According to the Watchtower CD Library, did Jerusalem fall in 607 or 587?

[JUMONGI2010]

You going through all this trouble and articles when you just have to look at the bible and save time. Just as the bible fortold that the jews would be taken captive it prophecied how long they Jerusalem would be desolent. 70 years (jer 25:12). 537 - 70 = 607 not 587 there video could have been just 2 minutes not 10

[theapologeticfront]

@JUMONGI2010 not true. Watch my video "did the 70 year prophecy end in 537" and you'll see how your application of the 70 years does not work.

[JUMONGI2010]

Yes the prophecy proved very true. It had more to do with jerusalem remaining desolent then the destruction of babylon. The jews returned to jerusalem in 607 before that no one occupied that town and did not for 70 years. while cyrus conquered babylon in 609 bc he not not immediatly release the jews. But anyway instead of trying to discredit the year 607 as a christian you should defend the bible and explain when jerusalem became desolent. What year do do believe it became desolent

[theapologeticfront]

@JUMONGI2010 Did you watch the video I asked you to watch? The desolation occurred in 586/587, as all biblical and historical data support. If the 70 years begins in 607, then you have it ending in 537. Yet, this can't be because in Jer. 25:12 you have the seventy years ending when the king of babylon is punished. When did that happen? 539, not 537. If you watch the video I referenced, this is spelled out in more detail.

[nibornagrom]

It's interesting that this video has been completely rebuffed regarding it's facts, but as is the fate of such misinformation, it will remain without the apologist apologies.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom how so?

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

Mike, it is clear the Watchtower Lit. consistently promulgates the formula I keep repeating.

Reliable Absolute date: 539bce

Jews let go. 537bce

70 yrs. desolation Jer. 25:12

537 + 70 yrs. = 607 bce

If the year 539 bce is reliable, which you seem to agree with, then the calculation is easy regardless of secular study.

All you have to do is support only the Bible and let go of your doubts about it's accuracy, which can be the only thing holding you back from seeing the facts.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom Robin, regardless of whether you agree with the lengths of reigns as presented in the WT CD Library or not is irrelevant to me. I fully admit that the WT itself has its own doubts about some of the reigns. Nevertheless, my point was to simply add the lengths as provided by the CD Rom together and come to an answer for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why why in the world would you think that I am doubting the Bible's accuracy??

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

Your term "Kingship language"; Where did you get that? Interesting!

I stand by my statements regarding Revelation and your argument.

10 Minutes isn't enough to cover the entire subject, but Eph. does not prove your point and Revelation proves mine. That is all I'm saying.

There is no over-riding reason Jesus had to be made King in the 1st Century.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 clearly proves Jesus in the 1st Cent. could not have received the kingship.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom If you don't mind, please refer your comment to the relevant video. Not sure if you put it here on accident. I'll respond to this there.

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

My mistake. Appreciate the heads up.

[ABibleReader]

Although Mike wants to pretend that the WT views Evil-M's reign of 2 years as "sure,", the WT has said the opposite:

See the 5/8/72 Awake article "When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?"

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Just to clear up as much "confusion" as I can on this, please see the April 1, 2010 entry on my blog where I clarify some of these arguments.

google: The apologetic front

And scroll down to April 1.

[ABibleReader]

I'm surprised that anyone puts any faith in the "extreme confusion" that is prevalent in the current understanding of the reigns of the Babylonian kings. Why would anyone argue in favor of such confusion? If you say you believe the Bible, why are you so opposed to trusting its explanation of the 70 years? I'm thoroughly amazed at how people put their trust in this secular historical confusion instead of the truthfulness of the Bible.

[PrintedTruth]

The research adds up. But If the date of Babylons fall is fixed at 537 cant we just add 70 years to that and get 607?

[ABibleReader]

@PrintedTruth Yes, the truth is as simple as that. 539BC Babylon fell, 537BC the Jews returned ending the 70 years as prophesied in the Bible.

[ABibleReader]

After reviewing the amazingly contradictory historical information about the dates of these Babylonian kings, one researcher said this:

Google this phrase for the whole discussion:

"From the preceding details, the extreme confusion which prevails among the historians of that period and their subsequent commentators is at once apparent."

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader I go to work for a few hours, and I come back with a response-bomb from you. There's probably no way I can get to all of this. So i'm just going to leave it where it is and continue the dialogue on any future vids I make on the subject. Since the 70 years is brought up so regularly, I might tackle that next.

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 I'm sorry to see that you have the motivation and time to post misinformation about JWs beliefs, but seem to find excuses for not addressing the evidence that contradicts your allegations.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Not addressing the evidence? What do you expect me to do? You can only post ten minutes worth of evidence in a video and then people like you completely bomb the comment section with info, where there are word limits and makes it difficult to respond accordingly to such technical topics. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you try making a video response and address everything you've said here? If you do, i'll respond.

[ABibleReader]

You have an excuse for not responding to the website info that shows the falsehood of your position. And now another excuse for not responding to what I've presented

I've shown that the historical accuracy of the dates of the kings is filled with "extreme confusion."

Google this phrase:

"From the preceding details, the extreme confusion which prevails among the historians of that period and their subsequent commentators is at once apparent."

Your position is based on "complete confusion."

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 Mike, since you're too busy to comment on all this evidence about the complete unreliability of the dates related to the reigns of the Babylonian kings, just forget about trying to debate your position. Go off and simply read the material I've provided and decide for yourself if you agree with historians and the Watchtower that the historical record is filled with "extreme confusion."

As the quote says: "[it] is at once apparent."

[ABibleReader]

More proof of the complete unreliable nature of Babylonian Chronology:

From Awake!, May 8, 1972, pp. 27-8

Google this:

"When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?"

[ABibleReader]

The 1969 Watchtower article questioning the accuracy of Babylonian Chronology can be read online.

By Googling the phrase:

Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable?

[ABibleReader]

Of course, if the 2 year/18 year question about Evil-M's rule isn't enough to convince you, you might also look into Sir Walter Raleigh's discussion, where Evil-M's rule is identified as being 28 years:

Google this, with the quotations:

"merodach reigned twenty-eight years"

So, what is it Mike? 2 years, 18 years, 28 years?

Please review the 1969 Watchtower article on the complete unreliability of Babylonian chronology.

[ABibleReader]

To further emphasize how silly it is to hang your argument on the questionable accuracy of secular historical commentators, google this phrase (with the quotation signs):

"Nebuchadnezzar the Great, or Nabo"

Read a few paragraphs.

See how noted historians are in complete disagreement about the time lengths of the reigns of these kings in this era.

You will quickly see see the truthfulness of the WT's position that secular Babylonian chronology is complete unreliable.

[ABibleReader]

Any normal person could simply ask for clarification about the 1965 WT reference to a 2 year reign for Evil-M.

Is the WT suggesting that's accurate? Are they sure? Is that their point?

No. The simple answer would be provided with the 1969 WT Article and the Insight article on Evil-M, which explains the date is unreliable and varies from 2 to18 yrs.

Why then do you insist the WT holds the 2 year reign as accurate & reliable?

Is it because you identify yourself as a "dedicated WT-opposer?"

[ABibleReader]

Since you choose to ignore the comprehensive, point-by-point, chronological discussion that addresses all the traditional arguments against 607, then simply start with the 1969 article:

"Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?"

It clearly articulates the WT position that Babylonian Chronology is unreliable and they do not use it as a proof of anything.

If you want to parse articles to suggest their position is any different, then you are misrepresenting their position.

It's as simple as that.

[SonofThunder120]

Hi Mike,I was going to comment on this post, but I can see that you are already discussing this subject with others, so I will pass on this one and hopefully catch you on the next post.

I have not forgotten we are already in part, having a discussion, I ahve been very busy at work.

Take care. James

[ABibleReader]

To anyone reading this thread:

For a detailed examination of the secular evidence in line with the 607 BC date, just google:

Jehovah's Judgment 607

and review the first listing.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Yes, please read everything on that website. And then everyone please read the *published* results by someone who isn't afraid to put their name behind their work and actually do a comprehensive investigation on the subject: "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Jonnson.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader But its too bad that JW's are not allowed to read Jonnson's work, since he is an apostate. I guess they'll just never know who makes a better case. Hey, why not trust a website done by an anonymous author who knows that he'd be disciplined by the organization if they found out who he was?

