Jump to content
The World News Media

Srecko Sostar

Member
  • Posts

    4,636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in Jehovah's Witnesses lose court battle over disclosing records on 2 ex-members - British Columbia   
    No, I don't suggesting nothing/anything, i just say how it is good to remove this privilege from clergy.
  2. Thanks
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    It might be good to read at least the first page of this work: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41670130
    You won't need a log-in to JSTOR for it, because it's all on the preview page.
    Basically, the point is that a "cubit" is indeed a unit of angular measure, but the paper uses a more stringent method of measuring it accurately by looking at the 200 or so planetary references in Babylonian documents, since planets move slower than the moon and some planets were only visible for a short period of time, and therefore we can know the time window of the observation more accurately.  
    Basically, as you can see in the summary of the document, the cubit had been considered to be about 2 degrees, and a finger would be 1/24th of a cubit. The paper will more accurately offer evidence of 2.2 degrees per cubit, a difference of only 10%. 

    Also, on the question of what is in front of or behind, the following will likely make the most sense to you after you have looked at enough observations and compared them with your Stellarium screen (or any other software that does this).a
    Even though it's easier to envision the horizon rather than the ecliptic, it still generally works out that words Babylonians used in their "astronomy" mapped as follows:
    North=Above, South=Below, East=Behind, West=In Front.  For the parts of the sky closest to the horizon, especially towards the west,  it therefore works out like the old "Western" movie cliche, where "the sun sinks slowly into the west." So it's easy to imagine that most of the heavenly objects are sinking in that direction therefore the sun was in front of all the stars that will also "sink" in that general direction. Therefore all the stars along MOST of the sky that are still farther east are behind, heading racing toward the horizon. And they will also be in the same "in front" or "behind" positions when  they appear to come up on the eastern horizon the next morning. 
  3. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Since all the energy, work, analysis, and effort spent on this thread is ultimately to prove that God’s kingdom was established in 1914 or thereabouts it’s all a complete waste of effort.
    I can look out the window and see that Armageddon never happened.
    I can look out the window and see if the great tribulation never happened.
    I can look out the window and see we’re not living on a paradise earth.
    A billion words repeated a million different ways over 200 years will not change that.
    Reality is what it is.
     
  4. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    My apologies. But I have removed some more of the "Vicar of Warwick" saga and other posts from xero's Nineveh topic over to here because it's just not close enough to the chronology topic that started there. These posts are not really about forum participants we have known either, but this has already become kind of a catch-all for unnecessary dialogues.
    @Pudgy @BTK59 @George88 @Srecko Sostar
  5. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    As everyone can now see, I didn't make anything up. I simply quoted correctly from what you had just posted a minute or so earlier.
    I never expected you to admit a mistake. This is a tiny one, but the bigger the mistake the more you dig in your heels and try to project it onto the other person. You should be aware, however, that almost by definition, that a person who is known for projecting their faults and insecurities onto others, ends up revealing a lot more about themselves.
    No. It had everything to do with my remark. Jesus spoke of the resurrection at the last day, but persons in the first century were believing the times and seasons were in their own jurisdiction and claiming that the resurrection had already occurred, just as you posted. The exact same thing happens with the 1914 doctrine, because we tie that to the claim that the first resurrection has already occurred:
    *** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
    That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Can we be more precise?
     
