by crazies 129 Replies latest watchtower bible
The only correlation between Tyre's seventy years prophesied by Isaiah and Judah's seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah is that of servitude to Babylon. These two periods, one finite and the other indefinite are not one and the same but different as to time, purpose and function.
LOL. You might want to inform the 'Writing Committee'™ of their error in Isaiah's Prophecy then.
Such views by celebrated WT scholar have already been published in the leading scholarly journal, The Watchtower.
The Watchtower is a religious magazine. It is about as scholarly as you are (which means "not very"). It is known to be very selective in [mis]quoting its sources to skew the opinions of uninformed readers. That is why it has never tackled head-on the many problems with its 607 doctrine. (As far as scholarship goes, the arguments made in the appendix of the Kingdom Come book are extremely weak, and many problematic points are ignored altogether.)
Jeffro wrote:
: LOL. You might want to inform the 'Writing Committee'™ of their error in Isaiah's Prophecy then.
Scholar pretendus most certainly counts himself among those most pretentious of Inebriated Watchtower Scholars. I wonder how he'll get the attention of the most hammered of all -- those spiritual drunkards who control the Writing Committee in Brooklyn?
AlanF
Jeffro
There is no need to inform the Writing Committee of an error as none exists for what was stated in the Isaiah book is totally correct. The only error is on your part in your lack of comprehension.
You must read more widely and deeply
scholar JW
Jeffro
The Watchtower is a leading religious and scholarly journal and has brought to attention to all its readers and to the public developments in relation to chronology. The arguments in the Appendix are a simple presentation of both the biblical and secular evidence in support of the well established date of 607 bce.
scholar JW
The Watchtower is a leading religious and scholarly journal and has brought to attention to all its readers and to the public developments in relation to chronology.
And yet it has never brought forward any actual evidence in support of its outlandish 607 claims. If such a 'scholarly' journal cannot present any evidence for its own doctrine in which it has so much vested interest, why should anyone assign it any credibility?
The arguments in the Appendix are a simple presentation of both the biblical and secular evidence in support of the well established date of 607 bce.
LOL. You don't actually believe that do you? There is no secular evidence to support 607. The appendix simply lists a small amount of the archeological evidence that disproves their 607 dogma and attempts to refute them - badly. Knowing how weak their arguments are, the appendix makes a final last ditch effort to vie for credibility:
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
That's the best they can do... So far as 'scholarship' goes, it really is laughable! Their whole argument falls back on some hypothetical future revelation that will supposedly confound all of the existing evidence, which the Society ashamedly admits that currently all points to Jerusalem's fall in 587BCE.
Jeffro
Indeed through the columns of the the Watchtower such research in support of 607 has been published, you can trace such research by means of the Watchtower Index.
The Appendic indeed cites secular evidence as we as biblical evidence for the fact of 607 it is simply case that you choose to ignore what you read. One such secular reference in support of 607 would be Josephus.
scholar JW
ackack
Indeed through the columns of the the Watchtower such research in support of 607 has been published, you can trace such research by means of the Watchtower Index.
Considering its importance to JW doctrine, 607 is actually given very little attention by the Society. The 'proof' they do offer is completely unsupported by any sources and is completely incompatible with all historical works, including the bible.
The Appendic indeed cites secular evidence as we as biblical evidence for the fact of 607 it is simply case that you choose to ignore what you read. One such secular reference in support of 607 would be Josephus.
Josephus explicitly indicates "one hundred and eighty-two years and a half [f]rom the captivity of the ten tribes to the first year of Cyrus", which is only valid if only 50 years are allocated between Jerusalem's fall and Cyrus' first year. So given that your example is a lie, can you actually cite any evidence at all that does support 607?
Such views by celebrated WT scholar have already been published in the leading scholarly journal, The Watchtower.
Of course the Society's own journal is going to agree with itself. A good benchmark for a grasp on reality though is a third-party perspective, and that will never happen for the flawed 607 dogma because it has no evidence.
