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.
AllTimeJeff
Post 4278
Your comments are based on ignorance and foolishness for the date of Jerusalem's destruction was the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE proven by the facts of modern history so the validity of 607 BCE is a matter of establihed fact/
scholar JW
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.
Jeff T
Post 3843
Issues of chronology are distinct and separate to matters of eschatology although eschatology which is a science of prophecy is dependent on sound history and chronology.
scholar JW
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.
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
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.
garyneal
Post 488
Scholar is very much for real.
scholar JW
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...?
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
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...?
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
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...?
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
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.
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
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...?
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
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...?
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
