Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 119 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  LOFL,

  I haven't read the rest of the responses on this page yet, I see that Hillary has replied.

  LOL, I see why the anti-scholar was soooooo condescending of Hillary, the twit thought he was a she.

  Ah the transparency of idiocy.
• 

  Cygnus

  Scholar wrote,

  : If you do not believe the Bible then you wasting everybodys time.

  Actually, the Bible supports the established secular chronology of 586/7 BCE. There are several problems with 607 and the Bible that haven't even been mentioned here yet.

  What I wanted to comment on, however, is the mindset of the JW when discussing matters of the Bible and historical science. How does a JW know that the Bible is true in regards to events such as the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem? Or, for that matter, the Flood, or the existence of Jesus Christ? The Society very often appeals to some sort of historical evidence to support the Bible story. Sometimes, however, very unsuccesfully. When, for example, the evidence mounts against their position (say, the Flood, or evolution), they have very arguments FOR their position, but rather they either appeal to miracles, or find problems with the other position. Ultimately, they claim that it is the BIBLE which is to be trusted over fallible humans, since it is God's Word. The Appendix of the _Kingdom Come_ book says as much.

  I think that if you're going to believe in the Bible, forget about trying to reconcile it with anything else. Why bother? All you're going to end up doing is say, "The Bible is always 100% accurate, so where there are disagreements with the Bible and science, I will trust the Bible." Under operation of that mindset, a person cannot and will not be convinced of anything contrary to his position -- his position being arrived at by _interpretation_ of said Bible, I might add.

  Scholar will no doubt testify to the historicity of the man Jesus Christ, or the legitimacy of Cyrus having overtaken Babylon in 539 BCE, because he has some secular evidence which supports his position. The conundrum he faces is that he has zero evidence for 607 being significant to the destruction of Jerusalem, but he wishes everyone to believe there is some, or that the problems for his position are not insurmountable.

  Well, let's hear it, dude. I'm all ears. Don't be bashful.
• 

  Jeremy Bravo

  Back to the top....

  After 4 pages, Scholar STILL has not done a single thing to show us the light. His next post had better be a knockout or else this is gonna go on forever.

  BTW, I'm still waiting on him to answer my queston about the evidence that led the society to switch 606 to 607.

  Jer.
• 

  scholar

  Hilary Step

  You state in your reply that you are already familiar with the books in the reading list that I gave to you. If this is the case then how do you account for the conflicting results by these scholars as to the following point.

  1. Difference of Absolute Dates
  2. Different date for Jerusalem's Fall 586 0r 587?.
  3. Different reigns for the kings of Israel and Judah
  As you know these scholars have broadly followed a methodology different to that of the Society, they have employed the same system and sources as Jonsson outlines in his hypothesis. Such reconstruction is supposed to be accurate and factual, yet when it is tested then differnet results occur. Does this not tell you something?
  
  You say that you have read the articles on Chronology in the Aid and Insight book, did you not read therein the evidence for 607? Do you that 607 was conveyed by an angel or written on some gold tablet revealed to Russell or Franz? D id you not read that 607 is a calculated date, that it has a beginning, a transition and a ending?

  If you have read what you have claimed to have read then why do you not complete the asssignment that Ihave asked? I have no intention posting on this board esuch evidence for 607 unless I am satisfied that you have an appreciation of chronology'. I does not matter to me one iota whether this is acceptable to you or not because it is obvious that posters on this subject have already unintentionally exposed the invalidity of 586 or 587. Which date is it? Which date do you prefer.? Alan Fraud believes 587, is this your preference?

  scholar BA MA
• 

  Room 215

  Let's not lose sight of the fact that all of this sturm und drang over the correct date is only the beginning of the controversy. Even if we were to achieve consensus on one date, we then are faced with defending the premise that takes us from then to 1914.
  I dont' know which is the longer road... from 607 to 586/7 or thence to 1914 (1934?)....
  A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing (or not much, anyway).
• 

  Farkel

  individual,

  : From the Insight volume 1 page 456

  As I understand it, the Insight book made some of those statements you cited as a DIRECT result of the evidence produced in Carl Jonsson's book, which evidence contradicted the society's viewpoint.

  It's been a while since I've read that stuff, so I could be wrong here. I also remember the society's last ditch effor to counter act that fact that there are literally tens of thousands of common every-day business documents that point to 587/586 B.C. or at least AWAY from 607 B.C. The society's argument? Basically, it amounts to this, "well, just because tens of thousands of documents haven been found that demolish our position does not mean that someday, somehow, some way there won't be found any documents that help our position."

