Making 607 crumble (page 6)

justhuman

Scholar

IN MY PREVIOUS POST I HAVE POST THE BIBLE EVIDENCE REGARDING 587...WHY DON'T YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT...OR YOU WILL TRY TO IGNORE IT LIKE WT DOES????

You simply do not know what you are talking about. The controversy over the precise year namely 586 or 587 is an enduring and has nothinf to do with calendrical problems as you assert. I suggest you read some book on biblical chronology and smarten up your act. Besides the Society's methodology consists of three stages and avoids many of these difficulties that concern scholarship.

scholar

simwitness

Your reasoning ability is poor as you must think that dates in biblical history stand alone. Every date in biblical history including secular dates are calcuable. That means that one must work from a fixed point and work to and fro until one arrives at a particular date. This methodology is applicable to 586, 587 and 607. When I begin to answer your question you run scared and accuse me of not complying. I do not believe that you are genuine in this matter and you have made your mind up that 607 is unprovable but the joke is on you because whatever can be said about 607 is equally applicable to 586/587. I gave you a starting point then if you are honest then give me a starting point for 586 or 587.

scholar

City Fan

Scholar

The controversy over the precise year namely 586 or 587 is an enduring and has nothinf to do with calendrical problems as you assert.

That makes no sense at all.

Once again, please give us an example of some of the abundant secular evidence that supports 607. For example, can you provide some secular evidence that allows the dating for the destruction of Jerusalem in 607?

the Society's methodology consists of three stages and avoids many of these difficulties that concern scholarship.

Could you also give an example of one of these many difficulties faced by modern scholarship?

City Fan

Scholar,

You simply do not know what you are talking about. The controversy over the precise year namely 586 or 587 is an enduring and has nothinf to do with calendrical problems

Please enlighten us then. What in your view is the real reason for the dating as either 586 or 587?

So far in all your posts in this thread you've failed to back any statements up with facts. All you've said is that Babylon fell in 539 (we know) and from that 607 is calculated. That is a long way removed from your assertion that there is adundant secular support for 607.

You said to simwitness

I gave you a starting point then if you are honest then give me a starting point for 586 or 587.

I've given you a starting point of 15/16 March 597 BCE (the first capture of Jerusalem). From this date we can also calculate forward to get 539 BCE. It is now up to you to provide some secular evidence for 607.

CF.

scholar

City Fan

Come on. All you have done is given me a date for the first capture of Jerusalem. Where is the secular evidence for this date?

scholar

City Fan

Point is scholar, you were asked for some of this 'abundant' evidence first. As usual in these kind of threads you resort to asking us the same questions before answering your own.

All you have done is given me a date for the first capture of Jerusalem. Where is the secular evidence for this date?

If you look back at my previous posts you'll notice I said this:

The Babylonian Chronicle gives an exact date for the first capture of Jerusalem as 2nd Adar 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar (598-597) which equates to 15/16 March 597BCE.

You also managed to avoid all three of my questions in my previous two posts.

3 pages of posts and we're still waiting for you to give any secular evidence to support 607. And you talk about 'smoke and mirrors'!

CF.

simwitness

Scholar,

This has become a circular argument. The reason being has nothing to do with my "reasoning ability" but your steadfast refusal to point to any secular evidence for 607. I completely "get" the point that you are attempting to make, but do not agree that it is the correct conclusion. There is "abundant secular evidence" for 586/587, you have yet to disprove any of that. (And please note, no one has asked you too... we have asked for secular evidence for 607 only)

You have proven that this evidence either does not exist, or that you do not have any idea how to find it.

Your evidence to date has consisted of accepting the WTBS interpetation of the 70 weeks and applying that to a singular fixed date, and ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.

Secular history does not require biblical interpetations to arrive at dates. If they are in conflict, it is likely the biblical interpetation that is at fault, and not the secular information.

Riddle me this, scholar, why is 607 so very important to you and the WTBS? Why must it be the only correct date?

ellderwho

Simiwitness,Cityfan,

In light of the inability of "scholar" to answer any questions regarding 607 and the pages of posts that show this, I have to compare this with my elder study although a investigatator for a Federal defender office in a big eastern city by day, and a devout JW elder the rest of the time and a history buff.

I know his profession by day deals strictly with facts, and his beliefs he has to rely on someone telling him what the facts are in the case of 607 is troubling for him as shown by his outside sourcing of information re: AK Graysons work that is referenced by the society. When he got Graysons book and we looked at it together, he went in thinking ah ha now Im going to answer all your questions.

Well as he started to read in and around the societys quoted pages it became clear to him that the author the society quotes from is really of no value, because the author in no way shows proof that 607 can stand but refutes it all the through the book.

The society will reference authors here and there to make it appear to the Jw that the society has done their homework, and as we've seen if in fact homework is done, the truth starts to become clear as the author is found out to be mis-quoted and the information quoted is irrelevant.

Back to 607 Ive asked Scholar to give the date of Nebuchadrezzars starting rule. He will not. But he wont, not because he doesnt have a date, he will not because it will trap him.

Im just a regular 'joe' Scholars knowlege far surpasses mine, I guess? But where the ignorance of scholar is revealed is in his inability to reconcile years given by the society to fit into the societys own given years.

If the society has it right then show us all here with their work and dates given.

So lets throw out 607, 586/7 and start with King Nebs rule whata you think scholar?

City Fan

ellderwho

Scholar's posts usually follow this pattern:

Scholar posts an assertion without any facts to back him up.

Someone will then ask him to prove his assertion.

He then wants you to post evidence for your arguments before he will answer your question.

You post evidence for your arguments which Scholar then refutes without backing up his arguments with evidence.

You then ask him again to prove his assertion.

He then refuses because he says he hasn't had a satisfactory answer to his question!

And this goes on and on and on. I've seen the same thing happen on too many threads. The best way to disprove 607 is to print off any thread where Scholar gets involved.

Making 607 crumble

Share this