Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 119 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  Fridolin, honey, at least non-scholar and I have minds.

  AlanF
• 

  Fredhall

  AlanF,

  So does Scholar and I. But, we don't sit on it.
• 

  ianao

  fred:

  Come on, you can do better than that.
• 

  scholar

  Alan Fraud

  Your reply to my assignment for Hilary Step is typical of your closed mind. Yes, I am muddying the waters of an already muddied chronology, but is it not trues that one must stir the muddied water in order for the sediment to fall so that one can see now clearly what the true situation is. I gave that assignment to Hilary, she claims to have an open mind, please why do not encourage her to do such research. Is this what you claimed to have done? If you cannot do it then let other sincere posters have a go.

  It is a pointless exercise to post evidence for 607 on this board if people will not examine it, it is clear that readers have difficulty in understanding what has already been suggested. If you want something from me then I expect something from you. I am rather content to include such material in a thesis on the seventy years as a continuation of my post-graduate studies.

  Your thoughts on the seventy years are simply gibberish, it is a rehash of Jonsson's material as you well know. The seventy years can only be a subject within a academic forum as nothing significant has yet been published. You may bleat and whine as much as you like but I remain unmoved.

  Regarding the king list which you do wish to discuss because you and I know that it destroys the credibility of 586/587. Chronologists when discussing this period of biblical history at least have the intellectual honesty to at least provided such a list as an appendix to their research. Carl who covers this period did not seem to see the need to do this, his hypothesis stands without an historical context notwithstanding his use of neo- Babylonian material . But why?
  when scholars refer to the divided monarchy they draw upon Babylonian sources to locate synchronisms for Judean and Iraelites monarchs. Yet when doing so the data comes out confusing and muddied. You say that bible is at fault, it is wrong, so then you expect me to engage with you in discussing the same date that you already do not accept. What are you an idot, get the methodology right, sought out in your own where you are going. If you do not believe the Bible then you wasting everybodys time. You truly exhibit cultish behaviour in asmuch you have been misled by the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar
• 

  AlanF

  You continue attempting to muddy the waters of understanding, non-scholar. The fact is that the reigns of Jewish kings have nothing whatsoever to do with Neo-Babylonian chronology. You know this very well, because you cannot produce a single argument that connects them. Furthermore, nothing about Jewish kings after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. has any relevance to anything, because there were no more kings after that date.

  Readers have not seen you attempt to post a single fact or biblical argument. This is absolutely typical of JWs who know they have no facts to report.

  The bottom line remains: 2 Chronicles 36:20 in conjunction with Jeremiah 25:11, 12 prove unequivocally that Bible chronology has the 70 years of servitude predicted by Jeremiah ending when Cyrus conquered Babylon, not two years later as the Society claims. That alone proves that the Society's 607 date is bogus.

  You can bring in all the red herrings you please; it will not change the fact that you have repudiated the Bible by rejecting its clear words.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Lets us get a few facts straight.

  First and most importantly, I am not a women. Secondly, my appeal was genuine and still is genuine.

  Theile's book has been around since 1951. I actually read, studied and reached conclusions through my own research about it in 1971. I was working at the BM in London then. I have also read Jonnson's research before it was published. I have read Finnegans book, but not Hughes.

  You note:

  Before beginning the assignment please read the article 'Chronology' as discussed in the Aid and Insight book published by the Society.

  This has already been done and digested, much of it I surmise before you were giving your mother upleasent experiences with your diaper.

  This issue can only be settled on weight of evidence as I clearly outlined in my original post on this thread, which you seem to have not read carefully. Present your evidence and leave people to make up their minds on that evidence. Can you not see the point? Your postings so far are not evidence but seek to try to emasculate other peoples arguments by saying - 'if you read this book you would see....'. which may have merit if backed by weight of evidence, but not backed by such, are just so much wind.

  As of your posts to this point, I can well understand why your nom-de-plume is 'Scholar' and not 'Teacher'.

  HS

  ..Lord send down a life and set him free.....
• 

  ianao

  scholar:

  Yes, I am muddying the waters of an already muddied chronology, but is it not trues that one must stir the muddied water in order for the sediment to fall so that one can see now clearly what the true situation is.

  Will you please quit stirring shit and present your "evidence"?
• 

  trevor

  Jerusalem and 607 B.C.E

  One of the most important dates upon which the Watchtower Society build their own dating system is 607 B.C.E. This is the date that Pastor Russell originally claimed Jerusalem was destroyed. The Society has never changed their mind on the accuracy of this inherited date.

  It is by counting from 607 B.C.E. as the beginning of the Gentile times that they arrive at 1914. They calculate the reference in Daniel 4:16 of “seven times” to be seven lots of 360, the number of days in a Jewish year. This comes to 2,520 years. Counting from 607 B.C.E. the date 1914 is arrived at. If 607 B.C.E. is not the starting point, then the date 1914 is of no significance.

  All other important dates in which the Society claims to have featured as a fulfilment of prophecy are calculated by working from 1914. The “three and a half years” are added to arrive at 1918, when they say the spirit of God entered into them and revived their work, appointing them as the “faithful and discreet slave.” This was also the year the chosen ones were resurrected to heaven.

  We could just take the Society's word for it that Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E. Then again, given their record with dates, I think it would be sensible to check. Listed below are a few of the numerous references to Jerusalem’s fall:

  § “The final destruction of the city (Jerusalem) was in …586 B.C.E.” (Light From the Ancient Past – Jack Finnegan – Page 223)

  § “Nebuchadnezzar …destroyed Jerusalem … in 586 B.C.E.” (The Encyclopaedia Americana – Volume 16 Page 31)

  § “Finally, in the year 586 B.C.E. Jerusalem itself was taken.”(The Story of Ancient Nations – W.L. Westerman – Page 69)

  § “On the 7th day of the fifth month 586 B.C.E. Jerusalem was destroyed.”(Encyclopaedia Britannica – Volume 15 – Pages 383)

  § “Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C.E.” (Yale Oriental Series Researches – Vol. XV)

  § “In July 586 B.C.E…a breach was made in the wall of Jerusalem.” (History of the Hebrews – F.K. Saunders)

  Any encyclopaedia can be checked for further confirmation.

