539 BCE

by Zico 142 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  IP_SEC

  In my perfect world prophecy should always be self contained. You shouldnt need to look at history, scholarship, or archeology to determine what the fookin prophecy means. The 607 debate always ends up at 1914. Are you to tell me that it was only when scholarship and archeology caught up and told us when the Joos were released from babble on that we could then figure out the prophecy? Bollocks!

  Zico, your point is well made and correct. The WTS is all to happy to take scholarship and archeology at its word for 539 BCE but then dismiss them like a red headed stepchild on 586/7. Its all about being true to the 1914 doctrine, not about being true to the truth. The best piece of luck the org ever had was that WWI (debatably) started in 1914. If not for the assasination of AD Ferdinand the IBSA and by proxy the WTS would have faded into a more obscure sect than they already are.
• 

  Jeffro

  She especially liked the one that said the Jews returned in 537 therefore you count back 70 years and you get to 607.

  Of course that reasoning illustrates the Society's dishonest circular reasoning:

  *** it-1 p. 800 Ezra, Book of ***Judah and Jerusalem had been left desolate of inhabitants, in the autumn of 607 B.C.E., when those left by Nebuchadnezzar moved to Egypt. The 70th year of Jerusalem’s desolation, the last enforced sabbath on the land, would end in the autumn of 537 B.C.E. Cyrus’ decree must have been issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 for two reasons. The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended, and the released Israelites would not be expected to travel in the winter rainy season, as would have been the case if the decree had been made a few months earlier. Likely it was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E. in order to give the Jews a chance to travel during the dry season, arrive in Jerusalem, and set up the altar on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., September 29 according to the Gregorian calendar.

  Here they conject that the Jews must have returned in 537 because the 70 years supposedly started in 607. Their basis for 607 is 537, and their basis for 537 is 607. It's a shame that both are wrong.

  In reality, and without all of the JW conjecture, the seventy years of nations serving Babylon began when the final Assyrian capital [Harran] was overthrown in 609 (Jeremiah 25:12), the exile began in 598 (2 Kings 24:12-16, Jeremiah 52:28), the temple was destroyed in 587 (Jeremiah 52:12-13), the seventy years ended in 539 (Daniel 5:26-31), the Jew's returned in 538 (Ezra 1:1), and the temple rebuilding started in 537 (Ezra 3:8). For more information, see the chart I have compiled here. Any questions?
• 

  lazyslob

  This is for scholar http://www.607challenge.org/index.html Why not make some money if you are so sure about it.
• 

  drew sagan

  I'm still waiting....
• 

  scholar

  Drew Sagan

  In answer to your two questions:

  1. Celebrated WT scholars have published scholarly information on Chronology in both the Aid to Bible Understanding and Insight to the Scriptures. Also, an excellent Appendix on chronology was included in the Let Your Kingdom Come publication. Scholar has evaluated the Jonsson hypothesis in all its detail over several editions and has commented extensively on his nonsense on this forum.

  2. The public teaching of the truth of 607 BCE and its accompanied implications can in no way be a violation of Jesus' wrning and prophecy at Luke 21:8, in fact it is in harmony with those words for it alerts the public to the dangers of being misled by false chronologies such as Jonsson's theories which 'cloud' over the significance of the End Times beginning in 1914.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1022

  The reason why celebrated WT scholars prefer the Persian chronology over the Neo-Babylonian chronology is because the pagan Babylonians ignore the biblical 'seventy years' which creates a twenty year gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology.

  Also, Neo-Babylonian chronology has poor history omitting significant biblical events and the regnal data for some of the Babylonian monarchs is unreliable.

  Finally, as I have repeatedly informed you that chronology is dependent upon methodology and interpretation as so it is that the 'ceelbrated' have simply chosen a different methodology from other scholars. The same 'celebrated' have expained the fact of the Return in 537 BCE which is not explained to the same degree by other wordly scholars who simply fuse the Decree of Cyrus and the Return in c. 538 BCE. Such scholars have no interest in the precise time of the Return of the Exiles.

  scholar JW
• 

  Lady Liberty

  Scholar,
  
  I am curious, why it is you only seem to come around when this topic comes up. If you are so sure your "celebrated Watchtower scholars" as you so like to elevate them, are under divine inspiration, then why is it you won't defend them on other issues? Such as blood, transplants, early Watchtower teachings, neutrality, Mexico/Malawi involvement, U.N. involvement, Mediator, Jehovahs name being added to the Greek scriptures....etc....I never seem to see you defend the Society on these issues!! Why?? Perhaps you have in times past, but since I have been posting I have never seen you post unless it is on the 607 or 539 issue. There are ALOT more issues to be had with the organization that need explanation than just the 607 issue!
  
  Lady Liberty
• 

  AuldSoul

  scholar: Finally, as I have repeatedly informed you that chronology is dependent upon methodology and interpretation as so it is that the 'ceelbrated' have simply chosen a different methodology from other scholars.

  That's for sure. A VERY different methodology. One that cannot even maintain internal cohesion beyond the simplest of questions. You have proven that time and again by being incapable of supporting the dates used with anything beyond "it has to be" statements which are without foundation in fact.

  They started with the conclusion they wanted and forced everything to fit their desired conclusion. However, they couldn't force certain things, which is why they agree to the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, they agree to the accession year of Nabonidus, and they choose not to directly disagree with ANYTHING in secular chronology. Instead, they opt for phantom insinuations of error which, on closer examination, have no merit whatsoever, along with publishing multiple dates for various events which could only have occurred once.

  And still, you haven't offered any explanation of the gap of 12 years between the WTS timing of Nebuchadrezzar's final regnal year and the completely independent dating of Amasis' accession year, when there is unquestionable documentation that has Nebuchadrezzar fighting a campaign against Amasis of Egypt in Nebuchadrezzar's 37th year.

  And still, you haven't offered any reason for ignoring Uruk's dating of Evil-Marduk's reign.

  And still, you haven't mounted any assault against the Egibi banking family documents.

  And still, you haven't explained whether Adda-Guppi lived 104/106 years or 124/126 years.

  And still, you laud the scholarship of fools.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1023

  586/587 cannot be a well established date because it fits nothing, it is a 'sleight of hand' or a conjurer's trick' to deceive the foolish and ignorant. If it is supposed to refer to the Fall of Jerusalem then precisely what year was it? If the claim of its well-establishment is correct then what year was it? Is it 586 or is it 587 for it cannot be both?

  Your explanation of 587 as the preferred date is nonsense as it is simply the minority view. The majority of scholars advocate 586 and if you have solved this problem which has bewailed scholars for decades then publish your findings in a journal. Further, your hypothesis claims that Jeremiah employed a different mode of reckoning the regnal data from that of Daniel in order to synchronize Jeremiah 25:1 with Daniel 1:1. The third year of Jehoiakim and his fourth year are simply two distinct regnal years marked by distinctive historical events: Jehoiakim made a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer and Nebuchadnezzer becoming King.

  scholar JW
• 

  heathen

  In any event I don't think there is any way the WTBTS can change the dogma on 607 . They just have too much invested in it . They have it all figured from the end of gentile times to when the messiah made his appearance with the 70 weeks of years prophesy.