[ABibleReader]

The JW book "Insight," article on Evil-merodach explains:

"Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years."

So, was Evil-merodach's reign 2 years or 18 years?

Noted historians, that lived much closer to the events, don't even agree.

Mike has selectively used WT quotes that discussed one of the historians view that it was 2 years, while ignoring Joseph's information that it was 18 years.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Josephus has not been known to be clean from historical errors, though he is an overall good historian. But if Josephus is right, and we use 18 instead of 2, doesn't that jack up the chronology even worse?

And just because Josephus said 18, what good reason do you have to think that 2 years is not the best known possibility for his length of reign?

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 The point is that there are serious reliability issues with secular chronology in this time frame. The Bible however, lays out a simple, consistent timeline that points to 607 BC. Do we trust the inspired word of God, or unreliable secular history? If Joseph is right, then Evil's reign was 18 years, instead of 2 years, this puts your analysis 16 years closer to what the Bible suggests. There are then two other factors that account for the additional 4 years.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader That's very misleading to say "the Bible lays out a simple, consistent timetable that points to 607." The reason being, the Bible supplies no dates for us. And why would you go with Josephus on the 18 years? That makes no sense when we have at least 4 independent witnesses for Evil's 2 years of reign.

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 It's not misleading at all. The Bible lays out a 70 year deportation, that is tied to an event in 539 BC. The evidence has been presented to you several times, but you prefer unreliable secular evidence that invalidates several aspects of the Bible. There is no question that the lengths of the Babylonian reigns is unreliable and suspect. Even Josephus, a noted historian, doesn't agree with your 2 year presumption.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Again, you keep bringing up this 539 date, as if the Bible has such a date in the text. You can't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, I have no problem with counting backward using 539. But it is pretty interesting to observe that if you "count back" 70 years from 539, you don't get 607.

And no, I do not prefer *anything* which would invalidate *any* aspect of the Bible.

[ABibleReader]

entrsnm3: " I do not prefer *anything* which would invalidate *any* aspect of the Bible."

You've been presented with detailed evidence that using 587BC invalidates multiple aspects of the Bible..

And yet, you have never publicly addressed those points, and simply post more videos about 587, trying to misrepresent the WT's position.

Since this topic is of such interest to you, why not address the points at the site:

google: Jehovah's Judgment 607

That would be a much better use of your time.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader That's a "have you stopped beating your wife" accusation. Obviously, I don't believe the evidence you have presented invalidates 587. Hey, i have an idea. Why not make a video response to this? I'd be happy to publicly interact with you on this subject so all can see...

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 If the 587/607 discussion is so important to you, then address the evidence that has been presented to you multiple times.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Present the evidence here and I will interact with it.

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 Knock yourself out Mike. You know where the website is:

google: Jehovah's Judgment 607

Go ahead and take it point by point.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Present the evidence HERE and I will interact with it. And maybe start with Evil-M. Why should Josephus' 18 years (and by the way, where did Josephus say this?) be favored over the multi-witnessed two years? And if this was really something we can have no idea about, then why did the w65 1/1 p. 29 not say, "2 years, but maybe 18" or something along those lines? Just mentioning Josephus' 18 years doesn't mean they aren't sure about the 2 years. Please address these points.

[ABibleReader]

Mike, you should really relabel this video:

"Watch me selectively quote the WT, while ignoring other articles to suggest the WT says something it does not."

For example, the 2/1/69 WT article "Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable?" makes the case these durations are unreliable.

That is the WT position, but you ignore that and selectively quote a 2 year duration and suggest the WT is saying it's correct and reliable, when they've shown it may be as long at 18 years according to Josephus.

[ABibleReader]

entrsnm3: "And if this was really something we can have no idea about, then why did the w65 1/1 p. 29 not say, "2 years, but maybe 18" or something along those lines?"

They discussed the unreliability of these dates in the article:

2/1/69 WT article "Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable?"

It may be 2 years, it may be 18 years, or it may be something else.

Why do you insist on parsing a single 1965 article while ignoring other specific discussions on the exact point?

[ABibleReader]

entrsnm3: "Just mentioning Josephus' 18 years doesn't mean they aren't sure about the 2 years."

