AnnOMaly
Post 1153
Another pasting I think O Alas! Pray tell Why is it the case that there are so many hands on the 'brush', would not one suffice?
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
PSacremento
Post 1861
609 BCE is not universally accepted as the end of the Assyrian Empire, it is accepted only by some scholars and apostates. Check it out!
607 BCE is based on the Bible and secular evidence, it is also strengthened by the fact that it is a prophetic date, no such claim can be made for the other 'false 'dates. The only thing that is thrown out of whack are the false assumptions of NB chronology whereby there is at least a twenty year gap.
You are somewhat puzzled by the fact that there is the same evidence for 539 BCE as for 587 BCE. Why are you puzzled? Perhaps you fail to understand something. If what you say is correct then why is not 587 regarded by scholars as an Absolute Date as with 539 BCE? That is a question for all the smarts on this board?
The answer to your last question is Methodology.
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
isaacaustin
Post 4224
It all boils down to Methodology.
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
Alwayshere
Post 637
The references to the seventy years in Zechariah simply attest to the simple fact that the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem had for the past seventy years memorialized their fate of deportation, exile and the destruction of their Temple and city. The seventy years therein was that same period from the Fall in 607 BCE until their Return in 537 BCE. There is simply nothing in those texts that support your nonsense.
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
garyneal
Post 218
The date 607 BCE and 1914 CE are very important to sincere Bible Students because these dates relate to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It is not surprising that the churches of Christendom have no interest in such matters because they have no belief or interest in Bible prophecy.
The dropping of 1914 CE is merely a product of your fanciful imagination, the date marks an event grounded in Scripture revolving around the reality of God's Kingdom. Perhaps, you should pay close attention to the Lord's Prayer.
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
Leolaia
Post 13750
That is why one must look heavenward. LOL...
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
PSacremento
Post 1860
The date 609 BCE for the end of the Assyrian Power is a matter of some conjecture by scholars because no date for this has been universally accepted. Therefore, such a date is useless for determing the beginning of a definite fixed period of history such as the 'seventy years'. Even Carl Jonsson was uncertain about whether 609 or 605 BCE should be employed because most scholars favour 605 BCE for its beginning but if it ended in 539 BCE according to popular opinion then you would have sixty-six years rather than the biblical 'seventy'. That is one problem. The other problem is that if you end the seventy years at 539 BCE then ou arrive at 609 BCE but that years is too 'fuuzy' to begin a an historic period of seventyh years especially when at that time Babylon as a World Power was in its embryonic stage.
That is why 607BCE is a superior date because it uses notable events and dates at either end which are confiremed by secular and biblical history, the other dates such as 587 or 586 BCE are 'mired' in problems everywhere.
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
PSacremento
Post 1855
I will ask scholar himself about the third person business.
You are correct that the 70 years chronology is about interpretation and that is a simple fact that scholar himself first brought to the attention to the community on this forum including such ones as Alan F. In fact, scholar has long stated that Chronology is about Methodology and Interpretation.
You are also correct in saying that the seventy years is about servitude but it is not servitude alone for the Bible writers discussed the seventy years also in terms of desolation and exile thus the period is one of servitude-desolation-exile. This again has been scholar's formula presented on this forum for the benefit of the wider community.
The end of the Babylonian Empire is confirmed by secular evidence as 539 BCE which is endorsed by scholarship and it is because of this acceptance and endoresement by scholars has been providentially selected by the celebrated WT scholars as a most worthy foundation for Bible chronology leading to the careful determination of 607 BCE for the Fall. This one fact alone proves the validity of the 607 BCE date as opposed to other 'wishy-washy', 'mamby-pamby' dates.
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
PSacremento
Post 1857
Precisely, that is my point for nothing of significance occurred in that year that would constitute a marker for the begiining of the seventy years for at that time Judah was subservient to Egypt.
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
PSacremento
Post 1854
You cannot the debate online so you need to sunscribe to the journal for access.
scholar JW