Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It is time to put an end to these unsubstantiated arguments and present factual information.

I agree. I have seen zero substantiated factual information from you. You are always quick to use words like "misleading" "dishonest" "lying" "inaccurate" "false" etc., but these accusations are always empty and meaningless because you don't offer anything to address your claims.

What you apparently have tried to include as "facts" have always shown little more than confusion about the issue. This is in every post so far that pretends to make use of "evidence." I'll give examples from this last one I am quoting from above:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist. In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, he was occupied with other military campaigns.

As I stated above VAT 4956 is unimportant to this discussion, but VAT 4956 gives an absolute date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It also gives us an absolute date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

You say Nebuchadnezzar was occupied with other military campaigns in his 37th year, which the astronomical data indicates as 568 BCE. That's fine. What if he was? That's nearly two decades after 587 BCE. Many of your posts on this particular point have shown so much confusion on this point that I have ignored them because it seemed silly to deal with confused nonsense. But this time I will explain. 

You went on to say:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, can you demonstrate how the astronomical tablet specifically relates to Jerusalem's fate? There is historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in 587 BC.

You actually do NOT have historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away in 587. You accidentally admitted this in other posts, including the more recent one where you added the following:

56 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Demonstrate where in VAT 4956 it explicitly states that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year, considering that in 587 BC, during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, he was engaged in conflict with Egypt and bringing judgment against Ammon, Moab, and other nations, as well as being involved with other kings such as the King of the Medes. I challenge you to provide conclusive evidence. Do not dismiss history and avoid diverting from the topic.

You see what you have done here? I highlighted it above in red. You have confused Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year with 587 BCE. His 37th year was 568 BCE. You ask how he could have destroyed Jerusalem in his 37th year, when the Bible (and the WTS too, for that matter) associate the major destruction, including the Temple, with his 18th/19th year. You are off by nearly 20 years, so what does it matter what other campaigns he may or may not have been involved with 20 years later? The Bible says his campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem were especially notable in the 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. Nothing about his 37th year. 

Displaying even more confusion, you went on to say:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, I am curious about the alleged proof that firmly establishes the year 568 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

I have never thought there was proof that establishes the year 568 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Again, that's the 37th year, made absolute by several astronomical observations during the years of his reign. VAT 4956 happens to confirm what all the other observations already confirm. Hopefully NO ONE is looking for proof that Jerusalem fell in his 37th year.

 

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If you don't understand that to be true then you have no business discussing Neo-Babylonian chronology. Period.

You're the ignorant apostate. Nowhere in that tablet does it state that it's exclusively meant for Jerusalem. You shouldn't be arguing history, as your stubbornness is misleading others. Demonstrate where in VAT 4956 it explicitly states that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year, considering that in 587 BC, during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, he was engaged in conflict with Egypt and bringing judgment against Ammon, Moab, and other nations, as well as being involved with other kings such as the King of the Medes. I challenge you to provide conclusive evidence. Do not dismiss history and avoid diverting from the topic.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Archaeologists and historians discuss relative chronology and absolute chronology. The Bible never gives us an absolute chronology, but it gives us a fairly complete relative chronology. The only thing that can give us an absolute chronology for Neo-Babylonian times is an astronomical date. That's the only thing that can tie a piece of evidence to a specific year in the BCE or CE era. That's what the term "absolute" means to archaeologists and historians. 

That is why VAT 4956 fails completely, as there are other historical events that confirm the activities of Nebuchadnezzar during his 37th year. By disregarding these facts, you are simply trying to validate your own false assumptions.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But there is no reason for opposers of the astronomical chronology to obsess over VAT 4956. That's because WITH it you can know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. But WITHOUT it you can still know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. ALL of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are known in ABSOLUTE years, because there are many more astronomical observations and reports that tie 587 BCE directly to his 18th year of reign. 

It's true that you've been fixated on this for 10 years. However, you haven't been able to show where exactly the astronomical tablet states that in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem is described using similar language. Even the Babylonian Chronicles can't be misused in this manner.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar had any interaction with Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year is up to you to either agree with or deny. All I can tell you is that we have ABSOLUTE dates for every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

I utilize historical data from the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn about 607 BC, which you seem to overlook. It is important for the public to remain cautious of individuals who pose as Christians but may be deceiving them, as there is no concrete evidence regarding VAT 4956 that cannot be interpreted in various ways, contrary to what you are trying to impose on others.

