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

by Vanderhoven7 150 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    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.

    hahahahahahaha πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ my sides... that's just too much... and I thought you weren't a good comedian.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Three sources and not one as you wrongly assert were used as described in the footnote.

    That's a flat out lie. The footnote in question (19) lists software, not any identification of the 'researchers'. The software used is not a source, it is just a tool. (Worse still is that one of the supposed 'sources' is just a 'date converter' and nothing to with actual analysis of the tablet or astronomy 🀣.) There isn't even any evidence that they even used the software correctly.

    Further, the researchers are not identified but if that troubles you then you can always write a letter seeking the information that you require.

    Hahaha. I don't want JWs knocking at my door thank you.

    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.

    They try to give the appearance of being academic, but they don't provide the most important source for their claims. The sources they do cite either don't support the Watch Tower view at all, or are taken out of context; for example, Brown who says the planet names used in VAT 4956 are not ambiguous (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomyβ€”Astrology, pages 55–56)..

  • scholar
    scholar

    Disillusioned JW

    Regarding the 70 years of servitude/bondage or desolation a number of Bible commentators believe that the biblical prophet was in error to predicting 70 years of such instead of 50 years. Some others though accepting the 70 years use a start date (for the count) that is 20 years earlier to thus be compatible with the archaeologically supported 587/586 B.C.E. date.

    ----

    The Bible writers used 70 years and not 50 years so such Bible commentators have simply substituted the 50 for 70 in order to conform to a flawed scheme of Chronology which amounts to deception or a lack of honesty. The only start date for the beginning of the Exile of 70 years is during the reign of Zedekiah- 2 Chron 36:11-13 and not earlier with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    That's a flat out lie. The footnote in question (19) lists software, not any identification of the 'researchers'. The software used is not a source, it is just a tool. (Worse still is that one of the supposed 'sources' is a 'date converter' 🀣.) There isn't even any evidence that they even used the software correctly. And the footnote says the positions of the planets were ignored because of a lie about them being open to speculation, which contradicts Brown's statements (not included in the article) that the relevant terms used are not ambiguous.

    ---

    The three sources used were the following:

    1.The Sky 6 software

    2.Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts

    3.US Naval Observatory data converter

    There is no evidence that these tools and resources were not used competently and Furuli also used The Sky Fix 6 and Sky Map Lite 2005 astro programs as well as consultation with an astrophysics Professor, Kare Asknes.

    Unlike Furuli who did discuss the planetary observations, the WT researchers decided to omit these observations for the reasons that such were open to speculation and interpretation which is their methodology despite what Brown has said on the matter.

    scholar JW



  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    hahahahahahaha πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ my sides... that's just too much... and I thought you weren't a good comedian.

    ---

    The Joke is on you!!!!!

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    The three sources used were the following:

    1.The Sky 6 software

    2.Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts

    3.US Naval Observatory data converter

    No, those are still just tools, not sources. And the third one is a date converter, not a 'data converter' (whatever that is).

    There is no evidence that these tools and resources were not used competently

    Aside from that being an inherently fallacious assertion, the claims were examined on this very forum and found to be incorrect. There is a reason the JW's alternative chronology has not been published in any actual journals.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    The Bible writers used 70 years and not 50 years so such Bible commentators have simply substituted the 50 for 70 in order to conform to a flawed scheme of Chronology which amounts to deception or a lack of honesty. The only start date for the beginning of the Exile of 70 years is during the reign of Zedekiah- 2 Chron 36:11-13 and not earlier with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

    hahaha 🀣 poor 'scholar' insists that the 70 years 'must' begin "not earlier" than 607 BCE because it is 70 years before the year they say the Jews 'must' have returned from exile, which they dogmatically say 'must' have been in 537 because it is 70 years after 607 β™». (The correct year is 538 BCE as indicated by Ezra and Josephus, but at 'best' - from the JW perspective - it cannot in any case be definitely stated that they returned in 537.) Of course, the Bible never mentions an "exile of 70 years", and irrefutably says Babylon's 70 years ended when Babylon's king was 'called to account', which definitely happened in 539 BCE. But even if the Bible did say there were an exile of 70 years (which wouldn't make sense as a period starting at an unspecified future time in the context of Jeremiah 29, set in 594 BCE or 614 in JW years), they still wouldn't have anything beyond circular reasoning for their insistence on 607-537. Additionally, the only way 70 years would make any sense as 'years of exile' to the Jews already in Babylon would be for it to refer to the start of their exile in early 597 BCE (617 in JW chronology), which would mean they would expect to return home in 547 BCE (JW years). Little wonder that JW literature never mentions the year for the setting of Jeremiah chapter 29 (though two issues of The Watchtower, from way back in 1964 and 1979, connect '614 BCE' with chapter 28).

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    According to β€˜scholar’ β€˜logic’, the following meets all appropriate standards of academic rigour for sources:

    Researchers found that this square β–ͺ️ is fourteen metres long.1

    1. Researchers used a ruler.
  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard
    False. Jeremiah was all about the Exile(s) for it occurs 30 times as listed in the NWT so one can readily see that 'the Exile' was thematic in Jeremiah's prophesying.

    It's not that Jerimiah was or was not "all about" the Exile. He talks about it. But he doesn't equate it to the 70 years.

    The ch.25 clearly describes the Exile and its consequences of exiles or deportees having to leave a desolated or ravaged landscape and being bonded or made to serve the conquering power, Babylon as other nations also were made to do.

    The consequences of the exile is irrelevant to this topic. But again, above, you equate the exile with the servitude. The servitude started long before the exile, and its the servitude that lasted 70 years.

    This means that Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel all described the 70 year period of Exile as also a period of a desolated land, servitude to Babylon during the exile in Babylon.

    No, it's literally the opposite.
  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    No, those are still just tools, not sources. And the third one is a date converter, not a 'data converter' (whatever that is).

    --

    Can be referred to as either or tools or sources depending on application by the reader

    ----

    • Aside from that being an inherently fallacious assertion, the claims were examined on this very forum and found to be incorrect. There is a reason the JW's alternative chronology has not been published in any actual journals.

      ---

      Hardly!. Simply different opinions were posted on this forum but the fact that WT Chronology is not published in any journals is irrelevant because our Chronology is made available to the public and has been published on many opposing websites yours included as a pretty chart.,

      scholar JW



Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit