607 date (page 11)

Jeffro

"the majority would simply say that they believe it is the truth because they are convinced by the things they teach now"

The biblical and secular evidence for my three step model is plainly seen. Do not you know your Bible, history or some archaeology. Each of these three stages are about events not just dates for it is the events that are all together referred to in the Bible, secular history namely Josephus and secular artifacts uncovered by the archaeologist. Chronology is simply a device to correlate and make sense of history or the data that is revealed or undestood.

So, the three dates 539, 537, 607 are all based on events namely the Fall of Babylon, the Return of the Exiles and the Fall of Jerusalem. these events are the bedrock of 607. Are you now going to say that these selfsame events are fictitious and without any evidence?

scholar JW

AK - Jeff

Scholar -

I did not read all the posts - but I will say this - 607 has no proof to back it. Not one single real 'scholar' supports it. Thousands of bits of evidence refute it.

Believing 607 is not based on faith or reliable facts - it is Watchtower credulity at it's finest!

Jeff

hillary_step

Scholar-Puppet,

The biblical and secular evidence for my three step model is plainly seen. Do not you know your Bible, history or some archaeology.

LOL....yet another idiotic statement uttered from the lonely corner of defeat.

Narkissos helped in the translation of the NWT, which you call frequently call brilliant', into French. The French translation is undoubtedly the best of the NWT translations. I should know, because I helped research material for this translation myself. far from being the ignorant person you try to paint him, Narkissos is undoubtedly far more learned than yourself in all the disciplines that you mention above.

Narkissos has proved conclusively during this thread his superior knowledge of Hebrew, secular and Biblical chronology, superior that is to your own. If you think that active Jehovah's Witnesses who are looking on on this thread cannot see that, then your thinking is even more suspect that one can suppose.

Please send along our kind regards to Puppet-Master Shearman. We hope that he has recovered from his recent illness.

Cheers - HS

Leolaia

pseudo-scholar....I've never seen someone so doggedly refuse to understand a point that has been stated and restated so many times.

Scholars and poztates agree on the basis of the biblical and secular evidence that 539 is a accurate date for the Fall of Babylon and thus a suitable date for WT scholars to use as a pivotal date.

Sure. And so is 597, which is also accepted by both "poztates" and scholars as the date of Jerusalem's first seige; no scholar accepts the Watchtower Society's date for this event (617 BCE) which is some 20 years off.

The issue I was posing was not that 539 isn't a suitable pivotal date, but what happens when we use a different, equally well-supported if not better, pivotal date. The result is that only by arbitrarily insisting on one of these pivotal dates do 587 and what you believe as the genuine interpretation of the 70 years come into necessary conflict. Thus, you cannot argue that 587 is wrong by insisting on the 70 years as exile-desolation-servitude without addressing this point.

Narkissos

Scholar,

The biblical and secular evidence for my three step model is plainly seen. Do not you know your Bible, history or some archaeology. Each of these three stages are about events not just dates for it is the events that are all together referred to in the Bible, secular history namely Josephus and secular artifacts uncovered by the archaeologist. Chronology is simply a device to correlate and make sense of history or the data that is revealed or undestood.
So, the three dates 539, 537, 607 are all based on events namely the Fall of Babylon, the Return of the Exiles and the Fall of Jerusalem. these events are the bedrock of 607. Are you now going to say that these selfsame events are fictitious and without any evidence?

The attentive reader will have noticed how you just shrank back from your previous careless statement (your post # 599) that each one of the above dates was based on both biblical and secular evidence: actually the WTS uses only secular evidence for 539, then ignores the rest of secular evidence and relies exclusively on its (wrong) interpretation of biblical texts for fixing 537 and 607. That's the WTS' "methodology".

Of course the events are not fictitious, even though the WTS' picture of a complete desolation of the land definitely is. Read Jeremiah 52 -- note the relatively small number of exiled people -- and Ezra-Nehemiah -- the returnees didn't come back into a waste, and had a hard struggle with the "people of the land" (who never went into exile) to affirm their authority over Jerusalem -- and you'll get a better picture.

HS,

Actually I never shared in the French NWT translation (it had been published 7 years before I entered the translation dept.), but it is quite interesting that you were involved and we both were acquainted with the NWT translator.

Sirona

It appears that Scholar is utterly defeated in this argument, and is therefore resorting to petty insults such as the one he directed at Narkissos.

It is a possibility that he thinks that saying such things will deteriorate this thread enough that his useless "argument" is ignored. He has gone 6 pages without providing evidence to back up his claims.

Sirona

hillary_step

Narkissos,

My apologies for the oversight. I thought that you had played a part in this translation or at least worked on its revisions.

Actually I never shared in the French NWT translation (it had been published 7 years before I entered the translation dept.), but it is quite interesting that you were involved and we both were acquainted with the NWT translator.

As we were both well aquainted with this person Narkissos, I would like to make it plain to all who read these pages that if Scholar had half as much intellectual integrity as this man ( who was fully aware of the weaknesses regarding the subject we are discussing as I shared such discussions with him ), he would long ago have given up his futile attempt at defending the indefensible.

I have to say that I find it quite remarkable that many within the WTS who are far closer to the subject than Scholar and have far more to lose than he, are well aware of the chronological creek down which the WTS has sailed and run aground, and are actually willing to admit the problem rather than flee like a startled rabbit from its implications.

My own small part in research was very much tied in with deciphering some of the more literal language used in the NWT and transposing it for use by the French translating team. I still have a confidence that the French NWT is a superior beast to its English counterpart. I understand that the newly revised edition has some interesting differences from the EL version.

Kind regards - HS

Jeffro

What say you about the fact the Jeremiah 25:12 places the 70 years ending at the death of Babylon's king in 539? (Compare Daniel 5:26-30) The Society states that the 70 years is exactly 70 years. There is therefore absolutely no way the 70 years could end 2 years after an event which the bible says would happen after the 70 years.

scholar

Leolaia

I would argue that there is no better pivotal date than 539 as it is well supported by the biblical and secular evidence and is the closest date to the events in question occurring within the seventy years timeframe. Sure there are other pivotal dates, you could use dates of the Neo Babylonian era or you could use dates as Thiele prefers, of dates of the Assyrian period. It comes down to methodology, which date fits best or which date is the more practical. WT scholars have decided upon 539 and any other discussion is of no consequence to me.

scholar JW

607 date

Share this