BTK59

Okay, I understand what you're saying, but I think it's best to let it be for now. I have decided to refrain from sending you any further emails regarding his comments. Perhaps the creation of the astronomical tablet in 568 BC can be attributed to the incident where Babylon supposedly attacked Egypt, as suggested by "Cunningham." This explanation seems more logical than using it merely as a reference for cycles, doesn't it? However, I have noticed he enjoys using carefully chosen words to misrepresent your intentions. He has done it again, so I will refrain from contacting you by email about his manipulative behavior. I understand that you were also mentioning King Apries concerning the date that he denies and lies about with the Eclipse war. It is evident that he is fervently attempting to distort other historical records from the period between 589-586 BC in order to affirm that the tablet from 568 BC solely signifies the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Quite amusing, indeed!

No! Deceiving others seems to be a recurrent tendency for you whenever you find yourself entangled in a web of falsehoods. I've never encountered a more deceitful former Bethelite than you. If you insist on indulging in your childish games, why not redirect your attention back to Xero's subject and persist in attempting to substantiate your mistaken interpretation of 587 BC?

When it comes to the other impractical data, try to manipulate and analyze the data from different angles. There's a vast amount of knowledge to acquire in the field of research. I am familiar with the literary works of "Oates" regarding Iraq. However, I have a profound comprehension of "Finch" and "Beaulieu" during the tumultuous era where kings were met with their demise and the battle for the crown ensued. Hence, it is not merely Kandalanu and Nabopolassar who should be taken into account. There are numerous other noteworthy contenders to consider. Paul's description is better suited for that tumultuous time. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain - A history of Babylon, 2200 BC-AD 75-Wiley-Blackwell (2017_2018) "Therefore the documentation on clay tablets, in spite of its relative abundance, gives us a partial view of Babylonian society and culture at that time. Ashurbanipal died probably in 630, leaving the empire in the hands of his heir Ashur‐etel‐ilani, who reigned only four years. In or around 628 another son of Ashurbanipal, Sin‐sharru‐ishkun rebelled against his brother and laid claim to the Assyrian throne. By 627–626 the political situation showed further instability with the rise of another pretender called Sin‐shumu‐lishir, who did not stem from the royal family. To add to the confusion the Babylonian puppet ruler Kandalanu died in 627, leaving the throne unoccupied. Some legal documents from the year 626–625 are dated by “the year after Kandalanu” and Chronicle 21 states that “for one year there was no king in the country.” Soon, however, a new claimant to the Babylonian throne by the name of Nabopolassar (Nabu‐apluusur “O Nabu, preserve the heir”) appeared on the scene. According to the Uruk King List, Sin‐shumu‐lishir and Sin‐sharru‐ishkun reigned one year concurrently between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar. Chronicle 20 states that “after Kandalanu, the year of Nabopolassar’s accession, troubles took place in Assyria and Akkad; a state of war was prolonged; there was a succession of battles.” Chronicle 21 and Babylonian documents reckon the balance of the year 626–625 as the “accession year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon,” the official date of his accession being the twenty‐sixth day of the month Arahsamnu (eighth month), corresponding to November 23, 626 in the Julian calendar. pp.222-223 There was an absence on the throne, so who assumed power in 627 BC? Scholars posit that anyone who was officially granted the authority to act as King would be acknowledged as such by the people. This could include a distinguished General, a Governor, a Crown Prince, and so on. Nabolopassar, in fact, fulfills at least two of these roles even prior to claiming the title of King of Babylon. So, NO! There's no clear-cut assertion when Nabopolassar had control of the Crown. Also, in 626 BC, Nabopolassar took the Crown, it wasn't given to him. That brings into focus his legitimacy. Was George referring to the 20-year difference you insist on regarding the Watchtower, or was he discussing gaps in the tablet records? You have a certain way of manipulating sentences to mean something else. Now, the article on Iraq is referenced by Joan Oates, who also mentions "Kandalanu" as a mysterious king in the book "Babylon." Babylon -- Oates, Joan -- 1979 "The terrible slaughter over, Assurbanipal cleansed and purified the city, and resettled there the survivors of the carnage. A mysterious ruler by the name of Kandalanu now appears as king of Babylon (647-627), but it is generally accepted that this was a throne-name adopted in Babylonia by Assurbanipal himself, who thus reverted to the practice of direct rule and reigned in Babylon until his death." p.123 Any attempt to divert attention from the actual issues is unproductive.