  Pretty lame, eh?

  Farkel
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Thank you for your note in which you state :

  difference of Absolute Dates
  2. Different date for Jerusalem's Fall 586 0r 587?.
  3. Different reigns for the kings of Israel and Judah
  As you know these scholars have broadly followed a methodology different to that of the Society, they have employed the same system and sources as Jonsson outlines in his hypothesis. Such reconstruction is supposed to be accurate and factual, yet when it is tested then differnet results occur. Does this not tell you something?

  Scholar, as I have previously noted, actually four times now, this whole issue has to be settled on weight of evidence, conclusions being the culmination of lines of evidence. For example if two lines of evidence shows that 607BCE has validity, but thirteen lines shows 587/6BCE to be the correct date what decision would you make? Owing to the fact that no newspapers with the heading ‘Jerusalem Falls - 607BCE/586/587BCE’ exist. The chronology of that era can be settled in no other way. We cannot ask ourselves who has absolute proof that 607/586/587BCE is an absolute date for the fall of Jerusalem because absolute proof, even as we speak that does not exist. What does exist is a vast body of circumstantial evidence indicating that 607BCE is the incorrect date, I do not need to detail this as you well know the issues. What we need from you is facts that can shift the weight of evidence from 607 to 586/7BCE. You defended the chronology of the WTS in your opening posts but do not seem to be able to produce the weight of evidence to sustain your views. My own views on the issue are in agreement with all the authorities and experts on this planet, the WTS and yours are not. Subsequently the WTS have challenged the rest of the world, it is up to them to prove the flaws in the 586/587BCE dating methodology and thus follow the precepts of historical science. They have of this date failed to do this without having to appeal to avenues that cannot be taken seriously by the historical sciences.

  Now to methodology. This of course is not an unusual problem that historians and archaeologists have to grapple with. The persons noted above have ‘followed a methodology different from the Society’ because they had no ax to grind over this issue. The WTS started from a 606/607 conclusion and then sought a means of bolstering that conclusion. This they have done through scriptural ‘loopholes’, and the usual secular conspiracy theories ( always their desperate final stand ).

  You say that you have read the articles on Chronology in the Aid and Insight book, did you not read therein the evidence for 607?

  Come now Scholar, be serious. The chronological reasoning in the Aid book were indeed a brave attempt at solidifying the 607BCE date, but you must remember that even the writer of that entry did not believe what he wrote. It just does not shift the weight of evidence.

  If you have read what you have claimed to have read then why do you not complete the asssignment that Ihave asked?

  As I have told you, I completed those assignments back in the 1970’s. I reached conclusions then, the evidence produced by the WTS to date, has not as yet led me to need to change my conclusions. Your input certainly does nothing to challenge the historically accepted dates.

  Alan Fraud believes 587, is this your preference?

  My own research leads me to a similar conclusion and I might add that calling Alan a ‘fraud’ even in jest shows much more about yourself than it does about him. I am absolutely sure, just from the methods you use in trying to present your arguments that Alan and I have done much more genuine research on this issue than your good self.

  Now, I have been very patient with you so let me give you some advise. You cannot expect to go through your theological life without being challenged on this issue. The WTS are the only people on this planet that hold to a 607BCE date. My assignment to you is to stop wasting the valuable time of many of us on this Board by engaging in theological or historical debates whose principles you seem unable to truly understand with any degree of seriousness. If you accept 607BCE that is fine I have no problem with that, if I reject it that is fine also, but your bluster and frankly your arrogance, intimidate nobody here.

  One last thought, another 1951 printing that may help you with your future studies was written by Rudolph Flesch and is entitled ‘The Art Of Clear Thinking’. If you have a problem tracking a copy down I am sure I have a spare copy.

  Thank you for an interesting discussion -- HS
• 

  bj

  In October 1994, I had the opportunity to meet Rabbi Dr. Jeremy Rosen (Faculty for the Study of Comparative Religion, F.V.G. Antwerp, Belgium) and Prof. Raphael Jospe (The Open University of Israel, Jerusalem). I took profit to ask them: "When did the Babylonians destroy Jerusalem?" They both answered 587/6 BC!!!

  Joe
• 

  sleepy

  Trevor,
  Sorry to take you up on this but it's a common misunderstanding amongst witnesses. You said,

  "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."

  The number of days in a Jewish year has never been 360.
  In fact there is no such thing as a year with 360 days.
  Ancient people including the jews used lunar calanders. A lunar "year" comes to roughly 354 days so nations like Isreal inserted extra days or months into the year to bring it more in line with a true year of 3651/4 days.

