BTK59

Double Post, you got my attention, lol! Doesn't that mean C1-B1 NBK 33-38 doesn't align with the proposed assumption of 598/597, as stated?

Let's continue our discussion over email. This person is determined to sabotage a productive debate with their usual nonsense. Let's delve into Jeremiah 1, 2, and 3 for 629 BC, as recorded by another individual, since it would be unproductive to introduce information here for those who lack knowledge. By doing so, we can avoid any confusion and maintain the integrity of our discussions. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Jeremiah 22 for 610 BC provides another interesting example that could be beneficial to include in our analysis. Exploring the theory behind this specific passage would further enhance our understanding. I must say, your submission of another chart is indeed an excellent example of a well-designed chart. I understand your point about agreeing with Jeremiah for 629 BC, supported by biblical evidence in Jeremiah 1:2, and where you disagree with the author's determination of 586 BC based on their understanding of chronology. I believe the original focus here was King Josiah and the prophet Jeremiah before it was tarnished, correct? I thought I had added that person to my ignore list. I can't help but wonder if seeing his responses are yet another manipulative tactic from those in power.

Oh, fantastic! I see that you've started a fresh topic. Hopefully, this one will be free from the onslaught of false claims and misinterpretations. Isn't Habakkuk actually depicted much later, around 610 by secular reckoning? However, it's interesting to note that the good fellows from "Pathway to Peace Ministry" portray Jeremiah's ministry in their impressive charts starting in 629/628. They place Daniel 1:1 around 625/624, but surprisingly, they begin the 70-year desolation period in 605 and conclude it in 539. It seems they are two years off the Watchtower's calculations for the 70 years.

It appears that the disfellowshipped person has adopted a new persona, as the previous one was so effective that it was disregarded by the rational. Can't wait to place that person on the ignore list, lol! It's amusing how arrogance cunningly distorts the narrative to create an illusion of moral superiority, when in reality, they are actually in the lowest position. Whoops! Already have, lol!

It's unfortunate that dogs have a tendency to relieve themselves in someone else's yard, instead of utilizing their own space to vent their frustrations. lol! What topic has elicited sympathy from the closed club known for their high standards? THIS IS DEMENTED INSANITY ON PARADE from the "inane", lol!

I wonder if ex-witnesses should also be looked into as a collective group, given their influence in Norway's government. https://www.sciencenorway.no/cyberwarfare-election-politics/researchers-to-investigate-whether-foreign-powers-attempted-to-influence-norways-2021-parliamentary-elections/1916250 Yet, we have an individual declaring that right-wing NOX NEWS should be accepted as factual. That's a laugh. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02605-5 https://nordmedianetwork.org/latest/news/a-nordic-effort-to-fight-disinformation-and-information-disorder/ Has Norway accomplished it's disinformation campaign? Not in the least since they are part of the problem not the solution.

Even though witnesses may feel helpless about matters beyond their control and lack the ability to counteract Satan's influence, delving into political motivations does not serve the true spirit of brotherhood. As we approach the day of reckoning, it is likely that additional matters will incite outrage. This should alarm engaged observers, although the individual in question may not share this concern.

Hey, slow down—don't mistake me for the inept ones here. I was simply asking, not demanding. lol! I've heard of similar occurrences from the Babylonian XI Dynasty. Aside from the notable Assurbanipal Lunar Eclipse on August 3, 682 BCE, and the Nabonidus Lunar Eclipse on September 25, 554 BCE, there appears to be little else of significance to examine within that period. Could this be the reason why, in Pekka Mansikka's revised chronology, he dates the reign of Nabopolassar to 646 BCE? Seems that we have a discrepancy with the accession year and regnal year again since history assigns Kandalanu's reign to 647 BCE. Well, enjoy your weekend, I am off to see The Wizard, lol!

Discussing criticism, I believe that if Hipparchus were alive today, he would have been appalled by Newton's unconscionable arrogance to the point of physical confrontation, while Strabo would have dismissed him as a fool. lol! "The Arrangement of the Geographical Fragments It is clear from Strabo° that Hipparchus' criticism of Eratos­ thenes was a work in three books (as was Eratosthenes' own Geography). Berger,* in his collec­tion of the fragments, made no attempt to arrange them according to their probable order in the original three books, but. merely classified them according to subject matter - an arrangement which involved a good deal of unnecessary frag­mentation and repetition. According to Berger,° most of Strabo's quotations, except those taken from the latitude table, come from Hipparchus' first book, in which he also attacked Eratosthenes' 'corrections' of the old maps, his mathematical and physical geography, and his conception of South Asia. In the second book, Berger thinks, Hipparchus attacked Eratos­thenes' ideas on North Asia, Europe and Libya; while in the third book Hipparchus put forward his own ideas for a mathe­matical geography based on astronomical data, and included an eclipse table to assist in the determination of longitudes." To the contemporary mindset, it would have seemed impossible for intellectuals of the past to grasp concepts that would be out of reach for modern society. Yet, there are those who believe that by inputting numbers into astronomical software, they align themselves with the ancients and the cosmos, considering their findings infallible. That's hilarious! It also raises the question of who borrowed from whom and whether it matters. Your suggestion of irrelevancy holds weight. Question, certainly, you were referring to VAT 4956 in your remark. Did you input text too quickly? I'd strongly prefer not to endure the annoyance of someone with a childish mentality dwelling on the matter. LoL!

