scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Vidqun
An interesting article, attempting to harmonize the Bible with the Babylonian Chronicles is A. R. Green (1982). “The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 101, pp. 71, 72.
--
The said scholar has this article in his theological library.
scholar 7W
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jeffro
The Bible falsifies 607
Neo-Babylonian cuneiform business records falsify 607
The planetary positions in VAT 4956 falsify 607
---
The Bible clearly and most definitively falsifies 586 and 587 BCE
Neo Babylonian cuneiform business documents falsify 586 and 587 BCE
The planetary positions and the lunar positions in VAT 4956 falsify 586 and 587 BCE
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden
Yes, Scholar that is true and if you spent half the time you do on concerning yourself with the dates, then you would actually have some knowledge to what the Scripture's state and you would realize that it does not matter 607/587 because the appointment times of the nations are not from 607 to 1914...they are the last 42-months of Satan's world that the 8th king will rule over God's people. When those 42-months/appointed times end, Jesus will come with God's kingdom and put and end to Satan's world/kingdom. That is when the 7th trumpet will sound and God's kingdom will begin to rule with Jesus and his chosen that will at that time be gathered to him to rule for the 1,000 years.
--
What utter nonsense for the 'appointed times of the nations' or the Gentile Times is the time period from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the 1914 CE -enthronement of God's Kingdom and Christ's Parousia as recognized by Bible expositors and in harmony with Biblical Theology.
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jeffro
Yeah, don’t bother poor ‘scholar’ with what the Bible actually says. That’s not the JW way.
--
Yeah, don't bother with poor Jeffro with what the Bible says because he does not believe in the Bible.
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden
Boy, you quote lotta scripture!!!
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Anony Mous
Before you say the scientific evidence is arguable, there are over 2000 documents from the time that set the dates for the first and second siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, including the destruction of the temple in the second siege. It sets this from both contemporary dating methods as well as astronomical evidence. One thing the Babylonians were good at was keeping track of things, basically a bunch of bureaucrats. If you follow the WTBTS calculations, the sieges and mobilizations of troops from Babylon would’ve had to start before Nebuchadnezzar even started ruling.
--
However, not one of those 2000 tablets mentions or refers to the biblical 70 years.
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jeffro
This word salad in response to a ‘yes or no’ question is reminiscent of the dishonest answer given by Geoffrey Jackson at the Australian royal commissio
--
Which of the two 'word salads' is the better? The said scholar' or Geoffreys'?
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Anony Mous
Well, then, here is an argument from the WTBTS own publications:
| Babylon fell | "Babylon fell in 539 B.C." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184 | 539 B.C. |
| Plus Nabonidus | "On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some seventeen years(556-539 B.C.E.)." Aid to Bible Understanding - Nabonidus p.1195 | 17 years |
| Plus Labashi-Marduk | "Labashi-Marduk ... was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184 | 1 year |
| Plus Neriglissar | Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184 | 4 years |
| Plus Evil-Merodach | "After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered" Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184 | 2 years |
| PlusNebuchadnezzar | "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years" Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.480 | 43 years |
| Equals start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign | Calculated by adding above figures | 606 B.C. |
| MinusNebuchadnezzar's 19th year | 2 Kings 25:8-9 "And in the ... nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar ... the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah" | 19th year |
Date for Destruction --- The above list is all very well and good but what about the 70 years historic event that occurred during the NB Period? scholar JW | Therefore calculated as: 587BCE |
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden
I did not say it was not important, I said it was not debatable because the discrepancy arises on whether the accession or regnal year is being used to count from. But let us not get into discussing that here and focus only on the 3 questions I asked you. That is the reason why I open this new thread.
--
It remains even today a much-vexed problem for Christendom's chronologists.
--
So, what do you say in response to the questions?
---
Your questions are nonsensical!
scholar JW
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden
587/596 is not really debatable, the one-year discrepancy comes about based on whether the accession or regnal year is being used to count from. Regardless, as to Bible prophecy and JW's 607 is only important because of their 1914 teaching. That being the case, if all that is said in connection with the 1914 teaching is false then 607 should not matter to JW's--
---
The said scholar disagrees. The debate concerning 586 or 587 BCE is very important especially when WT critics are critical of 607 BCE as an inaccurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem. Chronology if possible demands precision and JW's have for many decades presented to the scholarly community a precise date-607 BCE.
scholar JW
