The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

by Doug Mason 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Jeffro

So, the 'good news' of the Bible is a crackpot idea and now drivel. Such a comment about fundamental Bible teachings says more about you and your beliefs. Of course, the Apostle Peter warned about those who would ridicule the truth and indeed such ridicule is a mere proof that what we believe and preach is the True Religion.
Again, 'scholar' demonstrates his dishonesty. I said that the doctrines of his "small fringe religion" are drivel and crackpot ideas, and did not say ANYTHING about the bible or "fundamental bible teachings" at all. My comment inherently contrasted his religion with other professed Christian religions, and therefore excluded discussion about any "fundamental" beliefs. 'scholar' is a common liar, and I'd like to thank him for proving that again to be the case.
All of those dates are Bible-based and therefore are proven biblically and prophetically. The facts of ancient and modern history also proves their validity. The events of 1914 were indeed sudden because the Great War broke upon the world in the matter of a single gunshot, it does not get m,ore sudden than that.
They are only as 'bible-based' as any other unproven and unprovable claim. I could claim that I healed a man of leprosy. It would be a bible-based claim, but it would be untrue. The fact is that nothing happened on the supposed dates. And yes, the 'Great War' did break out suddenly - in June... That's several months before October, at which time, nothing significant happened.
All chronology has a margin of error including chronologies that are based upon radiometric methods. Neo-Babylonian chronology has an 'error' of at least twenty years and so our biblically chronology has needed to be 'fine-tuned' or adjusted over the many decades. This is simply the nature of the beast. When a chronology disagrees with the Bible such as the NB-Jonsson-apostate model then not onlly is it wrong but it is dumb.
Your supposition that Neo-Babylonian chronology has a 20-year margin of error is based solely on the fact that your interpretation disagrees with it. The fact is that all independant sources of history for the period, such as Egyptian history, confirms the Neo-Babylonian data to be accurate, which even the Insight book had to admit - in a fashion - by claiming that bible chronology (meaning their flawed interpretation of it) deviates from Egyptian chronology by 20 years.
Better it is to have a margin of error of one year and then correct it thus pioneering the way for all of Christendom's chronologists then to adhere to disproven and discredited margin of error of twenty years found in NB chronology.
The only reason any '20 year gap' exists is because of the flaws in the JW interpreation. In reality, there simply is no 20 year gap.
Lady Liberty

Scholar,
One more thing I wanted to post last night. This is also from a earlier thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/110306/1.ashx
Was watching a awesome program last night called Solar Max on cable. It is a IMAX film about the solar system. They made a comment that I quickly wrote down, "The Babylonians records are so accurate that they use them today to correct computer programs." I thought that was profound, let alone absolutely AMAZING! With such accuracy, could they be 20 years off?? I DON"T THINK SO!!!
If you get a chance watch to see it, do. It is awe inspiring!!
L.L.
Lady Liberty

