An excellent find, VM44, and a keeper!
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
zoiks
*sigh* I just received the first phone call from a family member regarding this article. I'm sure it won't be the last.
-
wannabefree
Tomorrow is part 2 ... are you excited?
-
Dutch-scientist
Yes they will give proof when Jerusalem was destroyed!
It will be like: Because we know that Jezus was made king in 1914 we can now count 7 times back accourding to our discoverd formula in the bible and we come on 607BC for the destuction!
DS
-
St George of England
Tomorrow is part 2 ... are you excited?
67 minutes and counting.......
George
-
-
The Quiet One
Bttt
-
Black Sheep
Against Apion, Flavius Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston
Free eBook
Most formats, Kindle, PDF etc.. Fill yer boots.
-
NVR2L8
The article states: it is conceivable that some of these were "retrocalculations undertaken by scribes in the 4th and later centuries BC". If these are retrocalculations, could they be considered absolutely reliable unless corroborated by other evidence?
Come on now WT! You arrive to 607 BCE by using the same retrocalculations - and the best proof is when you realized there were no year 0...you simply rolled back 606 BCE to 607...
Also the chart shows gaps in the Chronicles...while a footnote states that there are business records for every year of every Neo-Babylonian kings...
-
erbie
It really does not matter one jot when it was destroyed beacause the bible says that nobody knows when Christ would return. Therefore, the bible would not contain information that would help man work out when He would return.
The only reason the WT try to work it out is to create a sense of urgency among credulous individuals-don't worry, I was one of them so this is not meant to offend!
I trawled through the book 'Gentile Times Reconsidered' many years ago. Fact, there is no such thing as bible chronology as there are no dates contained therein. This is why secular chronology must rule supreme every time.
That's just the way it is. I don't make the rules.