How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  Missed the point completely. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing. Yes, 17 is the number. Yes, they are lines of evidence. The evidence provided isn't against 607 in as much as its for 587. It's an important distinction. There could be a 17 independent lines of evidence *against* 607, and each could arrive at a different date. Each line arguing a different date is a line AGAINST 607. But if all the lines agreed on a single date, that's an entirely different story. It's evidence FOR 587. Yes that disproves 607, by it raises the confidence level for 587 to near certainty.

  --

  You raised the contention not myself for I simply quoted COJ's statement that he presents 17 lines of evidence that establishes the chronology of the NB Period consequently the dates 586/7BCE as Neb's 18th year are established for the Fall of Jerusalem. Whether COJ has succeeded in this attempt is open to criticism and is refuted by the research of Rolf Furuli. who has shown that the Chronology for the NB Period is short by at least 20 years.

  In contrast, rather than relying on the chronology of the NB Period in order to fix a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as is the COJ'S method, WT scholars have used the Bible and the biblical '70 years which clearly established that 607 BCE is the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  COJ's use of 17 lines of evidence holistically does not disprove 607 BCE because none of these lines of evidence uses any biblical data or reference and that applies to each one of those lines of evidence.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  joey jojo

  If you go to skyview Cafe astronomical website and punch in the date 586, 587,the planets and constellations are right where the Babylonian clay tablets say they are for that year, not 607.
• 

  scholar

  joey jojo

  It all depends on the astro program you use and its methodology otherwise you can get different results such as that done by Dr. Rolf Furuli in his published research using professional software.

  scholar JW
• 

  joey jojo

  scholar
  joey jojo
  It all depends on the astro program you use and its methodology otherwise you can get different results such as that done by Dr. Rolf Furuli in his published research using professional software.
  scholar JW

  So, before designing the programs for the different astronomical charts, all the software engineers from around the world got together in order to create a consiracy just to discredit 607 BCE?
• 

  scholar

  joey jojo

  o, before designing the programs for the different astronomical charts, all the software engineers from around the world got together in order to create a consiracy just to discredit 607 BCE?

  --

  Are you joking? What utter nonsense! The fact is that there are different astro programs available and depending on the methodology used different results can be observed. Rolf Furuli describes the astro programs used and a methodology and has produced observations on the data that differ from others. So, what is needed is a level playing field using the same identical programs with an appropriate methodology.

  scholar JW

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  You raised the contention not myself for I simply quoted COJ's statement that he presents 17 lines of evidence that establishes the chronology of the NB Period consequently the dates 586/7BCE as Neb's 18th year are established for the Fall of Jerusalem. Whether COJ has succeeded in this attempt is open to criticism and is refuted by the research of Rolf Furuli. who has shown that the Chronology for the NB Period is short by at least 20 years.

  
  You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.
  
  Note to readers: Now we come full circle -
  
  

  In contrast, rather than relying on the chronology of the NB Period in order to fix a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as is the COJ'S method, WT scholars have used the Bible and the biblical '70 years which clearly established that 607 BCE is the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  COJ's use of 17 lines of evidence holistically does not disprove 607 BCE because none of these lines of evidence uses any biblical data or reference and that applies to each one of those lines of evidence.

  
  There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  So, before designing the programs for the different astronomical charts, all the software engineers from around the world got together in order to create a consiracy just to discredit 607 BCE?

  It seems that way. Like I said, if it were possible to time travel, he would then argue we didn't do the time traveling correctly. We would have to form some sort of committee to come up with the right procedure to time travel - you know, press the buttons the same way or something.
• 

  Fisherman

  forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.

  False
  
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  True
• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.

  --

  I agree but in the provision of evidence to establish the fact of the matter also by logic would refute or disprove an opposing viewpoint.

  ---

  There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.

  ---

  The 'overwhelming non-Biblical evidence' for 587 is open to interpretation and on examination is unconvincing and does not prove 587 or 586. The Biblical evidence proves 607 BCE and with 'fine tuning' of the secular evidence can harmonize such 'evidence' with the Biblical evidence. The 70 years of desolation is clearly stated and is consistent with a historical 'Exile' and Servitude to Babylon for such an understanding is established by exegesis.

  ---

  scholar JW