I want to know whether 607 is valid or not. (page 6)

isaacaustin

I know the Bible wins XPeterX. Can you now show me from the Bible why you feel 607 is correct, so I can see this (if it is in fact correct)?

JWoods

I smell troll yet again. It has been so from the beginning. Check the OP record.

Titus

Bible wins. You got owned too. 607 is the date. Period

Glad to hear that, Peter. Bible first, and then other evidences. Other evidences should SUPPORT the Bible, not CONTRADICT it.

Obviously, there is no enough evidences outside of the Bible for any date, whether for 607 or 587. That's why I gave up in examining that issue.

People who claim that 587 is right, cannot say that they appreciate the Bible wholehearted.

JWoods, I think you are right...this poster was quirky from the start. I took a quick peak at the apologist website and the first 2 supposed failed propecies caused by 586/7 are only failed if you assume as truth the WT assertion that Jerusalem was desolate and empty 70 years, as opposed to the 70 years of servitude that the scriptures actually say happened.

XPeterX, there are numerous threads on this topic you can go find and read through if you so desire.

isaacaustin

Titus, what Biblical support is there for 607BCE? I have found absolutely none.

Titus

Titus, what source is the WT quoting from?

Canon of Ptolemy

[During the time from Ashurbanipal], the king of Assyria, [in] whose [rule] I was born—(to wit): [21 years] under Ashurbanipal, [4 years under Ashur]etillu-ilani, his son, [21 years under Nabopola]ssar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, [2 years under Ewil-Merodach], 4 years under Neriglissar, [in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin, the king of the gods, [remembered the temple] . . . of his [great] godhead, his clouded face [shone up], [and he listened] to my prayers, [forgot] the angry command [which he had given, and decided to return t]o the temple é-hul-hul, the temple, [the mansion,] his heart’s delight. [With regard to his impending return to] the [temp]le, Sin, the king of [the gods, said (to me)]: ‘Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son [of my womb] [shall] make [me] en[ter/sit down (again)] in (to) the temple é-hul-hul!’ I care[fully] obeyed the orders which [Sin], the king of the gods, had pronounced (and therefore) I did see myself (how) Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the offspring of my womb, reinstalled completely the forgotten rites of Sin, . . . ”
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life “from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . .

Also here is no mention of Labashi-Marduk, now generally acknowledged by historians as reigning between Neriglissar and Nabonidus.

I am not troll! I am sorry for this cut-paste informations.

TITUS

Titus

Titus, what Biblical support is there for 607 BCE? I have found absolutely none.

OK, Isaac. I have found.

JWoods

Isaac, there have been at least half a dozen threads started on senseless & bizarre sex topics by the OP besides this nonsense (which as you and others have said have been covered in great detail here before). IIRC, this poster has also referred to the circuit overseer as "the bishop" more than once here - inexplicable for a person who is actually a witness.

If a person cannot simply see that nothing of religious significance happened in 1914, then delving into all this secular chronology is useless.

isaacaustin

looks like this thread is having some technical issues as far as allowing posts.

Titus

I am giving up!

I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.

Share this