Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Black Sheep

  What do you think about that lot 2pink?

  Please notice that our resident 607/WT apologist has not taken the time to show you that there is an error in the accepted Neo-Babylonian kings.

  This is not unusual. It is very difficult to get a JW to discuss this topic once they realise that you have them by the short and curlies.

  Their primary tactic is to divert your attention away from this issue. Your friend may try to do the same. Watch for it. Learn from scholar's tactics.

  What scholar is doing is diverting attention away from data that contradicts the WT's position, the idea being to introduce you to so much material that he claims contradicts secular historians on the date, that you will come to the conclusion that it is a confusing issue that requires knowledge beyond your capabilties and expertise. This is not the case.

  Do not let your friend change the subject. Gently keep her on the topic and encourage her to use her own brain to come to her own conclusions on this topic.

  If you have any problems, pop in and ask.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  MadGiant
• 

  isaacaustin

  Pseudoscholar, again i will emphasize the moot point of this as EVEN IF 607 were the correct date, whcih it is not, so what? The whole 7 Gentile Times doctrine is bogus. Dan 4 was fulfilled in Neb, that's all there is too it. It does not belong with Luke 21.

  In 609 Babylon became dominant and remained such for 70 years...till 539BCE. Jer says that when the 70 yrs expired Babylon would be called to account- this happened when the Medes/Persians overtook them.

  I am pretty much done I think with this studpidity that you have been refuted on by everyone so many times over.

  My final question to you is have you ever actually convinced someone that 607 is the correct date? I am sure you would say yes, but seeing your reasoning skills and I would assume not. By the testimony of several here, you have shown them that 607BCE was not the right date- where they had been mixed on it prior to your shenanigans.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Pseudo: I had to comment on this post:

  saacaustin

  Post 4219

  Nevertheless his conduct was public and this showed his lack of wisdom making his posts and object of foolishness and stupidity.

  scholar JW

  My reply: No, but your reply here simply shows you were unable toi answer the evidence against you. Alan's behavior took nothing away from his kicking your butt.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi Neil. You're back for another pasting, I see.

  
• 

  isaacaustin

  'scholar'- you said

  PSacremento

  Post 1855

  I will ask scholar himself about the third person business.

  My reply: Who the hell are you? Are you 'scholar's' secretary???
• 

  isaacaustin

  AnnOmaly, that is a wonderful thread you did on the KISS method.

  I used it on my wife...and of course she is clueless. I asked her directly how Jeru could have been destroyed in 607BCE when I simply add back the kings from the WT approved date of 539BCE using the lengths of reigns of the kings that the WT agrees on. Her reply: must be some sort of rounding error

  Talk about mind control at its finest.
• 

  PSacramento

  Scholar,

  609 BC is accepted by historians and neo-babylonian experts as the fall of the Assyrian empire and the beginning of the Babylonian one.

  607 is only important in the WT it seems, it throws all the secualr proven evidence out of whack, not only of the Babylonia chronology, case in poit Nebuchadrezzer II's ruling period, but also the history of the surround nations, Egypt for example.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/580s_BC

  What puzzels me is that the evidence for 538 bc for the end of the Babylonian rule is basically the same (secular) evidence for the 587 fall of Jerusalem.

  It can be argued that there is even mor evidence for the 587 than the 538 as a matter of fact.

  So, if the evidence used to validate 538BC is the same as (some) of the ones used to validate 587, why does the WT insist on 607 ?
• 

  isaacaustin

  Or why does the WT accept 539 as fact while rejecting from the same source 607?
• 

  garyneal

  scholar

  Post 1811

  It is not surprising that the churches of Christendom have no interest in such matters because they have no belief or interest in Bible prophecy.

  Eh, WRONG! In my own personal experiences, I have seen the pastor at my old IFB church give many sermons concerning Bible prophecies with an emphasis on the events spoken of in Revelations. At a Church of God that I attended a few year ago, the pastor had a series of Wednesday night sermons covering the entire book of Revelations chapter by chapter. Not only do they believe and have great interest in Bible prophecy, they also try to interpret (guess) what the symbolism might be referring to. Some of them, just like the WT, even go as far as setting dates. Like 1948 and 'this generation,' sounds a lot like the WT's own 1914 and 'this generation.' Of course, they're both wrong because Jesus clearly stated that it 'was not for us to know.'

  Watch an episode of Jack Van Impe Presents and you will see "Christendom's" clergy concerning itself with Bible prophecy. Of course, he too made a mistake and estimated the time of the end to be around 2000. Which I believe the WT is guilty of doing also.

  How can you call yourself a 'scholar' and make such an errorneous statement like that?

  The dropping of 1914 CE is merely a product of your fanciful imagination, the date marks an event grounded in Scripture revolving around the reality of God's Kingdom.

  While I don't see the WTS officially dropping the 1914 date, I can certainly see them 'quietly' drop it by mentioning it less and less. This is certainly the case if 1975 is any indication.