@George88 I understand your perspective on referring to certain individuals as authoritative figures who act oppressively. Professor Newton epitomizes this description. He dismissively claims that Ptolemy was essentially a fraud, suggesting we disregard all of his observations. It's clear how interpretations can distort the foundation of historical facts. I also appreciate the enclosure, which could indeed find the VAT 4956 tablet useful if we apply not merely the observations but certain claims and the date of the tablet itself. I also understand why you might find the language used here reminiscent of Carl Olof Jonsson. At least he dared to stand behind his identity before becoming an apostate, unlike another who, acting both cowardly and a clown, employed similar rhetoric regarding the 20-year gap in his presentation to the Watchtower. Robert R. Newton - The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy-Johns Hopkins University Press (1977) LUNAR ECLIPSES FOR WHICH PTOLEMY GIVES THE BABYLONIAN YEAR Date King Year Authenticity -720 Mar 19 Mardokempad 1 May be fabricated -719 Mar 8 Mardokempad 2 Fabricated -719 Sep 1 Mardokempad 2 May be fabricated -620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated -522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated -501 Nov 19 Darius 20 May be genuine -490 Apr 25 Darius 31 May be genuine Now let us see what happens to a modern historian or chronologist who studies Ptolemy's eclipse records. He sees that there is a list of kings and their reigns. He also sees that Ptolemy dates a lunar eclipse in the first year of Mardokempad, for example, on a certain month and day in the Egyptian calendar, t at a certain hour on that day, and he states the fraction of the moon that was shadowed during the eclipse. The historian uses Ptolemy's king list to find the year in our calendar and he uses the Egyptian month and day to find the complete date in our calendar. He then finds by astronomical calculations that there was an eclipse on that date, that it came close to the hour that Ptolemy states, and that the stated amount of shadowing is also close to correct. This agreement between Ptolemy The historian or chronologist naturally concludes that there is overwhelming evidence confirming the accuracy of Ptolemy's king list, and he proceeds to use it as the basis for Babylonian chronology. Yet there is no evidence at all. The key point is that there may have been no Babylonian record at all. Ptolemy certainly fabricated many of the aspects of the lunar eclipses, and he may have fabricated all of them. When he fabricated them, it did not matter whether he used a correct king list or not. Any king list he used, regardless of its accuracy, would seem to be verified by eclipses. p.374 If we operate under this assumption, it would allow anyone to input any date and time to achieve their desired outcomes, effectively rendering the results counterfeit. Under such a premise, modern software could be deemed obsolete by Newtonian standards, facilitating the manipulation of "facts" by individuals aiming to distort them for personal gain and disseminating their flawed agenda to the masses. I think I like Newton, lol! However, in addressing this sad professor's assertions, I question whether his conviction pertains to the validity of the King's List or the lunar eclipse observation associated with a particular monarch. Ptolemy's Canon places Nabopolassar's reign between 625 and 605 BC; hence, the relevance of a lunar eclipse observation in 620 BC to Nabopolassar's reign is unclear. In light of contemporary astronomical data, Ptolemy's account could be inaccurate by one year, yet this discrepancy allows room for interpretation when distinguishing between an accession year and a regnal year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings However, if we embrace this controversy, we must also accept it for all historical records, including those inscribed on parchments and clay tablets and interpreted through modern translations, since it makes no distinction. I believe Newton discarded logic and common sense in an attempt to establish his reputation, a downfall you suggest affects many seeking recognition. This includes authors, undisciplined bloggers with an abundance of time, and promoters of division and conflict. This unidentified individual, who corresponded with the Watchtower in the year 2000, not only referenced Newton but also, with authoritative audacity, demanded the retraction of Ptolemy's kings list from their publications. Ironically, this clown also employs the language of the 20-year gap, just as it's demonstrated here, frequently. It's unlikely that this correspondence is associated with Jonsson, as he typically had no issues with self-identification, and it is probable that he was already disfellowshipped at that point. In contrast, this clown did. "It is true that secular historians generally date the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity at 586 or 587 B.C.E., and we do not hide this fact. But we do challenge the veracity of their evidence for producing this date. The appendix to chapter 14 of the book "Let Your Kingdom Come," which you have referred to, discusses this matter in some detail. Of course, our understanding of the chronology involved is guided by God's Word, which is very specific about the time involved and what would occur during that time. (2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Jeremiah 25:8-11; Daniel 9:2) Therefore, we believe the chronology we present is in harmony with Biblical timing rather than somewhat problematic secular dating that disagrees with the Scriptures, as explained in the "Kingdom Come" book. Pages 461 to 466 of Insight on the Scriptures, Volume E, also provide some background for this chronology. Additionally, the section "Chronology" beginning on page 447, as well as "Appointed Times of the Nations, on pages 132 to 1.35, covers these subjects in depth. This date of 586 B.C.E. is by no means as well attested to as the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. for the overthrow of Babylon. Given the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. and the subsequent release of the Jews in 537 B.C.E., then, with the clear Biblical references to a seventy-year period of desolation of Jerusalem, we are brought to the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction. A principal source for accepting the date 586 B.C.E. is the second-century Greek scholar Claudius Ptolemy. Recently, Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offered proof that many of Ptolemy's observations were "deliberately fabricated." Scientific American magazine noted that "Ptolemy's forgery may have extended to inventing 1he lengths of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton *all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence on Ptolemy (king) list must be removed."-Issue of October 1977, page 80. Thus, as to the difference in approximately 20 years between the Bible's chronology and that based principally on secular evidence, we choose to be guided primarily by God's Word. As the Kingdon Come book on page 189 comments: "Hi seems evident that the easiest and most..." In summary, no one here is interested in learning; their only goal is to gather more information to deepen their criticism of the Watchtower, which ultimately will be judged by God.