  The 360 day "year " the society refers to is what the society claims is a prophetic year.
  The insight book says,
  "In prophecy the word "year"is often used in a special sense as the equivalent of 360 days(12 months of 30 days each)...It is also called a time..."

  So they claim that the word year in the bible sometimes doesnt mean a year at all but 360 days.

  Yet the prophecy in Daniel doesn't mantion years anyway it mentions 7 times.In revelation chapter 12 a conection is made between 1260 days and 3 times.So 7 times equals 2520 days.
  But nowere does it say that a time equals a year.

  The worst part though is when they say you now must change a day for a year.
  They now drop the 360 day year for the modern years of our AD/BC calander.Which in modern times are 3651/4 days.

  So we see that the society uses the word year in any way they like in order to get to ther prefered date.
  If anything in changing a day for a year that would fit the definition of a prophetic year.

  Remmember that this prophecy is supossed to have an ancient fulfillment in Babylons time what lenght were the 7 times back then if they mean 7 years?
  From the insight book,
  "The Babylonians ...held a lunar year but added a 13th month called Veadar during certain years .."
  So neither did they use a year of 360 days as their years were variable in lenght in order to fit in with a true year.

  So even getting from 607 BCE to 1914 Ad requires a certain amount of juggling of the facts.
• 

  AlanF

  Non-scholar's sorry excuse for scholarship is evident to all but JW readers. This thread shows how strong the mind control of the Society is over JWs. They simply refuse to believe anything other than official Watchtower teaching.

  Non-scholar's attempt to debunk secular dating of the short Neo-Babylonian period by pointing out minor disagreements among scholars about the precise dating of Jewish kings is much like the way young-earth creationists attempt to debunk all of geology by concentrating on minor disagreements about the geology of one area and expanding on them to make a claim that all of geology is in error because geologists don't yet have all the answers. Let's illustrate this with a concrete example of the geology of Washington and Oregon states in the U.S.

  It has been solidly established that between about 12,000 and 14,000 years ago, a series of more than 40 massive floods came down out of Idaho/Montana and flooded eastern Washington and Oregon, carving out massive amounts of basalt rock and enlarging the Columbia Gorge greatly. The source of the water was the watershed of the Clark Fork River which now emerges from a mountain range at the Idaho/Washington border and eventually empties into the Columbia River. At the end of the last "ice age" (actually the coldest period of the last cycle of the series of "ice ages" we've been in for some 3 million years) the Cordilleran ice sheet advanced southward from Canada and blocked the mouth of the Clark Fork River with a massive ice dam. Water backed up and filled the watershed for hundreds of kilometers, forming "Lake Missoula" which was about 2,000 feet (600 meters) deep at the dam and contained about as much water as Lake Ontario -- some 400 cubic miles (1850 cubic kilometers). When the water reached a high enough level, the dam broke and most of the lake spilled out over eastern Washingto and parts of Oregon, carving out huge "coulees" (canyons) and stripping everything bare, forming the "channelled scabland" so characteristic of the region today. Huge boulders weighing up to 60 tons were floated on icebergs as far as 100 km. south of Portland, Oregon. The evidence for these catastrophes is blatantly evident to anyone with a bit of geological training, and is absolutely striking from the air.

  The overall geology of Washington and Oregon is also fairly well known, but not nearly as well in detail as the geology of the recent "Missoula floods". It is known that volcanos have been erupting for millions of years so as to form the Cascade Mountain range that runs north and south from northern California to British Columbia. Millions of years of erosion and volcanism have obscured most details of specific geological events, but the overall picture is clear enough.

  Young-earth creationists cannot deny the physical evidence of massive catastrophes in the region, but they claim that all of this occurred during and shortly after Noah's Flood some 4,500 years ago. They have no explanation at all for the details of the geology of the area, but claim that in some unexplained way, young-earth creationism explains it "because it must" in order for YECism to be true.

  Some YECs claim that because geologists cannot provide solid proof for every detail of the geological history of the Cascade Mountain Range, no one should accept any of geologists' conclusions. This is exactly the situation we have with JWs and the Society's claims about the history of Jewish kings and Neo-Babylonian chronology. They simply refuse to acknowledge that solid evidence is solid evidence, and that fuzzy knowledge in one area does not imply fuzzy knowledge in another.

  But these are an examples of the cult mindset. YECists are just as much cult-bound as JWs are. The desired conclusions determine acceptable evidence. Why? Because without those conclusions the entire belief structure collapses, and that is just not emotionally acceptable. This mindset is one of the determinants of cultism.

  AlanF