    I'm hearing an echolalia. You are repeating what I was saying above, except that you are projecting it back as if you have never been able to admit a mistake and must try to make your mistake stick to the person who pointed it out. 
    Please keep in mind how others perceive a person who is bent on projecting their errors onto others. It's almost like confession. Note again that it was the Watchtower that linked the first resurrection to the 1914 chronology. (See above.)
    I think everyone is aware that subtext of every discussion of Neo-Babylonian chronology is always the 1914 doctrine. 
  6. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    No. It suspect it was just an issue with your memory. No biggie. We are all getting a bit older every day. No need to be paranoid about a manipulated piece. I don't do that. I have the power to delete comments, but I don't have the power to "add" them, LOL. Since there are none of those instances, it couldn't be one of them. Besides, even if I really had made a mistake and taken it from another post, it wouldn't be fraud and deception. It would have just been a mistake. 
    In this case it was your mistake, not mine, but I am not so paranoid or anxious to accuse others so as to think it would have been fraud or deception. I do think it's a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part, though. You probably "wish" you could accuse me of fraud and deception and actually find evidence for that, even if you have to grasp at straws to do it. This is the same danger I have been talking about when promoting teachings with no evidence, or very weak and faulty evidence. People are always willing to grasp at straws to try to sow doubt on the evidence that doesn't fit their agenda, or they try the old standby ad hominem against the person presenting it.  
    This is exactly what I wish would change. And of course you will continue with the accusations because, if you are anything like your other personas here, you never admit a mistake.
  7. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    The next time the WTB&TS rephrases the Bible, all dates will be converted to Stardates, like in Star Trek.
  8. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    For the record, I do not claim that the resurrection has already taken place. That's part of the 1914 doctrine.
  9. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to BTK59 in Jehovah's Witnesses lose court battle over disclosing records on 2 ex-members - British Columbia   
    Well, Srecko, it seems that there is a certain degree of bias in this specific court. It's quite amusing how both Canada and Australia advocate for utmost privacy. However, when it comes to the Watchtower, they seem to agree and say, "Yes!" Disregard our laws and obey our commands.
    As a higher court will certainly hear this argument, the biased post holds no significance.
  10. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Forum participants we have known   
    … reminds me of many years ago I was riding back on Interstate 95 from  a Witness party in Towson, Maryland with three other Brothers, all listening to Beach Boy surfing songs on the tape player, singing along and slapping the dashboard and seats, and a Brother in the back seat screamed out “HOW LONG ARE ARE YOU GOING TO PERSECUTE ME, LET ME OUT, LET ME OUT!
    Was that you?
     
     
  11. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I have the same problem JWI with witnesses that come here and make the Watchtower look stupid by claiming 587 BC is the answer, and somehow their words become apostates defending that assertion not the data presented, since they are sowing discourse against the application of scripture. What does James 1:26 mention? 
    Therefore, it's not your denial of 607 BC, but you coming here in public supporting a false view, just because you don't understand history the way it should be understood, and you don't want your ego to be bruised since that would mean you have been wrong since the 80s, along with your friends here.
     
