BTK59

Not at all. Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic "Eclipse War" that occurred in 589/8 BC. I'm happy to make good use of the VAT 4956. It provides substantiated historical facts, rather than mere astronomical conjectures.

The only one who is completely mistaken is you, but I don't really value your perspective or way of thinking. True Jehovah's Witnesses are truly amused by the desperation of an Ex-Bethelite, it's quite entertaining, LOL! You're welcome. Now apply the information with its accurate designation, rather than misrepresenting it to mean 587 BC. However, I am still eagerly anticipating the evidence, which directly states the occurrence of the Jerusalem destruction in 587 BC, found in any of those tablets. Inform me when you are prepared, despite your continuous effort to avoid and bypass the question.

You criticized my post, but now you're avoiding it as you always do. I trust that the year 19/8th of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 607/6 BC based on a careful analysis of the tablet data, not just because of the year 569/8 BC. Is the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC mentioned in VAT 4956? I'm still waiting. Your proposal is irrelevant. Regarding the confirmation of the dates of the kings in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607, it fits. For more than 10 years, the only person who has been confused is you, not only about incorrect assumptions regarding the misplacement of that data, but also in an uninformed manner. https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/saros-cycle-solar-eclipse-lunar-eclipse/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill I am not favoring one thing over the other. The data I posted is not meant to give the impression that I favor one side or the other. It is there to simply demonstrate errors in thinking and calculations. I couldn't care less about your acceptance. What truly counts is that the public witnesses your mistakes by those illustrations if they can comprehend it.

BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 6926 B.C.-A.D. 45. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 924, by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein. Pp. xiii + 46, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1942. Every step toward a further clarification of the chronology of the Near East is most welcome, especially when it adds much new data with regard to the reigns of the kings in any particular period. Such is the service rendered by Parker and Dubberstein in their recent study. The three chapters of the study are entitled, "The Babylonian Calendar," "King's Reigns," and "Tables for the Restatement of Babylonian Dates in Terms of the Julian Calendar." The first chapter begins with a discussion of the difference between the solar year and the lunar year which is about eleven days shorter. The use of intercalary months by the Babylonians to offset this inequality is assigned provisionally by the authors to the middle of the eighth century B.C. during the reign of Nabonassar. There follows a list of the intercalary months mentioned in the published texts plus some notes on about a dozen as yet unattested though highly probable additional intercalary months. The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D. It's quite amusing to see how dreamers fiercely defend an unattainable position, particularly when they lack the necessary knowledge. It's a laugh, really!

Do you have written proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, similar to the evidence found in the Babylonian Chronicles for 598 BC, or does your admission that it doesn't exist carry any weight? lol!

The reason why 568 BC seems nonsensical is because of the way it is being approached. The argument against 607 BC made by the Korean scholar is based on a cycle that predates that date. This cycle of 19/8 years from 607 BC would end in 588/7 BC, which explains why his findings align with that period. By following the same pattern, we would arrive at 569/8 BC. This is the reason why the data does not match from 587-568 BC, as it was not intended to fit within that timeframe. The mistake lies in erroneously using VAT 4956 as a reference, which mentions the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to historical records, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in 605 BC, and it would end those observations in 568 BC with that assumed cycle. When looking at the same scenario, the data reinforces the notion of his reign beginning in 605 BC. Some individuals theorize that by working backward from 568 BC, they would reach 587/6 BC. However, this presumption holds weight, as the same pattern also implies the potential for 588 BC from 607 BC. So, which "cycle" does the data support? It doesn't align with Furuli's suggestion of 568 BC to 587 BC, which was his main point. It does align with the intended cycle of 607 to 588 BC. However, what we have now are disingenuous individuals distorting not only his work but also misrepresenting the findings of numerous others. If you consult with Furuli, he will not dispute the date of 607 BC, but he will elucidate the reasons why VAT 4956 cannot be deemed a dependable tablet for any specific occurrence. The key lies in understanding the cycle and how those observations truly reinforce it. It does not have support for 587 BC.

I completely agree, especially when individuals manipulate Watchtower articles to suit their own agenda. JWI: "Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago." That's why the statement is clearly false, and it should not be upvoted by anyone that knows the truth about the intent of 1914 that was considered the "end of the gentile times" as recorded in scripture, and the start of Christ's reign in Heaven NOT on earth. This way, those stupid squirrels chasing their tails around that tree looking to eat a rotten nut won't infect the other squirrels looking for good nuts.

Certainly, newcomers often struggle to navigate from the past to the present. I prefer not to invest my time in individuals who contradict themselves and purposefully oppose me for no reason. They do not deserve your time. You have just witnessed utter nonsense by a certain meaningless individual.

This comment disregards the misguided claims made in the Watchtower articles, which have been influenced by apostate perspectives. It is important to note that these assertions are being made by an individual who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness but has unfortunately lost all credibility. This person should have been disfellowshipped not because they believe in the Watchtower Chronology, but rather due to their misrepresentation of scripture and God's word.

