607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ellderwho

  I stand as an example of yet another loyal honest JW who struck out to prove his belief in 607 was founded on truth and all I found was a retarded morass of circular reasoning. Being one who hates to be wrong, I had a death grip on 607 which was only loosened by being repeatedly beat with the "TRUTH".

  What sealed the deal for me was the fact that a JW cannot connect the Kings and years rule to complete there "shifting sands" chronology.

  Scholar, the Towers and any JW apologist cannot and will not ever face the glaring fact they have no Kings List. I have yet to witness this. Thats really the end of the argument.

  Put up or shut up, and listen to your mother Org.
• 

  Jeffro

  1. The truth hurts doesn't it?

  It is strange that you would say that. The only possible context for your comment is that you are admitting that you are indeed hurt by the truth that I did not require any literature other than that provided by the Society in addition to the British Museum and Josephus in order to prove that 607 is malarkey. So yes, the truth does hurt [you]. Not sure why you'd bother admitting that though.

  2.
  

  There is considerable evidence for the end-point as both you and Alan F fully realize but your agenda has clouded over your honesty which is typical of apostate thinking.

  The best the Insight book does for 'evidence' is "probable" and "likely". There is absolutely no evidence that 537 is the correct year, and 538 is strongly supported by the facts. Agendas are irrelevant. Even if 537 were the correct year for the return of the Jews, it would make no difference to the plain and simple parameters that Jeremiah specified for the nature and end-point of the 70 years.

  You really need a dictionary, 'scholar'. Any person who changes religion to become a JW is also an apostate. It is you who has allowed your agenda to cloud your mind by applying your weak-minded pejorative usage of the word. Apostates are not the big bad wolf the Society makes them out to be. 'Apostate' is just a word, and the JW definition is simply a boogeyman to scare naive JWs.

  You see, 'scholar', it's like this: I hold no malice toward Witnesses in general because most of them are just trying to do what they think is right, though they've been duped. You on the other hand hold a grudge against any who leave your religion, basically because you've been told to. You cannot examine the faults of your religion logically, and so you fall back on blaming any problems that are raised on 'apostates' or 'Satan', when the simple fact is a core doctrine of your faith is just plain wrong.

  But now you will just sit back, smile arrogantly, and think to yourself about how superior you feel in your own delusion.

  And for that you have my sympathy.
• 

  ackack

  When are we getting Scholar's refutation of AlanF's nonsense? I was really looking forward to see what Neil had to say about it.

  ackack
• 

  scholar

  ackack

  All in good time

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  elderwho

  If you are talking about a list for the Babylonian rulers then we have big problem in trying to construct a chronology that makes any sense. The data is confusing and ambiguous with authorities giving different regnal years for the various rulers. Also, there is the twenty year gap problem which makes any reconciliation with biblical and secular chronology or the sacred versus the profane.

  We have no kinglist for the Babylonians but we certainly have a king list for Israel and Judah and celebrated WT scholars have reconstructed that chronology which is far superior to any others that I have seen.

  scholar JW.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Post 944

  Your chronology is influenced and tainted by apostate chronology by the Jonsson hypothesis because something rotten stinks and I can smell it all the way down here.

  The evidence in the Insight book is hardly likely or probable. What facts make 538 more likely or probable than 537? What facts disprove 537? There are none and Alan F knows this and so does Jonsson because if there were then Jonsson would have discussed the matter and his sole interest in the matter was dealt in a footnote. A footnote would you believe!!! So please list your issues against 537 and Alan F can do the same. I want my list.

  scholar JW
• 

  AlanF

  
  scholar pretendus goatus buggerus said:

  : The evidence in the Insight book is hardly likely or probable.

  How true!

  : What facts make 538 more likely or probable than 537? What facts disprove 537?

  I've posted the facts at least half a dozen times. Each time you've completely ignored them. In particular, Josephus in combination with Ezra proves that the Jews must have returned to Judah in 538, because Josephus states that work on the temple was begun in Cyrus' 2nd regnal year, whereas a return date of 537 requires that the work began in Cyrus' 3rd year in 536 B.C.

  : There are none and Alan F knows this and so does Jonsson

  Your brazen lies are here for all to see.

