New 607 info? (page 2)

startingover

Scholar

Where do you think the WTS came up with the date of 606-605 B.C.E. in the original 1963 edition for Neb's second year of kingship? And what do you think they mean when they say "probably dating from Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C.E."?

scholar

starting over

Well now we have a question. I know the answer and it is rather simple and if you really understand WT chronology then the answer is readily apparent. City Fan has now appeared so let us see if he can answer the question.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

kwintestal

Bible chronology calculates the beginning of Nebuchadnezzer's reign which differs from that of secular chronology so it is simply a matter of choice. Follow the Bible or man's interpretation of secular documents. The date of 607 and 624 nicely coincides with the other synchronisms in the biblical record.

Scholar,

Care to elaborate? In the bible I see no indication of which year Nebuchadnezzer began to reign. Where does the bible point to an absolute date in one form or another as your post suggests?

Kwin

City Fan

City Fan has now appeared so let us see if he can answer the question.

I'd love to, but please, after you.

CF.

startingover

Scholar,

How is it readily apparent? The year 605-606 doesn't fit WT chronology.

boa

Oh gawd, here we go again with 'Scholar'. He's like a fly on shyte when he sees the magical numbers '607'.

Let me predict how this thread will go: Scholar will play coy with his high and mighty attitude playing duck and run with several posters who make way more sense than him and don't require 'faith' in the wts in order to understand their point. AlanF will likely be along to trade blows though its more like a battleship blastin' the shyte out of a canoe (you can guess who is which boat).

Scholar will not capably defend nor reasonably address the fact that the wts had to, MUST, use secular chronology to anchor their crappy version of relative biblical chronology. The same reasons they use to pivot on 539BCE are the same ones they should also use to believe the virtually totally accepted date of ol' Nebby's 18th regnal year. If they don't put such weight behind this other date, then 539BCE is out as well, and then no 1914, no GB, no authority behind dubs...

In essence, Scholar will allow all of the truly accurate and damning (against the WTS) information to once again come into the spotlight thoroughly convincing noobie JWD'ers and lurkers that the wts is backed by similar thinking crackpot apologists like 'Scholar'. Way to go 'Scholar'! Congratulations on the excellent 'witness' work your testimony gives to the other side.

boa....who just for once, would like to see a jw apologist, anyone!, come along and make one valid point for their side....

AlanF

Well, Boa, this battleship will refrain from shooting canoes in barrels for now.

As for JW apologists making points on "Bible chronology", you ain't gonna see it. Unscholar is a perfect example of why.

AlanF

ozziepost

if you really understand WT chronology

Is that a freuduian slip? 'cos it says a lot, doesn't it..... not bible chronology or anything else of substance but .....Watchtower chronology!!

That's the chronology that doesn't add up, isn't it?

Ozzie

startingover

Just to let everyone know, although I don't post that often, I read here everyday. I am well aware of the WTS chronology. I have read AlanF's outstanding essay on the subject, along with just about every post I see on 607. And I well know about scholar and his thoughts on the subject.

I started this thread because I came across something that caught my attention that I had never seen mentioned before. No need for this thread to start a battleship canoe war, which IMO is a great description. Don't waste your time Alan.

boa

Startingover said:

Just to let everyone know, although I don't post that often, I read here everyday. I am well aware of the WTS chronology. I have read AlanF's outstanding essay on the subject, along with just about every post I see on 607. And I well know about scholar and his thoughts on the subject.
I started this thread because I came across something that caught my attention that I had never seen mentioned before. No need for this thread to start a battleship canoe war, which IMO is a great description. Don't waste your time Alan.

I apologize if I sidetracked this thread Startingover.....I actually found your gem of a find, very interesting, as this whole 607BCE issue was a key piece of the puzzle that eventually freed me from the clutches of the wts....I hope more will comment on it too! (except for 'Scholar' of course ) boa....

New 607 info?

Share this