  12. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    If you're still around @xero, and you reach this post, I think by now you will have seen how "607 vs 587" is played as if it's a game for 607 supporters. Supporters of 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th (or 19th) year must play it as a game of extreme obfuscation. 
    I doubt that anyone will attempt to answer any of the questions and challenges that make the outcome appear too simple. Those must be dodged at all costs because they don't lend themselves to obfuscation. 
    With that in mind, I'm ready to summarize. But I also wanted to clarify my own position on this whole chronology question. 
    My real concern is not the way @George88 or @scholar JW or Rolf Furuli or others defend the 607 doctrine.
    I don't even have a big problem with the 607 doctrine itself. I have no trouble explaining that, as Witnesses, we believe the 70 years must have ended shortly after 539/8, therefore the 70 year period must have started around 607, and that even if Jerusalem didn't fall precisely in that year, this was still the time period when Babylon brought about an interruption of the Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem, but that Jehovah's purpose was to bring back righteous government with a his own Davidic Messianic King's government that would never be brought to ruin. (Daniel 2:44, Ezekiel 21:27) The lesson, even from Daniel 4, still points to Jehovah's sovereignty and purpose and therefore highlights the most common OT reference in the NT: that Jesus was resurrected to rule at God's right hand, until all enemies are brought under his feet, including the last enemy death through the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21 & 22). 
    So it's not difficult to teach the same lesson from all the major verses we currently use, even talking about the generation since the first world war now living at a time when we are all sighing and groaning over the system of things, crying out in these last days for the hope of a new one. 
    It's not important to me to claim that 587/586 is the most probable match for the specific year the Temple was destroyed, or the exact date when the last king at Jerusalem was removed, or that there is really no evidence whatsoever for 607. We have every right to believe something, whether there is evidence of it or not. 
    But I do have a problem when Witnesses go online and make us look stupid by publicly claiming that the best evidence is for 607 BCE, and it's therefore somehow more Biblical, and 587 is somehow "apostate." Claiming there is evidence for our take on 607 is not only untrue, it makes us look like we are trying to prove we are more intellectual and scholarly than the scholars and experts. Or to presumptuously claim that the times and seasons are not just in Jehovah's jurisdiction but also in ours. 
    It's not a matter of having faith like little children, and that Jehovah has hidden something from the wise and intellectual and given it to children. It's the opposite! It's us bragging to the world that we are even more scholarly than the scholars, that we understand intellectual things better. That we are able to judge the evidence and tell you which secular evidence is useful and which secular evidence is not. 
    This is highly presumptuous and haughty, and when the WTS tries to explain itself, we find ourselves backed into a corner where we must try to support some flimsy "pretend" evidence, or pseudo-chronology. We end up being academically dishonest and we end up using logical fallacies and obfuscation. But I don't mean blatantly lying. It's a matter of having previously been told and then accepting that this particular belief about 607 is an important part of our faith. To many of us that would mean that we are going against the faith by even looking at other evidence. So it skews our thinking, and we put blinders on. 
    I think this goes for Watchtower writers, too. They grasp at straws to look for anything that might throw doubt about the existing reasonable evidence. And it makes us appear unreasonable. Every article in the Watchtower on chronology has done this. I quoted the 1969 article where we claimed that a non-matching eclipse was a better match than a matching eclipse.
    Also in the 1969 Watchtower was a reference to the Adad-Guppi inscription, and a bit of academic dishonesty or at least scholastic sloppiness shows up there, too.
    The article makes a big deal about how much chronological information was damaged and unreadable from the inscription and that we therefore can't use it to support the Neo-Babylonian chronology. However, at the time this was written there were TWO well-known and well-publicized copies of the same inscription, and the one discovered in 1956 had already been published for more than a decade with the years of reigns of kings from the last Assyrian king to Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar up to the last king Nabonidus himself. All the numbers were readable and in good condition on that one. But that one is not mentioned here, or in any follow-up apology for having ignored it.
    *** w69 2/1 p. 89 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
    What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged, leaving much to the ingenuity and conjecture of historians. The reader can appreciate how fragmentary the text is by ignoring the bracketed material in the following translation of one section of this memorial—material that represents modern attempts at restoring the missing, damaged or illegible portions:.
    “[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”
    Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . ”—Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
    From this very incomplete inscription it can be seen that the only figures actually given are the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and 4 years of Neriglissar’s reign. As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year.
     
    This information was rolled out to sow doubt, no doubt. But why bring this one up at all if it hides the real story? 
  13. Like
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in Forum participants we have known   
    Partially agree, but the proverb says; "old joke, new fool". lol
  14. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in Jehovah's Witnesses lose court battle over disclosing records on 2 ex-members - British Columbia   
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-jehovahs-witness-privacy-battle-1.7079252
    The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled against two congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses that tried to argue their religious freedoms were infringed when the information and privacy commissioner ordered them to turn over records containing personal information about two former members.
     
