Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  moggy lover

  The trick about 607 BC is first to acknowledge that the date is not mentioned in Scripture, in fact no date according to our calendar is so mentioned. The reason is because the people in Bible times had a different dating system to ours. We simply have to deal with what is supplied by the text and to transcribe that to our modern dating system.

  Instead of saying either in 607 BC or in 586 BC...etc, what the Bible does say is: "In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar ...." [2 Kings 28:8] So the question arises: When was this 19th year?

  Well, there are two schools of thought.

  On the one hand there is the entire body of scholarship from every single university and scholastic institution in the world, which says 586/587 BC [Dont be too concerned about that forward slash. That's because the Bible uses two dating systems called regnal and succession years, and we aren't sure which the Bible is using at the text of 2 Kings 25:8, but the difference is only that of six months] and then there is the Watchtower, which says 607 BC. Why this stubborn inclination to hold on to this discredited date? Because this date conveniently leads to 1914 AD, a date pivotal for current Watchtower theology. When the Watchtower drops 1914, they will drop 607 BC. Betcha.

  How can you tell which is the right date? Well, again there is no simple 6 second sound bite, like on TV where we can say one way or other. It takes some thinking and calculation. First, the time period we are talking about is called the Neo-Babylonian period. If you looked up Doug Mason's site that he refers to above, you will see that he lists, according to the historical information available to all, the 5 kings who made up this period. They reigned for a total of 66 years [count 'em] ending in 539 BC.

  Now if this period ended in 539 BC, which is a year that the Watchtower agrees to, then when did this period begin? All you have to do is add 66 to 539, which leads to 605 BC. That means that this Neo-Babylonian period began in 605 BC which is the year that Nebuchadnezzar became king.

  If 605 BC was his first year then when would his nineteenth year be? Again just count back 19 years: 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597, 596, 595, 594, 593, 592, 591, 590, 589, 588, 587 586 BC. Got it? It is so simple and so enlightening that even a child should be able to grasp it.

  The Watchtower on the other hand resorts to subterfuge, obfuscation, prevarication, discrediting, circular rationalization, assumed illogic, retrograde cognition, [which is also called "proving that which is assumed". If you assume something you can easily "prove" it. Even a flat earth.] and other fallacious forms of so called "reasoning".

  They also use pious platitudes along with imperious pontifications to try and hijack the subject. They will use buzz words like "But evidently this"...and "evidently that" As Deut 18:22 says of false prophets [who make unjust profits]: You must not fear such men!
• 

  PSacramento

  There is no one outside the WT and the JW's that agree on 607BC, NO ONE, not even one expert, NONE.

  The WT doesn't use secular evidence to prove 607 because there isn't any, so they use THEIR interpretations of OT bible passages that have NO DATES in them, to justify that date, when confronted by biblical evidence to the contrary they claim that only THEIR translations and interpretationas are correct.

  I classic sign of circular reasoning.
• 

  isaacaustin

  good input here by everyone here except Scholar. Sorry pseduscholar but your celebrated Wt pseudoscholars are mistaken. The Bible indeed disproves 607BCE if we accept the 'absolute date' of 539- as the WT does. Incidently, the same source the WT accepts 539 from also endore 586BCE.

  Go back outside now and play pseudo.
• 

  PSacramento

  I agve up arguing 607 with any Jw, they just don't know enough about it and those that THINK they do do not accept anything that contridicts their view anyway.

  Its a lost cause, that is until one day the GB decides that the "light is getting brighter" and changes 607 to the correct 586.
• 

  scholar

  bohm

  Post 279

  There is no mountain of evidence against 607 BCE at all rather there is a mountain of false interpretations, assumptions and the ignoring of God's Word which truly characterizes the debate of 587/.586 BCE against 607 BCE. Rolf Furuli has not been torn to shreds by AnnOMaly for the simple reason that she refuses to engage with him on the subject.

  The Bible proves beyond a shadow of doubt that 607 BCE is the correct historical date for the Fall rather than the long list of pretenders supported by scholars of higher criticism and apostates.

  scholar JW
• 

  PSacramento

  Scholar, if I may ask a question:

  Has Mr Furuli engaded in any debate with Mr.Johanson ?
• 

  scholar

  bohm

  Post 281

  Excellent advice indeed The honest inquirer should read Jeremiah but not just sections of it but rather the whole book from beginning to end and one will easily grasp the fact that the seventy years was a period of desolation-servitude and exile from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. This is the one major fact that proves the validity of 607 BCE. and nothing published anywhere in the scholarly literature disproves this simple basic fact.

  My challenge is for any poster to refute and disprove this one basic fact and to provide one basic fact that alone proves 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall.

  Scholar will now sit back and watch the 'feathers fly'!

  scholar JW
• 

  isaacaustin

  Pseudoscholar, you, and 607BCE have been torn to shreds so many times on this and other forums- and proven ridiculously wrong. Give it up. Take on a new hobby.
• 

  scholar

  Black Sheep

  Post 3654

  My response to the so called KISS refutation is for advocates of this proposal to provide one basic fact that proves the validity of either 586 or 587 and refutes 607 BCE for the date of the Fall.

  scholar JW
• 

  isaacaustin

  pseudo, I have read the whole book of Jeremiah..including all of ch 25 which makes plain it is 70 years of babylonian dominance- as all the nations of the earth are given to Babylon....and at the end of the 70 years Babylon would be called to account- which they were in 539BCE...and Babylonian dominace began in 609BCE when they overtook the Assyrian Empire. 537BCE has been proven wrong on other threads here...but other than a point of academic interest, these dates go no further...as the WT's numerology on this is complete BS...namely their '7 Gentile Times" doctrine.