Questions concerning 607

by beavis 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Mr. Majestic

  As a non-specialist Jonsson cannot deal directly with primary sources so he is reliant on those that can, this means his research is second-hand in nature thus merely continuing the views of others. His so-called research is thus limited, opinionated and does not push scholarship forward.

  scholar

  The reasoning of your argumentation can also apply to the societies literature.

  I would agree with you that Jonsson is reliant on the expertise of others in the fields that he lacks, and his info is ‘second hand’. But that is also true of the societies publications. Much of what they quote is just the research of other peoples work. They are in the same boat as Jonsson. But would you say that would negate their information..?? You should at least put the same question mark over the societies publications as you are putting over Jonsson’s work.

  At the end of the day the date 607 is far more important to the society than it is to Jonsson, because without it their credentials crumble. They are therefore going to defend the date at all costs, even to the point of unreasonableness, which is quite evident in the older publications of the WTBS.

  On the matter of Jonsson’s work, you claim that he has published it because he has a vendetta with the society. If he was treated by the society as he claims then it can be excused that he would be angry. But just to point out, he found out this information while still a JW. He would have had no reason then to have ‘apostate’ tendencies.

  Just one more point, one that you will not accept I am sure. If you phone up the British Museum they will recommend the work of Jonsson in the matter of the issue of 587BC / 607BC. At least these people would have no axe to grind with the society.

  Personally, I try to remain open minded about everything. But even if the date 607BC proved true, for arguments sake, it still is no proof of the issue of the ‘gentile times’. As jwfacts points out, there is no indication that there was ever a second fulfilment of what is written in Daniel chapter 4, or that 7 times amounts to 2520 days/years. It is a purely illogical assumption and never originated with C.T.Russell in the first place, which I am sure you will be aware of.
• 

  tfjw

  This has always been a fascinating subject to me personally.
  
  I found it interesting how the Pastoral Bible Institute, a breakaway group from the Society around 1918 I think, favors the 588 date. This is referenced in their Herald of Christ's Kingdom magazine Nov. 1, 1921, July 1, 1922, August 1-15, 1925, March 1, 1926 and August 1, 1926 issues.
  
  An excerpt from the Nov. 1, 1921 issue:
  
  "It has surely occurred to all believers in the Present Truth that we are absolutely dependent upon secular history for our chronological measurements from the year B. C. 536 onward; that Bible chronology stops with the seventy-year period ending at the beg inning of the reign of King Cyrus, the Persian, and that the inspired Word has brought us forward -only so far as necessary, from which point we Will be able to search out the truth from such sources as are at hand, and which are considered to be quite reliable. Now what are the facts at hand concerning secular testimony cove I ring the period in question?
  
  We find a very general agreement that the reign of King Cyrus began in the year B. C. 536, and as this is the date we have already settled upon, no discussion is necessary, believing that it should stand. If the 70 years ended in 536, then they began in 606. We do not want to change that date either. But here comes the test. If the severity years began with the close of the I reign of Zedekiah, then Zede­kiah's reign ended in the year 606, and this is what we have believed, but there is not a secular authority. of any reliability which places the close of Zedekiah's reign so far back. The only authority (if such if may be called) the writer has ever heard of which so presents the matter is Josephus, but it is generally known that he is inconsistent with himself and unreliable. All the great I authorities found- in our libraries,, without exception, place the date of Zedekiah's overthrow from 589 to 586. We believe the correct date is B., C. 588, as that is the one which will sus­tain harmony in all the time prophecies..."
  
  I also find it interesting that C.T. Russell did mention a different possibility in his sermon in 1910 at the Hippodrome: "There are some who claim that Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated B.C. 588. If this be true it could make a difference of but eighteen years and give the date 1932. My convictions, however, favor 1914." (See "Zionism in Prophecy" sermon, or if you have the book "Pastor Russell's Sermons", see page 480)
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I also find it interesting that C.T. Russell did mention a different possibility in his sermon in 1910 at the Hippodrome: "There are some who claim that Zedekiah's dethronement should be dated B.C. 588. If this be true it could make a difference of but eighteen years and give the date 1932. My convictions, however, favor 1914." (See "Zionism in Prophecy" sermon, or if you have the book "Pastor Russell's Sermons", see page 480)

  Yes that is fascinating! I wonder, had he lived well beyond 1916, would he have (albeit reluctantly) revamped his chronology to accomodate 588? We'll never know ...
• 

  james_woods

  It never bothered old fraud Russell before to switch his interpretation of dates.

  One question (a fundamental one, if you will) that I always had with this twisted chronological stuff -

  If this is so all-fired important for Christians to know about (and dote on as if it were mother's milk) - then why isn't it just plainly written down in the bible itself? I mean - why did God and the original bible writers leave us to wallow around with questionable secular archeology? For sure, a list of the patriarchs and all their ages were given...whatever good that may be, what with people's ages being given as over 900 years in some cases.

  I still say it is all demonstrably BS because no successful prophecy has ever come from it.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 746

  Your best bet is to address your queries to Furuli directly rather than using the Yahoo forum and I amm quite sure he will respond.

  Furuli has always invited criticism from his readers particularly competent scholars as he mentions on page 14 of Volume 1.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Mr Majestic

  The case of Jonsson and the Society are indeed poles apart. The Society's role or charter is to promote and provide Bible Education by means of publishing Bibles and Bible-study aids. Their interpretation of the Bible is truly unique for it is Bible-based and where outside research is of value then such research is employed. Jonsson as a former Witness has an 'axe to grind' offering nothing new but a rehash of old criticisms lacking the objectivity and methodology of scholarly research.

  The date 607 as a Biblical date is very important to our theologyand the theology of the Bible particularly its eschatology and as for Jonsson it has given him some infamy.

  The British Museum is not a proper forum for accurate Bible knowledge so such telephone inquiry would be meaningless for you may just as well contact Oxford or Cambridge University. Such institutions noble as they are simply endorse wordly thinking and ideas and are not places of spirituality.

  I disagree with you most strongly that the seven times of Daniel chapter 4 does not have a major fulfillment for the internal evidence proves that it does. Indeed the whole theme of that chapter is the Sovereignty of God as realized by the establishment of a future Kingdom of God. Such is introduced in verse 3, affirmed in verses 17, 25, 32 and concluded by verse 34 as acknowledged by Nebuchadnezzer. In short, this whole chapter develops the coming and establishment of a future, worldwide, permanent rulership. There are other exegetical issues that I could mention that prove that the 'seven times' had more than a literal application to Neb's reign.

  scholar JW