Whatever, you must be AI then, lol! Are you going to degrade yourself any further?

Your opinion carries no significance either. Feel free to have your own opinions, but please don’t impose your irrational views on the public. Mathematics is indispensable when utilized correctly. It's not meant to distort the way non-Chritians or any other religious members would do. A precise way to establish the association between battles and 588/7 BC is by employing accurate mathematical methods. By applying the 19/8-year cycle properly in our calculations, we can also determine that it leads to the year 607/6 BC. Time-lapse moves seamlessly from the start to the finish, rather than insisting that people accept it being presented in reverse. You only want to see 568 BC, which is meaningless. In the past, there were individuals who not only observed omens, but also sought to understand the workings of celestial bodies over time. Why was it visible in the west for 10 months if it appeared in the east for only two months? Those calculations were purely celestial, unrelated to any earthly events.

Srecko, would you be so inclined to deny the ancient dress code for true followers? How about their eating habits? How about how they worship? Do you believe that Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was to deliberately mislead the apostles and the people? Srecko, to validate the argument, all we need to do is look at what you have become.

Here is another example of an encyclopedia documenting the destruction of Nineveh in approximately 607 BC. It seems likely that they were referring to the same information, which mentions 606 BC. Chambers_s_Encyclopædia "Having treacherously murdered their chiefs , he expelled their warriors. Then, in alliance with Nabopolassar , king of Babylon, he overthrew the Assyrian empire by capturing Nineveh about 607 B.C." p.113 Although there are references that suggest the destruction of Ninveh taking place in 612 BC, it is important to note some author's believe that the city was not completely destroyed until King Aššur-uballiṭ II was defeated in Harran in 610/609 BC. So, what are we up to? We have 606, 607, 608, 611, 612 BC for the destruction of Nineveh. Let's go for broke and find something for 610 BC. lol!

I can't help but wonder if George really meant what you think, especially considering your inclination to take things out of context. Why not post the entire context? Do you really think this unconventional approach could work for you? After all, if we keep going in that direction, we could also prove 607 BC. Which comes first? It is important for people to understand the workings of a non-Christian mindset. However, considering the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, can shed light on other significant battles in 588/587 BC that you seem to overlook, which weakens your argument.

It appears that I have offended an excommunicated person who hypocritically claimed to rarely downvote. Could it be that the truth hurts? The next episode will provide a glaring example of meaningless rhetoric by such an individual. The resounding applause of the closed club reverberates through the bustling square. Join us in endorsing our esteemed community member, a true excommunicated trailblazer. LOL! There it is, a deceitful falsehood coming from a dishonest individual who, despite being just as blatant in their wrongdoings as numerous others, managed to manipulate their defenders into ignoring the truth and banning those that defended God's truth in the past. They even go as far as using curse words but ** blocking a letter or two, falsely believing that the public would be unaware of their true intentions. The conduct exhibited by these Jehovah's Witnesses is truly disgraceful, tarnishing the reputation of God and the entire community of believers. You can downvote this one to pudgy.

As I mentioned, you can continue to deny it, but that doesn't change the fact that you have used it in the past. Therefore, your defense of 587 BC is meaningless or otherwise incorrect by COJ's understanding of Chronology. Scripture warns us to stay vigilant and be alert for the coming of the Son of God, as he will arrive unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. Your dissenting ideas do not align with Christianity as you compel others to believe in your own misguided convictions. What makes it unacceptable to God is not your disbelief in chronology, but rather your action and speaking against the word of God by making it public.

