Validity of 607 BCE date (page 10)

Moxy

lol @ jdubla. subtle humour is lost on some. :)

mox

hillary_step

Mox,

anyone who thinks they can has been deluded by this pseudo-science of opinion and 'worldy wisdom.' we have plenty of evidence for 1914 in the indisputable physical facts we have all seen with our own eyes since that date in the 'last days' of this old system. we have far much more evidence now than russell did in his day

This does seems to be the path that the WTS is heading for. I have heard this reasoning from a couple of people at very Senior level. "Chronology is unimportant, the visual realites are proof enough."

Best to you -- HS

Scholar,

Thank you for your note.

I will try one more time. You need to understand that owing to the fact that the weight of evidence is against the viewpoint that you adhere to, it is up to you to defend that viewpoint with evidence that challenges the norm accepted by all historians. Bring that evidence to the table and I will then break bread with you. 'Nuff said.

Best regards - HS

Moxy

i agree hillary. i was kinda showing how easy and realistic it would be for the WT to get out of the chronology business altogether. i for one wish they would.

mox

cecil

Hi scholar.

If it is so obvious that 607 bce is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem, and 587 - obviously... - is so wrong, then maybe you can tell me why the danish branch office has not yet answered my (60+ pages of scriptural and historcal evidence for 587 bce and against 607 bce)letter, that I send on august 6th. Shouldn't take that long to provide the proper evidence, should it?! Or is it, that there should be a reason why the Watchtower has not provided any evidence for that 607 bce-date for more than 20 years - if one can call the appendix in Let Your Kingdom Come for... evidence?! Why is it that every person I have asked about the evidence for 607 bce answered in one way out of three: 1.: "- I don't care!" 2.: "I don't know - but I have confindence, that it is correct" or 3.: "It HAS to be correct...!"

What is most interesting in reading this thread - at least for me - is the way in which you time and time again with lots of words try to tell how large the amount of evidence is for placing the fall of Jerusalem in 607 bce. Its just that you have not yet delivered a single piece of that evidence! To claim that, as you put it in your very first comment, 607 bce

succeeds because it establishes the Gentile Times concluding in 1914. The other dates of 587/586 are useless in that these are dead ends, going nowhere.

and therefor MUST be the correct date is - sorry for the wording - the same old bullshit, that made me feel so sick about our "chronology".

BTW: You wrote

In explanation of this point we find that in order to locate 607 one needs an anchor or a pivotal or absolute date. The Fall of Babylon in 539 gives the chronologist a starting point or a foundation. So already this date which enjoys unamity of opinion is the foundation on which subsequent circumstantial and testimonial evidence can be employed. So you see here that already 607 is off to a good start indeed. By the way, as you are fully conversant in such matters could you give a absolute date for 586/7 so that that we can construct together the mountain of evidence for Jerusalem. Let us work together so that all readers on this board can be well educated in such a matter.

Even if I'm sure you are fully aware of this fact, I'll mention it anyway: The pivotal year 539 bce was FIRST determined via the data for the reigns of the neo-babylonian kings (counting forward from Nabopolassar) and not the way the Watchtower does today via persian chronology (counting backward from Kambyses). As Campbell Thompson points out in his book "The Bew Babylonian Empire", p.224: "The date 539 for the fall of Babylon has been reckoned from the latest dates on the contracts of each king in this period, counting from the end of Nabopolassar's reign in 605 bc, via Nebuchadrezzar, 43; Amel-Marduk, 2; Nergal-shar-usur, 4; Labashi Marduk (accession only); and Nabonidus, 17 = 66".

Therefore if you, by using "circumstantial and testimonial evidence", employ 539 bce as a pivotal date in support of 607 bce you are missing the point, that originally 539 bce was derived from the neo-babylonian chronology itself - and that logically 539 bce therefore directly supports 587 bce as the date for the fall of Jerusalem and NOT 607 bce.

cecil

bjc2012

Scholar,

All of this discussion to prove 607 as the starting date for the 'seven times' of Daniel chapter 4 is immaterial if you cannot prove that Nebuchadnezzar received this vision and Daniel interpreted it before Jerusalem's destruction. Daniel 4:22 appears to indicate a time later than Jerusalem's destruction unless, of course, you have proof to indicate otherwise. If so, please elucidate.

bjc

607BCisAbigLIE

Trevor wrote:

As it is clear that the real date for Jerusalem’s fall is 586 B.C.E. and not 607 B.C.E., all the other important Watchtower dates are without foundation. A rumour of this nature existed when I was a Witness and I had been to the library and checked every reference book available and confirmed that this was one more false date to add to the list.

