Validity of 607 BCE date (page 9)

AlanF

I'm not changing the subject, Fridolin, honey!

Now go get your diaper changed.

AlanF

dubla

>>Non-scholar's sorry excuse for scholarship is evident to all but JW readers.>>(alanf)

-i was meaning to post this exact same sentence. alan, i couldnt have phrased it any better myself.

>>Non-scholar's attempt to debunk secular dating of the short Neo-Babylonian period by pointing out minor disagreements among scholars about the precise dating of Jewish kings.....>>(alanf)

-again, even without the second half of this sentence, well put! why are you making yourself look like a fool scholar? everyone sees it. you refuse to give one shred of evidence for 607, and you give reasons such as..."I have no intention posting on this board esuch evidence for 607 unless I am satisfied that you have an appreciation of chronology".......
give me a break scholar. you make your ignorance shown. and then you discount the validity of 586/7 with comments such as, "Which date is it? Which date do you prefer.?"........
again, give me a break. if thats your best line of defense, youd better just hang up the typewriter now. youre competing with a mountain, no, a mountain range of PROOF backing up 586/7, with no way to dispute it except for your personal BLIND faith in the society and their 607 date. you make your ignorance shown (and alan, along with everyone else on this thread, is helping your ignorance show just a little brighter).

aa

Fredhall

Change it for me AlanF. And while you at it, wipe my butt.

scholar

Hilary Step

You talk much about the weight of evidence fo a date in chronology which is rather contradicted by the fact that there is no agreement amongst scholars as to whether 586 or 587 is the correct date. If you have such weight of evidence why can you not account for this discrepancy. What is wrong with your data? You admit quite correctly that such dates have circumstantial evidence, to some degree this also applies to 607. This date is a calcuable date along with the other two dates. All of these dates have common features, in that these dates draw upon scriptural , historical and astronomical data. In short, all of these dates have their respective merits.

In explanation of this point we find that in order to locate 607 one needs an anchor or a pivotal or absolute date. The Fall of Babylon in 539 gives the chronologist a starting point or a foundation. So already this date which enjoys unamity of opinion is the foundation on which subsequent circumstantial and testimonial evidence can be employed. So you see here that already 607 is off to a good start indeed. By the way, as you are fully conversant in such matters could you give a absolute date for 586/7 so that that we can construct together the mountain of evidence for Jerusalem. Let us work together so that all readers on this board can be well educated in such a matter.

working together in umity for Christs'sake

scholar (non, according to Alan Fraud)

ianao

Like a damn robot. Same ol' shit over and over and over and over and over and over and... (slap)

I suppose satan destroyed most of the circumstantial evidence that "to some degree" applies to 607 as well.

ROTFLMAO.

working together in umity for Christs'sake

should read

working together in unity for the Society's sake

BTW skaller, you forgot to mention that I don't think you are a scholar either.

dubla

alan says non-scholar.....ianao seconds the motion......all in favor........ "I!!" (thundering crowd in unison)

aa

Moxy

why not just stick to the tried and true arguments that the society have already presented:

*** w89 3/15 21-2 Insight That Jehovah Has Given ***
Secular historians, relying on their interpretation of what are in some cases fragmentary tablets unearthed by archaeologists, have concluded that 464 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Artaxerxes Longimanus and that 604 B.C.E. was the first year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that were true, the 20th year of Artaxerxes would begin in 445 B.C.E., and the date of Jerusalem?s desolation by the Babylonians (in Nebuchadnezzar?s 18th regnal year) would be 587 B.C.E. But if a Bible student uses those dates when calculating the fulfillment of prophecy, he will simply be confused.

cant argue with that, can you? the dates don't work in prophetic fulfillment? they're confusing? well then, ignore them. rock-solid reasoning. in fact, why argue about chronology at all. just give the whole thing up. because its all a murky, shaky, fragmentary and speculative science anyways. i hesitate to even use the word 'science' - it's more like a bunch of opinion.

*** kc 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: ?It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.??The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

As we all know, there is only one date in the whole of secular chronology before christ that is reliable, 539. but according to this notable scholar (very recently i might add) even this date, being a part of neo-babylon chronology, is only a provisional 'circa' date. why not take this argument to its logical conclusion? there is no way to state authoritatively when ANYTHING happened in the bible with precision. anyone who thinks they can has been deluded by this pseudo-science of opinion and 'worldy wisdom.' we have plenty of evidence for 1914 in the indisputable physical facts we have all seen with our own eyes since that date in the 'last days' of this old system. we have far much more evidence now than russell did in his day. we no longer need a chronological crutch to support this solid biblical prophecy. in doing away with all secular chronology once and for all, we can finally stop worrying about all kinds of annoying thorny discrepancies and breathe easier, knowing that the bible always triumphs when in comes to conflict with human wisdom.

mox

dubla

edited for saving some face.

aa

dubla

ladeeda

Validity of 607 BCE date

Share this