4.
Josephus makes several references to the 70 years, and his description mirrors the biblical description of the 70 years as one of exile-servitude and desolation. He makes mention of fifty years but in this context, he is simply quoting the words of Berossus. Nothing to see here for the reader can makes his or her own judgement.
Response 5.
There is no overwhelming evidence that refutes 607 nor is their overwhelming convergence of evidence for 586 or 587 for much of this can easily be used in support of 607 BCE albeit with a little 'fine tuning'..
Not one of the examples you present make any mention of the 70 years so these documents have little value for Chronology except for reasons of culture.
Regarding archaeology, these scholars prefer 586 rather than 587 and have evidence that Judah experienced destruction - a catastrophe is how one scholar described what happened in Judah during the late neo-Babylonian period.
The said scholar undertook a short course in biblical archaeology under the auspices of the Tel Aviv University and the textbook for this course was The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem by Obed Lipschits, 2995, Eisenbrauns. I suggest you do this course and read the textbook.
Response 6.
VAT 4956 has been subject to investigation and it is shown that the lunar and planetary observations for Neb's 37 the year are a better fit for 588 BCE rather than 586 BCE traditionally viewed. If this is correct then this would indeed validate 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's reign.
Such analysis by Dr. Rolf Furuli a linguist in Semitics and used several astro programs was able to determine the following:
13 sets of lunar observations matched 588 BCE and not 586 BCE
15 sets of planetary observations were backward calculations made to fit 586 for Neb's 37 the year
Regarding the solstice, there remains the possibility that an intercalary month was inserted to fit the observations and the fact that solstices were not observed but calculated as stated by experts in ancient astronomy such as O. Neugebauer, A Sachs and R. Newton.
WT researchers carried out an independent assessment of Furuli's research and were able to verify his claim that the 37 the of Neb should be properly assigned not to 568 BCE but 588 BCE
Regarding BM 32312, Furuli has shown that there are three possible interpretations, one of which is that observations were not made in 652/51 but were retro fitted to conform to a astrolger's belief. Naughty fellow!!!
Response 7.
The fact is that Neb's vacancy is not part of Babylonian history which raises questions about the reliability of Neo-Babylonian chronology. If the records are incomplete or inaccurate, then how then can any chronology be trusted?
The fact is that the Bible describes an important event during Neb's reign which was a vacancy of at least 7 years that is unaccounted for in Babylonian chronology and its history. One should adhere to the Bible as more reliable source rather than depending on poor or inadequate secular history especially when dealing with events in biblical history.
Response 8.
I have read Coj's GTR, I have several of his editions, I have an autographed copy of his Third edition, I know his website and I have corresponded with him and spoken to him by telephone.
I repeat the major flaw in his research is that he does not address the issue of the Jewish Exile as he does not believe it with regard to the 70 years.
Response 9.
The doctrine or teaching of the Gentile Times is well established from the Bible and confirmed by modern history.It is based on a flawless chronology and in agreement with both ancient and modern history. it is bookended with the catastrophic events in the ancient world, namely the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and the catastrophic Great War in 1914 CE The doctrine is simple to explain and understand and is based on the interpretation that Dan 4 had both dual fulfilment proved both in terms of linguistics, history,and theology.
Response 10
You have failed to provide a ONE single line of evidence that refutes 607 BCE Rather than relying on 6 lines of opinion which can easily converted to an alternative viewpoint - namely in support of 607 BCE You should be able to provide ONE line of evidence that falsifies 607 BCE other wise all that you have is smoke and mirrors.
A magicians's trick is all that you have based on a deception namely that the 70 years was solely a period of Babylonish domination. What utter rubbish!!!!!!
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Now, go and educate yourself about solstices. (More realistically, let the projection and argument from ignorance continue
--
Will do. Could you give me a reference list of recommended textx relating to this subject for scholar is hungry for knowledge.
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
VAT 4956 (line 16 on the front) indicates the summer solstice on the 9th day of the 3rd month. During the Neo-Babylonian period, the Julian date of the summer solstice must fall within the range of 27–30 June. For 568 BCE, the 9th day of the 3rd month corresponds to 29 June, exactly as expected. However, because the Watch Tower Society claims that Nisan of 588 BCE began on 3 May, this would require that the summer solstice occurred on 9 July, which is impossible.
--
All that you have done is raise a legitimate question, which I am not qualified to answer, but such a question should be directed to the proper source for an explanation. So, what steps have you taken to address such an issue? The fact is that recent scientific research on VAT 4956 has not dealt with this specific issue about the timing of the solstice in question but has demonstrated that Nisan for the year 588 is dated to 1st May and for Nisan in 568 began on the 23rd April.in respect to its positions to the planets and the stars. About the lunar observations, it is observed that Nisan 588 is dated to 2nd May and for 568, Nisan began on 22nd April.
In order for your claim to have merit, why not examine all of the observations to verify their correspondence for the years 588 and 568 rather than focusing on a singular objection? Why not write to experts about the synchronism of Nisan with the summer solstice, and you can post your letters on this forum for all to examine?