You maybe have made the BEST MOVE of your life my friend. Where have you taken the power to resist the WTBTS teaching is a true MIRACLE!! That is the way all JWs must follow if they really want to know the real truth, and not following blindy the "custom made" truth of an organization like the WTBTS. Knowledge is the best weapon against false prophets.

For non-scholar:

When scholars researched for the dates of the Neo-Babylonian periods, they based their study on facts, not on presumption of telling the truth, and surely not trying to prove that the 607 BCE date was wrong. I'm sure that most of these scholars where unaware of the WT teaching on that issue. They were not writing their stuff just to harm the WT, cause it was surely not in their mind. Why have they done their research? Just because they wanted to know the facts, like for every period of human history we all have studied in school; for those who have studied long enough, of course (JW have been long and still discouraged of attending high degrees of scholarship, like college or university degrees).

And many scholars took those research and compared it with the Bible chronology. And most of the time the Bible is still in accordance with the facts. Even the WT doesn't deny it; the WT just distort the facts to make them tell what they want them to tell, nothing more. Why I say "most of the time"? That is just because some maybe arguing about a year here and there, which is not a big issue, since sometimes the Bible refers to the year of ascension of a king, and sometimes to the first full year of reign.

Some will say that the Bible is sometimes contradictory about some of the chrono issues; I think the fault is on the interpretation given by some theologians rather than real Bible contradiction. When the Bible is READ and not interpreted, and compared with the known facts, it is quite accurate about historical dates of the judah rulers and the babylonian period involving the Hebrews, as for other wolrd powers that have come to pass trough the Hebrew History.

All of this was to say that when all evidences point to the 587/586BCE as to be the date of the fall of Jerusalem in the hands of Babylon, why should anyone still presume the 607BCE date to be true? Because if the 607 is not true, then all the WT castle cumbles, and all the doctrine about the "parousia" (according to good sources from real ancient greek scholars, the greek term parousia should mean coming, and not presence) of the Lord in 1914 doesn't stand anymore.

And for the 2520 years for Gentile times, how could they took that from a prophecy that was oubviously only to be a warning to Nebuccadnezzar that the end of his reign was approching? Why the WT is always doing that "double-meaning prophecy" teaching? They call this prefiguration. I call this "appropriation of prophecy just to try to prove they are the ones by whom the Almighty God speaks" and nothing more than that. Just check the way they come to that interpretation of Daniel 4:10-25! By taking number in Revelation, the Numbers, and Deut., which are all prophecies or number that were attributed only to the events they firstly have been settled for, they have come up with a savant calculation to get the 2520 number. But how could someone explain that sometimes they take numbers litterally (144.000, the 3 1/2 years (used to calculate their 2520!)), sometimes figuratively (40 days in the desert for israel, with 1 day=1 year)? How can the WTBTS know when it is litteral, and when it is not? It's a mystery.... for those who are unaware of the fact that they indeed manipulate the Scriptures (to the extent of merely translate the Bible into its own WT jargon) to make them say what they want them to say.

But it all comes down when you take a Bible and read it from the beginning to the end (and don't laugh, I made it myself, and I must say that it is pretty harsh in some passages), anyone would come to the conclusion that the WT is way far from the original Gospel of the apostle, and anyone would see a lot of inconsistencies with the WT teachings.

webbtronics

First of all, I think you should get rid of all secular books and speculations about chronology. Get your Old Testament(Massoretic not Septuagint) establish a sound chronology based on scripture alone and then fit secular dates, reigns, events, etc. around the established bible chronology. I've done it ( it took me 10 years) all conundrums have disappeared!

Regards,

Webbtronics

hillary_step

Webtronics,

Anybody can make such statements. Perhaps you might supply your discovered evidence for all to see.

Best regards - HS

sf

THIS thread is just too good to stay buried. It simply must be resurrected.

sKally

Validity of 607 BCE date

Share this