Making 607 crumble (page 8)

toreador

Any chance of any of the abundant secular evidence for 607????

I am waiting with you City Fan.

simwitness

Scholar...

Some simple questions for you... these should be yes/no answers, but feel free to add any pointers to evidence as you see fit. It should also help those of us who are "in the poo" to understand.

1. Is there secular evidence that points to Jerusalam destruction in 607 that does not require any external biblical interpetation to arrive at that date?

2. Is there Is there secular evidence that points to Jerusalam destruction in any year that does not require biblical interpetation?

3. Is there any secular evidence as to Jerusalem's destruction whatsoever?

Yes this subject comes up often and I find myself having highlight the many gross misconceptions and ignorance concerning chronology and the rather stupid claims against 607. It amuses me that as soon as this subject arises every and I give a simple defensive reply then everyone comes out of the woodwork

We come to you seeking guidance on this subject, we ask you for your "abundant secular evidence", yet you provide none. I am glad that we "amuse" you so, but it would appear that you come here seeking the exact attention you get.

It seems to that opposers are fearful that WT chronology might be right after all as they refuse consider the basic aecular and scriptural facts of the matter. What these clowns do not realize is that 607 is a calcuable date that it follows both secular and biblical evidence, has a simple methodology and is based on a well established secular - biblical based date of 539 and follows a legitimate exegesis of a seventy years desolation from the decree of Cyrus in 537. This three staged computation then is well established.

I, for one, am not an opposer. I have simply asked for the "abundant secular evidence" that you purport exists. The only "well established secular" date you have provided is 539, the rest is "biblical exegesis", and the only exegesis you accept is the WTBS... since the WTBS has been wrong on so many other accounts, why should we accept this exegesis from them as "biblical fact" ??

Since there is "abundant secular evidence" that points to 586/587 for the destruction of Jerusalem, shouldn't a "legetimate exegesis of the 70 years..." be supportive of that date, or atleast take it into consideration?

Isn't exegesis all about trying to make a "Critical explanation ", and wouldnt that "critical explanation" require taking into acount all secular evidence... especially when we talking about an interpetation of a 2000+ year old piece of "prophetic" text?

Isn't the only true reason that 607 is so very important to the WTBS is that it is the very foundation of their claim of being the "faithful and discreet slave" on christ's return in 1914?

In short, scholars have dug a hole for themselves on their efforts to minimize by higher criticism the relevance of God's Word for Christians. They have turned biblical chronology into a bewildering array of assumptions incomprehensible to the layman and you expect me to say nothing.

scholar, you have said nothing... you haven't added any real information into this thread... you have only stated a premise and steadfastly refuse to provide any evidence, or even argument for that matter, for your claim.. you only state it is "this way" with nothing more. When pressed on this matter, you reflect the argument back, and continue to never add anything new.

It is only the WTBS "scholars" who have dug themselves into this hole, by refusing to look at the "abundant secular evidence" that clearly shows that Jerusalem did not fall in 607, or providing any evidence that it did.

I will debate this subject ad nauseum

Debate? You havent debated anything, you have simply stated your position... and when pressed on your position you either disappear or cry "Apostate" or clown or some other ad hominim attack... that's not a debate.

As far as "Ad nauseum", does that mean you will go back to the issue in this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx that you swore you would not let die?

Or do you mean it as it is defined "So as to disgust or nauseate"... ??

Face it scholar, the foundation for your faith is built on the sand.. and the sands of time will work against it.

Have a pleasant day...

simwitness

Any chance of any of the abundant secular evidence for 607????
I am waiting with you City Fan.

I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

hillary_step

Any chance of any of the abundant secular evidence for 607????

I am sure it would be of no surprise to note that this is not the first time Scholar has been asked this question on this and others Boards. It also may not surprise you to note that the question remains unanswered as of today's date.

No doubt Scholar will re-appear on JWD claiming chronological victory over his 'faithless' opponents in a few weeks. Perhaps it is best to save the question as it seems to have a similar effect on him that a crucifix has on a vampire.

Best regards - HS

cynicus

Once more the sound of running weaselfeet is drowned out by crickets...

(c)

scholar

City Fan

Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607, 586 or 586. Such evidence can only relate to what these dates signify and that is to events namely the Fall of Jerusalem wherein much secular evidence abounds. At this stage no single artifact has been found that written in Hebrew has the dates of either 607, 586 or 587. Niether has any artifacts been found that deal directly with the reigns of the kings involved at the time of Jesrusalems Fall No doubt these comments will come as a great surprise but as 607 is an historical date as it is anchored in biblical history and is not a mythical as some would suggest it desrves as much consideration as the alternative dates.

scholar

City Fan

Scholar,

You first posted:

There is abundant secular and biblical evidence in support of 607

You now post:

Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607

The point we've all been trying to make with you over the 4 pages of this thread is how dishonest that first statement of yours was. Thank you for admitting it.

CF.

City Fan

Scholar,

Now maybe you'd like to tell us which of these two comments was the correct one:

The controversy over the precise year namely 586 or 587 is an enduring and has nothinf to do with calendrical problems as you assert.

Oftentimes scholars are confused over calendrical problems concerning the data and cannot agree with certainty about certain dates namely 586 or 587.

Thanks.

CF.

ellderwho

City

LOL to the enth power

czarofmischief

I've got it! I've got it!

Jerusalem was "spiritually" destroyed in 607, leaving its physical destruction as a matter of course. It was overthrown in the "heavens" and removed as "God's sacred bedpost".

I betcha this is where the WT will take this. Surprised they haven't thought of it before. After all, it worked with the 1914 Kingdom debacle, and has kept working for 90 years now.

With bullies like Scholar browbeating the sheep and calling them "stupid" for not understanding the ridiculous assertions made by the Society = no wonder those who stay are scared to question.

Scholar, you are a troll, and I dislike you intensely. You are in the ranks of e-watchman and co., who bully people and try to make them feel bad. I condemn you to Czar's Eternal Pit of Fire! If I ever catch you... I'll get censored.

CZAR

Making 607 crumble

Share this