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
f that’s what you’re after, just stop reading after the first bit of evidence
--
Which is?
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
aqwsed12345
Claim1.
You claim that because some scholars debate whether the 70 years began in 605 or 609 BCE, secular chronology is uncertain. This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of historical chronology. Scholarly debates about minor details (such as whether the start date for Babylon's dominance is precisely 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, or 605 BCE after Carchemish) reflect healthy scholarly inquiry into specific events. Such small variances are common in ancient history and are measured in just a few years. However, no reputable historian places Jerusalem's destruction outside of the clearly established range of 586/587 BCE because multiple independent lines of evidence (Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical texts, archaeological layers, and Persian, Greek, and Egyptian records) converge powerfully upon this date. The JW position (607 BCE) demands a full 20-year distortion, not a minor scholarly debate of 3 or 4 years. Such a large distortion is historically impossible given the wealth of independent evidence.
---
The fact is that the 70 years is a definite period of history; thus, it would require a definite beginning and end. Yet scholars who are critical of the JW's viewpoint of 70 years cannot agree on whether the 70 years began in 606 or 609 BCE. Is this sound scholarship?
You talk about there is abundant evidence against 607, so if this is true, then why can you not provide a single or ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
----
Claim 2
You state Jeremiah’s prophecy relates exclusively to Judah and its exile.Jeremiah explicitly includes multiple nations ("these nations") serving Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11), indicating Babylonian regional dominance, not exclusively Judah’s exile or land desolation. Jeremiah 29:10 explicitly says after Babylon's 70-year domination ends, Judah would return. Historical records show Babylon fell precisely in 539 BCE, Cyrus issued the decree in 538 BCE (historically verified by the Cyrus Cylinder), and the Jews returned shortly thereafter—not arbitrarily delayed until 537 BCE as your chronology imposes without evidence. The JW interpretation artificially isolates Judah, ignoring biblical wording and historical evidence.
----
You ignore what Jeremiah explicitly states in order to support your opinion. Your interpretation artificially isolates Judah, ignoring biblical wording and historical evidence.
--
Claim 3
You assert Babylon’s judgment began only after the Jews returned in 537 BCE. Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly states Babylon’s punishment would begin "when seventy years are completed." Babylon lost its political sovereignty precisely in 539 BCE with Cyrus's conquest, marking the exact end of Babylon’s dominance as prophesied. Your argument confuses Babylon’s political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation over centuries. Jeremiah’s prophecy refers directly to political overthrow, fulfilled immediately upon Babylon's fall in 539 BCE, confirmed historically and biblically.
--
The completion of the 70 years was not at the Fall of Babylon for the Jews were still captive in Babylon in Exile. Ezra in 2 Chron. 36: 22 ends the 70 years discussed in vs. 21 to that of the the 1st year of Cyrus who uttered the Decree which would end the Exile allowing the Jews to return home in 537 BCE.
--
Claim 4
Josephus confirms the WT interpretation of the 70 years as to its nature and chronology.
Archaeology confirms the biblical fact that Judah and its surrounds were desolate for a period of time and usually dates the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 and not 587 BCE
Astronomy- Recently published research by scholars has shown that the traditional chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Period is false and that the VAT4956 clay tablet proves 607 BCE rather than 586 or 587 based on the Neb's 37 year. You will be pleased to know that the said scholar was responsible for the first translation from German to English of VAT 4956. Thus, scholar has some skin in the game.
Claim 5.
You question Nebuchadnezzar’s reign continuity, asking rhetorically about his alleged "missing years." Babylonian historical and administrative records show continuous documentation through Nebuchadnezzar’s entire 43-year reign (605–562 BCE). Daniel 4 describes a temporary period of incapacity, but never loss of the throne or administrative discontinuity. No historical record suggests a vacancy in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Your claim of "missing years" is completely invented, unsupported by any ancient source, and directly contradicted by continuous contemporary Babylonian texts
-- Where are the records of Neb's vacancy in his reign because Daniel makes reference to the fact that there was a 'circular letter' sent everywhere in all languages to all peoples, countries and peoples. Dan.4:34,b.c. ?
Claim 6.
You demand proof that Carl Olof Jonsson addresses Judah’s exile. Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR) explicitly and extensively analyzes the exile as integral to the 70-year prophecy. He demonstrates conclusively the exile's compatibility with the historically verified Babylonian domination period (609–539 BCE). Your claim that Jonsson "ignored exile" reveals you either haven’t carefully read Jonsson’s thorough scholarship or deliberately misrepresent his detailed discussion of exile and desolation.
