"

I said clearly ""from their understanding, rightly or wrongly, from verses in the Bible, they arive at the date and believe to be the historical"" date.   Obviously NOT from anything outside of that, in the way of secular authorities etc.   And yeah, of course YOU (as well as I) are going around in circles, because you keep rowing with one oar, making me do so too in a way.   I was merely answering your question (which I was a little surprised why you asked it) of what I meant by ""believed-to-be historical"", as you seemed to think I was meaning (for some reason) that it was from any outside source.   That's not what I meant.    As far as the ""theological reasons"" the point too is why would they be so ""vested"" if they didn't believe it was the actual actual actual genuine historical date to begin with?    That makes no sense.   It's all TIED IN, was my point.   And also, if it was ""587"" instead of ""607"" (according to the whole ""2520 years"" view, which I know you don't believe as an atheist or whatever, but again from THEIR perspective) we'd still be living in the ""last days"" anyway.  Instead of it starting in 1914, it would be 1934.   So side point, we'd still be in the ""end times"" if that's the case.    But again, not to digress too much, I was simply answering your question, even though I thought that the discussion was already over.   You were not sure what I meant by ""believed-to-be historical date"" not just solely ""theological"".   The WT believes it to be the accurate true date as a point of general history.  And because of the whole ""Gentile Times"" thing (as you know of course) for the whole ""Messiah's Kingdom"" breaking in for the ""end times"" etc etc.    It's whatever.  I was addressing your question, that was it.  And yes, I noticed your addition in the other discussion, and your contention that they ""mis-translated"" Jeremiah 25.29, when they didn't, because seeing other translations they say ""I begin"" or ""I am beginning"" it does NOT say what you said of ""already beginning"".   There's no real difference between the word ""beginning"" and ""start of"".    THAT'S THE POINT.     It says ""I am starting off"".   You could easily claim even with the NWT rendering that God ""already started off"".   So?    Because in all versions the word ""already"" is NOT there.   Whether you use the word ""beginning"" or ""start"".   Also, I'm a little confused as to what your point is, either way, wheether the words are ""already beginning"" or ""first"" or ""starting off"".   Because if it's ""already beginning"" as you said, wouldn't that ALSO be (obviously) before the other nations anyway?   The point is that all versions is obviously that Jerusalem would have evil caused by God to BEGIN with with, before the other nations.    Why would He say ""I am beginning with you"" (as other versions have it, which makes the point too)?  Also, again, how does your ""already beginning"" negate the point that Jerusalem would get it first?   Before other nations?     ........."