  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.

  My attempts to square the sum with elders, who I felt I could approach privately, were met with strongly worded advice. In a nutshell, I was told to drop it or suffer the consequences. It was on one such occasion that the principle of unity being more important than truth was explained to me.

  (from 'Opening the Door to Jehovah's Witnesses' - By Trevor Willis -Available on Amazon)
• 

  AlanF

  Trevor said:

  : One of the most important dates upon which the Watchtower Society build their own dating system is 607 B.C.E. This is the date that Pastor Russell originally claimed Jerusalem was destroyed. The Society has never changed their mind on the accuracy of this inherited date.

  In the interests of pedantry, this is not quite correct. Russell used 606, not 607. It was pointed out by P. S. L. Johnson to Russell in 1914 that the date was wrong. The 607 date was also shown in the 1913 book by the well-known Bible Student Morton Edgar. For some reason -- you can figure it easily enough -- Russell ignored those men and never changed the date. Rutherford never did either. Only in 1943, in the book The Truth Shall Make You Free, did Freddie Franz move the beginning of the Gentile times back one year to 607. A year later, he moved the destruction of Jerusalem back one year to 607. During this year, JWs taught that the Gentile times began some 10 months before Jerusalem was destroyed!

  You can read all about this in the article "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm .

  AlanF
• 

  individual

  From the Insight volume 1 page 456

  The first is that the observations made in Babylon may have contained errors. The Babylonian astronomers showed greatest concern for celestial events or phenomena occurring close to the horizon, at the rising or the setting of the moon or of the sun. However the horizon as viewed from Babylon is frequently obscured by sandstorms.

  This is the best argument that the society could come up with and publish in its Insight book on chronology to debunk the idea that you could use astronomical records from Babylon to date certain events. Note what they come up with next and ask yourself has this argument got any more substance to it than the above...

  An ancient astronomer (or a scribe) might state that a certain celestial event took place in the year that, according to our calendar, would be 465BCE, and his statement may prove correct when accurate computations are made to verify it. But he may also state that the year in which the celestial event took place (in 465BCE) was the 21st year of King Xerxes and be entirely wrong. Simply stated, accuracy in astronomy does not prove accuracy in history.

  They are here saying that even though the astronomical evidence is irrefutable and today can be absolutely shown to have only happened on one single date the historical evidence that is attached to it, i.e the reign of a Babylonian king or a Persian king, the JWs believe to be incorrect. So the scribe who wrote about the astronomical event in detail so as to accurately record the event in several ways then put the wrong year of a reign of a king or put the wrong kings name down. This seems to be clutching at straws and is the only argument that they can come up with to debunk all the astronomical evidence to say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE.

  What do the JWs say about the astronomical evidence itself?

  Astronomical diaries have been found that give the position ( in relation to certain stars or constellations) of the moon at its first and last visibility on a specific day in Babylon, (for example, the moon was one cubit in front of the rear foot of the lion), along with the positions of certain of the planets at the same times.
  Modern chronologers point out that such a combination of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years. These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolomys canon.
  While to some these might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength.

  Here they admit that the astronomical evidence can only have occured on one day in a certain year and not have occured again for thousands of years. They also agree that the reigns of the kings agree with Ptolomys canon which leads to 587BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. The only arguments that according to them reduce the strength of the evidence are the arguments for the sandstorms on the horizon and the inadequate scribe where according to the JWs he may have inadvertantly put the wrong king down against the astronomical evidence.

  Another argument they come up with is that the astronomical texts were copies made at a later date from the originals and so therefore, like the scribe, these ones would have put the wrong king down. The problem with this argument is that the astronomical evidence can be shown to be correct, that the positions of the planets along with the rising or setting of the sun and moon and any eclipses when all cross-referenced together actually did happen at a certain date in Babylonian history. So they cannot refute the astronomical evidence regardless of whether they believe it was a copy or not. The same is true even if there was a sandstorm on the horizon because the evidence is of more than just one line, ie. not just the sun and moon but the positions of the planets as well.

  So, all they can fall back on is that the scribes or the copyists would have put in the wrong reign of the king. But how can this be when they took such effort to ensure the accuracy of the astronomical evidence? Other evidence to consider are the thousands of Babylonian business tablets, all linked to the reigns of the kings. If 607BCE was true where are the 20 years of missing tablets? There are tablets for every year from 587 to 539BCE but none for the missing 20 years.

  I think this evidence shows that 587 is the correct date rather than 607. I could go into the fact that 1914 was the pivotal date for the JWs and they originally choses 606 as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem until they realised there was no year 0, and instead of changing 1914 they changed 606 to 607. So to the org. 1914 was more important than accurate history for the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.

  If you take the principle of Okhams Razor where it says that all things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, looking at the missing 20 years and their weak arguments concerning astronomical evidence, you would have to say that the org. has got this one wrong. Their only motive for not changing it is that it is too hard for their members to accept any other date than 1914 and even in the face of the evidence it would hurt them too much to change 1914.

  This was one of the things that did it for me, that even though there was overwhelming evidence against 607 they just will not change it. How can this be right? If God is not a God of lies but abhors the lie and if the JWs are His organisation then why does he continually allow them to follow 607 even though everyone knows it is incorrect?