@Miracle Pete Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!

It's rather amusing to observe how individuals such as Pudgy, Tom, JWI, Many Miles, Xero, or members of the closed club are compelled to support apostates here through alternate accounts. Quite humorous, indeed! In this case, it appears you are Pudgy's or Many miles, maybe even Tom's sock puppet as they like to refer to it, and since you have posted it, PROVE IT, don't just make accusations, lol! Please refrain from engaging in verbose rhetoric, discussing login, timing, or infringing upon others' privacy rights, as done by moderators like JWI as proof. Let's avoid any further nonsense if that intent is going to be applied. This type of behavior typically emerges right before they expel someone, primarily because they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. They resorted to using sock puppets for hurling insults, and carrying out their malicious deeds. Consequently, they deceive people by claiming that no one has been banned due to their actions, which is not only false but also an outright lie. So, I'll just block you right now, you can speak with your other self at will.

I've just finished reading the email you sent. Wow, I'm speechless. I understand you may be hesitant to share information you're certain of, but have you ever considered writing a book? Your examples are so clear, they make sense even if they aren't the final outcome of your deductions. Also, I appreciate your mention in the email regarding the destruction of Nineveh in 625 BC. It is indeed perplexing. It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587. It's troubling to consider the mindset of such people, and even more so when others agree with this misguided notion. Perhaps it's time to shift our focus and initiate a discussion on a different subject. Let’s explore how secular history often misinterprets various aspects or something along those lines. I understand that we are both busy, but let's give it some thought. lol!

I have always pondered the origins of the notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC, as there appears to be a lack of written evidence supporting such a claim from the ancients. It's funny how he flaunts credentials as if they should hold weight against the Watchtower, but he disregards them when they are used to proving him wrong. Is Doctor Kildare in the house, lol! It is indeed intriguing that some historians believe Herodotus obtained certain information from Berossus, considering that Herodotus died at the age of 64 and Berossus is estimated to have lived in the third century BC. It raises the question: was Berossus a young boy conducting research for his thesis at that time? lol!

I have noticed that there is a conflict in the narratives as well. For instance, while some scholars and historians attribute the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Babylonians and Medes, it is worth noting that Gadd's BM21901 tablet also mentions the Scythians who marched against it along the other two allies.

This site is clearly designed to cater to false witnesses and apostates, and it's important for people to be aware of this. That's your loyal fan base in the closed club. If it weren't for apostates and the disfellowshipped, where would you or he find yourselves? lol! If you are using "AI," I suggest you use it correctly.