    On Monday, Justice Steven Wilson upheld an order requiring the Coldstream and Grand Forks congregations to disclose records concerning the ex-members' breaks with the church to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).
    The Jehovah's Witnesses had argued that the sealed records contain confidential religious discussions between church elders about membership matters, and releasing them would violate their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    But the judge disagreed, saying that any violation of the congregations' religious freedoms in this case was reasonably justifiable in a free, democratic society.
    "While production of the disputed records to the commissioner is not an insubstantial breach of the congregation elders' right to religious freedom under s. 2(a) of the Charter, it nonetheless furthers the interests of society as a whole by ensuring access to their personal information," Wilson wrote.
    He pointed out that the order did not require the congregations to release the records to the former members who'd requested them, but only to the OIPC to determine whether they should be released under the Personal Information Protection Act. The law regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by private organizations like churches. 
    The judge said the duties to disclose imposed by the law are meant to give British Columbians some measure of control over their personal information.
    "The requirement to disclose information is a tool available to individuals to hold organizations accountable for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. It also serves as a deterrent to misuse and allows individuals some measure of control over their personal information," Wilson wrote.
    The B.C. Humanist Association intervened in the case, and is applauding the outcome.
    "An individual's right to privacy is crucial. We're pleased to see the court recognize the importance of upholding that right," the organization's executive director, Ian Bushfield, said in a news release.
    The original requests for information came from Gabriel Liberty Wall, who used to belong to the congregation in Grand Forks, and Gregory Lyle Westgarde, who was part of the Coldstream congregation, according to the judgment.
    The two men independently asked the congregations for records containing their personal information in 2020, and both were told they could not see documents concerning their disassociation from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Wall and Westgarde turned to the OIPC, but the congregations told an adjudicator that the record at issue was "a confidential religious summary prepared by a committee of three congregation elders pertaining to spiritual status decisions," the judgment says.
    In June 2022, the OIPC adjudicator ordered the congregations to turn over their records for review. They in turn filed a petition for judicial review, alleging that the Personal Information Protection Act is unconstitutional.
    The church argued that religion should be included in an exemption to the act that says organizations are not required to disclose someone's personal information to them if it has been collected solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
    The judge described that as a bridge too far.
    "Reading in such an exemption would significantly compromise the government's objective in giving individuals the ability to control their personal information," Wilson wrote.
    He pointed out that even under the current exemption, the privacy commissioner still has the power to review the requested information to see if it truly was collected only for the purpose of journalism, art or literature.
    The Jehovah's Witnesses had also argued that if the documents were disclosed, they might be published more widely "for the purposes of mocking either the petitioners or elders, causing unnecessary embarrassment."
    Wilson countered that as long as the documents remain secret, "the concerns are impossible to assess because the record is incomplete."
     
    Comment about quote:
    The church argued that religion should be included in an exemption to the act that says organizations are not required to disclose someone's personal information to them if it has been collected solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
    WTJWorg and JWs congregations do not engage in "journalism, art and literature". They are run as a religious non-profit organization whose primary mission is "to spread Christianity within the JWs belief system". As part of this and such activities, they are engaged in publishing activities on paper and digitally.
    "Confidential writings" regarding the "spiritual events, condition and status" of these members are partly publicly known in situations where these members are publicly reprimanded or excommunicated.
    Why do we say that information is partially known? Because they contradict Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18. The congregation was not informed what is the "sin" and why a member was/should be reprimanded or expelled. The "sin of the member" is not publicly known, but the information about it must be given only to the elders who will investigate the matter and, if necessary, form a "Judicial Commission". According to Jesus, the "church/congregation" should participate in this process, and not one, two or three elders.
    JWs elders under the auspices of WTJWorg continue to deceive the courts and the public.
     
