DesirousofChange:
When was the last time you saw all that 2520 years mumbo jumbo in print?
As already stated in a recent thread on this forum, it is specifically covered in ’Lesson 32’ of their current ‘Bible study’ textbook.
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Jeffro
-
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
-
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
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
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" .
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! 🤣
-
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
-
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
-
Jeffro
🤣
-
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.
-
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
-
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.