[JW Insider]

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

That is why VAT 4956 fails completely, as there are other historical events that confirm the activities of Nebuchadnezzar during his 37th year. By disregarding these facts, you are simply trying to validate your own false assumptions.

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. 

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, you haven't been able to show where exactly the astronomical tablet states that in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem is described using similar language. Even the Babylonian Chronicles can't be misused in this manner.

Of course I haven't been able to show that destruction of Jerusalem is described in his 37th year. Because that's not when the Bible says it happened. See the last post. You have shown too much confusion to take this much further with you. You really seem to have no business trying to discuss Neo-Babylonian chronology. 

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I utilize historical data from the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn about 607 BC

No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it.

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It is important for the public to remain cautious of individuals who pose as Christians but may be deceiving them

At least that's absolutely true!

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

as there is no concrete evidence regarding VAT 4956 that cannot be interpreted in various ways, contrary to what you are trying to impose on others.

Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period.

Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

That's why it's pointless to pretend, because we're aware of who has the power when they get angry.

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Hmmm. With remarks like that, I just moved the needle to only 99.9998% sure. 

It’s okay to move it back again. Once he gets an idea in his head, it’s impossible to get it out, so I corroborate it instead. It is crucial and essential that you understand this. We must not deceive the public.

 

[BTK59]

1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. 

Despite your contradictory arguments, you persist in advocating for it, which is quite perplexing.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it.

I did not mean to support only the perspective of mainstream secular history. There are additional historical records that I consider. However, if I were to focus solely on one aspect, I would highlight that starting from 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar was involved in a conflict with Egyptian King Hophra, which lasted until 587 BC.

You are telling the people to solely believe in VAT 4956 when there are other tablets.

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

At least that's absolutely true!

Can't disagree with that, you have been an imposter for a long time.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period.

I am specifically referring to written language, rather than the calculations that you seem to be fixated on. Show me evidence that clearly states that this tablet is intended to portray the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as described in written accounts. The only falsehood here lies in your own presentation.

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.

If we consider one of the interpretations of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign in 605 BC, we can understand that in his 18th year, he was occupied with King Hophra and Armis in 587 BC. Feel free to challenge these established sources if you disagree. Would you like a reminder?

[BTK59]

10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line.

We have always known the true identity of the librarian, so there's no reason to pretend. Consider the significance of being placed in Dante's 9 circles of hell, as you have depicted. I believe the banishment occurred after the display of your profanity-laden post. I was not aware that revealing the truth that releases people from Satan's grip was meant to be perceived negatively.

 

[BTK59]

By all means ex-bethelite, refute what is also written in history that may or may not be absolute as you claim history is. Your audience awaits you. There are myriad alternative historical accounts.

1."This tablet left much room for conjecture. The kings, the allies of his power and - his general and his hired soldiers - he spoke unto. To his soldiers - who were before - at the way of - In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon - the king of Egypt came up to do battle (?) and -es, the king of Egypt - and - of the city Putu-Jaman - far away regions which are in the sea - numerous which were in Egypt - arms and horses - he called to - he trusted- 2 Ever since this fragment was published."

 2."Apries returned with an army against Amasis but was defeated and killed. A fragmentary Babylonian text (ANET 308) appears to mention a Babylonian attack on Amasis in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 568-567 B.C.E."

3."It is known that the Apis bull was never slain. There are historical sources that tell a different story. Cambyses was not the villain, Nebuchadnezzar was. It happened forty years earlier, in 568/567 BC. A clay tablet, now in the British Museum, mentions a Chaldean attack on Egypt. "In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the country of Babylon, went to Mizraim (Egypt) to make war. Amasis, king of Egypt, collected his army and marched and spread abroad." We recall how Hophra ordered an attack on Cyrene in Libya, but the army was defeated. Hophra sent Amasis, a general, to stop the rebellion; but the army made Amasis their king. Amasis at once announced himself pharaoh."

Show how people should only take your word because you and Tom control this site, and a lie is better than the truth.

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You are telling the people to solely believe in VAT 4956 when there are other tablets.

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period.

Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence.

15 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I am specifically referring to written language, rather than the calculations that you seem to be fixated on.

