"W.T Scholars" is an Oxymoron.
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas 153 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Rivergang
WT scholars?
I suppose it is possible - if their “scholarship” was all carried out at Tasmania’s University of Lower Crackpot!
Otherwise, we are seeing here a lot of “That’s my story, and I am sticking to it” talk from one certain poster (who shall remain anonymous).
-
Beth Sarim
The eronious foundation of WT Borg theology hinges on the flimsy 607BCE 1914 theology.
Its dependant on it.
The Borg will just 'say' it less,,less & less.
Then 'scrub' it from their online library.
Manipulative.
-
scholar
Jeffro
As there are no known secular records that provide a specific date for the event, information from the Bible must be used. Whilst one might question the reliability of the Bible, if the details therein are not considered reliable for determining the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, then no specific year can otherwise be asserted with any certainty.
---
Your words not mine as an admission that there can be no certainty about 586 or 587 BCE.
scholar JW
-
Beth Sarim
Here. I thought I would insert this here.
Stacy outlines perfectly how the Borg can manipulate, distort and hide previous doctrines to suit their own narrative,
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
Your words not mine as an admission that there can be no certainty about 586 or 587 BCE.
You can’t really be this stupid. If someone ignores the evidence that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid, then they might think the earth is flat. But acknowledging that some people think the earth is flat isn’t an ‘admission’ that the shape of the earth can’t be known.
(In this analogy 587 BCE is the oblate spheroid supported by all the evidence, 586 BCE is a slightly incorrect alternative spheroid that doesn’t quite take in to account some evidence, and 607 BCE is the flat earth nonsense propounded by nutters who ignore all the inconvenient evidence.)
The correct year is 587 BCE.
-
scholar
Jeffro
According to your blog 586 BCE is just as feasible as 587 BCE according to your methodology..WT methodology based not on numerous calenders but the Bible proves 607 BCE is the correct date.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Entirely false. I have clearly explained on the site why 587BCE is correct and 586BCE is not. But your error does say something about your inability to parse information.
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
WT methodology based not on numerous calenders but the Bible proves 607 BCE is the correct date.
False equivalence. The Bible contains references to calendar systems, they aren’t ‘alternative methodologies’. Worse still, poor ‘scholar’ doesn’t seem to understand that the ambiguity he asserts would necessarily apply to the WT dating. And even worse, the WT nonsense is based on circular reasoning for their dogmatic selection of 537 BCE as the end of the period (which Russell just as dogmatically said was 536 BCE).
-
ThomasMore
I pronounce Jeffro the winner of the dispute. Actually it doesn’t matter. Either date makes the “ generation” too old to be valid. Perhaps we shift the conversation to something with genuine significance, like : “Why does Scholar feel it is necessary to be an apologist for WTC?”