Do you understand English along with your fan base? Why do you persist in distorting the Watchtower articles like any other apostate? 1950_Awake In this book the author sets forth the novel theory that millenniums ago a skyroving comet the size of the Earth was cast out from Jupiter's molten mass; that this comet almost collided with the earth and Mars on several occasions; that finally this wandering offspring of Jupiter found an orbit of its own around the son and has since been known as the planet Venus. Throughout the book the attempt is made to prove that when this comet passed within the vicinity of the earth it caused the great catastrophes that befell this globe in times past. Out of the ancient folklore of Arabia, India, China, Tibet, North and South America, and Scandinavia, from accounts found on ancient Egyptian papyri and Babylonian tablets of clay, as well as the record contained in the Bible, links of circumstantial and direct evidence are connected together to make a binding chain for supporting the theory. The intention behind the Watchtower article does not seem to embody kindness or generosity, as far as I can tell. It is imperative that you cease your behavior and confine your foolishness to the confines of the closed club. The question, then, is what theory they used, with reference to Immanuel Velikovsky's book, not the Watchtower.

It no longer holds true since it has been demonstrated that the evidence in question is not relevant. Apostates are now attempting to distort the narrative when they did rely on it in the past, such as the COJ. The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can indeed have significance, but it should not be limited to your incorrect assumption that it represents 587 BC. By recognizing the consistent 19/8 cycle which you deny, we can also interpret it as 607 BC. Twisting words and making false presentations to create a senseless argument is nothing short of foolishness. It would be disappointing if the closed club continues to engage in such behavior. There are numerous publications and reference books available that we can utilize, instead of selectively cherry-picking references to support our unfounded claims. The topic here is: Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History Not what your false narrative thinks about the Watchtower's 20 years. Keep that in the closed club where it belongs. Or you can argue it in Xero's topic. Hence, that reference book is perfectly aligned with the themes of the narrative, since I'm presenting the discrepancy with the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, not what the reference book says, or you think about what it says about the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 629 BC.

Even if you deny it, you still adhere to it as your constitution. How can someone who claims to be a righteous clergyman and yet behaves like a Pharisee still be seen as trustworthy and sincere? There are many individuals here who strongly embody that statement. Bringing up the reference book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" is nothing more than empty talk with no real significance. How do your previous posts relate to the 1914 closing of the Gentile Times, apart from criticizing Rutherford, a Bible Student at that time? What sets your discussion apart from COJ's criticism and deceptive portrayal? I am curious to find out. I am willing to entertain your misguided notions, although it is regrettable that promoting dissenting opinions only serves to confuse the public, rather than benefit them. Your criticism of Rutherford's stance towards false religion fails to address the crucial question: Why didn't he speak favorably about it? This point deserves the public's attention. Rutherford was falsely imprisoned due to religious persecution. So, what was the Catholic Church that imprisoned Rutherford trying to do with the FCC hearing? Federal_Communications_Commission Mr. MONAGHAN. May I ask a question ? The CHAIRMAN . Mr. Monaghan. Mr. MONAGHAN. We Members of Congress-I know I have— have received petitions with thousands of signatures from people who are followers of the radio broadcasts of Judge Rutherford . I would be interested in knowing whether this amendment would help out in that situation . Would it create that liberty of the radio, in all channels , small radio , National Broadcasting Co. , and every sort of company, that has the use of facilities of the air ; would it create that degree of freedom which he desires ? Would it enable Judge Rutherford , in other words , to broadcast ? Father HARNEY. Why, Judge Rutherford , I think- now, I am open to correction- but, I think that Judge Rutherford already owns, or his own organization owns or controls two or three broadcasting stations , and they broadcast on forty or fifty. But, this amendment would leave it open to Judge Rutherford and his crowd to get a franchise to broadcast , provided the Commission could be convinced that their broadcasts are for human welfare and are in the public interest , convenience, or necessity. Not every man that wears the garb of religion even is entitled to talk religion, or talk for religion on any subject. There have been some men who have utilized the radio simply to sling mud . You can refer specifically to our friend Frank Ford-gone , but not forgotten-whose pièce de résistance and every broadcast was simply sending out calumny against the Catholic Church . He was greatly worried, very much disturbed , because we at WLWL would not pay any attention to him. He called me up, pretended to be somebody else , and called me on the telephone and wanted to know why I did not answer this, that, and the other. An effort was made to silence him by blocking his access to an FCC license for broadcasting. Wanting to prevent Rutherford from boldly exposing the truth about deceitful religious practices. However, all of these irrelevant matters have no connection whatsoever to the year 1914, except for you presenting them as a spectacle for your misguided audience.

