Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Let's refocus on our topic and eliminate any distractions or unnecessary information.

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!

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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 have often reflected upon this.

[JW Insider]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:51 PM, JW Insider said:

On 3/11/2024 at 3:59 PM, BTK59 said:

Not at all. Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic "Eclipse War" that occurred in 589/8 BC. 

I am first responding to the claim that there was an "eclipse war" that occurred in 589/8. This is false. There never was one. You might be referring to the Eclipse War or "Battle of the Eclipse" on May 28, 585 BC: . . . .  such a battle could have been September 3, 609 BC or July 4, 587 BC. But there is no possible alternative for an eclipse battle to have been in 589/588. 

These exchanges would be laughable if they weren't so . . . laughable. 

After my above counter to your claim of 589/8, I got this response although it wasn't a direct response about the eclipse. 

On 3/21/2024 at 4:45 AM, BTK59 said:

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?

But then George immediately shows his BTK59 comment really was intended to refer to the eclipse in the next post:

On 3/21/2024 at 6:20 AM, George88 said:

He [JWI] is referring to Rawlinson's interpretation, which asserts that the battle of the eclipse took place in 585 BC. But can we trust a website where anyone can make changes at any time? History is satisfied with this interpretation. But is it factual?

Once again, he [JWI] selectively chooses items to inaccurately oppose, simply to make an uninformed assertion . . .  I can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC, and according to "Basahquet," it occurred on May 28, 584 BC. Therefore, what is the purpose of his argument? To muddy the waters.

"It is also possible that a lunar eclipse happened on the day of the battle, right before night fell. Taking this into account, the date of the Battle of the Eclipse could have been September 609 B.C."

So, George says I am inaccurate and my assertion that it didn't happen in 598/8 is an uninformed assertion. Then he himself admits the possibility of Sept 609, which I had already mentioned. George88 also says that he can demonstrate that the battle took place on Sept 30, 610. George is not telling the truth here. He can't demonstrate that. All he can do is find out that someone in the 1800's had tried to demonstrate that date, and it held for 40 years until someone recalculated and discovered his error. The person who had made the mistake of Sept 30 610 BC admitted that his calculations were worthless, and the same person who had made that mistake also then helped confirm the May 28, 585 date. Along with many others since then, including my own version of Stellarium and Sky5. 

Note: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1901PA......9..376S/0000378.000.html

...

I'll explain why I have picked on this particular mistake of yours in a later post.

But I wanted to point out that my main point is still that no such eclipse happened in 589/588.  Your response inadvertently indicates that I was right. You tried to produce evidence for two other dates, but you also could not produce evidence for 589/8. 

[Pudgy]

On an unrelated note … did you know that if you took a single layer of one hundred dollar bills of US CURRENCY, equaling the current US National Debt of $35 Trillion, it would completely covet all of China’s surface area, and exceed it by a factor of 1.42 ?

… there are problems more urgent than what is being discussed here.

ChatGBT:

I'll conduct 500 iterations to find a combination of contiguous countries whose combined surface area is slightly less than the surface area of $35 trillion. I'll perform the calculations without printing each iteration. Let's get started.

I've completed the 500 iterations and found a combination that meets the criteria. The combination of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand has a combined surface area of approximately 1.44 million square kilometers, which is slightly less than the surface area of $35 trillion laid flat in a single layer. This combination provides a difference of approximately 2.41 million square kilometers.

If you have any further questions or would like to explore anything else, feel free to let me know!

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

These exchanges would be laughable if they weren't so . . . laughable. 

After my above counter to your claim of 589/8, I got this response although it wasn't a direct response about the eclipse. 

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.

[Pudgy]

BTK59

You better check my calcs TOoooOOoo…

…. I can see just with cursory inspection my A.I. is as nutty as YOUR A.I.

…… or is it?

(brouhahaHAHhaha)!!

[George88]

16 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

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.

I strongly suggest that you block him. It's clear that he's a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. He has spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts, much like Carl Olof Jonsson has done for years. It's evident that he can't bear the fact that his false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. That's precisely why it's essential to let the professionals handle this matter and uncover the truth.

If you notice he is nitpicking the dates. What he needs to do is "disprove" those historical facts about the wars between the Medians and Lydians, and the Babylonians and the Egyptians around the time when supposedly Jerusalem was being destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC. 

He can't stand the fact that his famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just his false narrative of Jerusalem.

Like the other fool before, who failed to disprove the significant events that occurred in 1914. You cannot deny that the destruction of Jerusalem was not the only conflict to take place. Moreover, it is evident that after Cyrus's decree in 538 BC, the Jews did indeed build an altar for worship in 537 BC, or can you disprove scripture here as well?

One important detail that is frequently overlooked and undisclosed to the public is that in 539 BC, Cyrus's wife passed away, prompting a period of mourning and another reason for his decree being issued in 538 BC, given the historical consensus of October 539 BC as the precise month and year when he entered Babylon.

