The truth is that the same chronologists the WBTS adhere to for the year 539BCE for the fall of Babylon are the same chronologists they disregard for the year of Jerusalem's fall. There are many secular business records of the time that point to 587BCE and also astronomical data which can't be fudged also points to 587. If 607 is right then all the other cuniforms and tablets found with dates intact for accession years, battles etc must be wrong? (the tablet the WBTS rely on has the date part missing)
It's also true that the WBTS changed it's own dates from 606BCE to 607BCE when it realized 606 didn't fit it's own erroneous chronology for the gentile times. If you take a closer look at the chronology of the 3 1/2 times from 1914 to the time of various members of the GB being imprisoned then that doesn't fit either. But that's another subject.
Okay... forgive me for being ignorant. When all these dates were discussed at the KH, I just got this glazed over look in my eyes and my brain shut down. I was bored stiff and never listened to any of it.
Stupid question... Is any of this date stuff actually in the Bible?
Your claim that 587 is the correct date rather than 697 is ignorant.
I have to agree with scholar on this. It has been proven...without a doubt that the real date is 697.The fax is on it's way to Brooklyn so they can update the "TRUTH"
The date 607 is based upon a careful chronology developed over many centuries going right back to that famous(ly) deluded biblical chronologist, James Ussher.
I have corrected your statement for you.
No need to thank me, I am ever the philanthropist looking for a cause.
If moving the end of the gentile times back to 1824 would buy them time, then yes :P
Ummm... I think I'm showing my IQ.... (duh) I'm guessing the numbers go backward? Oh!... is this BC? Before Christ? Oh, dear... I swear I'm not really this stupid... It's just these dates that I always tryed to daydream thru at the KH.
So it would give them even less time? Oh, who cares, it was a dumb typo anyway...
