An argument is not flawed because of a different opinion or hearsay.
No, your arguments are flawed on their own 'merits'.
The facts are that 607 is based upon solid evidence namely a universalyy accepted date, a date for the return of exiles which is generally accepted and finally a length of the exile which is based upon interpretaion of scripture which leads back to a logical beginning.
The universally accepted date you refer to is of course the fall of Babylon, which date is determined on the basis of astronomical diaries, which the Society says are not a reliable means of absolute dating. Additionally, you of course know that 607 is indeed not based on an actual known date, because the date and even the year for the what the Society regards as the end point of the 70 years, the return of the exiles, is disputed by scholars. You allege that 587/6 is not acceptable because not all scholars agree on an exact date, and then you defend the same loose dating for the Society's selection of a date for the return of the exiles, which of course was not the event that marked the end of the 70 years anyway, as clearly indicated by Jeremiah, and backed up by Isaiah and Daniel. The mere coincidence that an event involving Babylon and Assyria is known to have happened in 609, providing 70 years of Babylonian supremacy that ended in the confirmed year of 539 even on its own strongly indicates the correct placement of the period, which is fully confirmed by all of the evidence.
This is simply doing chronology which is establishing a few fact basic facts, examining the data and working backwards and forwards. So, you smart fellow where is there no logic in the calculation of 607?
The Society's reason for 'definitely' placing the exiles returning around October 1, 537 is based on detailed references to experts on the subject, but on its own reckoning:
The 70th year of Jerusalem’s desolation, the last enforced sabbath on the land, would end in the autumn of 537 B.C.E. Cyrus’ decree must have been issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 for two reasons. The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended, and the released Israelites would not be expected to travel in the winter rainy season, as would have been the case if the decree had been made a few months earlier.
So the Society is saying that the 70 years had to end in 537 to produce the starting point of 607 in order to arrive at the date of 537 used as the basis for selecting 607 for the starting point.... circular reasoning at its finest!! Maybe if the Society lasts a few hundred years, they will also try to suggest that World War I also started in October of 1914 just to make things look a little more impressive.
It is simply foolish to counter an argument with no valid replacement and that is what you are doing because you say 607 is wrong but you cannot give me a right date in its place. This is not logic but stupidity and foolishness.
Your logic here is of course flawed. For a start, the end date and therefore the starting date of the Society's 70 years are not definitely established anyway. All of the facts place Jerusalem's destruction around 587. Logic does not dictate that an exact alternative necessarily be provided in order to establish that an assertion is not correct. For example, if I were to say that 1/0 (1 divided by 0) equalled 0, this is automatically invalidated, although there is no definite answer for this calculation. The facts that are available present sufficient information to indicate that 607 is not the correct year, regardless of whether they provide enough information to present an exact alternative date.
You don't have valid evidence to place the return of the exiles with certainty.
If that is the case, then by what evidence do you determine their return? (Apart from circular reasoning.)
The acceptance of the events after 1914 and their significance is based upon faith and Jesus warned of those who took no note and ridiculed those who preached the divine mesage so your rejection of matters is of little concern to me.
Yes it is based on faith: faith in the Watchtower Society's incorrect interpretations drawn from 19th century Adventist numerologists. It certainly isn't based on facts. Jesus also said that the "appointed times of the nations" would start at or after Jerusalem's destruction in 70AD.
We have not distorted any facts at all, you present one single fact that we have distorted it is you that rewrites history and ignores what the Bible actually says.
I don't time at the moment to compile a list of the various distortions and omissions that the Society makes in order to distort the picture of Babylon's power, the sieges on Jerusalem, Jerusalem's destruction, the exile, the fall of Babylon, the return of the exiles, and the rebuilding of the temple. And you would ignore it anyway.
I choose the term 'methodology' because that is what scholars use and if it sounds pretentious so be it.
Genuine scholars use the term 'methodology' only to refer to the set of principles involved in a particular field. There are two other categories of people who use this word; those who want to appear knowledgable by using a big word (not knowing it's the wrong word), and those who simply don't know its proper use. To continue to use it, whether for appearance or by sheer obstinence, after having been instructed in its correct use, is simply hubris.
Yes my spelling is not perfect but I post directly on this board without the use of a spell checker because I do not kn ow how to use one for this post unless I send my posts to a Word document and proof-read it but i cannot do this.
I also do not spell-check my posts and type them directly into the editor, though for the last couple of months, I've used the HTML editor instead of plain text. Of course I have an advantage due to my work in the IT field, and it is unfair to expect that everyone can accurately touch-type. Indeed, I can overlook your typographical errors, because your intended meaning is (usually) evident, flawed logic and all.
I am not as computer literate as you are and I try my best. One day and I hope soon I will be able the computer abilities of you all.
Of course this is not an IT forum, so it is a bit harsh to pick on typos, which I only do either in response to someone else mentioning such, or if someone nitpicks unnecessarily at me.