  15. Haha
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in Forum participants we have known   
  16. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to BTK59 in Forum participants we have known   
    @Srecko Sostar
    This message is no longer relevant for the participants of the closed club and former members here. Haha, it's been a decade already! 
  17. Haha
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from BTK59 in Forum participants we have known   
  18. Downvote
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Alphonse in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    A little break for a joke.
    A Trump supporter was seated next to an older woman on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”
    The old woman, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger: “What would you want to talk about?”
    “Oh, I don’t know,” said the man. “How about how they stole the election in 2020 and Donald Trump should be president.”
    “Okay,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
    The man, visibly surprised by the old woman’s, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
    To which the old woman replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss politics, when you don’t know shit?”
  19. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later?  They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.
    I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.
      They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.
    It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math. 
    The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE. 
    If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you. 
    Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.
    If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:
    If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?
  20. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    It's a mixed bag. 
    There is absolutely ZERO evidence in the Bible for a 607 BC/BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible refers to exiles taken from Judea and Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, 7th year, 18th year and 23rd year. There are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is EXCELLENT evidence from multiple independent sources that tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was NOT even a king until his father died 2 years after 607 BCE, which would be 605 BCE. That was what the Babylonians marked as an "accession year" and it was not counted in their calendar because an accession year had already been named for the king who was still alive on Nisanu 1 of that same year. Therefore we have EXCELLENT evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. 
    Yes.
    Jeremiah 25 speaks of Seventy Years for Babylon to bring all the nations around them into servitude. It wouldn't happen all at once for each nation, but over the course of those 70 years, all the nations around them would come into servitude, and suffer destruction if they refused. That 70 years for Babylon would therefore be associated with the desolation and destruction Judea and Jerusalem, too, if they did not fully submit to Babylon's yoke over the course of Babylon's 70 years of greatest power. Jehovah was therefore using those 70 years that he was giving to Babylon's as a means by which Judea and Jerusalem would be punished along with those other nations. It appears that the earliest effect on Judea and Jerusalem itself would be around 605 BCE, about two years AFTER 607 BCE. And their exile would be complete when the king of Persia began to reign over Babylon. That would be 539 BCE. So Judea and Jerusalem ended up suffering desolations, exiles, servitude, and vassalage at the hand of Babylon over a course of MOST of Babylon's 70 years of power.  About 66 of Babylon's 70 years of power, (605 to 539). The first major disaster upon Judea due to the rise and involvement of Babylon was the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 609, with the death of Josiah on the battlefield of Megiddo. Counting from that point gives you EXACTLY 70 years for Babylon's Empire. The Temple itself was desolated for a period of 70 years which were also a direct result of Babylon's 70 years of power. The Temple grounds lay desolate from about 587 to 517. 
    Yes. The Bible says that some exiles were taken in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.
    Yes. This would be Nebuchadnezzar's "7th year" by the way the Babylonians measured, and the way Bible writers often measured, too.
    I can't tell what you are saying. The several tablets that can be applied to his 37th year do not show his 37th year in 605, so I assume you meant that if his 37th year is 568, then you can just go back 37 years to show that his accession year is 605 BCE. The last sentence makes no sense about any stipulated "19/8 years" (?!?) but it is agreed that any tablets created in his 37th year were therefore created in 568 BCE. 
    No exact evidence for this, but it appears that the source (mostly Herodotus) places the set of conflicts between the Scythians and the Medes leading up to the war between the Medes and Lydians which ended due to "Thales" solar eclipse usually identified as 585 BCE. Cyaxares is said to have died in that battle, therefore in 585 BCE.
    There is absolutely NO evidence that Nebuchadnezzar or his general were battling the king of Mitsir (Egypt) during this time. As early as 1879, Thomas Thayer's "Universalist Quarterly" included the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was more than TWENTY YEARS LATER. In 568, therefore his 33rd year was 572, and therefore his 18th year was 587. Not his 37th year. 

    Yes.
    There is no such thing as a 19-year cycle here.
    The only 19-year cycle remotely connected to ancient history was the discovery that there were almost exactly 235 full or new moons in every period of 19 years and therefore if you were adding just enough "leap" months every two or three years to a typical 12 lunar month year (228 +7=235) you could be almost exactly back on schedule with the solar year of 365 days if you added 7 leap months. 
    Since there is no such thing as a 19-year cycle related to this, so it has NOTHING to do with finding the date for Jehoiachin's release. 
    The Bible indicates that it would be at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (his death in his 43rd year of reign, 562 BCE) and therefore at the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign (561 BCE). That would be about the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile (per Jeremiah 52/2 Kings 25). NOT related in any way to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The math you attempted above is not fuzzy. It is clearly wrong. 
    Jehoiachin's exile started in about 598/7 as you say above, so the Bible's mention of his 37th year of exile brings us to about 598-37=561. Perfect alignment with the secular chronology that says Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years and was then succeeded by Evil-Merodach. 
     
