Are you saying that Jehovah is not the God of True Prophecy and has no interest in Prophecy or its Revelation?
Red herring to avoid sustantiating the statement, "Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE ..."
Read the literature published by apostates, scoffers and higher critics and examine their attitude towards the Bible.
Sweeping generalization to avoid acknowledging that Bible-believing scholars with the utmost respect for the Scriptures disagree with the WT chronology for good reason.
There is nothing erroneous about the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE for the events at that time and since proves the matter.
Repeated baseless assertion.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology adjusted by twenty years because all chronologies are imperfect or in short, fallible. All of the pieces do indeed fit together and that is why Bible chronology works whereas others fail.
Pure delusion, Neil. The pieces don't fit together if there's a 20 year hole where the edges of the WT chronology and secular chronology don't meet up! 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem cannot be "firmly established" using a secular chronology which already firmly establishes that 607 BCE was Nabopolassar's 19th regnal year and Nebuchadnezzar was still crown prince!
Your chronology trivializes the Bible, ignores prophecy and theology ...
It has been shown to you ad nauseum that this is not the case. You're too bull-headed and too much of a "celebrated WT scholars" worshipper to see it.
... it indeed at the very least has a margin of error of at least one year but it is worse than that because at least twenty years is manifest.
WT chronology has a discrepancy of 20 years. Secular/Bible chronology has, at most, 1 - thereby making the latter the most harmonious with ALL the available evidence.
What I am saying is that Young is a scholar who has written ground-breaking articles on the importance of Methodology in the construction of Chronology. His efforts are to be commended but as yet his chronology remains his opinion and his conclusions thereof have not received acclamation from other serious scholars who enjoy the fame of scholarship, widely publihed and recognized.
Oh that's just horse-hooey and you know it. 587 is widely recognized along with 586. I refer you to:
I beg to differ, it was scholar who first introduced Young on this board and this was before COJ referred to him at Channel C and if my memory is correct it was only the context of COJ mentioning the names of scholars who supported 587 BCE. Scholar was also the first person who introduced the concept of Methodology as a requisite in Chronology and came across Young's articles which elaborated for the first time in scholarship this subject.
That was carefully worded in another attempt to elevate yourself but still it doesn't overturn the truth of my statement. You had dialogues with COJ in 2004 about 587/586 on ChannelC. I know for fact that COJ knew of Young's article in 2004. You introduced the article to JWD/JWN in October 2005 (laughably mis-named and mis-referenced on your part!). And I thanked you in February 2006 for the unique experience of something useful (Young's article) coming from one of your Touchstone forum posts. But then, I can't expect your memory to have improved since your erroneous assertion that AlanF agreed with you about your claims regarding the John Aquila Brown issue, can I?