--
Nonsense. Jonsson does not discuss the 70 years as an Exile and does not even discuss the subject of the Exile. I have several editions of GTR, even an autographed copy of his Third edition and have read it from cover to cover. Give me the page numbers where he discusses the exile'
---
Claim 7
You repeat the claim that counting back 70 years from a supposed 537 BCE return yields 607 BCE exactly. The Bible and historical records explicitly date Babylon’s fall to 539 BCE, Cyrus's decree in 538 BCE, and return shortly thereafter. There's no historical reason to artificially delay two years to 537 BCE. Counting back exactly 70 years from the historically confirmed decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE clearly places the beginning of Babylon’s supremacy around 609 BCE, precisely matching Nabopolassar’s final defeat of Assyria at Harran, not 607 BCE. Your arbitrary insertion of an unsupported two-year delay is purely doctrinal, not historical or biblical.
--
But nothing happened of any significance in relation to Judah in 609 BC, for nothing happened of any significance until Neb invaded Judah in his 7th year- 617 BCE and 18th -607 BCE. The latter conquest began the 70 years of Exile.
Claim 8
You claim Jeremiah’s multiple deportations (597, 586, 582 BCE) confirm your 70-year exile. Jeremiah’s multiple deportations explicitly contradict the JW claim of total desolation from exactly 607 BCE onward. Clearly, the land was inhabited and not entirely desolate after 607 BCE. These deportations confirm precisely the historically accepted scholarly scenario: a prolonged Babylonian subjugation culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction in 586/587 BCE, not total immediate desolation in 607 BCE.
--
Not at all. The deportations of Neb and during his reign are all in context with the historical summary of events in Judah described in Jer. 52 mirrored by 2ki. 25. wherein both accounts begin from Zedekiah's 9th year right through to Jehoiachin's 37th year in Exile.Such deportations are characteristic of the fact the Exile was of 70 years beginning during Zedekiah's and Neb's reigns and ending during the reign of Cyrus .
Claim 9
You claim scholars arbitrarily "invented" 609 BCE. The date 609 BCE is explicitly documented in multiple independent ancient Babylonian Chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). Assyria’s defeat, Egyptian interventions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns against Harran are clearly dated historically and archaeologically. No modern interpolation occurred. Your claim of "arbitrariness" ignores the historical evidence from the Babylonian Chronicles.
--
No. Scholars arbitrarily inserted not invented and it is simply inserted into discussions of these documents in harmony with their Chronology.
Claim 10
You claim JW chronology is validated by modern scholarship and history. No reputable historian, archaeologist, or astronomer supports the JW chronology (607 BCE). JW chronology has been repeatedly and comprehensively disproven by overwhelming evidence from Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and astronomical sources. The date 1914 CE, dependent solely on your false 607 BCE date, therefore collapses entirely, exposed as historically untenable.
--
Truth is never dependent on popular or majority opinion and there are scholars from various disciplines who support and can prove the validity of 607 BCE.If your claim that JW Chronology has been repeatedly and comprehensively disproven by such overwhelming evidence from multiple sources then why is it the case that you cannot and will not provide ONE single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE? If you cannot or will not do this then your claim is false and simply amounts to ignorance and foolishness.
Answer to Challenge:
Your response is VAT 4956. But how does this tablet refute 607 BCE when all that it is about are observations during the Neb's 37 year, which is open to interpretation and recent research shows that there is another viable interpretation of the astronomical data, which makes any viewpoint at this stage tentative.for pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Conclusion:
Your arguments consistently rely upon selective quotations, misrepresentation, outdated assertions, invented scenarios, and disregard for established historical, archaeological, and astronomical facts.--
No You are looking for excuses. Remember that right from Charles Russell's earliest writings on Chronology, facts in relation to Chronology have always been presented to the public, and our Chronology has stood the test of time and is securely based on the Bible.
--
The scholarly consensus, supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, remains irrefutably that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE.
--
More correctly -'multiple independent lines of opinion', not ONE line of evidence has ever been presented by scholars in refutation of 607 BCE. Such an hypothesis has been falsified by the 70 years of Jeremiah.
--
Your challenge for "one line of evidence" has been conclusively answered: VAT 4956 alone disproves your chronology decisively and unambiguously. Your repeated assertions are thus thoroughly and conclusively refuted.
--
The best response to my challenge is VAT 4956 which is subject to interpretation and subject to analysis showing that its interpretation is questionable with another serious alternative. The jury is still out on VAT 4956
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Whenever ‘scholar’ plays this tedious game after already having been given mountains of evidence, it always reminds me of the “What have the Roman’s ever done for us?” scene from Life of Brian.
--
It is not a game but a simple request. You have a website with mountains of information. Despite this abundant knowledge, you are unable or refuse to simply provide ONE line of evidence that refutes or disproves 607 BCE.
Shame on you.
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
KalebOutWest
I gave you many lines of evidence.
--
That is not what I asked. What I ask from you is simply ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
167
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
It hardly matters. My assessment of the sources is factually robust, and I’m aware of the fallacious appeal to tradition that leads some to cling to the incorrect year.
--
It matters to aqwsed12345.Seeing that the sources are robust could you then provide ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BE?
scholar JW