Experts on 607 BCE--How do you make the point simply and effectively?

by whyizit 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  whyizit

  I have been going back and forth via email with a JW friend. The subject got around to 607 BCE, so I asked her if she could find a non-WTS source to prove that date. Of course, she writes back telling me about all the complicated info. she has, gives me a WTS reference of how 587 can't be right, makes the statement that even if the 1914 date is off, it isn't off by much (What??!!!), all that matters is that we know Jesus is in power right now. There may not even be scientific proof for that date, yadda, yadda, yadda......

  She says that we need to sit down and basically go over it in person with all her "materials". She is even trying to pawn me off on other JW friends who can "explain it better".

  Here is the thing: I want to show that it really is not that hard to figure out, in terms that she can understand. I also need it in terms that I can understand and convey effectively. I would like to know what arguments might surface and how I can lay them flat.

  Do you have any suggestions? I want to keep things short and sweet, because drowning her in data is not going to help. That is what she tries to do to me.

  If any of you have found some great ways to get this point across, then I would love to hear about it.
• 

  Mary

  I think Alleymom's thread on this subject is the easiest way to show anyone, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE. I'd print off the listing here and show them to your friend as it uses only the bible:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx
• 

  Jeffro

  Alleymom's simple approach is nice. But it's a bit too simple for the hardcore JW. They will argue that their publications were just repeating what info was available to them at the time of writing, not that they necessarily agree with it. Then they will allege that there were additional (fictional) intervening kings that aren't mentioned in the secular records (or the bible for that matter).
• 

  Fred E Hathaway

  Proving for or against dates, such as 607 BCE, depends on a lot of reasoning ability that most people haven't been taught. I thing the latest edition of "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial", published by Jehovah's Witnesses, would be the logical place to start. It's quite well laid out, I think.
• 

  Jeffro

  There are so many problems with the Society's model that it is laughable. Refer to previous posts for my comments on those problems.
  
  I have sent 'whyizit' a PM.
• 

  Zico

  whyizit, Your friend's argument will be, that the bible says Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years, and if the Jews returned in 537, they had to leave in 607. You could point out that the Jews returned in 538, but arguing that isn't very simple. It would be easier to use Jeremiah 25:12 to show the 70 years ended the night Cyrus attacked Babylon in 539 BCE. (a date they agree with) You could also make the point that the same data used to support 587, is the same data they accept when they say Babylon fell in 539. This means, if 587 is wrong, that even if Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years, there's no evidence to suggest it had to be between 537 and 607 BCE. You could also make the point that the 7 times apply to 7 years where Nebuchadnezzar went insane, and there's no suggestion of a second fulfillment in relation to Jesus rulership in Daniel 4 or a link to the gentile times in Luke. There's also no backing for the 'day for a year' rule being used in Daniel 4. They don't apply the same rule to the 3 1/2 times in Revelation, for example, which they consider a literal 3 1/2 years. The 1914 date is integral, because the Organisation teach that Jesus selected the Watchtower Society as his faithful and discreet slave in 1919, which is based on 1914. Without it, they have no claim to authority.
• 

  stevenyc

  In response to Jeffro, both of his comments are common responses to the facts. You reply could be something like this:
  
  :They will argue that their publications were just repeating what info was available to them at the time of writing, not that they necessarily agree with it.
  
  Ask the JW to show you the 'new' evidence, they can't because there isn't any.
  
  :Then they will allege that there were additional (fictional) intervening kings that aren't mentioned in the secular records (or the bible for that matter).
  
  Then ask them, who do you believe, the bible (Gods word), or the watchtower (mans word).
  
  
  steve
• 

  Zico

  For some more info. You might find this thread interesting: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/117917/1.ashx It’s on some evidence for the 587 date, called the Hillah Steele. It proves beyond all doubt that Jerusalem could not have fallen in 607 BCE. The Society know this, because they have never mentioned the Steele in any WT article. Auldsoul explains it in a very simple and clear way, so your friend should find the info simple to understand. The most concise evidence that the Society has ever printed in support of their 607 date was in the book ‘Let your Kingdom come’ Your friend might bring this information with her. If so, you may want to show her Alan F's refutation here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/refutation-of-appendix-in-let-your.html Hope this helps.
• 

  jeanV

  jeffro, the hardcore JW will never be convinced anyway ;-)

  whyizit , the best would be to read Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson, but I doubt that your friend would do it. You can find similar info on the following websites: http://corior.blogspot.com/ (look under gentile times and 1914) and http://www.jwfiles.com/607v587/index.htm; here is a site examining Furuli's first book on chronology http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm

  There is plenty of other material on the web (most of it comes from COJ work).

  What is amazing, and should be pointed out to your friend, is the lack of critical analysis by the WTBTS on the massive evidence pointing to 587BCE. The only work currently in use to support 607BCE is the Insight book, which does not mention by name any of the documents supporting 587BCE, it just makes a vague (and appealing to the profane) analysis of astronomical diaries, business tablets, etc... In reality these are the same documents the WTBTS absolutely needs in order to support 537BCE (and consequently 607BCE), which, in the WTBTS "logic" are only valid when they support the WTBTS chronology....

  Even the Let your Kingdom Come appendix, where documents like ptolemy's canon, berossus and VAT4956 were at least mentioned (not properly analysed), seems to have been abandoned (for example in the revised Revelation book the reference to KC was replaced by reference to Insight book to support 607BCE). Not a big surprise, as the arguments against them would have to be very shaky and may open the eyes of some on how many documents support 587BCE (versus none on 607BCE!!!). By not mentioning them it is like if they did not exist...

  This is an interesting link to show how the WTBTS is forced to misquote scholars to support its chronology http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/111407/1.ashx
• 

  Fred E Hathaway