He consistently manipulates the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support his version of events. You should critically examine and challenge this distorted interpretation of history that you believe exists. For instance, you could challenge the claim that there was no Eclipse War that intertwined in or around 587/586 BC, disprove the historical evidence of prolonged hostility between Babylon and Egypt during that period, and undermine the argument that the astronomical tablet in 568 BC can only indicate the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, despite the existence of other conflicts and the tablet's lack of explicitly mentioning that destruction. It is imperative to expose the flaws and inaccuracies of those historical facts.

Go ahead, prove the world wrong and show that you are the only one who is right, genius! lol!

[JW Insider]

LOL again. I know that you have opinions that I don't accept as true, and I have opinions that you don't accept as true. But that's no reason to rely so much on the ad hominem as your primary response. We see this type of behavior from you on any point where it can be shown that you claim was wrong, or that you misunderstood something you read. You've already done it whenever a false claim you have made is countered by someone else.  I found about 10 such items of misinformation just on the first page of this topic.

But you don't merely disagree, or claim that I have misunderstood. Instead, you go right for the name-calling: "he's a chronic liar" "he's a friend of apostates" "he's considered by some to be a false prophet." 

Obviously it does no good to point out errors to you. If the error is subtle or requires a more complex explanation you usually just deny and give fairly low-key insults. But when the error is easy to spot, and blatant and obvious to anyone, you appear to double down on the insults and ad hominem speech to a much higher degree.

Case in point. Here's a recap of just that one minor point about the Battle of the Eclipse:

1. You claimed: "Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic 'Eclipse War' that occurred in 589/8 BC."
2. I responded that the battle of the eclipse did not occur in 589 but [if it's truly based on a solar eclipse], then it's identified as  May 28, 585 BC:. [I'm sure that doesn't seem like such a big deal, but I mentioned it because I know why you specifically chose the year 589 and I wanted to discuss that choice in a separate post.] I also gave possible dates if it had been confused with a lunar eclipse. (Personally, I think the war and this particular battle happened and so did a total solar eclipse in 585, but I don't trust that Thales actually predicted it. It's the kind of thing that a story could easily be made about after the fact. But that's not pertinent to the point here.)
3. Instead of acknowledging that the term "Eclipse War" or "Battle of the Eclipse" was indeed most likely named after a solar eclipse in 585 per MOST historians, and perhaps offering an explanation as to why you chose to highlight 589 as a possibility, you decided to go with the ad hominem insults and attacks. You said:

• That I was indulging in childish games. [FALSE].
• That I was referring to Rawlinson's interpretation. [FALSE]
• That I was selectively choosing items to inaccurately oppose. [FALSE]
• That I was simply making an uninformed assertion. [FALSE]
• That YOU, George88, can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC [FALSE]
• That it does not seem to be inherent in my genetic makeup to have an honest debate. [FALSE]

So, I picked one of the two false claims from above that doesn't look like an ad hominem. I picked the one where you falsely claim that you can demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610. It was obvious that you can't because the very person who had attempted that date admitted that it was a mistake, a "worthless" date, and he was one of the first to realize that the date in 585 was the one that actually fit the historical situation. And even you admitted that the dates for this war primarily included the years 590 to 584. 

I can see how that particular mistake could be embarrassing: you making a false claim about a date that was long debunked by the very person who came up with it. But when you make a more blatant mistake that anyone can understand (just by reading a paragraph or two) you tend to always go even more wild with the accusations, insults and ad hominem attacks. So instead of trying to explain the mistake you went with the following:

• That I engage in consistent deceit and twisted storytelling. [FALSE]
• That I hypocritically persist in distorting the truth. [FALSE]
• That I pretend that any honest researcher opposing me would succeed [FALSE ????]
• That I'm a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. [FALSE]
• That I have spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts [FALSE]
• That I can't bear the fact that my false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. [FALSE]
• That I am nit-picking the dates. [TRUE, for a specific reason I'll explain later]
• That I can't stand the fact that my famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just my false narrative of Jerusalem. [FALSE on multiple levels]
• That I consistently manipulate the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support my version of events. [FALSE, again, on multiple levels]

I point this out as hopefully useful counsel to you. I don't expect you to ever admit a mistake here, and that's OK. That's a "given" with your history here. But I'm not the only person here to have noticed that when your error is easier for anyone to understand, the more you double down on the insults and false claims about the person who points it out, with little to no effort to address the points made, or issues raised. 

And by the way, I realize I have made many mistakes here. I try to fix them as I learn more about the topics, but some of mine have also been embarrassing. But that's a part of how I learn. I put an opinion out there and those who know better can correct it. I would appreciate any corrections even from persons where I would heretofore have expected no more than a litany of insults.  

[BTK59]

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.

 

[Pudgy]

And not only does JWI see this  but EVERYBODY HERE sees this … it’s so obvious as to rise to the level of pathos.

EVEN YOU KNOW THIS GEORGIE!

[Pudgy]

… and speaking of pathos … your sock puppet constructs are painfully transparent.

Without them, you would have NO audience.

[BTK59]

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.