'scholar' said: Mary, The dates 586/587 BCE are most certainly not supported by the Bible but only have support from Ptolemy's Canon along with other materials.
Including the bible itself......but let's not put too much weight on bible chronology when so much is at stake right?
These dates are falsified because there is no factoring in of the seventy years leaving a chronology computed by the regnal lists of rukers for the Neo-Babylonian period. The date of 607 BCE is based upon that significant historical period of the seventy years thus conforming to all of the biblical data. Wordly scholars in the main are critical of the Bible and do not take it seriously so the seventy year period of servitude, desolation and captivity is regarded by all or at least the majority as a myth.
OK, this is just absurd. If 'worldly' scholars are so critical of the Bible and do not 'take it seriously', then why would they be promoting any date at all? What would all these worldly scholars have to gain by 'falsifying' these dates? Your assertion is absolutely ludicrous 'scholar' and completely without any foundation. Tell me scholar, who has the most to lose regarding these dates? Hmmm....it's not the 'worldly' scholars----as I already mentioned, it would make absolutely no difference to them whatsoever as to when Jerusalem was destroyed. The only group of people who are frantically trying to still promote this date are Jehovah's Witnesses and it's only being done so that the goons in charge can keep their authority and reign of terror over 6.5 millions Witnesses.
The meandering of Alan F is of no threat to me because every refutation of WT chronology has been refuted by me and his continued tirades against me prove that he feels threatened for there is a certain despersation in his responses.
Yes, I'm sure AlanF is just quaking in his shoes every time he sees you post. How sad and pathetic that you interpret logic and reasoning with "desperation in his responses."
Everytime he moves, scholar checkmates him.
Of course you do.
One serious scholar who supports 607 BCE and has the required doctorate is Rolf Furuli and he has published scholarly research in support of 607 BCE by demonstrating the 'twenty year' gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology.
Ya, I looked up some info on Rolfy......He's a Witness himself which explains why he---like you, is trying so desperately to promote this date. Too bad the guy ends up lying just to try and keep this date to the forefront. He tried refuting Carl Olof Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered. Here's a couple of links I found to be quite interesting about Rolf Furuli and his academic ethics: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev1.htm http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furuli.htm
The very fact that Jonsson devotes some 400 pages of research to refute a single date proves that the date must have some evidence
Your assertion is rather interesting, given the number of pages that Witnesses like you and Rolf Furuli have devoted in a desperate attempt to 'prove' that 587 BCE is erroneous. I guess proves that the date must have some evidence, eh scholar?
for nowhere in any of scholarly published material has seen so much effort gone into to destroy or disprove a popular, single date. There must be some substance in it for this date to attract such hostility.
Circular reasoning scholar. The reason 'so much effort' has gone in to disproving this date is simply because of the punishment that the WTS doles out for anyone who dares to disbelieve it. There have been Witnesses who have lost their families, life long friends, their homes, their pensions, and sometimes their very lives because of all the Watchtower doctrine that hinges on this date. Do you really think that people would not be hostile when they find out that 607 BCE turns out to be false?
This fact alone should give you and the other nutters some cause to ponder.
Riiight. This is typical Witness mentality: You conclude that 607 BCE must be right because it evokes such a strong negative response from 'apostates', yet you don't apply the same criteria to you and the other 'nutters' who will go to the ends of the earth to try and disprove 587 BCE. Surely because there's been so much hostility on the part of Witnesses like yourself to try and destroy or disprove a popular single date, there must be some evidence to prove its right, right?
Christians are commanded to pay attention to the prophetic word and to preach the Gospel, the date of 607 BCE is part of the Gospel because it relates to the beginning of the Kingdom.
It does nothing of the kind. Neither 586 BCE nor 607 BCE have anything at all to do with the Second Coming of Christ or the Kingdom of God. The Seven Times referred to in Daniel is referring to the 7 years that Nebuchadnezzar went insane and it specifically tells us that when the seven years was ended, Nebuchadnezzar's sanity had been restored as per the prophecy. There is absolutely nothing in the prophecy that links it to anything other than Nebuchadnezzar. It has nothing to do with the time of Jesus, or the "Gentile Times"-----this bizarre theory exists only in Dubdumb Land, and has absolutely no basis beyond the Governing Body's fanciful imagination.
The reality that it is JW's alone who believe in the Kingdom and preach it.
Here is yet another fanciful dream in Watchtower Land and only a fool would assert such a thing. Scholar, all Christian faiths believe in the Kingdom of God----just not the slanted view that the Watchtower puts forth. And they most certainly DO "preach it" and by all accounts, they have a far greater measure of success in converts than what the Witnesses do. For a more in-depth discussion about the value of the 'house to house' method of preaching that the WTS enforces on everyone, I suggest you take a look at the review I did a couple of months ago on this very subject: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/165144/1.ashx
What about you? Do you believe in the Kingdom? Do you preach the Kingdom? Does your guru, Alan F even believe in God? If not, Why do you take notice of his disbelief in the Bible?
Yes I believe in the Kingdom and I probably talk more about the bible now than what I did when I was a Witness. But I guess because I don't report it on a slip of paper each month, or go knocking on strangers' doors, then it doesn't really mean anything right?
And no, AlanF is not my 'guru'----I barely know the guy. Whether or not he believes in God has absolutely no bearing on the subject of 607 BCE.
![[IMG]](http://www.mos95b.com/Smileys/Grenade.gif)
![[IMG]](http://www.mos95b.com/Smileys/Grin.gif)
![[IMG]](http://www.mos95b.com/Smileys/EduRant.gif)
So come on 'scholar'----put your money where you mouth is: I want links to some 'serious scholars' who have a doctorate in either History, Archaeology or Religious Studies who support 607 BCE.
...OUTLAW