  21. Haha
  22. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Completely false again.
    Now we are finally back to the question I kept answering over and over, very directly and explicitly, but you EVADED my answer to pretend I hadn't answered it. So at this point just go back to the posts around February 12th where It's just as I answered before when you brought up Wiseman. You can see yourself flailing in the link below (from February 12th) here because you seemed so angry that I had already answered you, and it must have made it awkward for you to keep pretending that I hadn't.
    The answer is still going to be the same: We don't have any Babylonian Chronicles for Nebuchadnezzar's 18 or 19th year. In fact, as I pointed out from the pages of same Wiseman book you were quoting from, those Chronicles are cut off, stopped, and missing from about his 11th year on. Wiseman still says that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587, and he still puts the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 587, while admitting that there are also ways to calculate the actual destruction of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586 BCE. But I'm not worried about what the Babylonian Chronicles say, or how much you rely on them. It's the Bible that associates Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years with the destruction of Jerusalem. I'm only concerned with what BCE year the Babylonian astronomical evidence associates with his 18th (or 19th) year -- NOT the destruction of Jerusalem. It's up to you whether you want to accept or reject the Bible on that point. Babylonian Chronicles don't even exist for those years. (Or at least they haven't been discovered yet.) 
    I notice that even on February 12th, you had already had this question answered several times:
    https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90904-trying-to-nail-down-612-bce-as-the-date-of-ninevehs-destruction/?do=findComment&comment=189002
    OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. 
  23. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I am now going back to a previous post of yours.
    I will not attempt to disprove historical facts. I am also not concerned with "MY" position on the year 587 BCE. I am still only stating that the evidence points to 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It's not my position. It's the position of all the current authorities the Watchtower quotes where they refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, not one exception.
  24. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I'd say that every one of those authors and researchers and experts that the Watchtower quoted as authoritative believed that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. No exceptions. Of course, so far I've only been able to find about half of those sources and resources making a specific comment or reference to Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign, and/or the Neo-Babylonian reign as a whole. All the ones I have found, with no exceptions, consistently point to his reign from his accession in 605 BCE, and his calendar regnal years from 604 to 562 BCE. That puts his 18th year exactly in 587 BCE, using only the Watchtower's experts and authorities. 
  25. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    All right. Since you won't try to answer the question yourself, I'll start here with your latest questions and work backwards to the point where I already answered them the first time.   
    Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up.
    I am certainly not, as you say: "Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." The Bible indicates that his reign lasted very close to 43 years; so I believe he had a 43rd year, therefore I believe he had a 37th. There are many business tablets dated to that year, along with one of the oldest and most famous astronomical diaries. I have no problem with any of the information on any of them. I am able to confirm that the diary dated that year does indeed refer to astronomy events that can be calculated to 568 BCE and 567 BCE. Although there are always a few readings that can be quite similar to any other year (even this year, 2024 CE) there are a lot of them that can ONLY have happened in that particular year 568 BCE.
    I have no way of verifying whether some or any of the historical information is true, meaning whether Nebuchadnezzar himself was actually involved in any campaigns referenced for that same year. At least we know that the Babylonians were more forthright about their defeats and their fears than say, the Assyrian and many Egyptian records, so I am willing to give the information on the astronomical tablet the benefit of the doubt.
    As to what seems like a specific question that asks for solid evidence solid evidence that the tablets in question that refer to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar were specifically generated for the "destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC"
    This seems a lot like asking me to provide solid evidence that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were specifically generated  to help George Washington win the Revolutionary War in the previous century before Lincoln. Why would I want to find evidence to support something I have never claimed, and a premise that I find completely ridiculous? I will never want to or try to provide evidence that whatever Nebuchadnezzar was reported to have done in his 37th year was specifically generated for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.  
    Perhaps you only meant to ask if a tablet that indicates that his 37th year was 568 BCE somehow also provides evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587. Of course it doesn't. All it does is provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. If someone's is proven to be 37 years old this year, then that is absolute PROOF that they were 27 years old 10 years earlier, and that they were 18 years old 19 years earlier. So any true evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 37th year in 568 BCE (if true) is also evidence that 27th year was 10 years earlier, and his 18th year was 19 years earlier, therefore, 587 BCE. 
    If you don't agree with the points I just highlighted in red, above, we probably could just stop the conversation right here and stop wasting each other's time, with your evasions and my need to repeat the same answers over and over. So I'll go on to the next, but I am also asking you if you agree with the points I just highlighted in red in that last paragraph. Are you willing to at least respond to that question about whether you agree to only what's in red?
    That will give us a place to start, and then we can move on to whether you believe that there is really any TRUE evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568 BCE.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.