Another false statement. You were and are still fixated on the dates 587 and 568 and you kept confusing which one referred to the 37th year and which one referred to the 18th and which one (or both) was being claimed as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, you show it again in your very next sentence:

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Show me evidence that clearly states that this tablet is intended to portray the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as described in written accounts.

This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction.

22 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

If we consider one of the interpretations of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign in 605 BC, we can understand that in his 18th year, he was occupied with King Hophra and Armis in 587 BC. Feel free to challenge these established sources if you disagree. Would you like a reminder?

If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year?

If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources. For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s). 

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

By all means ex-bethelite, refute what is also written in history that may or may not be absolute as you claim history is. Your audience awaits you. There are myriad alternative historical accounts.

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better.

Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. 

You are still showing so confusion that it looks like you have no business trying to discuss this matter right now.

[BTK59]

38 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period.

That's precisely what you must debunk: history. I couldn't care less about your presentations, but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, VAT 4956 holds no significance. So far, all I've been getting from you are distortions and lies.

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence.

You've wasted 14 pages of empty evidence. So, who is really the one obsessed?

Present evidence that supports the claim that VAT 4956 is the primary tablet that requires scrutiny when compared to other tablets detailing battles with Egypt during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Avoid appearing defensive by providing accurate information to address any discrepancies.

45 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction.

You are free to entertain whatever false beliefs you wish to hold onto. However, compelling people to accept a false premise is a matter for God to judge. In the meantime, it is possible to calculate back to 568 BC from the Babylonian and Egyptian conflict, landing in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, starting from the secular point of 605 BC.

Avoid using the Watchtower as a basis for your flawed perspective. Your focus should be on discussing secular history instead of referencing the Watchtower. Your incorrect assumption lies within secular history, not the teachings of the Watchtower. Therefore, it is best to separate the two and concentrate on the core of your argument.

51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year?

The apostate position still stands, doesn't it? To support the secular chronology, you would need to disprove 2 Kings 24, as I previously mentioned. Thus, the 18th year referred to in the Bible is inconsistent with the secular chronology. Your theory lacks credibility unless you are willing to accept the possibility that something other than what actually happened in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, as supported by secular history concerning Egypt, could be true.

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources.

I ensure that the historical accounts are accurate and align with biblical narratives. It is not my responsibility if you fail to recognize the evident truth.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s). 

This is just one of many alternative perspectives. Including the temple, the palace, some affluent homes, and the outer wall when Nebuchadnezzar's Captain arrived would have halted the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, much earlier. In that scenario, Nebuchadnezzar would not have been in Jerusalem, as your VAT 4956 and apostates suggest.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better.

Maybe you can truly comprehend this. The ultimate authority lies in God, so it shouldn't concern anyone else. If God found any errors in the calculations about 607 BC made by the Watchtower, he would have personally corrected them, along with his faithful servants. However, what God actually did was disfellowship a member of the governing body due to his involvement in apostasy. This speaks volumes about the power of God, far more than secular history ever could.

Anyone who lacks an understanding of scripture and secular history should refrain from offering opinions that degrade both subjects.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. 

I believe that when someone looks into the eyes of a deceitful person like you, they come to a different conclusion, not based on basic English comprehension. For most of us, it's quite straightforward. I trust common sense to interpret the passages without reading between the lines.

I concur as well. You lack the skill to have initiated this argument a decade ago.

Please continue your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting the specific reference in VAT 4956 that explicitly mentions the documentation of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. It seems that the tablet merely mentions the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, much like other tablets that refer to his 37th year for various events. However, as someone who questions your sincerity, it appears that you are attempting to compel others to accept your distorted chronology without providing any evidence. How many times have I requested you to substantiate your claims? Leave aside that particular tablet, and instead, choose any historical record that supports your argument.

Remember YOU DON'T CARE!

Instead of wasting your time searching on Google for information to disprove, let me remind you that those three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other events that support my argument. Just to give you a taste, consider this: there is one event that clearly places Nebuchadnezzar as far as 400 miles away from Jerusalem in 588/7 BC. So, you see, you'll need to refute overwhelming secular evidence.

[Thinking]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:49 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

They tell me that brothers giving that talk in his area routinely point to him as a cautionary tale.

Not a word from him. It’s almost like the removal of the constant feature. That is the downside of online relationships. They disappear one day and you haven’t a clue why.

Hopefully, one of the roaming hogs bit his hand and as soon as it heals up we will hear from him again.

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…