Evilforce --
: As I have mentioned in other posts about secular experts arriving at 586/587.... to them would they really care if it was 586/587 or 607 ? Since they are secularlist they couldn't care one whit about trying to fix a date one way or the other.
Well, you want to watch how you phrase that, because, yes, actually, experts in the field would care very much if you tried to say that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether it's 586/7 or 607.
What I was saying was that in terms of whether or not I (or anyone else) accepts the WTS as the FDS, all that matters is whether the 607 date is right or wrong.
However, professional academicians in the fields of Assyriology, ANE history, archaeology, etc. do care very much about all the details. They write entire articles and books on very narrow topics within the field, often engaging in debate over a particular reading of one line in one text.
: I have not found a SINGLE, SOLITARY, quote from the catholics and/or the secularlists stating 607, and have REPEATEDLY asked Scholar to post them. I have now asked him 6 TIMES on 3 threads to POST THE EVIDENCE......Now make that 7 times.
I see that you joined the board a couple of months ago and have asked him numerous times for these references. Now, take a look at the information under Scholar's name and you will see that he has been on the board for four years. Can you imagine how many times he's been asked for this information, not only by you in the last two months, but by many others in the last four years?
The reason that he has not posted the names and references you ask for is because there is no scholarly support whatsoever for the 607 date. None.
I can assure you, after having spent many years reading scholarly articles (I have a B.A. in religion), if there is one thing scholars love to do, it is to debate and dissect other scholars' arguments. In order to make a name for yourself, you have to contribute something of substance, not just agree with everyone else.
So, if there were ANY evidence, however meager and tenuous, for the 607 date, you can be sure that there would be at least one or two eager young Ph.D's out there who would be debating it. But there is no argument about this at all in the scholarly world. Why not? Because every single real scholar is acquainted with the primary documents and knows that an absurd date like 607 is just a piece of fantasy. Think about this: would you expect to find accredited astrophysicists publishing scholarly articles in science journals debating the relative merits and demerits of the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese?
: Scholar, please refute her posts individually using proof (not your delusions) from secular sources and I mean USE QUOTES and REFERENCES!!! 8 times now.
Neil's approach is fideistic. He has placed his faith in the WTS. He is not concerned that the cuneiform documents do not in any way support the 607 date.
You are asking him to do the impossible: the references are not there.
Regards,
Marjorie