586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed (page 12)

AnnOMaly

Dang it! I meant to press 'back' instead of 'submit.'

Anyway, what Mary said.

Because of the discussion going on with scholar on the other thread I phoned my friend that is a research at the Jewish Research Center in the antiquites department and asked him about the 607 VS 587 debate, his reply:

"Debate? what debate?"

LOL !

I brought him up to speed...

" Didn't we discuss this awhile back Paul? I mean, it's very clear that the fall of Jreusalem is date to 587 and that date is accepted by historians and jewish scholars alike, both the biblical and secualr evidence agrees, we here at the Jewish Research Center agree with that date".

To which I replied, " But some say the biblical evidence shows 607 to be more likely".

His reply," well, what would we know Paul, I mean, afterall, we are only the people that wrote the book, *LOL*".

We talked a bit more, I asked how his Karate was going ( that is who we met years ago) and before we said good bye he said this that I remember:

" Paul, as with any prohecy and any biblical account, when we try to put a modern date to it we need to remeber that the events that are recorded have to agree with secular evidence, NOT they other way around".

I tend to agree with him.

AwSnap

bttt

PSacramento

Has there been any "rework" done on this by the WT?

BabaYaga

Bump...

Thank you AlleyMom...

and bookmarked.

blondie

18,398 views and still a keeper

NiceDream

Thank you for making this pretty easy to understand. I showed this to my spouse, and they had a problem with the wording of the Insight book which says:

" ***it-1p.453Chronology*** For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year"

So because this may imply that these Kings could have ruled for longer because there could be other tablets, my spouse closed the case and thinks 607 is still correct. Any thoughts as to where I can go from here? Thanks!

garyneal

NiceDream

My approach is to instill doubt using the same tactic Jehovah's Witnesses use to disprove December 25th being Jesus's birthday. Here is their formula:

JW: December 25 is not Jesus's birthday, you can go to any encyclopedia and confirm this.

Me: Jerusalem did not fall on 607 B.C.E., you can go to any encyclopedia and confirm this.

agonus

ultimate K.I.S.S.:

Jesus = salvation

...all the "spiritual mathematics" you'll ever need

garyneal

Jesus = salvation ...all the "spiritual mathematics" you'll ever need

Gee, why didn't I think of that?

My main question would be, why does a Jehovah's Witness not believe this? People who are not witnesses are doom, even if they believe in the Bible.

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

Share this