Where did the WT ever say they were sure about the 2 years for Evil-M?

To the contrary, they've written entire articles about the unreliability of these dates,and even pointed out that the noted historian, Josephus said it was 18 years, contradicting other historians.

The WT position is that these secular dates are highly suspect and unreliable.

[ABibleReader]

entrsnm3 asks: "and by the way, where did Josephus say this?"

In his book, Antiquities of the Jews.

Google this with the quotation marks around it:

"When Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar, his son, took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life."

[entrsnm3]

@entrsnm3 I'm going to retract the statement "they aren't sure about the two years." I misspoke.

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 ... that is a ""have you stopped beating your wife" accusation?"

I don't have a clue how that relates to you refusing to address the evidence that has been layed out for 607.

You don't want to because the author of the website is anonymous, and yet you talk to anonymous people on Youtube regularly.

My opinion is that you won't address the points there, because they will show your view of 587 is false and you'll have to admit that the WT is correct on this.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader Have you ever tried making a 10 minute video presentation while addressing each and ever objection that has been argued against your position?

The contrast you presented is faulty. Though you are anonymous, I can interact with you personally. What good would it do to interact with an anonymous unapproved website that hardly any JW would ever care to look at? If there is evidence against my position, present it here. Or how about this. Cite a scholarly reference or two?

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader ...And why would I address the points from a *website* that is not approved or endorsed by the organization when I can interact with detailed discussions of these things in WT literature? Are you not content with what the org has written on these issues?

I argue with reference to the WT because I know JW's can look this stuff up. But 99 percent of JW's have no interest in looking at unapproved websites. So why would I do that?

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 Let's see, there is a website that provides comprehensive, detailed historical, chronological evidence, along with detailed commentary from the Bible that refutes your position on 587 and you choose to devote your efforts to make videos like this, that simply try to misrepresent the WT position on the topic?

If you are really dedicated to "truth," as you publicly say you are, then step up and address the points that invalidate your 587 position.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader No, my arguments are with the Watchtower and what they have said on the subject, not what an anonymous unapproved website says. All these sorts of comments do is convince me that you are very unconfident in the efforts of your organization to defend what they believe on one of the most important doctrines of their faith. If I refute the website you offered, so what? Is that going to do anything for the 7 million JW's still in the org who could care less about such a website?

[ABibleReader]

There are several errors in your analysis.

You should continue your studies by reading the 2/1/69 Watchtower article "Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable?"

You should also carefully consider the reliability of the length of Evil-merodach's reign:

The Insight article on Evil-merodach explains: "Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years."

[nibornagrom]

I would like you to explain your version of events.

Is there an 'absolute date' other than 539? Please enlighten me.

If there isn't then there is a problem at arriving at any other date than 607 bce.

Admitting that 607 bce is correct is not admitting that you believe 1914ce is correct.

As far as I can gather, by following the given absolute date and the truth of the Bible's chronology, no other date can be given for the fall of Babylon except 607, unless of course you prefer secular chronology.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom I would very much hesitate to look at these dates as "absolute," especially when the details can be very controversial, as they clearly are.

But I have no problem with 539, as there is clearly good evidence for it. But i'm concerned with the reign of kings. Since we are to count back from 539, we have to know how long each king reigned.  And the Watchtower has given us the length for each king's reign. Are you saying that the Watchtower is wrong?

[ABibleReader]

entrsnm3 "And the Watchtower has given us the length for each king's reign. Are you saying that the Watchtower is wrong?"

The WT has said that secular info regarding the reigns is very unreliable. Regarding Evil-merodach, they've shown that Josephus said it was 18 years, while Berossus said it was 2 years.

You've focused on using the 2 years, because it suits your 587 presumption. Using Joseph's 18 years for his reign, would put the fall of Jerusalem much closer to 607 (with only 4 years).

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader i've focused on using the two years because that is what the WT has favored for his reign. They have nowhere stated that the 18 years is the most probable. Furthermore, all I was doing was using the WT's criteria to count backward from 539. And what else can I could backward with other than the King's reigns?

Furthermore, this isn't about a 587 agenda. From my studies, i've found no biblical evidence which points to the contrary.

