Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jwfacts

  Ethos - JW's only contend that it is 'likely' or 'probable' that they returned in 537 B.C.E, not that it dogmatically occurred. I don't have to prove that it definitely happened, I just merely have to prove that it is possible. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies and especially 'the burden of proof'.

  JWs do have to dogmatically claim it, as that is the basis of 607.

  The Watchtower has as much basis for 537 as it did for 536, which they used to say was the return, back when they said Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 (due to their incompetence in understanding the lack of a year 0).

  "THE SEVENTY YEARS OF DESOLATION This brings us to the period of the desolation of the land, which lasted seventy years, and was ended by the restoration of its people from Babylon, in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536 ..." Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is at Hand p.51

  The Watchtower always did, and continues to ignore facts, and make baseless claims in an effort to prop up a desired result.
• 

  tornapart

  Ethos.. I'm just wondering if I'm invisible here or you just don't want to answer my question. This is the third time I'm asking and hopefully this time you'll do me the courtesy of replying. I noticed you answered SD-7's question but only half of it, not the half I refered to. So I'll repost both questions for you as they are similar in content. It seems to me that JWs NEED 607BCE, which is why they (like you) will tie themselves up in knots to try and corroborate something that has no historical or archaeological backing whatsover and the only real backing they have is scripture that can be interpreted in different ways. (One of those ways actually fitting histroical and archaelogical finds). So the questions again for the third time....

  Me: Ethos.. just answer this.. why is 607BCE so important to JWs? Why do they make such a thing about it? What about other dates in bible history, they don't get nearly so much attention, if any! Why is it that it has to fit at all costs with the 70 years captivity and the intricate explanation as to what it all means? Of what import is it as compared with other bible dates?

  Just a simple question... Why is 607BCE SO important to JWs?

  SD-7: Either way, I think the question is, why does matter what year Jerusalem was destroyed? What exactly does it prove? That a prophecy about 70 years of servitude is correct, or that the 7 Gentile Times prophecy is correct, or both, or none? There's no reason to debate 607 if this is just about a 70 year prophecy that would in our time just be a historical curiosity or maybe even spiritually uplifting at best.

  By debating this issue, you're inviting the inevitable question of whether the motive is to prove 607, or simply to prove 1914.
• 

  Jeffro

  In the spring of 537 B.C. [blah blah blah]

  You clearly do not understand the difference between evidence and an assertion.
• 

  Jeffro

  slippery slope fallacies

  Ethos clearly does not understand the actual meaning of the term 'slippery slope fallacy'.
• 

  Jeffro

  several of which from the very author he fallaciously quotes earlier

  Ethos here refers to Josephus who in some of his earlier works referred to 70 years where he should have said 50. Josephus corrects this in his later works. But because Josephus is not the (holy) Watch Tower Society, it (supposedly) 'isn't possible' that Josephus might correct something he'd previously gotten wrong. (Only JWs can have 'new light'. )

  Sigh. He's not really not very good at this. Even his attribution of various fallacies isn't correct by definition.
• 

  Jeffro

  hermeneutical conclusions from the Hebrew language

  Josephus wrote in Greek.
• 

  Jeffro

  He then lists a total of 17 translations (almost half of which he admitted do not actually say "for Babylon") as if this somehow gave credence to his earlier statement.

  Actually there were 24 translations that I listed (these are the ones I have personally verified though there are almost certainly many more).

  The ones that I 'admitted' don't say "for Babylon" have wording that is more specific in stating that the 70 years refer to Babylon being the dominant power. (And I'm not really sure that seven is "almost half" of 24.)
• 

  Jeffro
• 

  Jeffro

  Can't edit previous post due to unknown website/database error.

  Ethos just isn't very good at this. He simply claims things are 'strawman arguments' when he doesn't have any valid refutation. But he completely ignores what is actually stated in cited sources.

  There are several points for which he has provided no valid response, as well as various issues from various contributors that he has ignored completely. I'm not sure there is much point in continuing to deal with him. Though, at my discretion, I may continue to point out obvious flaws to other readers.
• 

  Jeffro

  Here's yet another archetype of Jeffro's selective quoting

  Another instance of Ethos trying to pretend he knows about various logical fallacies, he claims I'm 'guilty' of 'selective quoting'. However, the meaning of 'during' remains intact in the full statement of Josephus he quotes, and which I've quoted (and examined) in full elsewhere.