Scholar,
You said:
For starters, such chronology does not account either in its history or tabulation of the regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian kings any evidenc eof the biblical 'seventy years'.
Let me ask you a very serious question: Have you EVER made a chart using the Bible, and Archeological evidence to see how they compare with one another, without using the Societies literature and date of 607?? Over the years MANY different ones have posted a chart for you showing the Kings List of events and the Kings that reigned at the time, the scriptural evidence to support each reign, and Archeological findings that confirm each reign. Yet I have never ever seen a chart using the same method from you for all of us to see. I challenge you to make a chart to show us the evidences that support 607. And if indeed this date is correct, you should be able to find at least one piece of Archeological evidence to support your case!
You know it makes me think of a person who is on trial for murder. Here you have the prosecuting Attourney that shows all the lines of evidence. There is a perfect time line of the events that took place that lead up to the murder, and the evidences all support one another. There is no gap, or doubt in anyones mind that this person was indeed the murderer. Infact, in so many words he even admitted to it. Then you have the defence Attourney, who is trying to argue that the defendant should be trusted, and the evidences should be ignored, but gives no reason why, no proof that disproves his client was the murderer, basically he HAS NO DEFENCE. And infact, the defence Attourney even suggests that no matter what evidence is presented, the jury should ignore it and pretend like the unquestionable evidence doesn't "really" exist or matter.
Do you think any thinking jury or any other person in that courtroom with half a brain would ignore all the evidence because the person on trial or his defence Attourney wanted them to ignore it? NO! That would be silly and even crazy!
You see Scholar, you are ignoring all the evidence mounted up against the 607 reasoning! The only way you have even come up with the 607 date is from the Society! NO WHERE, ANYWHERE is there proof for such date! Believe me, when I first realized the 607 discrepancy, I searched for 2 YEARS trying to find one shread of evidence that I could use to SUPPORT 607! I did not want to believe the people who I was brainwashed to label..the "APOSTATES". Yet the more I searched the more I realised the "apostates" were not lying!!
And like I showed you in my previous post, the Society has a terrible tract record for dates..do they not???!!?? Why should we believe them? Give us PROOF! Even the elders who met with us admitted on tape, "There is NO PROOF FOR 607!!" So there you have it! Again, I challenge you for a list of events, Kings supported by Scriptures, and Archeological findings.
L.L.
Lady Liberty

Scholar,
You also said:
Your chart and the use of Grayson's material proves nothing because you have simply presented matters in accordance with your own interpretation.
Celebrated WT scholars have used Grayson's research and will continue to do so in full knowledge that Grayson's approach may vary from the 'celebrated'. They have inserted data by means of parenthesis and they have alerted the reader to the reference source so that accords with academic convention.
I believe you are making a 'mountain out of a molehill'.
You are the most unreasonable person I have ever known. On this forum, all you give is your opinion and the opinion of the Watchtower. Where are your facts??!!?? I asked you to prove the deciept in the Babylonian Chronology. Did you give it?? NO!! Yet I provided you with one PERFECT example of Watchtower decipet! Anyone can make grandious claims, but where is your proof to back it up?? Do you really expect us to believe that if the Society made the announcement tommorrow that the 607 date is based upon nothing, and there IS no proof for 607, that all within the organization would be fine with it?? You and I both know the majority would be shocked. They would also be shocked to see the kind of decipt the Society uses like what I provided with AK Grayson as a perfect example of how they need to twist, and out and out LIE to manipulate their history to fit 607 so it appears to be supported by Archeology! You know it, and everyone else who knows about this discrepance knows it! And thank goodness forums like this are showing all who are begining to think for themselves, and who want to know the "truth" are getting the facts!
So you made the comment this was "my interpretation"! The material speaks for itself I need not interpret! The only reason why the Society dares to twist different experts like Grayson, is that they teach the flock not to doubt them. So everything they write must not be challenged. Therefore 99.9% of JWs will never do what I did, and order the book to see if the person being quoted actually said what the Society was claiming him to say.
Infact I would never have even questioned this if I had not realised that if this was true, what the Insight book was saying, that this AK Grayson supported their 607 date, then this would be the ONLY source in two years that we had found to support the Society!! However..once I recieved the book and looked on the pages the Insight book quoted from, I was again shocked to see their out and out deciept, and adding the Authors writings! Now let me ask you, if the Watchtower is right, why the deciept within the Insight book?? You and I both know the answer to that and that is that they did it in order to support 607 date!
Anyone who is truely seeking to find the facts and the truth about this subject would not belittle this A K Grayson vs Insight book example. Again, it is a shameful example of Watchtower deciept, and that is why you make such silly claims as "you are making a mountain out of a molehill"!
L.L.
Lady Liberty