[ABibleReader]

@entrsnm3 The WT hasn't favored 2 years or 18 years. They've specifically stated that secular dates for these reigns are unreliable and they choose to trust what the Bible says. You've selectively chosen the 2 years, while ignoring their other statements which lay out their reasonings that it's 607.

How about someone makes a video "According to Mike, is fornication OK?" and then hand pick quotes from your writings that misrepresents your position on the topic?

That is what you've done here.

[entrsnm3]

@ABibleReader This is completely wrong. All the WT did as admit that Josephus had 18 instead of 2. But if this were actually controversial then why in w65 1/1 p. 29 did they use 2 years for his reign instead of 18? Also, when the WT uses, for instance 43 years for Neb's reign, am I to believe that this isn't true either?

When we consider the four lines (and there are arguably more) of independent witnesses for the length of years for reigns, the 2 years is a very high likelyhood.

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

I answered what is used to go backward with, the 70 years of desolation.

The WTBS is not a historical society and it is a fact that no one's religion have actually done the archaeology study of the massive amounts of materials involved. Have you deciphered the actual Moabite stone? No! All religions rely on sound scientific and historically accurate materials to defend the Bible, not their own personal research, that would be impossible.

The 539,537 and thus the 607 date is correct.

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

I know you can't admit that.

This debate is for someone who is impartial and may actually read this whole debate and come away with an accurate understanding of true Biblical chronology.

[nibornagrom]

@e3

As I've already commented, the 'Insight' book makes a it clear that they do not rely on controversial secular chronology as it relates to the Bible.

In the "Question from Readers" which your video is partly based on, it explains, as I've already shown, the reason they count back from 537bce.

And that is the real crux of the matter. Is the date 537 reliable? 537 + 70 (yrs. desolation) = 607.

I've asked how would you explain the secular 586-587 date if 70 yrs are counted from 539?

[Ribcagehacksaw]

This is fantastic amazing wonderful brilliant. Thank you so much for this video. I am reading The Gentile Times Reconsidered right now and it is such a thorough work, it's nice to see that you are dedicated enough to sharing the real truth with people to Pore over the societies own work to reveal its inconsistencies. Bravo!

[PrintedTruth]

I know a brother that handles assets for the Society. He says there are brokers all over the world that handle different aspects of the donations. He says you wouldn't believe how much property is left to the society. This organization is raking in alot of money. It occured to me that perhaps the Watchtower Corp is a front for some very rich people that no one is aware of and the Governing body are puppets. Like the moonies

[jrichard1977]

Awesome job, brotha'!

[LuciousVBogeymanProd]

Say, I bought both your albums. Still working through them, but I keyed right into your song "America". You're my kinda Christian. You're going to find out I'm a huge Jesus fan. I came to that view the exact opposite way as one is supposed to. I fell in love with America. My admiration and yes devotion to Jesus comes from the realization everything I'm devoted to with respect to the US ideals originated with him.

[LuciousVBogeymanProd]

I couldn't care less whether he's God or not and the reason why i assert my view of God is "I don't care" is because I know its an unsolvable dillema, but better, there is absolutely no difference where Jesus requires supernatural association add or retracts from what a person's view of his teachings are. I'll have committed Athiests professing themselves followers of Jesus before I'm done here. :oP

[entrsnm3]

@LuciousVBogeymanProd Thanks for buying them both! Glad you enjoy it also. Just so you know, the song "America" isn't really about America. Its really just a euphemism for struggling in life and how to overcome. Its about whatever you want it to be about, really; even if you really do want it to be about America :-)

[rachelbinto]

@LuciousVBogeymanProd Three books you might enjoy: "What's so Great about America" and "What's So Great About Christianity", both by Dinesh D'Souza and "Truth and Transformation" by Vishal Mangalwadi. Both of these authors have the perspective of living in the west and the east and can see things about our culture that we oftentimes miss.

[LuciousVBogeymanProd]

"killing people to KEEP IT TRUE". You've inspired me. Sometimes the contradictions are so SOOPER obvious and the "real" reason why JW's never find them is clearly the cult nature of the Borg not any "debate" that I completely gloss over the actual facts backing that perspective. This project will get a lot of use.

