Welcome to JWD, Paksen.
What is the new belief on 607
by Paksen 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dedpoet
Hi Paksen, and welcome to the forum
As others have said, there is nothing new in jw land as regards 607.
The problem is that the watchtower prefers to ignore the overwhelming
archaelogical and historical evidence that shows that Jerusalem was
destroyed in 586/587 BC and cling on to 607 as it fits in with their
calculations regarding 1914. If they changed 607, they'd have to change
a whole lot more than they could get away with without losing some
members, so I guess they'll stick to 607 for now. -
AgentSmith
Hearty Welcome Pakson
607 is still regarded as the date that all the other prophecies hang on. I have challenged my Pres Overseer father to prove it! Nothing yet...
There are tons of proof that Jerusalem did NOT fall in 607. The Watchtower believed in 606 at one point, but that is another story...
As far as I can make out absolutely nothing of much importance happened in that year. A non event year.....
-
JCanon
As others have said, there is nothing new in jw land as regards 607.
The problem is that the watchtower prefers to ignore the overwhelming
archaelogical and historical evidence that shows that Jerusalem was
destroyed in 586/587 BC and cling on to 607 as it fits in with their
calculations regarding 1914. If they changed 607, they'd have to change
a whole lot more than they could get away with without losing some
members, so I guess they'll stick to 607 for now.Welcome.
Basically, both the 607BCE and 587BCE dates are up for grabs and are challenged by the strict Biblicalists. That is, the Bible doesn't agree with either of those dates, whether you are convinced by the "archaeological and historical" evidence that those who support the 587BCE dating have put forth. Of note, there is other "archaeological and historical" data that agrees with the Biblical dating for the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE.
But you asked what is NEW.
Again, there are two approaches. What is NEW as far as archaeological and historical commentary and what is NEW as far as comparing the Bible to the 607BCE dating. Basically I'd sumarize like this.
607BCE AND THE BIBLE: 607 BCE gets dismissed Biblically on two counts. The misapplication of the "70 weeks" prophecy beginning in 455BCE to the 20th of Artaxerxes instead of the 1st of Cyrus. That's the critical discussion here. The prophecy begins when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem", which obviously occurred when they first began to rebuild. But because that current dating for the Jews return assessed by JWs to be in 537BCE doesn't match up well with Christ's baptism in 29CE, they've opted to try to manipulate the chronology and history so that the 20th of Artaxerxes works out for 455BCE when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls (in just 52 days, mind you). This NOW doesn't work because Ezra 4:11 clearly shows the new walls were completed even before the temple was and thus there is no legitimate claim the "city" had not begun to be rebuilt until some 82 years after the Jews return. In other words, for the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah to work, it requires the presumption that the original walls destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the "city" (vs just the temple) were left unbuilt until the 20th of Artaxerxes. Ostensibly believing that the only thing that was built before then was the temple, apparently in a wide open, unwalled city. In that way, they could claim that while the "temple" was rebuilt long before the 20th of Artaxerxes, Jerusalem (the "city" proper) including the walls were not rebuilt until 82 years after their return. But this is clearly disproven by the Bible which indicates the Jews indeed had rebuilt the wall and many other buildings in the city by the time of Nehemiah's return there to rebuild the walls, which only took 52 days! No way could he and a handful of people mentioned in the work have built a new wall around that city in just 52 days! All they did was restore the decorative stones to the outside of the already rebuilt new walls and repair the gates. That being the case, not that we for a moment thought that the temple was not part of the city, the prophecy must be begun when they first began to rebuild in the 1st of Cyrus. IF you take the Biblical lead in this case, then 455BCE must be assigned to the 1st of Cyrus. This would contradict the JW dating but also popular secular dating for that event, one of the few dates JWs and secular history agree on. So BIBLICALLY the witnesses are dismissed on the basis if misapplication of the 70 weeks prophecy.
The other critical Biblical dismissal is found at Jeremiah 53:30 where it clearly shows that the LAST DEPORTATION was in year 23 of Nebuvchadnezzar, some 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem. Per the Bible and Josephus even, this last deportation was of those Jews who remained "after the sword" from Egypt. Josephus thus says that this last deportation was actually from Egypt. This does not disagree with the Bible where at Jer. 44:14,28 it shows that a few "remaining from the sword" who were in Egypt (i.e. Jeremiah and Baruch) would return to Judea, "few in number." Obviously, this merely confirms that in the same year on their way to Babylon, they stopped back in Jerusalem. This thus contradicts what the WTS teaches regarding where those last deportees came from, which they claim were from those scattered about in the surrounding nations. There were Jews scattered about when Gedaliah began to rule as governor, but the Bible clearly says they all returned back to Jerusalem before he was killed and they were kidnapped down to Egypt.