Scholar,
Lastly, you said this:
I am very serious about the integrity of those nominated dates and I am fully aware of our history and the matter of 'prophetic speculation' which is part and parcel of wonderful Christian heritage much to the chagrin of apostates.
Whatever the proclaimed hopes for 1914 were and the fact that such hopes did not materialize, that year marked the end of the Gentile Times and that was understood decades before the event. Many earnest Bible Students also saw the significance of 1914 which has become not only enshrined in eschatology but also in modern history.
I await with keen anticipation your majestic analysis of 607 BCE.
WRONG! You are again either being dishonest or are terribly mistaken!!! HAVE YOU EVER READ THE STUDIES IN THE SCIPTURES VOLUMES?? I have! If you were to start reading what was being taught as if "from God himself" as Russell put it, you will see he was making claims that the dates were "God's dates"! And if you read any of his writings, again you would see that 1914 was to be the END OF THE WORLD!! Not the begining of the Gentile times. They taught that the Gentile times started in 1799 NOT 1914!! So your above comment that the Society understood the significance of 1914 decades before is a CROCK, and a LIE! Are you trying to SANITIZE their past???!!??
Obviously you would believe anything the Society would tell you regardless of the facts. If they told you to drink poison, I am afraid you would be like my elder brother-in-law who without hesitation said YES! to the same question. Until your heart is ready for truth, you will always believe what you are told regardless if it is offending Jehovah or not!
L.L.
scholar

Lady Liberty
Post 1981
If I get a chance I will most certainly watch that awe-inspiring documentarywhich from your comments would appear to prove the accuracy of the Babylonian records form a human standpoint. However, there is a caution. Accurate astronomy does not mean accurate chronology for chronology is based upon methodology and interpretation.
In the Insight Vol.1, p.454 it addresses the matter you raise. After citing the claim made by Martin Noth, the writer notes the "correlation of astronomical data with human events in the past is subject to various factors and human interpretation allowing for error." A problem arises for those who foolishly insist on the infallibility of Neo-Babylonian chronology is that of reconciling the seventy years of Babyloian domination of Judah during which period the Jews were exiled to Babylon, forced in servitude to Babylon whilst their land was a desert for that definite historical period. A period absent totally from NB history but very much present in the biblical record.
scholar JW
scholar

Lady Liberty
Post 1982
No I have never made a chart in the manner that you prescribe and that I think is a good idea. I have thought in making a similar chart that compares the NB chronology with that of the 'celebrated ones' biblical chronology as presented in our publications. Such a tabulation would clearly show that differences between the two schemes amount to mere twenty years. As I have long argued on this forum that NB chronology as currently understood can serve to prove the validity of a corrected scheme with the Fall of Jerusalem being adjusted to 607 BCE instead of the error of 586/87 BCE.
In other words I can quite happily accommodate NB chronology as it stands and then by 'figuring in' the seventy years, an adjustment of twenty years can be made which pushes back the traditional dates. Or I can choose ignore the traditional chronology where appropriate and construct a chronology dependent on the Bible alone thus achieving the same result, validating 607 BCE. I can choose either road.
Regarding the matter of Archaeology there is in fact new research over the last five years dealing with the history of the Late Judean Period and this new material is certainly favourable to our position for awareness is now realized about the problem of the 'Babylonian Gap' and the desolation of Judah. So, this looks quite promising so the jury is still out in regard to these matters.
I do and have not ignored the 'so-called' evidence against 607 because I have made this a academic project for some thirty years. I have read all of the commentaries and journal articles on the subject and I repeat there is no evidence that disproves 607 BCE. This date is proven thus by the seventy year period and the fulfillment of 1914. So, if you like the date is proven up front and behind.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
Post 1563
Our teachings are in fact Bible based as you well know and this is proved by reading our publications. If you insult our teachings then you insult the Bible and its Author, Jehovah God.
Our dates are derived from a properly constituted Bible chronology and stand on their own merits. Many of these dates relate to events enshrined both in Bible history and prophecy which further demonstrates their validity. As you are now forced to concede that 1914 as a prophetic date did see its fulfillment with the outbreak of the Great War from June right through to October.
The margin of error of twenty years located within NB chronology is proved by the presence of the 'seventy year' period which is the most important event in both NB history and Judean history. You ignore this event at your own peril. The so-called synchronization of Egyptian chronology with that of NB chronology also requires interpretation but such reconciliation raises many problems. This chronology and history also does not factor in the seventy years nor does ity factor in the foretold 'forty year' desolation under Nebuchadnezzer. No comfort here my boy!
The twenty year gap exists not because of any supposed flaws in our interpretation but simply a recognition of what the Bible actually says in the text, i.e. seventy years, a period of desolation-exile-servitude. You have a biiigg pwoblem.
scholar JW
scholar

