by ellderwho 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Scholar,
I'm curious too. Where is the abundant secular evidence supporting 607 as Jerusalems fall? If it's abundant, it should be.... well..... abundant!
If in your next post you fail to provide ANY secular sources indicating Jerusalem fell in 607, we can but only conclude that you are full-o'-crap!
So are you full-o'-crap? The secular support (or lack thereof) of 607 contained in your next post will tell the whole story.
Are you serious? The answers to your first three questions are easy and set forth in the AID book article on chronology but a list for the Babylonian dynasty is problematic. However, I can oblige but would you in turn oblige me by posting a king-list for the Divided Monarchy for Judah and Israel. If you will agree to this then I will answer your four questions and I expect you to reply in kind.
Scholar -- Ray Franz wrote this article in the Aid Book -- I assume you know what he said about it in CoC
Scholar:
How about the Israel government's own archaeological site?
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00uy0
Seems to me that Isreal would have little reason to be biased about the date of the destruction of their own temple - especially if that date has anything to do with the second coming of the Messiah - after all, they are still waiting for his first appearance on earth.
So - is an unbiased and scholarly source good enough for you?
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00uy0
Quote from the above link below.
"During the 8th and 7th centuries BCE Jerusalem enjoyed a period of prosperity. Parts of prominent structures have been uncovered, attesting to this as well as to the intensity of the Babylonian destruction in 587-6 BCE."
Dawn,
Thanks for the link, looks like some good stuff for my elder.
E
Yes it would be good stuff for an elder to read, but getting them to do so would be quite a feat in and of itself.
Willy says
If in your next post you fail to provide ANY secular sources indicating Jerusalem fell in 607, we can but only conclude that you are full-o'-crap!
We're still waiting.....
Dawn
Apparently there cannot be much secular evidence for the traditional chronology because according to the the site you recommended there is uncertainty between 586 or 587. So much for the abundance of secular evidence.
scholar
Apparently there cannot be much secular evidence for the traditional chronology because according to the the site you recommended there is uncertainty between 586 or 587. So much for the abundance of secular evidence.
Um, that is how actual scientific chronology works. It is very foolish & prideful to exclaim that you have an exact date of when something happened...the methods used to come to the conclusion of 586/587 are accurate only to the degree of getting the year nearly accurate. I don't see how this would disprove the secular evidence...
And I don't see how you easily disclaim secular evidence to the contrary when you still haven't provided any "secular" evidence regarding 607 B.C....and you included one piece of evidence (the Aid book) who has had two of its own authors say that it wasn't entirely forthright on the subject (both R. Franz & E. Dunlap)....
Scholar,
And even if the 607 date were to hold all against a mountain of objective evidence to the contrary, it's just the first obstacle to overcome on the road to concrete proof of the 1914 date.
What can one argue about the validity of the rest of the WT premise, which is constructed on the tenuous-at-best premise of ``a day for a year," and its speculative linkage to Jesus' statement about the ``Gentile Times" ... just how ``scholarly'' is any or all of this?
Questions such as these cry out for re-evaluation as the inexorable tick of the clock moves us one year closer to the ``Centenary of the Kingdom's Birth" and adds to the unexpectedly lengthy extension to the divine lease granted to ``the kings of the earth."
