In doing some research, I came across this website.
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
Has anyone ever come across this?
destruction of babyon
by TIMBOB 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Gopher
Haven't seen this one which is obviously pro-JW.
The main problem with it is, it starts from the conclusion that 607 BCE was the date of destruction and works back from that to defend it.
Why does every serious secular historian put the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's rule at 605 BCE and the fall of Jerusalem at 587 BCE? Because it aligns with the rest of the historical facts.
-
hilannj
At lot of things are factual and the JWs just ignore it in favor of what works for them.
-
hilannj
So, critics argue that this convincing proof Daniel was there in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. But if Daniel had already been there at least 3 years, how could he interpret the dream in Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd year? It would have been at least his 3rd year. So, why did Daniel write that it was in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign? ~~~ This does not even make since, just because they were fed from the table of the king for 3 years does not mean that the disturbing dream happened after that time. And even if Daniel was counting from when Jerusalem was destroyed, and it says that it was after the 3 years of good food that the dream happened. Then how could it have also been 2 years after Jerusalem was destroyed? You cannot have it be 2 and 3 years after it was destroyed. I don't know what the real time table is, but the way they are trying to prove it in that article is not very good writing.
-
drew sagan
I like to put it this way...
What is the most important thing about the 607 debate and if 1914 is a year marked in Bible chronology? The conclusion we are supposed to come to at the end!. That conclusion is that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the Faithful Slave of Matthew 24:45 Even if we come to an understanding that allows us to just this far into the future (and I don't think that we do), it still doesn't mean all of the conclusions the WTS gives are correct. Let me explain.
Most JW apologists end their discussions at 607 B.C.E. The reason is because much of the 'evidence' given to support the concept of the 'faithful slave' concept is very biased, contradictory, and ignorant of the facts.
Just this past week a JWD poster put up a question from readers that just came out regarding the FDS. The article states that the "anointed" where waiting for Christ to come in 1914. This is not true!!!!!. They already thought Christ had returned in the 1874, and taught that he returned on that date up until the 1920's. Just one example of how so many of the facts surrounding the entire teaching are based on misleading information.