There seems to have been no change here for almost ten years, but rest assured, they will all be judged by God. To date, the account of the Destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC is not completely certain. An event occurred in 606 BC, and now another one places the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, following the destruction of Jerusalem in 629 BC. Chronology. "This places the fall of Nineveh after the destruction of Jerusalem and is in perfect accordance with our finding that the destruction of Jerusalem was in our B.C. 629 and that the fall of Nineveh could not be earlier than our B.C. 608" p.363

At last, we can find common ground, pudgy, with your nonsensical and irrational posts. Why did it take you so long? lol!

Okay, thanks. I'll look it up. I hope that these posts will also be transferred.

What is the purpose of this demonstration for the public? Is it acceptable to surround yourself with negative influences? Wouldn't it be more comprehensive to include the beginning of the article, rather than just selecting a specific section to cater to your skeptical perspective? You should emphasize, for instance, not associating with people who act and behave like Pharisees. The article's main focus is precisely that. Did the Pharisees truly possess God's truth? Why on earth would a Jehovah's Witness want to associate with someone who behaves in a way that goes against scripture?

I believe that you will find it impossible to disprove the accuracy of the events, even under the most extreme circumstances. Your senseless words are often disregarded by others. lol!

This is for the benefit of @Pudgy That depends largely on your understanding of the events leading up to 1914, the year 1914 itself, and the aftermath of 1914. I find it refreshing that apostates still don't get it. Contrary to the misguided claims made by the uneducated Carl Olof Jonsson in his comical book page 258, it is important to clarify that Pastor Russell did not make an error by emphasizing the significance of the gentile Ottoman Empire in 1914. However, it is crucial to note that the focus was not solely on the Ottoman Empire, but also on the liberation of the Jewish people from Palestine, which occurred under the governance of the British government. Pastor Russell empathized with the plight of the Jewish people, but that does not mean he was a Zionist, as some apostates and witnesses may believe. It is common for people to misinterpret Old English when spoken with proper etiquette. COJ made a significant misinterpretation by only seeing what they wanted to in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It is crucial to note that the treaty consisted of two distinct parts, rather than just one. The first part focused on the idea of freedom, while the second part aimed to establish a homeland for the Jewish people. Just because Pastor Russell mentioned the Ottoman Empire doesn't mean he didn't understand the scheme of the Turkish students before 1914. Therefore, the "Gentile Times" began when God allowed the Babylonian Empire to conquer and rule over the Jewish nation, and it concluded with the dominance of another Gentile nation, whether you consider it to be England or the Ottoman Empire. If you aim to rewrite history, you must first challenge the events of World War 1 and the existence of the great Babylonian nation. What was going on with the Bible Students in 1878? Alexander Lyon Macfie - The Eastern Question 1774-1923 (Seminar Studies)-Routledge (1996) "In August 1878, following an international commission of inquiry, the British and French brought pressure to bear on Ismail to set up an international ministry, headed by Nubar Pasha, an Armenian, and including a British minister of finance and a French minister of public works; and in 1879, when Ismail organised opposition to the new ministry, they brought pressure to bear on the Sultan to secure his deposition." p.48 "All such attempts foundered, however, on the inability of the British to establish an effective regime, capable of maintaining order, and on their failure to reach agreement regarding conditions of withdrawal with the other powers, in particular the French, who objected to British demands for rights of re-entry in case of a threat of invasion or internal disorder arising. As the years passed, therefore, and when no agreement was arrived at, the British occupation became increasingly established, particularly following the conquest of the Sudan, completed in 1898; and in 1914, when the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War on the side of the Central Powers obliged the British to reconsider their position, they officially declared the occupation to be at an end, and proclaimed a protectorate. p.50 England and the Middle East The Destruction of the Ottoman Empire 1914-1921 "If Schwartzberg is right—and his argument is clear and cogent—then Canning must rank as a precursor of those British statesmen and officials dealing with the Middle East from 1914 onwards in whom the ideological impulse or temptation proved so strong, and so far-reaching in its consequences." p, 8 (1987) Marian Kent - The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire (1996) "The following year, in May 1914, Talât Bey, primus inter pares in the Unionist movement, offered an alliance to Russia, but that, too, was not accepted.47 The Committee’s final attempt to reach an understanding with an Entente Power was the approach to France. Cemal Pasha, another leading member of the CUP with francophile proclivities, was sent to Paris in July 1914 for this purpose. He returned to Istanbul with French military decorations but no alliance.48 Meanwhile, negotiations with Berlin had been opened, and Cemal’s failure in Paris gave an impetus to them. Even the pro-Entente Cemal Pasha recognised that Turkey had no choice but to conclude an agreement with Germany to avoid being left isolated in another moment of crisis. That alliance was duly signed on 2 August 1914 as the First World War gathered momentum. p. 14 Carl Olof Jonsson's portrayal and critique of the Ottoman Empire is undeniably disconcerting, to say the least. I look forward to seeing how you will attempt to "disprove" the above with your insightful observation. I am eagerly anticipating the revelation of how astronomical data provides specific evidence pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC by specific documentation in any tablet. Still waiting how astronomy is the link to all history and the word of God isn't.

