Mar 9, 2012 -- 7:32AM, Newtonian wrote:

Mar 9, 2012 -- 1:45AM, ephphatha wrote:

Mar 9, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Newtonian wrote:

Ephathah - You need to document why you doubt 539 BCE - our article already documents why we doubt 587 BCE.

It will be impossible for you and I to have a productive conversation if you don't read what I write.  I explicitly told you that I do not doubt the 539 BCE date.  

ephathah - Yes, you did.   However, you also said 587 was just as reliable as 539 and I referenced evidence that show 587 is a doubtful date.

Since you claim 587 is just as reliable as 539, I am challenging you to provide evidence that shows 539 is just as doubtful as 587.

BTW - you have not addressed the evidence that shows 587 is doubtful - I have repeatedly stated one simple point - that Vat 4956 reads "9" not "8" and that this supports 607 not 587.   So I am now challenging you to provide equal evidence to doubt 539 BCE - or else you should retract your false statement that 587 is just as reliable as 539.

I haven't really been following this thread very closely, but from what I am seeing is that Newtonian is failing to see that all ephphatha is saying is that because of the reasons that 539 is reliable for JWs, then likewise, 587 should be reliable too.  

However, it seems like because of Newtonian's parochial views and his bias against the year 587, Newtonian somehow switched what ephphatha had originally said to saying that ephphatha doubted 539 BCE.

Although, perhaps if I interchanged the two dates in ephphatha's original sentence, then perhaps Newtonian will understand what ephphatha actually meant in his post #23: I think the secular evidence from 539 BCE is just as solid as the secular evidence for 587 BCE. . .  

Do you 'get' it now, Newtonian? :-)