The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

by Doug Mason 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 208

  Nice chart as it simply and clearly presents the only accurate Bible chronology for this crucial period of biblical history. Our 'celebrated' WT scholars have done an excellent job in exposing the falsehood of secular chronologies. However, your chart requires the following adjustments:

  1. The WTS has most definitely proved that 537 BCE was the date of the Return of the Jews.

  2. WTS accepts 539 BCE from secular sources which calculate 539 BCE from an Absolute Date from secular chronology which the WTS rejects because of a well chosen, specific methodology also takes into account the fixed historic period of'seventy years' of Exile, Servitude and Desolation ignored by those secular souces and chronologies.

  scholar JW
• 

  Alwayshere

  Start with the date 539, which is accepted by WTS. Their Watchtower 65/1/1 page29 "Evil-merodach ruled 2 years,Neriglissar ruled 4 years,Nabonidus ruled 17 years it-2p.457, Neb. ruled 43 yearsit.2p.480. 2+4+17+43==66years. Add 66 to 539=605 for Neb. 1st year to rule. The Bible at 2Kings 25:8-9 says it was Neb. 19th year as king when Jerusalem was desolated. 605-19 =587.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Scholar,

  I will change the diagram when I am shown it is wrong.

  Regarding the date of the Jews' return, you will note that I have now provided my updated Study at

  http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf

  Regarding you explanation why the WTS accepts the conclusion of 539 BCE but rejects the method for arriving at that date does not make sense to me. Could you please clarify your statement for me?

  I should produce a picture explaining how 539 BCE is derived. Can you?

  Doug
• 

  jwfacts

  It is great to have Scholar back after a long absence. I see he is still making grandious statements bereft of any support.
• 

  Dansk

  Scholar,

  I was really, REALLY hoping you'd left here for good. Your ignorance and arrogance over AlanF's and other's posts after they clearly and methodically proved Watchtower chronology wrong and yet you still stood by your idiotic and knowingly lying beliefs - yes KNOWINGLY because you were shown time and again where Watchtower had lied - makes you not only a buffoon but a big one at that - and I'm being kind to you!

  The incredible hurt inflicted on people here because of morons like you is nothing short of despicable. Now, you are trying to turn this thread into others like those of your past! My own family was torn apart because of Watchtower dogma, a woman's daughter in my congregation committed suicide, people are still pained and in desperate spirits because Watchtower dogma has their families and friends shunning them and then some cretin like you has the nerve to come here and espouse Watchtower historical "facts" as being true.

  You ought to be utterly ashamed of yourself!

  Ian
• 

  VM44

  Has anyone been DF'ed specifically for not accepting the 607 BCE year?
• 

  Alwayshere

  Has anyone been DF'ed specifically for not accepting the 607 BCE year?

  My Son and his wife were labeled "Apostates" for not accepting it. I refused to believe the lie also but they haven't done anything with me. [yet]
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 214

  Regarding the calculation of 539 BCE from the arbitary choice of secular sources comes down to that essential element in chronology namely methodology which consists of the actual method used and the philosophy behind the method. Celebrated WT scholars have used an event- based system rather than the commonly regnal-based approach for constructing a biblical chronology of the OT. Their philosophy behind this chronology is that the Bible is the main or primary source of data and where there are difference between the secular evidence and the biblical then priority is ascribed to the Bible.

  scholar JW
• 

  Doug Mason

  Scholar,

  At least we are going forwards. You agree that 539 BCE is a “calculated date”. Not only that, but that it is calculated from secular sources. Thank you.

  You speak about an “event-based” chronology as against a “regnal-based” chronology. I am bemused. Tell me how these famous WTS writers get 539 BCE from “event-based chronology”.

  In the context we are considering, there is no difference between secular evidence and the Biblical record, so a question of priority of one over another does not arise. The issue relates to the ability to understand the Bible. These faceless WT writers have been shown to misquote, selectively cite, and misrepresent secular sources (half of a sentence quoted, etc.), and their misbehavior can be easily verified by going to the source being cited. Do these irresponsible unaccountable WT writers behave any better when they use God’s Word to suit their prejudiced, predetermined outcomes?

  There must be a measure of trust in any relationship. But it must not be a trust that is blind, one that accepts anything that the other party says, especially when the outcomes are so long-lasting. Do these anonymous writers deserve the childlike trust they demand?

  Scholar, these people are taking you for a ride. Do not believe them. I write to you to try and help you. My argument is with them, not with you. If I did not care, I would leave you to their devices. Together, we must be interested in what is true, not in who is right or wrong.

  Doug
• 

  uninformed

  Scholar,

  I was a JW for 45 years, never met a "celebrated scholar".

  How about names?

  Brant