[nibornagrom]

and

kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 Yes, the Bibles internal harmony and the care exercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology, recommends it so strongly to the Christian that he places its authority above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular historians.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not rely on Babylonian kings lists as a determination of true Bible Chronology and reliable secular sources that do not contradict the Bible.

[Ribcagehacksaw]

@nibornagrom The bible does not provide an 'absolute chronology' on its own. The only way to determine an 'absolute chronology' on which to base your dates would be to use secular sources. To only consider secular sources which support your interpretation of the bible leaves room to question your motives for doing so.

[nibornagrom]

@Ribcagehacksaw

Completely agreed.

But if you read my other comments in response to Mike, you'll understand my position.

[nibornagrom]

and

it -p.454 "In reality, historians do not know where to place certain Babylonian kings for whom records do exist. Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History, 1922, p. 84) states: On the Contract Tablets, found in Borsippa, appear the names of Babylonian kings which do not occur elsewhere. In all probability they belong to the last days of Darius I, extending into the first days of Xerxes I, as Ungnad conjectures. Still, this remains only conjecture."

[PrintedTruth]

Great video. It's got me motivated. I want to share the info with my husband but first I want to double check so that he cant' find fault with it. I think I know what the defence will be. I think he will say that the organization never claimed to be historians. So he will say they probebly just made a mistake in researching one of the riegns of the kings,

[LuciousVBogeymanProd]

@PrintedTruth Supercurious that they can't admit they're wrong, but rather slaughter (disfellowship) anyone to calls attention to their amateur grasp of history. So, if they don't claim to be right, attacking anyone who knows true facts would be wrong, right?

"The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olaf Jonsson is the classic apostate book putting this one to rest. Carl was smited by the Watchtower for being correct. He is indisputably correct. Off with his head.

[entrsnm3]

@PrintedTruth on the contrary, they have absolutely claimed to be historians because their literature is completely filled with historical claims in saying that they "know better than secular historians." Just read the chronology sections in the Insight book to see this for yourself. This may be your husband's response, but don't let him get away with thinking that.

[nibornagrom]

entrsnm3

Para. 9 explains the date 537bce as being one of those sure dates.

2 Chronicles 36:20-23 & Jer. 25:12.

shows seventy years would pass till the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem. The land would lay desolate 70 years after the fall of Babylon.

Count back 70 years.

607 bce,

Easy.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom For the sake of argument, i'll grant everything you have said here. Just please explain how, figuring back from 539 did I arrive at 587 using only the WT CD Library? Where did I go wrong? What did I miss?

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

You did a good job. I did the exactly the same thing until I realized that a study of Bible chronology doesn't rely on the Babylonian Kings list and neither does the Governing Body. This is my point. Relating in their literature what is believed to be the facts is not an admission that these are the facts.

The Bible doesn't mention certain kings, sons, etc. By relying only on the fixed date of 539, thus 537 and the 70 literal years of desolation takes you to only one place.

[entrsnm3]

@nibornagrom If you aren't relying on "secular chronologies" then how in the world can you come up with 539?

[nibornagrom]

@entrsnm3

I do rely on 'reliable' chronology ***that does not contradict the Bible.*** I've explained that sufficiently.

[LuciousVBogeymanProd]

LOL, If you were my man Tim Kilgore I'd be saying "Commander Kilgore, fire mission, take entrsnm3's observation that Jesus used the FUTURE TENSE, glue it to a mortor round and drop some rounds at coordinates n-i-b-o-n-a-g-r-o-m, fire for effect"

I wouldn't presume how to tell the Supreme Allied Commander of Christianity how to do his thing. I'd assume something to the effect of adjusting your interpretation repeatedly until it supports your crap is something Jesus be none to happy about.

[earnestlyseeking]

Hey Mike, Great presentation. Looks like CT Russel needed a CD-Rom huh? Oh, I just remembered, he had the great pyramid of Giza didn't he. (grin)

[JBSauce]

Great work, entrsnm3. This was the first issue that got me exploring more.

[ShotLast45]

I think they (gov.) needs a New calculator, what do you think, HuH?

Way to many mistakes in 2nd grade math....LOL

nice work my brother!

[21crosscheck21]

Mike that was really well done and straight from the literature to boot!!