Your assertion is only proof of your misconceptions and lack of understanding regarding secular history. Your subtle insults are just as noticeable as anyone's straightforward responses of nonsense when you persist in your deceitful ways to win over your ignorant audience. Visitors should embody a different mindset than dissatisfied witnesses such as yourself. If you strongly disagree with the Watchotwer, it might be best to part ways with it. You are free to depart at any time, and it is unnecessary for the organization to have a Pharisee in its midst, for God does not require it. Be careful not to mistake the truth for insults, as some people here are accustomed to doing. This is why people like you often ban others because the truth can be painful. God feels equally pained when individuals like you mislead others and steer them away from His path, causing His flock to go astray. Who do you believe would gain God's approval more readily? Your counterargument appears to be a smokescreen, masking your inability to defend the falsehoods you have presented.

Your consistent deceit and twisted storytelling, JWI, are truly laughable. We are discussing the conflict between Babylon and Egypt, which took place around 589/588 BC or 588/587 BC. The Eclipse War, also known as the Halys War, began around 590 BC and may have ended around 584 BC. This individual hypocritically persists in distorting the truth and pretending that any honest researcher opposing him would succeed, even though he is evidently facing defeat. At this point, it seems that he is renowned for his skill in manipulating words and is considered by some to be a false prophet.

You're absolutely right. JWI has become too distracting, making it difficult to have an honest debate. It does not seem to be inherent in his genetic makeup. I am considering using "Xero's" insightful words about people who have nothing meaningful to say in this situation. lol!

This applies only if you lack the knowledge to fill those gaps with factual information. You are hindering your progress by constantly battling against yourself, attempting to validate a 20-year difference and an inaccurate storyline regarding 587 BC. When people are misled here, how does that become the words of Jesus and echoed by Paul?

I appreciate your recognition of the hypocrisy in this situation. I suppose those involved, like yourself, enjoy a "friends with benefits" relationship with no way around it. lol! Therefore, let's refrain from deceiving the public as it is accustomed to here.

I completely agree. If you've ever encountered a situation where someone was banned because of your actions, and then had to create a new name to rejoin because their original account was permanently blocked, it's a clear indication of the truth about what's truly happening here. It ultimately reflects poorly on anyone with the authority to block others simply because they dislike hearing the truth. Why hasn't Pudgy been banned for his outrageous remarks and posts? Yet he remains. You should consider granting individuals the same fundamental right to freedom of speech that you enjoy here, rather than imposing bans based on personal preferences. It is quite perplexing to witness the acceptance of certain veiled profanities, especially coming from individuals who identify as Jehovah's Witnesses. This situation not only contradicts your own bylaws but is also rather comical. Using **** does not alter the intent of the word. The same principle can be applied to historical facts. It is not within anyone's authority to dictate the course of research for individuals who might not be part of an academic institution. This platform does not meet that requirement. It is not an academic class. However, what it provides is a forum that tends to blur the distinction between the Watchtower's beliefs regarding chronology and the accounts of secular history, as presented through written records, archaeological findings, and other forms incorporated into their historical narrative. Then, you have assumptions about how one should make decisions based on the Bible. This may seem counterintuitive, but individuals are free to believe what they want as long as they do not misrepresent their views and the teachings of the Bible in public forums, as it's being done here. Both sides will always disagree due to their use of different methodologies. One fundamental aspect that sets them apart is the timeframe of creation. The Watchtower utilizes 4026 BC as its standard, whereas secular history generally considers either 4004 or 4000 BC. This conflicting timing creates a clear discrepancy that can result in numerous inconsistencies when making calculations. When you claim that "I feel Joan Oates" presents a stronger argument for reconciling the discrepancy between King Kandalanu and Nabolopassar, the refutation to this perspective lies in the person's own words. In their book, "BABYLON," the person clearly states their position. That leaves room for interpretation regarding others who may have claimed kingship at that time. Scholars have had differing opinions from the past to the present. However, that doesn't by any means imply that such a void can be simply dismissed or argued in favor just to win an argument. When a dismissal of this nature occurs, it becomes disingenuous, and if the public truly comprehends what they are reading, they will also perceive the deceit concealed within the counterarguments. Hence, apart from those individuals who are fervently endeavoring to refute the Watchtower Chronology, akin to any other apostate across the globe, what advantages are there for those who frequent this website? None! Its sole beneficiaries are the discontented individuals within the closed club. Consequently, let us have the integrity to acknowledge the true intentions within ourselves. Yes, I used the word "akin". What's wrong with that? lol!

Yes, you're absolutely correct. It is indeed fascinating to see how Rawlinson and numerous other scholars subscribe to the interpretation of Thales of Miletus' prophecy regarding May 28, 585 BC. On another note, have you come across any notable information about Nineveh in the year 609 BC? I hope the other person doesn't attempt to manipulate your words about Rawlinson. lol!

Hey! Perhaps the next big trend will involve sporting shorts and roller skates. That sounds like it would be a blast! lol!

I'm curious to know if Srecko would consider it likely for a contemporary woman to don a bathing suit from 1910. lol!