I have noticed that the sequence is inconsistent with 568 BC, unless we consider 586 BC, which would undermine the assertion of 587 BC. Aside from that important detail, we would need to consider 569 BC instead of 568 BC and in certain circumstances, 570 BC. Hence, the most suitable choice would be 588 BC instead of the problematic 568 BC.

Admitting this only exacerbates the situation for that individual. Why mention that person in any argument when they lack the credentials you have just acknowledged? It is essential that you begin addressing your own mistakes before rushing to correct those of others.

@xero Opponents turn to the manipulation of tablets using a 569 with an 18-year cycle. The tablets are organized according to the 19-year Saros Cycle. It concludes in 568 BC, the designated time for their placement. That you have just discovered is something that disrupts the observation. However, when someone attempts to use it in reverse, they immediately protest that it's impossible. So, I recommend using your own judgment.

@Pudgy Your justification for condoning negative behavior is completely incorrect. You manipulate this website's rules to accommodate the wicked intentions brought here by apostates and expelled individuals with personal vendettas. Who appointed you to be the judge of the Watchtower, the Governing Body, or the Elders when your behavior is equally or even more questionable than those you criticize? So, NO! I refuse to submit to a heretical thinker, now or ever. I prioritize God above all else and would never want to dishonor Him with my wrongful actions.

@Pudgy It would be simple to leave this den of lions, but this is a public forum run by supposed witnesses who have nothing better to do than gossip and use this forum to air their disgruntled false views of God's Organization. Forget the apostates that are allowed to stay over true witnesses that defend God's word by your bad behavior and you people defend those former member by not eliminating them as TOM and JWI are capable of erasing as many people as they think they have to, as they have done in the past by deleting true witnesses just because they want to use this site as a research site to hear from the opposite side for their books, knowing someone will always take over. Then they complain about different accounts that they themselves have caused because they continue to delete those voices to prevent them from being heard, instead of just wanting to hear apostate views. That is the kind of censorship the governments of this world run by Satan are doing. You cannot stop the truth from being revealed no matter how hard you try. You should know that as a disfellowshipped individual. God "exposed" your heinous crime.

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.

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.

@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!

Does this imply that there might be something faulty in my presentation? Sure, let's use IM then. I comprehend the abundance of tomfoolery and the dearth of education occurring here. Won't these owners still see it, even if they call themselves moderators? Maybe we should consider a different approach since we are in the lions' den, haha!

@George88 Paired with biblical accounts, the secular evidence offers a compelling visual depiction of the period in question, as demonstrated by the Babylonian Chronicles even though it has a 37-year gap. Providing the alignment between the bible account and the secular account solidifies the identity of the Nebuchadnezzar being referenced. History and Bible: 1. 607 BC, the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar ll / 2 Kings 24 Bible: 2. The Lord sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite, and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah. Bible: Jeremiah 25 Seventy Years of Desolation begins. Bible: 2. 604 BC First deportation / Daniel 1:1 History and Bible: 2. 598/7 BC, Nebuchadnezzar orders second deportation, and there is a change of Jerusalem Kings, between Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah. Application: Several tablets can be applied under the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign in 605 BC. Some notable examples include the Astronomical tablets VAT 4956, BM 33006, MB 41222, and HSM 1899.2.112. Additionally, any other tablet that references the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be considered if we take into account the stipulated 19/8 years if those tablets were created in 568 BC. History and Bible: 3. 587/6 BC Nebuchadnezzar orders third deportation. Battles recorded in this year by King Cyaxares against the Lydians and Nebuchadnezzae's general battling the king of Mitsir. Bible: 2 Kings 25:27 King Jehoiachin is released from prison. Solomon's Temple burned, the siege wall was taken down, King Zedekiah was taken prisoner to Reblah, and his sons were killed. Last of Judah Kings. History: Reference back from 568 BC using a 19-year cycle for King Jehoiachins release. 605-37=568 / 568+19=587 Bible: 4. 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar, ll, leaves Gedaliah as governor over the remaining Judeans. Does this look like a good time frame?

Oh! Tom, we are aware of the influence you and JWI hold in "deletion" when you are confronted with evidence of being mistaken. The players have been well-known for a considerable period of time. So, your saying is also mine, right back at you, or should I say, many miles.

Hey! Pudgy, why don't you ask your friend to stop chocking on a simple direct question, that way it won't be ad nauseam either. As always, it appears that you are once again defending the indefensible. I hope you don't fall asleep eating a ham sandwich either. If you choose to behave like a bully and interfere when people are wrong, don't be surprised when you are treated the same way. So, please don't complain if you end up being treated in that manner.

Yeah, Pudgy and as a character use Vic the one eyed Parrot, lol!

Let's turn our attention away from hate and self-pity and focus on mature content that exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, allowing viewers to see the true nature of those who control this site.

What is your excuse for sending "warnings" to others and then deleting them to avoid being exposed as dishonest? Stop trying to make excuses for your and Tom's inappropriate behavior when it comes to randomly deleting people.

Who is in charge of overseeing those moderators who defend individuals like you, even though they themselves behave like lunatics? Eventually, your findings must be comprehensible to rational individuals trying to make sense of all this chaos.