Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 119 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your opinion that there is no evidence for 607 is plainly stupid. The date is based upon the established fact by means of astronomical records and other secular material for the fall of Babylon. The historic fact of the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland after the 70years is attested to in scripture. Finally, the desolation of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer is confirmed by scripture and secular history. These facts are not the imagination of the Society. The 'devil is in the detail' and what a complex period of Judean history this is. The plain facts are that this watershed in Jewish history is the the subject of much controversy within contemporary scholarship.

  It is dishonest to say that because the society has a methodology of computing these principal stages of history that differs from other approaches that it is without any foundation. The very fact that scholars cannot agree as to 587 or 586 is cause for grave concern. If the Society is so wrong and if the Jonsson hypothesis is so correct then why if the evidence is so compelling, so abundant and incontrovertible that there exists thi uncertainty. Jonsson asserts 587 over 586 which he triflys deals with this point by means of a footnote 15 on page 293 in his latest work. Interestingly, in his previous supplement to GTR published in 1989, he deals with this difficult issue with 7 pages. Jonsson omits to mention that David Freedman the editor in chief of the Anchor Bible Dictionary has in that reference work, 586 for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  Uncertainty about this matter is also highlighted by the comment made by Prof. Jack Finegan a supporter of 586 that "the highly probable date of the final fall of Jerusalem - July 18, 586 BCE". {Handbook of Biblical Chronology,1998,p.259]

  Jonsson and yourself assert that the discrepency arises from the biblical data with the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer. This is misleading, your error lies in the assumptions that you have made concerning that data. The relevant texts possess their own integrity but the assumptions made on these texts are entirely speculative.

  Jonsson devotes a considerable portion of his book to an exegesis of the seventy years. He is to be commended for this pioneering attempt as there is a serious lack of scholarship in this regard. His discussion of this period is unsatisfactory but it is a useful analysis. I venture to say that there is need for a thesis to be undertaken on this subject that would need to be far more thorough than what has so far appeared in scholarly journals.

  scholar
• 

  sleepy

  Scholar.

  Lets just imagne for aurguments sake that Jerusalem did fall in 607 BCE.

  Can you explain HOW you get from there to 1914 AD.

  Can you explian WHY you should get from there to 1914 AD.
• 

  Zep

  This is what did it for me.

  Real simple stuff:

  Jeremiah 25:12

  "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation, 'their error'..."

  Go read the writing on the wall episode in Daniel and its plain the 70 years ended in 539...not 537.

  If you then want to do those little weird gentile times calculations:

  539-70=609+ 7 times = 1912?????????????

  Just another way of looking at it:

  Jeremiah 25:11

  "...and these Nations will have to serve the king of Babylon 70 years"

  Jeremiah 27:7

  "And all the Nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes and many nations and great kings must exploit him as servant"

  539 is when Babylon fell

  Again, the seventy years ended in 539. This fact completely destroys 1914. good night!
• 

  biblexaminer

  All this talk and no action ...
  I want to see the proponents of the 607 date to post their research ... I want to see it.
  BUT REMEMBER... only the so-called "Biblical" evidence...NO SECULAR STUFF as you have poisoned the well of secular chronology.
  If you insist on the choice of either the Bible OR secular, then stick to the Bible.
• 

  Jeremy Bravo

  "Scholar"

  You make many assertions but have nothign to back up thise assertions. Yes, there may be some differing opinions about whether the real year was 587 or 586, but that's because IT HAS BEEN NARROWED DOWN TO THOSE TWO. 606 or 607 have been ruled out.

  I have a question for you. Below is a quote from the society's "Revelation" book, taken from the box on page 105, in the footnote...

  Providentially, those Bible Students had not yet realized that there is no zero year between "BC" and "AD" Later, when research made it necessary to adjust 606 to 607 BCE, the zero year was eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "AD 1914."

  Please Sir Scholar, what research resulted in the "necessary" adjustment to 607 BCE? Since the society has to my knowledge NEVER published this research, there is only one apparent answer:

  The research they mention is their realizing the non-existence of the "zero year". Because of this "archaeological gem" they found it necessary to rewrite the history books.

  Kinda like living in Oceania, hunh?

  Jer.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  No tablet, papyrus or relief block has been discovered with the dates BCE dates 586, 587, 606, and 607 written on them and that allude to the fall of Jerusalem, therefore it is on weight of secular evidence that the correct date must be ascertained.

  The simple thing to do, especially if you wish to retain your nom-de-plume, is to clearly present your evidence for the 607BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem and allow the evidence for a 586/7BCE date to be presented and then leave viewers to reach their own conclusion without rhetoric or persuasion. That is what scholars do.

  It may be news to you that at this moment, even members of the GB are divided on this issue. The line that is being run presently to the R&F is that it is the 'sign' revealed by world affairs that is the ultimate proof 1914 was the date of the enthronement of Christ in heaven as King, you may have noticed that the WTS 'biblical' chronology that led to the 607BCE date is seldom if ever mentioned these days. Check out the date for last attempt by the WT of a defense of the 607BCE date. The WTS denies that it works through outside JW researchers like Furuli and no doubt his book will raise a storm, but it is a storm that the WTS will keep themselves dry from, a rather cunning policy. If Furuli’s book does tip the scales of evidential balance back to 607BCE then the issue will need to be re-examined but as of today the evidence is very clearly against that date.

  The theological quagmire that the WTS find themselves in is not difficult to assess, they have repeatedly fallen in to the same pit, led by their blind predecessors. When one starts research with the conclusions already reached, much bending of reality and fact has to take place to sustain those conclusions. After all Scholar, where there is a 1% chance that the WTS is correct in its dating methodology and a 99% chance that it is not, would you build a life on the 1%?

  Best regards - HS
• 

  bboyneko

  Judging by some of the artifacts encountered during my archelogical dig through my laundry pile this weekened, i'd say the base contents of my laundry were layed there on the floor on or about 587 BCE.

  -Dan
• 

  Englishman

  Don't you guys know anything?

  The fall of Jerusalem DID TAKE PLACE IN 607 BC.

  It fell invisibly.

  Englishman who just can't see it.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  cyberguy

  When actually did the "march of the world powers" begin? Was it with Babylon, as the Society strongly asserts when explaining the 1914 calculation? When actually did the "superior authorities" become "superior" and "placed their relative positions by God?" (Rom. 13:1) Doesn't the Society's Bible-based literature (the "John Class") also answer this question?

  ________________________________________________
  Revelation 17:9 --

  9 “Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. 10 And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while. 11 And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also itself an eighth [king], but springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction.
  ________________________________________________

  *** re 251-2 35 Executing Babylon the Great ***

  2 The seven heads of that ferocious beast stand for seven “mountains,” or seven “kings.” Both terms are used Scripturally to refer to governmental powers. (Jeremiah 51:24, 25; Daniel 2:34, 35, 44, 45) In the Bible, six world powers are mentioned as having an impact on the affairs of God’s people: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of these, five had already come and gone by the time John received Revelation, whereas Rome was still very much a world power. This corresponds well with the words, “five have fallen, one is.” But what of “the other” that was due to come?

  So how long has God allowed the world powers to rule the world and have "an impact on the affairs of God's people?"
• 

  Fredhall

  Scholar,

  Olof Jonsson left out alot of things. Furuli is going to tare into him with his new book. Keep up the good work dude!!!