need help re 607 date (page 2)

Deacon

I can say with absolute certainty that 1914 is a date....

Deacon

WAIT.....!!

its ok...it has been confirmed that Elvis no longer lives at Graceland...

As for me, determined I shall be,
(oops..wrong thread..)
to accept that Jesus is ruling, he may have started earlier or later than accepted...on the other hand, it all may be a century out of sync....

but something is going on......I just need to find out what and when...it would really help to provide guidance in the confusion I feel...

ianao

Scholar:

The secular date of 586 or 587 in its own way confirms the validity of a scripturally reckoned date of 607. I make this somewhat surprising statement because there are some scholars who regard the chronology in the old testament as symbolic or mythical.

I find it funny that people who consider the Bible to be the word of God and historically correct would make such a statement as you have. From what I can see, a simple reading of Daniel backs up the 586/587 recollection. If the OT chronology indeed is 'mythical', then exactly how much of the text can truly be considered accurate? Where is it's authority as the word of God?

It amuses me to see the society discounting scripture when it does NOT go along with their chronology. I just feel sorry for you falling for erred logic.

-ianao

Prisca

scholar,

if you view the works of Carl Olaf Jonsen and Edwin R. Thiele as merely "hypothesies", then why do you not view the WTS's renderings in a similar vein?

And can you provide some irrefutable proof that 607 is the correct date? I would really like to know using non-WTS sources.

Snowball

Hmm...Scholar still hasnt answered how the 70-year desolation theory conflicts with the scriptures.

larc

Scholar,

Prisca asked for non-JW sources. I would add the requirement that the references be from primary sources, that is historians and scientist, not secondary sources, that is, peopple that quote them, perhaps incorrectly or out of context. Ray Franz was asked by the Society athis very same thing and he was shocked to find that the evidence was not there. It all pointed to the fact that the JW's were off by 29 years.

larc

typo in the last post, should be 20 years, not 29

thinkers wife

I too would like to see some solid proof regarding 607. Every source I have examined say 587 or 586.
And what a ridiculous premise

The society in its wisdom have presented a simple, historical and scriptural methodolgy for dating the fall of Jerusalem as nicely explained in the literature. In this age of 'higher criticism' it is pleasing to see that with the aid of secular chronologies based upon eclipses and the Babylonian records can brings us to within a striking distance of some twenty years to 607.

What kind of wisdom is it to say it is within a striking distance of some twenty years? That just doesn't cut it with me when the entire basis of JW belief is based on 1914 which is figured on the date 607. Some twenty years makes a huge difference IMHO.
I for one have not seen a shred of evidence for 607. What kind of convoluted reasoning is this?
One that is not acceptable.
TW

Edited by - Thinkers Wife on 15 January 2001 6:14:12

Edited by - Thinkers Wife on 15 January 2001 6:15:42

hosebracket

seems that i ahve opened a can of worms here! I found a site that might be intersting. www.607v587.com

hosebracket

need help re 607 date

Share this