Greenland
Post 4880
Did you try opening the Bible and read it rather than the lazy way of using the Internet.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
scholar
isaacaustin
Post 4209
Scholar has never been defeated by any person or any argument on this subject and on this forum and he has been posting continuously on this subject for many years. Scholar has dealt with the brightest and the dumbest and has even contended with the 'Guru of anti-WT chronology', Carl Jonsson an dfound that as always our enemies are skilled in deviousness and trickery. Integrity and loyalty to the Inspired Word of God are not their trademarks.
This is the best of hobbies and just as Doug Mason has spent decades trying to criticize WT Theology and Chronology I have spent an equal amount of time doing the exact opposite, defending same.
scholar JW
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
scholar
Black Sheep
Post 3654
My response to the so called KISS refutation is for advocates of this proposal to provide one basic fact that proves the validity of either 586 or 587 and refutes 607 BCE for the date of the Fall.
scholar JW
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
scholar
bohm
Post 281
Excellent advice indeed The honest inquirer should read Jeremiah but not just sections of it but rather the whole book from beginning to end and one will easily grasp the fact that the seventy years was a period of desolation-servitude and exile from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. This is the one major fact that proves the validity of 607 BCE. and nothing published anywhere in the scholarly literature disproves this simple basic fact.
My challenge is for any poster to refute and disprove this one basic fact and to provide one basic fact that alone proves 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall.
Scholar will now sit back and watch the 'feathers fly'!
scholar JW
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
scholar
bohm
Post 279
There is no mountain of evidence against 607 BCE at all rather there is a mountain of false interpretations, assumptions and the ignoring of God's Word which truly characterizes the debate of 587/.586 BCE against 607 BCE. Rolf Furuli has not been torn to shreds by AnnOMaly for the simple reason that she refuses to engage with him on the subject.
The Bible proves beyond a shadow of doubt that 607 BCE is the correct historical date for the Fall rather than the long list of pretenders supported by scholars of higher criticism and apostates.
scholar JW
-
160
Need help disproving 607BCE
by 2pink ini hope i am posting in the right board.. anyway, i am newly out of the org, and have a dear friend who i've been speaking to all along about my thought process/decisions.
she has been hesitantly receptive (how's that for confusing?!
lol) and when i brought up 607bce to her yesterday, she was truly intrigued and had not heard of this as a false date before.. she is still half in/half out, so i know she isn't going to do a lot of naughty independent research on her own.
-
-
scholar
2pink
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there is no evidence either biblical or secular that has disproved the validity of 607 BCE. I have been studying this subject for nearly forty years and have read all published attempts to dissprove 607 BCE only to find that on a critical analysis none of these attempts have succeeded. The most recent attempt has been by Carl Jonsson who has acquired a reputation of being a competent chronologist has claimed in his most recent work that there are at least seventeen lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. However, competent biblical scholars have shown that such a claim is fanciful and is not supported by either the biblical or secular evidence.
This does not mean that 607 BCE or any other date is not capable of being falsified but at this point in time there is simply no evidence that disproves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW
-
183
Hubby is Researching 607...
by cognac inwould you say that's the beginning of the end?
hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .
-
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 13694
Thank you for this copy of a recent review of Furuli and the comments on Babylonian-Persian chronology. I will forward a copy of this information or at least notify Furuli as to the source.
scholar JW
-
183
Hubby is Researching 607...
by cognac inwould you say that's the beginning of the end?
hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .
-
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1136
Therefore let us leave criticisms of Furuli's theisis to those experts. Let the experts speak.
scholar JW
-
183
Hubby is Researching 607...
by cognac inwould you say that's the beginning of the end?
hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .
-
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 13684
Furuli has submitted both volumes for peer review. He has received a favourable and a unfavorable review to his first volume and is awaiting a review for his second volume which is some two years in process.
scholar JW
-
183
Hubby is Researching 607...
by cognac inwould you say that's the beginning of the end?
hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .
-
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1133
My upinion of your expertise or lack thereof is based on the simple fact that you will not deal directly with Furuli about your criticisms of his thesis. This means that your opinion lacks credibility. Your reluctance to participate constitute 'facts' as far as I am concerned.
scholar JW