Need help disproving 607BCE (page 14)

scholar

Alwayshere

Post 646

You are smart enough to ask the question then you are smart enough to find the answer. Research WT publications it is so easy.

scholar JW

scholar

garyneal

Post 225

I turn the question back on you: What will you do when the world realizes that the Witnesses speak the Truth and that 607 BCE is the correct date for the Fall of Jerusalem?

scholar JW

SCHOLAR, This Apostate accepts 587 because King Neb. 1st rule was 605. 2Kings 25:8-9 says it was in King Neb. 19th year when Jerusalem was desolated. 605 being the 1st year, take away 18 more years =587. I know WT says 624 is King Neb. 1st year. How do you get 607 using 624? I can only get 606.

Alwayshere

Vol.1 Insight on the Scriptures page 576 left side 2. says Daniel was taken to Babylon in 618. The last paragraph says Daniel was taken in 617. You WT SCHOLARS SAY IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE SOCIETY YOU ARE AN APOSTATE. I AM HAPPY TO BE ONE. YOUR 624 FOR NEB. IS NONSENSE.

garyneal

scholar:

Post 1829

Evading the question by reflecting it back on me, I see. That is fine, I will answer the question.

If the Society is truly correct and the 607 B.C.E. date can be truly justified, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly. That is the mark of a reasonable individual. We should all be willing to adjust our beliefs to the evidence. Scholar, I nearly accepted the WT theology because I was beginning to believe that they indeed had the truth. But deep research, the kind that died in the wool JW's are forbidden to consider, told me otherwise. If there is any truth in the WT teachings, they are not alone.

So, I re-ask the question, what will you do when the Society drops 1914?

Leolaia

Ezra wrote Chronicles according to scholarship right up to 1968 when dissenting scholars challenged that opinion.

False. One could look, for instance, at GR Driver's very influential Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1899) where he states that "these books contain many indications of being the compilation of an author living long subsequently to the age of Ezra and Nehemiah themselves, — in fact, not before the close of the Persian rule. A date shortly after BC 333 is thus the earliest to which the composition of the Chronicles can be plausibly assigned, and it is that which is adopted by most modern critics" (p. 518). Or one could read in Curtis & Masden's 1910 Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of the Chronicles that "the close of the fourth century BC, or 300, may be confidently given as the period of the Chronicler" (p. 6).

Archaeology is in a state of flux and since the year 2000 scholarship is slowly moving more towards and acknowledgement of 'An Empty Land'.

Again false. This is but wishful thinking. If you are at all familiar with the literature, you would know that Palestinian archaeology of the Neo-Babylonian period has advanced considerably in recent years (particularly at the site of Tell en-Nasbeh and other sites in the land of Benjamin) and scholarship has moved considerably towards reaching a concensus that the land was not empty "without inhabitant" during the period. Even Ephraim Stern, whom the Watchtower Society quotes in support of their views, agrees that while the cities destroyed by the Babylonians were uninhabited (and thus evidence a gap in occupation), the same is not true for the land as a whole, as there were towns which were never desolated by the Babylonians and which flourished during the exilic period, and that there were certain agricultural areas that were exploited during the period (why would the Babylonians let the agricultural bounty go to waste in the territories they conquered?). It is not intellectually honest to pretend that scholars are coming around to believe that "Judah was in fact empty" as a whole, when the opposite is happening.

OUTLAW

Scholar..

I`m surprised to see you back so soon,after your last Beating..

LOL!!

Leolaia is Kicking your Ass again..

And..

Looking absolutely Fabulous while shes doing it..

(I saw a pic of her new Hair Cut..)

................... ...OUTLAW

Need help disproving 607BCE

Share this