I read Justhumans response on one of the threads, and he mentioned that Jeruselum was not destroyed in 607 BCE. I would like to have more information on this.
Pureheart
Jeruselum Destroyed in 607 BCE?
by Pureheart 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ozziepost
Suggest you try this over on the Bible Research forum or the Beliefs forum.
Cheers,
Ozzie"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Anonymous -
-
Pureheart
Thanks Ozzie.
Pureheart
-
biblexaminer
The proof is concrete. Read "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Johnason, available at www.commentarypress.com
Everything you need is in this complete discussion book.
-
scholar
Pureheart
There is a sound basis for 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem according to secular history and biblical exegesis. the dates of 586/587 have also their merits, but do not harmonize with an appropriate world view of the biblical narrative. Such dates do not have any prophetic significance in comparison to 607 which marks the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914.
scholar,BA MA [Studies in Religion] USyd.
-
cecil
scholar:
There is a sound basis for 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem according to secular history and biblical exegesis. the dates of 586/587 have also their merits, but do not harmonize with an appropriate world view of the biblical narrative. Such dates do not have any prophetic significance in comparison to 607 which marks the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914.
I'd like to hear more about the "sound basis for 607 for the fall of Jerusalem" and why "the dates 586/587 ... do not harmonize with an appropriate world view of the biblical narrative". I have taken my question to the Beliefs, Doctrine & Practices-forum as well.
cecil
edited to add the link to the thread in the Beliefs, Doctrines & Practices-forum:
* http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=14420&site=3 -
Trevor Scott
Such dates do not have any prophetic significance in comparison to 607 which marks the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914.
Um, the Gentiles Times ending in 1914 proves 607? Lol!
Just wanted to point out the circular reasoning. Your "logic" belies your title.
TS,
-
Fredhall
Scholar,
Don't worry about others, you are on the right track.
-
Dan B
Scholar,
You know you're on the right track when Fred backs you up. You're in good company.
Seriously though, I'd like to hear your "sound basis for 607" too.
Dan