I just showed my wife this British Museum press release and the Awake! article this morning and she got a bit upset and told me the 587 BC date is a historical error. The Awake! article says: "The gold delivery, however, had nothing to do with the sacking of Jeruselm, which occurred years later". Years later to what date? How can i convince my wife to accept the 587 BC date? I need more advice.
Michael Jursa (British Museum) and 587 vs. 607 B.C.
by Dogpatch 34 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
pirata
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?
For me, finding out the date was wrong, then calculating that the end of the gentile times would then be 1934 (when nothing happened), led me to realize that the whole day for a year and nebuchadnezzar's tree dream was being fancifully speculated on in the first place.
-
Black Sheep
I bet my ass on the former. As you know, if the 607 is shown invalid, that gives the JW the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about the validity of the 1919 appointment, etc. Not that the majority will act upon those conclusions or anything.
That is why you never bring up 607 on its own.
Get your Dub to commit to 1919 then get them to show you how the date is arrived at. Make them commit to 607 having to be correct. If you can get them to support 607 as being correct, and that it supports their 1919 date, to your face, even better, in writing or an email.......... then it is time to get them to draw you up a list of Babylonian kings. You don't have to show them anything. They are the ones peddling this BS ... make them show you where the 'mistake' is. You don't need to talk about every other reason why 607 might be correct, because if the lengths of the reigns of the kings (which can be found on the WTCD) don't support it, then at least one of the assumptions that are made to calculate the WTs 607 must be wrong.
It's the same with the Awake! article. If they hand you the opportunity to read it .... Get them to read this piece to you. Get them to tell you when Jursa thinks Jerusalem fell. Get them to look up the British Museum official webpage, (in "Search" put Michael Jursa) and then get them to tell you when Jursa believes Jerusalem fell.
Don't tell them anything...
Only ask questions...
Get them to commit...
Get them to do the talking...
Keep them on the subject you chose...
Accuse them of trying to deceive/divert/abuse/fool/use double standards/etc. when they use those tactics to try to weasle their way out of any subject.
If they claim 607 must be correct because the GB are spirit directed just ask questions that lead them in a circle back to stating their belief in selection in 1919 again....
Try to corner your Dub into being dishonest with you, then let them know that you are not prepared to stoop to their level to deceive some gullible house holder into joining "your church".
-
Farkel
Adding to what Max Sweeney and JWoods said: The WTS has yet to show how they can directly tie Daniel chapter 4 with Jesus mentioning of the times of the Gentiles. Those two statements were made hundreds and hundreds of years apart, and the scriptures provide NO context or link to each other. NONE, whatsoever. Not in the subject matter, not in any cross-referencing, not in any commonality of the two sets of scriptures. NOTHING!
So, instead of just having bullshit timelines with bullshit lunar years meaning bullshit solar years of DAYS with separate bullshit fantasies of "Gentile times" being somehow part of that timeline, the WTS cannot in any reasonable or even unreasonable fashion connect the two bullshit concepts together without having a gigantic pile of bullshit.
GIGO.
Farkel, Erudite Bullshit CLASS
-
carla
marking