Jeremiah 40: 11 And all the Jews that were in Mo´ab and among the sons of Am´mon and in E´dom and those who were in all the [other] lands, they also heard that the king of Babylon had given a remnant to Judah and that he had commissioned over them Ged·a·li´ah the son of A·hi´kam the son of Sha´phan. 12 And all the Jews began to return from all the places to which they had been dispersed, and they kept coming into the land of Judah to Ged·a·li´ah at Miz´pah. And they went gathering wine and summer fruits in very great quantity.
So the WTS contradicts the Bible itself by claiming this last deportation was from anyone still remaining in the surrounding nations, besides the fact that Egypt is not specifically mentioned, likely because it is all too apparent that if they were deported from Egypt they would likely trek back through Jerusalem, and it is very important for the 607BCE doctrine that the land is completely desolate the same year as Jerusalem is destroyed. Thus in reality, even if you used the 537BCE dating for the 1st of Cyrus, the fall of Jerusalem is 74 years (not just 70!) prior to that event. The difference of four years means per the Bible Jerusalem would have fallen in 611BCE rather than 607BCE. Therefore, even the "relative chronology" connected with 607BCE from a BIBLICAL point of view is incorrect.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL NEW EVIDENCE:
Likely the most impressive NEW evidence that 607BCE and 587BCE are wrong is the RC14 dating of short-lived grains found at Rehov, a city destroyed by Shishak. Note that the chronology for 587BCE and 607BCE are both part of the same chronology that dates the fall of Babylon in 539BCE and the return of the Jews in 537BCE. So that would be contradicted by the BIBLE which dates that event to 455BCE. At any rate, archaeologists have gotten wise and have been digging up numerous old cities of late including those where Solomon built like Hazor, Megiddo and others. When they find short-lived grains that have been burned at the time of a destructive layer it allows them to date that destructive layer very closely to the time of the age of that sample. That is, presuming say that a grain sample would have been harvested within the year of the time that it was burned when the city was destroyed. These samples though, which used to give a rather wide range of RC14 dating, have been divided into several sub-samples and tested multiple times, resulting in a narrower peak of dates believed to be closer to the true dating. This works out wonderfully if the destructive event can be directly linked to some historical reference. In this case, Shishak's invasion is connected to both the Bible and to Egyptian records. Problem is though, the highest probability for the dating points to where the Bible would date that event, which is 871BCE rather than where the chronology of the Greek Period distorts that dating some 54 years earlier to 925BCE. When 455BCE is used to date the 1st of Cyrus then the Exodus occurs 19 jubilees earlier (931 years, 19 x 49) in 1386BCE. That allows us to date the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and Shishak's invasion in his 39th year (the 5th of Rehoboam co-ruler) to 871BCE. That is the date we would want to compare to the new scientific evidence for that event, which is destructive Level IV at Rehov.
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html
Here's the chart comparing where the non-Biblical revised dating of 925BCE falls in comparison to the Biblical date of 871BCE:
So as you can see, the new scientific evidence agrees more with the Bible than either JW chronology or popular secular chronology in this case! By the way, JWs date Solomon's rule some 67 years earlier than secular chronology does.
Additional ARCHAEOLOGICAL confirmation comes from the dating of the fall of Jericho which archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon dates between 1350-1325BCE and disagrees with the popular chronology that would date the Exodus around 1446BCE, the same dating that dates Shishak's invasion to 925BCE:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
But since the fall of Jericho occurs 40 years after the Exodus, we can use this general reference to compare when Solomon's reign would have occurred and thus give us another archaeologically coordinated dating reference to compare to the Bible. As noted above, if we date the Exodus to 1386BCE, Shishak's invasion is well confirmed by scientific dating around 871BCE. 40 years after 1386 would date the fall of Jericho in 1356BCE, which is within the range archaeology is dating that event as noted, between 1350-1325BCE. Further, there are lots of archaeologists out there clearly stating that Solomon dated to 925BCE is way too early. They did find palaces though!! Fabulous ones! Ones that would confirm the grandeur of the time of Solomon as the Bible describes, but the archaeologists say this must have happened during the Omri Period. Omri's rule is generally dated as ending in 870BCE, which is where the Bible's dating actually ends Solomon's rule (910-870BCE).
So the ARCHAEOLOGY supporting the Bible's dating is something NEW on the block based upon recent excavations as well as improvements in dating techniques.
There are a few more well-developed arguments to support the Bible and contradict the 607BCE as well as 587BCE dating, but the above are some of the interesting really NEW highlights of late that give you an idea that the debating is far from over, but the Bible's position when dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE has gained enormous credibility.
Here's another one, regarding the redating of the Thales eclipse that might interest you.
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html
The people who say there is "nothing new" are simply not keeping up with all the new information.
WELCOME to the board!!
JCanon
-
Paksen
WOW JCanon! Thank you so much for that! Regarding the archaeological info, I keep thinking what a shame Israel has such a strangle hold on digs and evidence they find there. That what other information would come out that could put a damper on JW teachings. And thank you for a great welcome. Glad to have found this forum.
Paks