Pivitol Date Stuff

by IP_SEC 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • M.J.

    Good point. Not to mention LBAT 1420, LBAT 1419, LBAT 1421, BM 76738, BM 76813, LBAT 1417, BM32312, along with the undisputed pre-Nebuchadnezzar timeline thru Shamashumukin all points to 587. It seems that by scholar's reasoning, the hard evidence for 587 is much more convincing than that for 539, so we should use 587 as an "anchor date", counting 70 years from that year forward rather than from 537 backward.

  • mkr32208
    that there is sufficient secular and overwhelming biblical evidence that validates the calender date of 607

    So why don't you ever list reference works that's aren't from the WBTS?

    As for unscholar changing his mind, of course he'd change his mind -- if Mommy told him to.

    I find that to be the most insightfull thing yet if the watchtower of next month said "here's some new light, the 70 years actually started in 1986" Scholar would be right here arguing that 86 was correct... I wonder if scholar and schizm are the same person?

  • OldSoul
    I have every intention to exposing Jonsson's fraudulent hypothesis so you had better get used to it.


    Road to hell ... you have yet to present anything beyond random incoherecy and tall tales which you "substantiate" by ... nothing at all, wispy ghosts of illogic.

    You ask why atheists are coming out to stomp you into the ground? Because doing that is so easy, even atheists find it difficult to resist the temptation. You presume it is fear? Fear of what? That you will state your unfounded claim of chronological agreement again? Fear that you might actually stop claiming secular support and might actually present your supports?

    I am a clown. Thank you for noticing. I wasn't sure if it shined through clearly, but I like to make people laugh. Chuckle on, my good man, chuckle on.


  • undercover


    In your attempts to discredit some of our more learned members of the forum you may have overlooked my last post, so I'll post it again and hope that you see it and can answer my questions:

    ...In recent times we have chosed 539 as a pivotal date for the fall of Bablon. This date is determined from secular sources.
    ...I put it to you that 606/607 were dates calculated from the biblical and secular evidence nourished by an interest in prophecy and the Lord's Advent. In other words theology that utilized such chronology was a part of Christian Tradition and was later acquired and developed by Russell in more recent times.

    Who's "we"?

    Can you name some of the secular sources for 539?

    Can you name some of the secular sources for 607?

    If you trust the secular sources that name 539 would you trust those same sources if they arrived at 586 instead of 607? Why or why not?

    Also, I have noticed over the many threads and posts on this subject that you like to make a point of how people waffle on the secular date of Jerusalem's destruction. Is it 586 or 587? I have the same question for "you" as in your organization; which is it; 606 or 607? If the date of 606 was correct as Russell projected then when the "zero" year mistake was corrected then the Gentile Times would have ended in 1915. But, instead of correcting the answer of the equation, the given at the beginning of the equation was changed so as to keep the answer of 1914. So, which is correct, 606 or 607? Who is wrong, Russell, the orignal FD&S or the modern FD&S?

    Thanky kindly
  • City Fan
    City Fan


    And don't forget my question:

    Can you provide one reference outside of Watchtower publications and Furuli that supports your view of Zechariah 1 and 7, the 'past time hypothesis' as you put it. No doubt you can quote from some of this 'scholarly literature' you keep writing about.


  • ellderwho

    Alan F, CF. nice work as usual.

    Ive taken the back door approach to scholars (wt) position, along with his inability to connect years rule to fit WT bogus renderings. Ive shown the following to an senior elder who thought he was well versed in the subject his final thoughts were " well there musta been another Babylonian king thats not mentioned."

    Insight vol. 1 "Babylon"

    Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.

    More complete historical information is available for Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, who were evidently ruling as coregents at the time of Babylon?s fall.

    The Jw no matter who, has to face the irrefutable fact he cannot make his kings list span the years given for Babylonian rule (WT years) 625 BC to 537 BC

    Ive yet to see a JW accomplish this.

  • City Fan
    City Fan
    The Jw no matter who, has to face the irrefutable fact he cannot make his kings list span the years given for Babylonian rule (WT years) 625 BC to 537 BC

    It's a very good point elderwho, especially since to get their pivotal date of 539BC they have to use king lists to count back from year 7 of Cambyses in 523 BC.

  • ellderwho

    Thanks CF,

    Scholar posts the following in response to you:

    Harking back to Zechariah 1:7 whereupon the angel declares that Jehovah had denounced Jerusalem and the cities of Judah these seventy years. This must and only must refer to an already elapsed or expired period of time as it could only have referred to that period when the Land of Judah lay desolate, such an event was signified right up to the present day by regular fastings.

    This is an absolute joke! Actually Scholar means verse 14.

    Would not the Angel of the LORD said 'those seventy years" instead of "these seventy years"?

    "must and only must"....................

    Yeah Okay!

  • AlanF



    Come out come out wherever you are!!

    Is Rolfie taking a long time to get back to you?


  • toreador

    LOL @ Alan.

    I think our Scholar is off somewhere licking his wounds.

Share this