scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  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

  Farkel

  Post 10275

  Thanks for the compliment!

  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 4281

  I repeat myself as a way of emphasis but apostates do the very same thing that you accuse me namely the repetition of the same tired old arguments in support of a tired, uselless dates of 586/587, provide no substantive argument in support of their dates but simply an appeal to a false, unreliable chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.

  Scholar has for these past ten years on this forum provided much detailed proof for 607 BCE and the WT publications have consistently provided all the information necessary. So, the evidence is there for all to read so just open your eyes and mind and just read. Better still just Read the Bible.

  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 489

  There is no accurate list. Scholarship simply cannot provide a reliable list of kings and their reigns for the Neo-Babylonian period. This is because the data from anceint historians is in conflict.

  The gap of twenty years is proved by the comparison between secular and biblical chronology and is made evident because of the seventy years which is factored into biblical chronology but omitted by secular chronology.

  The acc. year of 624 BCE for Nebuchadnezzer is calculated from the biblical data alone as determined by his destruction of Jerusalem in his 19th year which began the counting of the seventy years.

  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 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
• 
  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

  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
• 
  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