during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
elderwho
Well you are in the poo and I am sorry I cannot help you. If you were smart you would have stuck to WT chronology and saved yourself a lot of grief. Those Babylonian lists are a cause for real concern but one has to use all resources available and develop a methodology that is consistent with the Bible as a priority and not the reverse.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
hilary_step
Yes this subject comes up often and I find myself having highlight the many gross misconceptions and ignorance concerning chronology and the rather stupid claims against 607. It amuses me that as soon as this subject arises every and I give a simple defensive reply then everyone comes out of the woodwork. It seems to that opposers are fearful that WT chronology might be right after all as they refuse consider the basic aecular and scriptural facts of the matter. What these clowns do not realize is that 607 is a calcuable date that it follows both secular and biblical evidence, has a simple methodology and is based on a well established secular - biblical based date of 539 and follows a legitimate exegesis of a seventy years desolation from the decree of Cyrus in 537. This three staged computation then is well established. of course there are other methodologies favoured by the majority of scholars which yield a plethora of interpretations of the seventy years and have only served to promote endless confusion concerning late Judean history. Oftentimes scholars are confused over calendrical problems concerning the data and cannot agree with certainty about certain dates namely 586 or 587.
In short, scholars have dug a hole for themselves on their efforts to minimize by higher criticism the relevance of God's Word for Christians. They have turned biblical chronology into a bewildering array of assumptions incomprehensible to the layman and you expect me to say nothing. I will debate this subject ad nauseum.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
City Fan
Aleady we have a BIG problem. Jehoiachin surrended to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month Adar-February/March) during Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year ending in Nisan 617 BCE according to the Babylonian Chronicles. So from your previous post already we have a twenty year and we have only just started.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
City Fan
Come on. All you have done is given me a date for the first capture of Jerusalem. Where is the secular evidence for this date?
scholar
i really wanna know.
i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.
frannie b
herk
You cowardly refrain from giving a reliable or trustworthy source for the identification of the NWT committee but simply you hide behind the skirt of an apostate and have been deceived by his satanic mischief.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
simwitness
Your reasoning ability is poor as you must think that dates in biblical history stand alone. Every date in biblical history including secular dates are calcuable. That means that one must work from a fixed point and work to and fro until one arrives at a particular date. This methodology is applicable to 586, 587 and 607. When I begin to answer your question you run scared and accuse me of not complying. I do not believe that you are genuine in this matter and you have made your mind up that 607 is unprovable but the joke is on you because whatever can be said about 607 is equally applicable to 586/587. I gave you a starting point then if you are honest then give me a starting point for 586 or 587.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
City Fan
You simply do not know what you are talking about. The controversy over the precise year namely 586 or 587 is an enduring and has nothinf to do with calendrical problems as you assert. I suggest you read some book on biblical chronology and smarten up your act. Besides the Society's methodology consists of three stages and avoids many of these difficulties that concern scholarship.
scholar
i really wanna know.
i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.
frannie b
herk
Your reply is deceptive as you pretend to have knowledge of something that you do not and yet you do not have the moral fortitude to admit your ignorance. Raymond Franz was and is no scholar and his writings are deceptive as these only portray his side of the story. The very fact that he claims to identify the NWT committee which would have been a breach of confidence for a person in that position and that he omits any evidence for such a claim indeed portrays him in a rather poor light.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
simwitness
Not one poster on this board has provide a shred of secular evidence that only supports 586 or 587. I have repeatedly asked for one piece of evidence and all I get is smoke and mirrors. I have provided evidence for 507 begiining with Stage One namely the Nabonidus Chronicle will clearly attests to the date for the Fall of Babylon. I will not comment on Stage 2 or 3 until the contrary position is stated.
scholar
during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.
but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.
im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.
undercover
If one is to accept your proposition that the dates proposed are uncertain then the genuine Christian would assign priority to the biblical chronology and prophecy and in FAITH accept a chronology that is in harmony with the Lord's will.
scholar
