Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[BTK59]

Remember, you are the one constantly shifting the goalposts to conveniently accommodate your excuses and justifications. There is absolutely no room for misunderstanding when it comes to the historical records of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. Those tablets clearly and explicitly depict an event that took place in 568 BC, directly involving Nebuchadnezzar. If we wish to persist with distortions, we could also incorrectly interpret those tablets and the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

I must point out that apostates have erroneously relied on VAT 4956 to validate a false assumption. This particular tablet VAT 4956 may have been fabricated solely to incorporate a genuine historical incident that truly took place in 568 BC, which directly relates to Nebuchadnezzar.

Considering that apostates are the ones who backtrack with the 18th year, it would be erroneous to assume a connection between the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem. Reliable tablets, in fact, link the 37th year of this ruler to a specific event in 568 BC. VAT 4956 is no different.

The assumption and connection to the 18th year is entirely false. When we consider the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 605 BC, we find another event that Nebuchadnezzar was overseeing 400 miles away, along with other events involving different Kingdoms, as documented in military records.

1."JUDGMENT AGAINST AMMON. [Ezk. 25:1–7 (Ca. 588 B.C.?)] The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them."

2." The details of this alliance are lacking, but it is certain that some formal pact had been made with Egypt at the time. Hophra succeeded his father, Psammetichus II, as Pharaoh of Egypt in 588 B.c, and he was even more aggressive in furthering a policy of Asian intervention. As a result, early in 588 B.c., Nebuchadnezzar once more marched to the west,"

This implies that the 18th year mentioned in scripture would not be the same as the 18th year mentioned in secular history. These two would contradict each other and should not be synchronized, as Ezekiel might be referring to God's judgment upon other nations like Ammon, rather than the judgment that Jeremiah was talking about for Jerusalem.

The assertion that backtracking to the 18th or 19th year from 568 BC is a false equivalence. It is important to consider that this time period could also signify the judgment of other nations, which God had entrusted Babylon to undertake.

The presumption of "complete" destruction of Jerusalem based on the 18th year of that king is incorrect. A comprehensive review of history is necessary, rather than selective snippets that favor a single argument. This approach is distorted and deceptive.

While the Watchtower concludes with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC, by historical reckoning, the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah began in 607 BC. None of that is relevant. What truly matters is the accurate interpretation of the "Gentile times." Both the Watchtower and others have gotten it right.

Dissenters must confront and discredit historical and biblical accounts by disproving the concept of the gentile times. In doing so, they would need to discount the freedom obtained by the Jews and the occurrence of WW1 in AD 1914. The Babylonian Chronicles are self-explanatory, even though secular history indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's ascension year was 605 BC. The discrepancy of those famous 1 or 2 years is also a subject of debate, but historical facts can resolve that discrepancy.

Luke 21:24 King James Version
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Challenging the word of God by apostates is a direct insult to God, particularly when those dissidents attempt to refute scripture as they are written.

To the modern day Jew, the fulfillment of that prophecy came when the Jewish Nation was finally recognized as a state in 1947-1948, after the expiration of the British mandate. Unfortunately, many do not fully appreciate the importance of their earlier freedom. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that this fulfillment pertains to Judaism, not Christianity.

The only thing the word "absolute" can be used for in this case is:

1. The word "absolute" is only appropriate when there is absolutely nothing dissenters can post regarding VAT 4956 or any other ancient tablet that can unequivocally "confirm" the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC by their own numbers.

2. There is absolutely nothing that can be said in favor of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year.

3. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from backtracking the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from 568 BC. Doing so would only lead us to further incursions in 590-589-588-587-586-585 BC, apart from the fall of Jerusalem as dissenters want you to believe.

Remember that they want you to believe in the "complete" destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC," not just a siege or a partial destruction, but a total annihilation.

This is precisely why any presentation made by dissenters regarding 587 BC will always be inaccurate, as they are unable to provide evidence for 587 BC, and their historical data fails to support it as well.
 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

VAT 4956 holds no significance.

Now you appear to be getting it.

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Leave aside that particular tablet, and instead, choose any historical record that supports your argument.

Found it: 

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . ., that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .

(Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

(2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

There is absolutely no room for misunderstanding when it comes to the historical records of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. Those tablets clearly and explicitly depict an event that took place in 568 BC, directly involving Nebuchadnezzar.

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up.

If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc.

Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE.

[Thinking]

On 6/21/2024 at 5:59 AM, BTK59 said:

Yet, the list should be: Tom. JWI, Anna, Thinking, Comfortmypeople, Juan Rivera, etc. So, telling the truth only seems corrupt to those causing it.

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Now you appear to be getting it.

You are the one distorting facts, not me.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Found it: 

I have discovered that none of the mentioned references point to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. It seems that you are inaccurately projecting your claims. Your current attempt to disprove 2 Kings 24 appears to be driven by desperation.

Admit it, your apostate assertions have never carried any weight with genuine researchers. Leave that to those with true expertise.

[BTK59]

41 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything

The example given showed individuals who are incorrigible, aside from those depicted by Tom. Have you not just admitted that you are fond of someone who has been disfellowshipped? I believe this has just proven my point. Furthermore, it speaks volumes when a former Bethelite supports your viewpoint.

 

[BTK59]

We must delve into the true workings of Christianity with certain individuals. On one hand, blatant honesty is deemed negative, while on the other hand, circumventing God's commands in various ways is not. The actions of Jehovah's Witnesses speak louder than the judgment they believe they hold over others through their words.

It is imperative for individuals to reconsider the profound significance of Christ's sacrifice in relation to their superficial Christian existence.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up.

If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc.

Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE

Indeed, I must humbly acknowledge your profound lack of knowledge in history, which renders your statement unworthy of serious consideration, even from the simplest of individuals. Your insistence on a baseless assertion merely further demonstrates your incompetence in basic calculations. It is clear that Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in the western front with Egypt during this time, rendering your interpretation of the 18th or 19th year utterly insignificant in the face of your misguided perspective. I urge you to mature intellectually and broaden your understanding.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You know, whatever happened to Srecko—another one who has disappeared? Maybe he and Pudgy also went down into the abyss, locked in mortal semi-disagreement.

The human personality, or if you will, some kind of our vanity, likes to hear him mentioned by people who are thousands of kilometers away compared to those (exemplary JWs) who live in the same city and no longer respond even with a simple greeting.
Although I must also say that there are one or two JWs who stopped contacting me 9 years ago, but still greeted me (with a smile but with restraint) during a recent meeting on the street.

The topics here are interesting, always. But I can confirm with pleasure that the general communication and expression of views, arguments and everything else that occurs in the discussions, clearly indicate the correctness of my decision that I made in leaving WTJWorg. Thank you all for that.  

[BTK59]

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The topics here are interesting, always. But I can confirm with pleasure that the general communication and expression of views, arguments and everything else that occurs in the discussions, clearly indicate the correctness of my decision that I made in leaving WTJWorg. Thank you all for that.

I'm glad you finally clarified that rumor. As I mentioned to Tom, I've personally witnessed you upvoting other posts. So, why hold back? These individuals are more aligned with your values than JWs. It only makes sense for you to feel comfortable and welcome among them, just like you have in the past. So, there's really no need for comparisons anymore; it's time for you to rejoin the club.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Have you not just admitted that you are fond of someone who has been disfellowshipped?

Goodness. Would you have tried to stone Jesus? He asked us to love even our enemies!

[Miracle Pete]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Goodness. Would you have tried to stone Jesus? He asked us to love even our enemies!

Imagine actually knowing BTK/George/Alphonso in ‘ real life’ . It would be pretty grim.