Lady Liberty
Post 1983
You ask for facts but you are surrounded by them. They are found in our literature and I have dutifully repeated such on this forum over the last six year. They are contained in God's Word so read the Bible daily and that is the source of all necessary facts. Open your eyes and do not delude yourself by the cunning reasoning of apostates.
It is you who have manipulated matters regarding Grayson's material. The Society has simply quoted the source, given the appropriate reference and then inserted by means of brackets a date. This is not deceit as you allege but simply the employment of academic convention. If you have a problem with this then write to the Society about it for it is their business, their Style Manual or others that is used. I am not responsible for their writing style so if you have a pwoblem go to the source and not to me.
Again you make a mountain out of a molehill and you show a hatred of 607 because of pride. Jehovah reveals his truth to the humble ones not the proud and arrogant ones. Read God's Word daily and seek the truth!!
scholar JW
Lady Liberty

Scholar,
You said:
In the Insight Vol.1, p.454 it addresses the matter you raise. After citing the claim made by Martin Noth, the writer notes the "correlation of astronomical data with human events in the past is subject to various factors and human interpretation allowing for error." A problem arises for those who foolishly insist on the infallibility of Neo-Babylonian chronology is that of reconciling the seventy years of Babyloian domination of Judah during which period the Jews were exiled to Babylon, forced in servitude to Babylon whilst their land was a desert for that definite historical period. A period absent totally from NB history but very much present in the biblical record.
I find it kind of ironic that you would quote me from the very book (the Insight book) I just showed you that had lied about another authors words ( AK Grayson) and now you expect us to believe or give weight to another quote, from yet another author to support Watchtower thinking??
Sorry, but remember the old saying "Fool me once shame on me..fool me twice shame on you!" I wouldn't believe anything the Watchtower quotes from now on unless I see it with my own two eyes!
Like I stated to you before, you have to establish a timeline of events BEFORE you apply the 70 years. And once again, prove to us that your timeline is accurate not using any of the Societys literature, only the Scriptures, the Archeological findings, and reign of Kings during those periods.
I would like to further point out that in order for 607 to be correct, that means not only the Babylonian chronology is off by 20 years, but also the Egyptian chronology. So please explain to all of us how this is possible?? Your date system you are following, is bound to have many backlash effects.
Are you going to tell us now that the Egyptians and the Babylonians, though arc enemies somehow conspired together to alter their records to both be off by this exact 20 year period?? What you are suggesting is that all the artifacts in the Babylonian culture as well as the Egyptian culture that have been unearthed were somehow altered to read a different date or time period. And that all the documents were changed to be 20 years off from what they were supposed to read?! First of all who would undertake such a conspiracy?? Second, even if that was possible, don't you think someone would have found SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE that would PROVE this date of 607??? Again, how silly is this kind of reasoning?? It certainly isn't the kind of reasoning from a "sound mind" that Jehovah has given us! It is absurd to even entertain such a idea!
On the otherhand, what does Archeology find?? Babylonian and Egyptian chrolonlogy are in perfect harmony during this period of time. You can confirm the events between these two enemies if you read the account about the Battle of Carchemish in the Bible. What is even more important is the fact that the BIBLE confirms these events and THERE IS NO 20 YEAR GAP!!!!!
L.L.

The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

Share this