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.
Jeffro
Not odd at all. Young correctly indicates that it was 587 BCE, provides reasons, and concludes that it is therefore the preferred position despite some other sources still using the incorrect 586 BCE. Only odd thing is your inability to process information.
--
What is odd is that you are unable to recognize the difference between an opinion and dogmatism. The fact is that as with your contrivance as with Young's discussion, both are based on some assumptions hence an opinion.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.
--
The matter is further complicated by debate about the length of the siege of Jerusalem. Further, I have just accessed the book by Robb Andrew Young who supports 587 BCE rather than 586. In his study on page 21 he states "The correct date of 587 BCE for the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is substantiated by examination of the exile of Jehoiachin".Then in the very next paragraph, he begins "It is thus preferable, in my opinion, to date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE".
Methinks rather an odd comment considering he discusses the subject at some length of som 4 pages with extensive footnotes.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
On the other hand, I have reconciled all of the relevant verses. The siege ended in July 587 BCE. Correct application of the dating systems consequently identities the start of the siege in January 589 BCE.
---
On the other hand for a beginning date for the siege against Jerusalem we see this:
Jeffro -27 January 589 BCE
Thiele- 15 January 588 BCE
Lipschits - early January 587 BCE
Finegan - 15 Jan 588 BCE
Steinmann - 27 January 589 BCE - Tuesday
Jones - 588 BCE 3416 AM
Jonsson -, January 589 BCE
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
Where do people get this incorrect notion that it’s not taught anymore??
--
The said scholar teaches the subject with great gusto in the field ministry.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
You’re just demonstrating your own Ignorance. The analysis makes no assumptions. Unless you want to go on some infinite regress to hard solipsism.
--
You certainly make assumptions. Just read your article or better still if you were to provide a proper PDF without its silly ads then I could refer you to specific paragraphs.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
See how ‘scholar’ continues to bleat with empty words but fails to demonstrate either an understanding of the material or any refutation of any premises (fallacy: poisoning the well). He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).
--
The said scholar does not deal in empty words or speech for he simply observes that your contrivance is just one of so many attempting to prove either 586 or 587 BCE ending up proving no such thing. The fact is that despite the numerous charts, books on chronology, and academic journal articles no scholar today knows the precise date for the fall except Jehovah's Witnesses by means of those 'celebrated' WT scholars.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
See, ‘scholar’ admits that it is impossible to refute my proof of 587 BCE. Unless he supposes that a subsequent statement of his places that statement in a particular context. But that would make him a dishonest hypocrite. 🦆
--
It is impossible to refute your 'proof' of 587 as it is your contrivance based on your assumptions and methodology. The only way by which your contrivance can be disproved is by having no assumptions but knowing for certain the calendrical system and regnal dating system used by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. However, Biblical chronology based on events rather than regnal dates as part of a calendar is much simpler and falsifies 586 and 587 BCE dates for the Fall.is the far superior methodology.
scholar JW
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.
Jeffro
Indeed, rather than tedious debate based on conjecture, I provide logical premises based on data in the source material to reach logical conclusions. Complain all you like, but if you want to say the conclusions are incorrect, you need to identify errors in the logic.
--
But all that you have posted on your blog concerning 587 is simply conjecture and assumptions no matter how logical it may appear to you, do not make it so. A contrivance composed pf pretty coloured charts unlike the stark black and white of Thiele is what it is.
scholar JW
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.
Jefro
Bleat all you like ‘scholar’, but you can’t actually demonstrate any errors in my analysis that shows 587 BCE to be the correct year. Instead you defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s that has since been supplanted by comparison with Babylonian records. You do this not to try to confirm the correct dating but to imply doubt about the correct chronology, because you imagine that gives support to the nutty JW chronology. You are entirely dishonest.
--
To refute your methodology which is the basis for your proof for 587 BCE is impossible as it is your scheme or contrivance something that you have devised. The same with other schemes such as Thiele's which using a similar methodology differs from your scheme. It is the clear biblical evidence that refutes or disproves your scheme and that clearly proves 607 BCE rather than 587.
---
‘scholar’ claims I have an “internal contradiction” regarding the start of the siege but is unable to specify the supposed contradiction because it does not exist. He earlier quoted a statement from the analysis about 588 BCE or 589 BCE, demonstrating that ‘scholar’ misunderstands that the analysis necessarily does not assume later premises and therefore doesn’t explicitly exclude potential candidates until there is reason to do so. The analysis goes on to demonstrate the specific correct year. ‘scholar’ is a liar, inept, or both.
--
I have merely quoted what you have said about the date for the beginning of the siege which differs from that of Thiele. It is your problem not my problem. It is very hard to understand gobbledegook!!
scholar JW
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.
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
