Comments:
Wow I've never seen someone argue over such trivial garbage before. If you want 100% proof then religeon is not for you. Perhaps you should study math. It's quite clear from your letters that there is no amount of proof that would satisfy you and you're just out for an arguement.

Comments:
Please read quote from above URL The question raised by Newton is this: If Ptolemy fudged his astronomical data regarding eclipses, it is possible that the King List that he provides is also inaccurate, perhaps because Ptolemy was using inaccurate records? Both Mitchell and James argue that Ptolemy's King List — a backbone of later ancient world chronology — is correct because an eclipse noted by the Assyrian King List, assumed to have been visible at Nineveh (the capital), happened in 763 BC during the reign of the king Ptolemy says ruled at that time. At the same time, Mitchell only examines possible eclipses between 813 and 713 BC, and if the revision tentatively proposed in this book is correct, we should have to look for an eclipse around 683 BC, eighty years later. (See discussion below.) All of this is to say that eclipse data, though regarded as "absolutely certain" in various encyclopedias and ancient world studies, are in fact very dubious.

Comments:
I wrote an e-mail to you but it came back as undeliverable. Please provide correct e-mail address.

Comments:
I think your site is very good and complete, but the information you have here.

Comments:
Despite the obvious attempt by FaithfulJW to slander those who leave the teaching of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, I would like to state that I <u>am</u> interested in truth. In fact, I am researching how certain secular historians are of the 609 BC year for Nabopolssar's conquest of Assyria.It seems to me that this conquest would at once clear up any arguments related to 607 BC and uphold the prophecy of Jeremiah regarding 70 years for Babylon quite nicely. Please send an email with some references of works that might discuss the fall of Assyria and the proofs of the dating. Thank you.

Comments:
Your vision of 607 BCE date is totally biased and unsciptural. I recommend every honest person who accept Bible's viepoint on this event to visit http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/jerusalems-destruction-587-or-607.html Furthemore, there is much more discrepancies between secular chronolgy and the bible's one which are more important than Jerusalem's destruction date. there are some of them: 1) Deluge. There is nothing in archeology or geology that proves it was. 2) Existence of Abraham. What archeology could say about him? 3) Sodom's overthrow. When it happened according to archeology if it happened at all? 4) Israelites slavery in Egypt. There is nothing particular in archeology and in egyptian history confirming it. 5) Exodus. 6) Palestine's conquest. Archeology, on contrary, says that no conquest has occured at all. 7) David and Solomon's kingdoms. AND so on. There is no answer from archeology and secular history and chronology regarding these events whilst they are more important than 20 years difference between secular history and bible's one about Jerusalem destruction. So what we should do? To wait till archeologists will find something that will confirm these events or we will view the bible as ultimate source for ancient history ? The sad thing i have realized is that people actually are not trying to find the truth. They are only speaking about it. Nobody actually cares if Jerusalem fall in 587 or in 607 BCE. THE MAIN REASON for all these debates is not to find the truth but to DISCREDIT WTBTS. That's all. "What is truth?" Pilate asked. Faithful JW.

Comments:
I tried to email you through the link provided but was unable to. Also, the links to all the letters are not working. Could you email me the letters you sent and the replies you received? Thanks.