Where i stand

by KW13 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • ballistic

    Was you guys all taken round the British museum in your dub days?

    I remember they told us about the security gaurd there who heard the "truth" over and over from seeing the society's tour, and he "came into the truth"...

    well, if this urban legend is true, he sure was ripe for years of repetitive meetings and Watchtower articles.

  • KW13

    LOL...wow Actually my mum is going on a trip there (so far so good) in September, if she does i insisted i am going with her. The Truth shall set her free, from itself by its lies.

  • KW13

    Need help, mum is NOW saying that all sources proving the 586 BCE date are based purely on Babylonian evidence, i know that is not true. Also she says that the amount of time the kings ruled is proving her date.

    Please i am begging you all (REALLY) how do i answer both these, what other evidence other than her so called biased babylonian evidence is there? Could you get me a list of the kings in question and how long they ruled e.t.c

  • diamondblue1974
    Funny how I relate to that.

    As do we all....


  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    see if this helps:

    http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile6.htm the last few paragraphs of the article in the above link reads:

    For example, as mentioned above on pages 15 and 96, the Adda-Guppi stele mentions the reign of every Neo-Babylonian king except Labashi-Marduk, down into the reign of Nabonidus, in which the queen died. There are also the Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8, and another designated Nabonidus No. 18 (see Part 2 ). <<<< click on this link too)

    In summary, the paragraph establishes a standard of absolute completeness and perfection, and then claims that since this unattainable standard has not been met, the evidence is no good. This is yet another straw man. An attempt is made to mislead the reader into believing there is no contemporary historical evidence, but archeological discoveries show this is wrong.

    The third paragraph on astronomical evidence, about factors "greatly reducing its strength," degenerates into pure speculation and is totally without content.

    In this appendix we have examined the various evidences the Watchtower Society has used over the years to support the 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon. We have seen that until very recent times the Society relied exclusively on the word of "recognized authorities" to establish the date, and that it is still forced to do so with respect to astronomical dating, lunar eclipses and cuneiform business tablets. Yet the Society rejects all these historical evidences when they conflict with its date of 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem. As Edwin Thiele said, the way the Society discusses chronology "reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound."

  • KW13

    thank you

  • KW13

    I think i have another valid arguement to prove 607 wrong...tell me if i am wrong or not.

    Read Jeremiah 52:30 - It says in nebuchadnezzar's 23rd Year he exiled the Jews. The Insight book (number two) on page 481 it says his 18th or even his 19th year...one of them is wrong.

  • cyberguy

    Hello KW13!


    You might want to get a copy of the book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, by Carl Jonsson. It is the most extensive reference on the subject.

    Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914675079/qid=1143612678/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6392432-9776139?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Share this