Oh! Okay. Yes, I understand the discrepancy. There are individuals who prefer to rely solely on their own evidence and dismiss other facts, such as, promoting sources like Parker and Dubberstein, and failing to consider the insights provided by Borger and Frame which seems to me, you quoted from. However, it doesn't matter, that individual is incorrect here as well as in his new subject which I won't waste my time on either. There are scholars who argue that Nabopolassar was actually crowned king approximately three years before, and his reign overlapped with that of the Assyrian king. Does that mean that Borger believes that the uncertain King could have been either Kandalanu or Nabopolassar?

You're not suggesting that you don't support 607 BC, are you? What are your thoughts on the discrepancy between the rulers Akkad's Puppet King, Kandalanu, and Nabopolassar?

Can you believe the audacity of certain individuals who arrogantly believe they possess the power and authority to impose their terms based on false pretenses? These misguided individuals, including a disfellowshipped individual and apostates, are nothing but a disingenuous group supported by supposed Jehovah's Witnesses, ironically enough! Laughable! I think Aruana is right, this person just wants to sow discord among God's people. I wonder who is influencing him.

@George88 Thanks for the reference book. I can understand how a straightforward time calculation can sometimes lead to a discrepancy that is not easily noticeable. Even with advanced futuristic tools, it is likely that Babylonian astronomers would have still made errors that are visible to us today. I'm curious to know if all astronomers possessed the same capabilities, or if some simply observed the sky with their naked eye. Babylonian Eclipse Observations from 750 BC to 1 BC _ Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis_2004 2.5 The statistics of the lunar eclipse timings After elimination of a few gross errors (they are identified in Section 2.11), some 154 useable measurements of time intervals remain. Among them are 49 timings relative to sunset, 3 to moonset, 27 to sunrise, 2 to moonrise, and 73 relating to phases (20 onset, 20 totality, 13 clearing, 20 total duration). Incidentally, the ancient observers were somewhat negligent and confounded the times of sunrise and moonset, when the Moon set eclipsed (eclipses of -406OCT21, -352NOV22, -79APR11).See Figures 1 and 2 for plots of the residuals (observed minus calculated values) against chronological time and against calculated values. Calculations were based on ST82f, with shadow changes as in Table 2. Before about the year -561, i.e. the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, almost all eclipse timings, except the very shortest ones, seem to have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 5º. Afterwards, other integer values are used freely, with only a slight preference for multiples of 5. However, this improvement of recording precision apparently was not accompanied by an improvement of measurement accuracy, and during the entire period under investigation, rounding to the nearest multiple of 5 would have been entirely adequate. Also otherwise, the changes in observational accuracy have remained surprisingly minimal, considering that the observations spread over more than seven centuries. The only noticeable change is that the earlier lunar eclipse time measurements seem to exhibit a mild positive bias, and the later ones a decidedly negative bias (see the end of Section 2.11). A comparison between the observed values and the values calculated from ST82f shows that short time intervals were measured with a standard error of about 2.8°, while large intervals suffer from a relative standard error of about 14%. Presumably, the former is predominantly caused by errors in spotting the contacts. Note that short intervals occur near sunset and sunrise, when the sky is relatively bright and the beginning of the eclipse is hard to spot. On the other hand, the errors in large intervals predominantly will be caused by errors in the time measurements. Overall, the standard deviations σ of individual observations can be modeled reasonably well by the interpolatory formula/ σ2 = 2.82 + (0.14 tcalc)2, all quantities being expressed in time degrees. Thus, the break-even point between the two error components occurs at an interval length of 20°. In our least squares fits we have used the inverse variances σ–2 for weighting the observations, and we have somewhat arbitrarily excluded aberrant data with deviations exceeding 2.9 σ as gross errors. checked the weights by sorting the observations according to their calculated absolute values, and then computing grouped averages. This was done both overall and separately for measurements relative to sunset (SS), to sunrise (SR) and