it is impossible to determine anything from the Bible's use of numbers, dates and quantities.
What a ridiculous statement when it comes to 607.
Read this first, then honor us with your grand opinions. http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html
Michael Jursa (British Museum) and 587 vs. 607 B.C.
by Dogpatch 34 Replies latest jw friends
-
jonathan dough
-
stillin
I've always hoped that I wouldn't ever need to jump through all of those hoops with an "interested person." All of that
day for a year" from one end of the Bible, to the "time and times and half a time" from the other end of the Bible and all of the convoluted starting places and no-year-zero and blablah, just so I could finish up by saying "Yep. that's how God's REAL worshippers do it!"Why couldn't they just help people to build up honest, kind , loyal personalities? Help people to see the power of love and generosity, honor for the aged ones, and the value of the higher Bible principles, WITHOUT having to establish all of that "We're number ONE!" THAT would be a witness that people would take notice of!
-
Black Sheep
... it says that Jerusalem siege was in 607, according to professor Michael Jursa ...
The above is a very good example of WT trickery.
The article does not say anything of the kind, but your contributor reads it as though it has.
The majority of JWs will make the same mistake.
I don't know how to make an impression on a Dubby with this one. Maybe get them to read the article and ask them when Jursa thinks Jerusalem fell and then show them an article that proves otherwise?
There is an article at the Telegraph, but it doesn't actually quote Jursa on the date, so it is not proof of what he believes even though it makes it obvious.
Cheers
Chris
-
-
cameo-d
JWoods: "One thing that always bothers me a little about these constant arguments over 587 versus 607 versus anything else threads is this:
Are we sort of validating the argument that if a person had the right date you could add up to the end of the modern gentile times?
By that I mean - rather than discuss the historical date, might it be better to attack the total nonsense of trying to add this up to 1914, 1934, or whatever the date? "
You have hit the nail on the head. This seems to be a very simple but effective diversion the WT has used successfully for a long time. It's the same principle as arguing over a "torture stake" and a "cross". It lessens the event to a trivial pursuit of a detail. It keeps one from looking at the bigger picture. It is a major diversion tactic of WT.
-
Black Sheep
Maybe you could show your Dubby the Awake! article then ask them when Jursa thinks Jerusalem fell.
If they say 607 BC, show them the press release from the British Museum then ask again when does Jursa think Jerusalem fell.
If they say 587 BC, ask questions about honesty in journalism.
The subject is not a debate on 607 vs 587. The subject is honesty and integrity and don't you forget it .............. and don't change the subject
-
cameo-d
Is Jursa aware that he has been implicated by WT, by the way they have twisted their sentences, to be attributed with substantiating their quote of 607?
-
Aeiouy
"The Bible’s veracity, however, does not depend on archaeology. Far more powerful evidence can be found within the Bible itself, especially in its prophecies. (2 Peter 1:21) For example, more than 100 years in advance, Jehovah God, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, foretold that all the treasures in Jerusalem would “be carried to Babylon.”"
Statements like this have always irritated me. It says 100 years in advance, Israel predicted something. How do we know it was 100 years in advance? Archae-frickin-ology! The ONLY way to confirm the Bible's accuracy in prophecy is through Archaeology.
"The Bible’s veracity, however, does not depend on archaeology."
My god that is such a stupid statement.
Aeiouy
-
Married to the Mob
There is one more comment (my highlighting) in the note on the webpage that blows far more at the JW theory of 607.
Yep thats right! He wasn't even king in 607! So how could he have destroyed Jerusalem during his reign when he wasn't even king?????
OOPS!
Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-usur, 'O Nabu, protect the son') came to the throne in 604 BC, on the death of his father Nabopolassar. The Babylonians had conquered the Assyrian empire having allied themselves with the Iranian Medes. After his coronation in Babylon the new king campaigned in Syria for five months. In 601 BC Nebuchadnezzar marched to the Egyptian frontier. The Babylonian and Egyptian armies clashed and both sides suffered heavy losses. Over the next few years the struggle between the Babylonians and Egyptians continued and in the course of these campaigns Jerusalem was captured (597 BC). Problems in this region persisted when Zedekiah, the Babylonian-appointed king of Judah, rebelled. As a result, in 587-6 BC Jerusalem was taken again and a large section of the population deported.
-
Borgdrone
Thank you Dogpatch. I missed that Awake article back then. I found the May 2009 magazine and I now have the proof to show this to any elders who will make a shepherding call regarding me in the very near future. I used Google to locate your thread.