  : because if there were then Jonsson would have discussed the matter

  He did, you moron. Ignoring what he said does not make it go away. At least, not for people with normal mental faculties.

  : and his sole interest in the matter was dealt in a footnote. A footnote would you believe!!!

  You've contradicted yourself in just one sentence. First you claim that Jonsson failed to discuss the matter. Then you say he discussed it, but in a footnote. This is pretty typical for a JW discussing doctrinal matters.

  On the other hand, the Insight book merely speaks of "maybes" and "likelies". Solid references to scholars' opinions presented in a footnote really do mean something. Speculations presented in the main text unaccompanied by good arguments or scholarly opinions are meaningless.

  : So please list your issues against 537 and Alan F can do the same. I want my list.

  I've done so several times, you stupid liar. The most recent time was on page 14 of this thread, in post #4440 dated 20-May-06 20:21, where I posed a set of leading questions, which you've completely ignored. How can anyone be that stupid?

  AlanF
• 

  ellderwho

  then we have big problem in trying to construct a chronology that makes any sense.

  So WT chronology lacks sense as well? But the Tower will build upon a chronology that doesnt make sense. This has to be the most revealing thing youve stated.

  Your back to friggin square one, and have not progressed one notch.
• 

  Jeffro

  If you are talking about a list for the Babylonian rulers then we have big problem in trying to construct a chronology that makes any sense. The data is confusing and ambiguous with authorities giving different regnal years for the various rulers. Also, there is the twenty year gap problem which makes any reconciliation with biblical and secular chronology or the sacred versus the profane [impossible??].

  Indeed, you have a big problem trying to construct a chronology because your dogma is not in harmony with the known facts. I took the liberty of adding the word that you probably meant, which you left out entirely.

  We have no kinglist for the Babylonians but we certainly have a king list for Israel and Judah and celebrated WT scholars have reconstructed that chronology which is far superior to any others that I have seen.

  The plain truth is that all of the years the Society assigns to the kings of Israel and Judah are counted back from the assumption of the year 607. And because of that, none of the years given to those kings by the Society co-incide with the known facts either. It is, at the very least, extremely suspicious that all of those assumed years would also disagree with all of the known evidence that comes from a variety of independent sources.

  You have seen the king list for Israel and Judah that I have produced, and you were unable to find any faults with it in regard to its strict adherence to the biblical account. It is in close agreement with secular historians, and properly indicates the period Josephus identified between the last king of Israel and the first year of Cyrus. And all this was done by compiling the Jewish king lists directly from the bible without comparing against any secular information at all, and only adding the secular data once I had all of the biblical reigns in place; the reigns fell into place with secular history completely by co-incidence (or rather, because I got it right). This is irrefutable proof that the Jewish king list I offered is vastly superior to the Society's flawed dates which are in agreement with nothing. Additionally, my tabulation shows the years agreed for the Neo-Babylonian kings with all of the relevant scriptures indicated for the correct years. You can say until you are blue in the face that your model is better, but the facts indicate otherwise.
• 

  Jeffro

  Your chronology is influenced and tainted by apostate chronology by the Jonsson hypothesis because something rotten stinks and I can smell it all the way down here.

  Again you fall back on your weak and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack, as if to diminish the accuracy of anything I've said. Pathetic.

  The evidence in the Insight book is hardly likely or probable. What facts make 538 more likely or probable than 537? What facts disprove 537? There are none and Alan F knows this and so does Jonsson because if there were then Jonsson would have discussed the matter and his sole interest in the matter was dealt in a footnote. A footnote would you believe!!! So please list your issues against 537 and Alan F can do the same. I want my list.

  Your first sentence here is apt - indeed the 'evidence' offered in the Insight book is neither "likely" nor "probable". I don't really care what Jonsson has published because I don't need his work to establish the Society is wrong, so it matters little whether some particular point was relegated to a footnote by him. You again make an ad hominem attack of Jonsson when he simply colates information from other sources. Josephus and 2 Chronicles together indicate that the Jews must have returned in 538.

  You are hardly in a position to make demands for any list or anything else. You are yet to apologise for making unfounded claims about how I came by my model of events, for posting my full name on the forum without permission, and for making ad hominem attacks on me and others. You completely ignore information that conflicts with your views and you are unable to substantiate your own position with any actual facts. I owe you nothing.