for eclipse phases, see end of Section 2.11. It appears that the estimated overall standard deviations σ agree well with the measurements from sunset, while the random errors of intervals measured to sunrise are approximately 20% larger, and the errors of the phases are about 15% smaller than those predicted by the above formula for σ 2 In particular, the random error of a short (“zero-length”) interval thus would be 2.8°, and that of a short phase would be about 85% of 2.8°, or 10 minutes. Most of this would have to be due to errors in the spotting of the beginning and end of the phase. At first, this seems counter-intuitive, for the following reason. The spotting of sunset is highly accurate. The interval from, say, sunset to the beginning of an eclipse involves the spotting of only one phase and therefore should be determined more accurately than an interval of the same length from the beginning of the eclipse to the beginning of totality, which involves two phases. The probable reason for this paradox is that short intervals to the beginning of an eclipse occur near sunset and sunrise, where phases are harder to spot than in the dark of the night. Anyway, if we assume that the determinations of beginning and end of phases are statistically independent, this translates into an average random spotting error of about 10/ √ 2 = 7 minutes, somewhat higher near sunrise/sunset, somewhat lower in the dark of the night. It goes without saying that these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. They should be compared also to the timing errors of approximately 5 minutes found by Stephenson and Said (1991) for the Arabic observations of eclipse contacts. pp.28-29 568 BC doesn't seem to fit the naked eye theory. However, it is important to note that none of the astronomical tablets actually record the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to invest time and effort into a flawed observation cycle.

It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.

@George88 The interesting part of this situation is how the reluctant astronaut will explain the response from artificial intelligence when it is revealed. It's fascinating how AI can provide truly intriguing answers when posed with the right question. In this case, if we consider the historical reference to an invasion in 605 BC, a significant event that could have resulted in the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem. We can see how military history supports the notion that this invasion indeed led to their downfall, ravaging the land and capturing inhabitants, it would mean the only thing of value for the Jewish nation was the temple and the house of the elite; therefore, the temple could have been burned in 586 BC. Therefore, it becomes plausible to consider that 70-year period from 605 BC to 535 BC, and that the gentile times would then have ended in 1915. A 2-year difference. Remarkable! It's foolish how people can argue over a mere two-year difference, according to AI. lol! How significant would those calculations have been for World War 1 and the enthronement of Christ? Therefore, all apostate beliefs have been overshadowed by artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence: The destruction of Judah is commonly dated to **587/586 BC**, when Nebuchadnezzar II, the king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged and captured Jerusalem. This event led to the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity¹. However, there are references to an earlier invasion by Nebuchadnezzar. In **605 BC**, after defeating Pharaoh Neco of Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, and King Jehoiakim of Judah became subservient to the King of Babylon². This earlier date is sometimes associated with the start of the Babylonian influence over Judah, but it is not the date of the complete destruction of Jerusalem or the temple. The final siege of Jerusalem, which resulted in the city's fall and the temple's destruction, occurred over a period of about 30 months, culminating in **587/586 BC**¹. This event marked the end of the Kingdom of Judah as an independent state and the start of the Babylonian exile for many of its inhabitants. Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/10/2024 (1) Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC). (2) King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon invades Judah - The Bible Journey. https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/. (3) Details of 586 BC Babylonian Destruction of Jerusalem Revealed in Fire .... https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/destruction-jerusalem-0018956. LOL! I'll wait for the refutiation on this one along with waiting for proof positive on any of the tablets mentioned that have exact language for the destruction of Jerusalem ib 587 BC.