Re: 'skol-drinker' #1757
Jeremiah clearly indicates that Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem in his 18 th year and 19th year or in his 18th regnal year and in his 19th accession year as explained in Insight On The Scriptures, Vol.2. p. 481, see article NEBUCHADBEZZER. ...
Have you got a head cold? Neb destroyed Jerusalem twice in two successive years, are you saying? How many accession years did he have? 19 of them? Can you write coherently please?
... This means that our chronology as developed by the 'celebrated WT scholars is not dependent on calendrical problems that follow from a 'regnal-based' methodology as opposed to a superior 'event-based methodology.
'Not dependent on calendrical problems'? ' Follow an event-based methodology instead of a regnal-based one'? What kind of gibberish is that?
The Bible doesn't tell us how to count those regnal years - whether to use an accession dating system for one text and a non-accession dating system for another text - in the very same Bible chapter dontyaknow! It's 'celebrated Christendom's scholars and historians' who figured that out.
The foregoing comments renders your chart of mischief useless so there is no need for me to comment on that piece of stupity.
'Chart of mischief' LOL. I love it! So you cannot comment on the discrepancy. I didn't think you'd be able to.
Regarding your debates with Furuli your comments demean you and are irrelevant because Furuli has always invited constructive criticism and if a competent scholar finds his hypothesis or research in need of improvement or correction then Furuli will listen to this. As far as I know Furuli has not yet received much scholarly review but I will ring him for a update. The only amateur who has responded to Furuli is of course Carl Jonsson but Furuli has dealt with his views competently.
ROFL. Your sojourns into fantasy-land never fail to amuse.
His latest article in the 2009 edition of Chronology and Catastrophism Review was enlightening.
I liked the way he attempted to re-date one of the problematic astronomical diaries (BM 33478). This diary was assigned as 441/0 BCE (-440) in ADT I, and there it was acknowledged it didn't really fit that year but they couldn't find a better match at that time. In his article, Furuli tried to squish it into 465/4 BCE (year 10 of Artaxerxes I under his 'Oslo' scheme). Of course, despite his assertions that the celestial positions were 'perfect fits,' on checking they were far from it. Naturally, it further undermines his case if he again calculates some daylight hour positions with his astro-program when the tablet says the positions were night-time ones, or starts the month a day earlier than when the experts say first lunar visibility could occur, or when he arbitrarily deviates from his own scheme (starting the year a month earlier than his scheme dictates).
Anyway, he says he searched for better matches in all the 3 Kings Artaxerxes' regnal years, but couldn't find any apart from 465/4 BCE. But here's the good bit: apparently he doesn't realise that celebrated 'worldly' scholars re-examined this tablet nearly 20 years ago (J. Koch and later R.J. van der Spek) and found 382/1 BCE to be the correct year - Artaxerxes II's reign, no less! Funny he didn't spot that in his research, huh?
Another favorite of mine was the way he made the Crab Nebula (M1) a positional reference point and synonymous with the star zeta Tauri when he was examining the above Babylonian diary. What was particularly brilliant about it was that not only is the Crab Nebula not zeta Tauri, but it is undetectable to the naked eye and it didn't exist until about 1054 AD. Pure genius.
I could go on, but I'd be here all day.