Questions concerning 607

by beavis 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  beavis

  Post 23

  The date 607 BCE is not impossible as you claim for in fact it is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem that is in harmony with the Bible, ancient history and secular evidence. It is correct that modern scholars and historians do not support this date but such authorities also do not believe the Bible and herein lies the problem. It is either the Bible or the theories of men. One poster has suggested that you comsult the research of Carl Jonsson who argues against 607 but I suggest that you read the research of Rolf Furuli who has published two volumes on ancient chronologies and the Bible so that you have a complete picture of the conflict.

  scholar JW
• 

  digderidoo

  But after all of this has been said the WBTS will always say that there must be a king or two missing. If you want to accept the bible at face value as a historical text, then the 70 year desolation will take you back to 607BCE. The problem is however, nowhere in history is there found to be a missing king.

  Thousands of business tablets are available that list transactions as happening in the (x) year of the (y) kings reign, these are the only kings seen throughout archeology. The other issue that can be raised is that of dual kingship, so kings reign may clash totally throwing out the accepted line for NB chronology.

  I have been researching this the last few days and must admit i am more confused than when i started.

  I have come to the conclusion so far, that there could be a number of dates available for the fall of Jerusalem, who knows the WTBTS may have it right after all.

  Paul (from the totally confused class)
• 

  digderidoo

  This person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is NOT credible.

  From my research so far you will not find conclusive proof for NB chronology. History is a funny thing, it gets changed to fit in with the writers view. One persons perspective is totally different to anothers. What you have with regard to 586/587BCE is the general standard view from secular scholars, who imo try hard to disprove the bible. But with all archeology there can be errors, discrepencies and down right lies.

  I have been looking at astronomical texts, but even these have discrepencies, so what do you believe?

  There is alot of information out there, it is worth a good look. For me, this is the one main thing that has kept me away from the society, so it's worth exploring.

  Paul
• 

  scholar

  digderido

  Celebrated WT scholars have certainly got it right about 607 BCE being the only possible calcuable date for the Fall of Jerusalem, The other pretenders promoted by wordly scholars and apostates simply either ignore the biblical 'seventy years' or have developed a chronology for that period that lacks a common consensus. In short, this amounts to a pandering to the 'higher critic'. Further, our understanding of the seventy years agrees totally with that of Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian who also interpreted the period as one of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return.

  The methodology used by our 'celebrated' scholars conforms to the KISS principle and is faithful to the Bible.

  scholar JW
• 

  jwfacts

  Jonsson's book is probably the best. There is little other work disproving 607, because why would a scholar set about disproving a date that no one but a small cult discusses or cares about. On the other hand, look at every encyclopaedia and they all discuss 587.

  I personally think it is a pointless discussion. What difference will it make to your friend whether it was 607 or 587? Will he leave the WTS if you can "prove" 607 wrong. My mother knows it is wrong, but just dismisses it - Oh well, Jesus must have started reigning in 1934 instead. If you are going to spend time on this line of reasoning get a commitment from your friend, if I can prove 607 wrong, will you leave the cult? Otherwise spend your time more wisely elsewhere.

  The other reason this is a pointless discussion is that Dan 4 is not an end time prophecy, it was a vision of Nebuchadnezzar's 7 year insanity. Every single prophecy in Daniel had only one fulfilment.

  • Daniel 2: An immense image representing kingdoms
  • Daniel 4: Seven times representing Nebuchadnezzar
  • Daniel 5: Writing on the wall foretelling Babylon's immediate destruction
  • Daniel 7: Four beasts being 4 world powers
  • Daniel 9: Seventy weeks foreshadowing Christ's arrival
  • Daniel 11: Kings of the North and South

  Why would Daniel 4 have a second fulfilment when all other prophecies had but one fulfilment?

  Dan 4 was a failed time prophecy that was constantly reworked throughout the 1800's. (see http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/1914.htm) It was a failed prophecy of Russell, who said the world will end in 1914. When will the Watchtower just admit they were wrong and move on? Tell him to stop serving for salvation, and serve out of love of God. Then setting a date for the end of the world will become irrelevant.
• 

  oompa

  marking this...But if I did not know better...I would think I am seeing a lot of sarcasm in this thread..........oompa
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  JWF:it was a vision of Nebuchadnezzar's 7 year insanity

  An excellent point made in Jonnson's book is the chart listing importany points in Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Since there is no 7 year gap, Jonnson contends that the 7 times may actually be a shorter period, such as 7 months.

  But I agree, this is all a moot point. I rejected 1914 before even learining about the 607/587 issue... for me its mental gymnastics to associate Lu21:24 with Dan Ch. 4. The Bible does not mention "7 Gentile Times". That is an invented concept.

  A@G
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi 'scholar' - like moths to the flame, aren't we? LOL

  It is either the Bible or the theories of men.

  NO! Please quit giving this false dichotomy!

  It is EITHER one interpretation of the biblical texts OR another interpretation of the biblical texts.

  One understanding harmonises with both the internal biblical evidence and historical records. The other understanding flies in the face of both internal biblical evidence and historical records. The WTS view is in the latter category, as you well know but choose to ignore.

  One poster has suggested ...

  I have a name, you know

  ... that you comsult the research of Carl Jonsson who argues against 607 but I suggest that you read the research of Rolf Furuli who has published two volumes on ancient chronologies and the Bible so that you have a complete picture of the conflict.

  OK. By all means hear both sides of the story.

  But I warn beavis and didgeridoo that Furuli's book is founded on faulty premises and he makes numerous errors in his research along the way. It'll make your head swim - especially if you're just feeling your way at the moment - trying to determine what is fact and fiction in his book. That's why I would urge to start with Jonsson, become well acquainted with the issues raised, and then only after that consider examining Furuli's book.

  Oh and 'scholar'? You did notice the quote from the most acclaimed journal on Assyriology when it reviewed GTR4, didn't you?

  Here's a little more for you:

  "On the whole the cumulative evidence is internally consistent and reveals the marked confusion of the Watch Tower Society's dating of Neo-Babylonian events.

  "Although Jonsson is not a specialist, his use of the pertinent literature is nearly impeccable and he has consulted Assyriologists when addressing uncertain points. Especially gratifying ... is his showing once again that the many decades of painstaking work in Assyriology can yield results which are meaningful for the broader public."
• 

  Black Sheep

  The KISS approach and Farkel's approach are essentially the same.

  The good thing about this method, is that the info can be dredged up on your friends very own WTCD simply by searching for the names of the kings. E.g. "Nabonidus reigned" etc.

  Ask your friend to use his WTCD to write you up a list of the kings of the Babylonian empire, showing the dates of all of their reigns.

  If he cannot make them add up , ask him where the mistake is.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  digderidoo

  The thing about these approaches though is that the sources provided do not show one kings reign being passed from one to another. They show the individual reign of each king, but not passing the baton so to speak.

  They show the kings reigns, mostly from a number of sources. But surely the WBTS will say that there must be a missing king.

  How would you answer that?

  Paul