scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,119 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  OUTLAW

  Post 14433

  For your information and for the sake of accuracy 607 BCE is proved by the following:

  The Bible

  Secular souces both ancient and modern

  Bible scholarship both past and present

  WT Publications

  scholar JW
• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 488

  Scholar is very much for real.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 485

  The king list is inaccurate so the data is compromised so whatever list you use is useless. Nebuchadnezzer did not begin his reign in 605 BCE but rather according to Bible chronology and history he began to reign in 624 as his first accession year with the months of January-February. This means that the maths do add uo with his taking of Jerusalem in his 19th year as 607 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 484

  You are sadly misinformed if you think that the validity of 607 BCE is based on what WT publications say. The fact of the matter is that the celebrated WT scholars have used numerous secular sources, both ancient and modern and past and recent scholarship in support of 607 BCE all in combination of the clear testimonny of God's Word. It does not get any better than that. The date 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is rock solid whichj cannot be said for the slippery dates of 687 or 586 BCE.

  The only confusion about this matter rests with apostates and higher critics who have all stumbled over 607 BCE.The very fact that 607 BCE is championed by JW'S alone should give our critics pause to think that Jehovah God is truly confounding the wisdom of the world.

  The accuracy of 607 BCE points to the accuracy of 1914 CE and modern history vindicates the factual fulfilment of prophecy but there is nothing out there that can be used to support 686/587 BCE for these are 'dead end' dates.

  Your so-called two answers to the seventy year prophecy are bogus and find no scriptural support for these are two hopeless theories simply leading to 'dead-ends'.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  OUTLAW

  Post 14431

  The date 607 BCE is not proved by WT publications alone but is proved by what the Bible states as fact which is then expressed in those faithful WT publications.

  scholar JW
• 
  112

  The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".

  this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.

  i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AllTimeJeff

  Post 4270

  You addressing the wrong crowd with your concerns with dates for it is the apostates that make a big deal over dating or certain dates. The WTS and its 'ce;ebrated' WT scholars have simply provided for the faithful and the public what the Bible really teaches on matters of history, prophecy and chronology. This now accurate informatioin loyally upholds the Bible as God's inspired Word rather than the lying prpaganda, demonic attacks on the Bible by higher critics and other opposers which has as its sole objective to destroy the faith, missiion, love and unity of the Lord's people and His Organization.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 483

  Your two questions simply of biblical data essential in the construction of biblical chronology which in turn proves the validity of 607 BCE. These two biblical facts however are a big problem for those wordly scholars and apostates who try to prove 587 or 596 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  garyneal

  Post 474

  For starters it is the 'seventy year' prophecy of Jeremiah which must be factored into any biblical chronology and is not treated seriously by wordly scholars and apostates.

  scholar JW
• 
  95

  For those who researched 607...

  by AwSnap in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?

  if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?

  or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AwSnap

  Post 418

  I have been researching WT chronology for the last forty years by means of the WT publications and have found that 607 BCE is correct further I have thoroughly examined the date in the light of all available secular evidence and NB chronology and found that there is sufficient support for 607 BCE despite the twenty year gap and the failure to acccommodate the biblical seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 
  22

  Daniel 9:2.... 70 years question

  by digderidoo in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.

  daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.

  paul.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ann OMaly

  Post 1192

  You are right, my wife thinks that I too am slow and a bit thick.

  Scholar has no interest in responding to Lar's nonsense.

  scholar JW