586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....

by bigmouth 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • bigmouth
    bigmouth

    LostGeneration - I avoided getting 'Jehovah' mixed up with 'Watchtower', but you're right, to a JW the two are damn near one and the same!

    Thanks for your views Terry. Coincidentally, during my research on the net I was intrigued about Miller and the Big Disappointment. I followed threads all over the place. Some of the information explaining the religiosity of America from the 18th century to the Adventist ideas of the 19th century were fascinating. When the U.S. was being settled by Protestant Christians from other lands, all of a sudden any man could pick up a Bible, read it and become a preacher. They had broken the shackles of institutional churches.

    It makes it a little easier for someone like me on the other side of the world to understand why U.S. politicians always seem to higlight their religious heritage and the peculiar position religion takes in things like cartoons such as the Simpsons (Lovejoy and Flanders), King of the Hill and even Family Guy.They take a significance that probably wouldn't be seen in most First World Western countries I think.

    BTW, I'm trying to get to the bottom of where the 1914 date, in it's original incarnation, first came up. Was it Barbour or Miller? Or did Russell come up with his pyramid measuring thing before the 607 - 2520yrs - 1914 ? Did the 607 - 1914 act as some kind of corroborative evidence for Russell's pyramidology ?

  • Joey Jo-Jo
    Joey Jo-Jo

    Problem 1

    JW’s see themselves as the teachers, not the student so when you are directly affirming something they will automatically take it as wrong without doing their home work (because they believe JW’s are Gods chosen people). Thinking their Gods people they will be more than happy to help.

    Solution 1

    Ask them for help, as it has been said before, let them find the answers for themselves, this way they have no choice then to do their own research and on top of that you can disagree with their points

    Problem 2

    Again, thinking they are Gods chosen people they might ignore secular dating (even though 536BCE is from secular dating), they can also ignore bible reasoning with the usual “but the watchtower says..”

    Solution 2

    This would be up to the person but I would go with bible reasoning first, Gods sword.

    E.g.

    Where does it say in the bible that Jesus in speaking of these gentile times had in mind the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's madness mentioned in Daniel 4?

    At Luke 21:24, we read Jesus' words in which he makes specific mention of "the appointed times of the nations": "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." It was in Jerusalem that kings in the royal line of David were said to sit representatively on Jehovah's throne, but Jesus says that "Jerusalem would be trampled on by the nations" until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled," indicating that Jerusalem was being "trampled on" at the time that Jesus spoke these words and that this "trampling" would continue until the fulfillment of these "appointed times of the nations."

    Jesus' mention of these "appointed times of the nations" or "times of the Gentiles" (KJV) harken back to the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy in which the prophet records the words of an angelic "watcher" from heaven, who commanded the chopping down of an immense tree that had been "visible to the extremity of the whole earth," whose "rootstock" or tree stump had been left in the earth bound with iron and copper, so that "seven times" might pass over this tree stump before it was loosed from that which bound it, and thus prevented this tree from growing, "to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind." (Daniel 4:11, 15-17)

    1- I still don’t see the link, his there anything more specific in scripture?

    2- Also how would Jesus be prophesising (because everything was spoken with future tense) something that occurred in the past, aren’t all prophecies future events?

    3- Lastly “he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."”, I have been told that this lowliest one of manking is referring to Jesus, however why is the NWT bible the only one that does not translate this in it’s plural form?

    'The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.' (NIV)

    This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. (KJV)

    "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers
    And the decision is a command of the holy ones,
    In order that the living may (A) know
    That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind,
    And (B) bestows it on whom He wishes
    And sets over it the (C) lowliest of men." (NASB)

    Gentile Times reconsidered is the best for biblical and secular reasoning, there is a lot more that could be added.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Why not do what I did and use a coupla Bible verses and two quotes from the Watchtower Society's own literature. That's all it takes to blow their 607 chronology back to the toilet it came from

    587 BC For Total Dunderheads

    If you're a dunderhead on Neo-Babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 B.C. comes up. Since I had nothing better to do today, I decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong. This piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored I am!

    It turns out this stuff is a piece of cake! The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that. However, using ONLY comments by the faithful and discrete slavers we can rather easily see that their chronology regarding 607 B.C. is wrong.

    There is really not much to learn here, either: No astronomy, no neo-Babylonian tablets, and no confusing Bible versus will be presented. Just the names of five people with really funny names, and only several quotes from WTS publications will be used. Also, there is no need to quibble over things like regnal years, assession years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, whatever in-the-hell THEY are. Remember, the WTS's claim of 607 B.C. is a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C. and all the tinkering with a few months here and few partial year reigns there cannot make up a difference of twenty years.

    Another tricky part to remember is that people were very primitive in those years before Christ came up with a sensible calendar that actually counts FORWARD as you go forward rather than BACKWARD as you go forward. This is known as the "really stupid ancient people RULE." It's a wonder those folks could survive at all.

    Most of what we need is found in a single paragraph of the WTS book "Babylon the Grape Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rocks!" ("Fallen Baby") on page 184 . To keep things simple, I will paraphrase this paragraph, but include the actual paragraph at the end for reference.

    We have to start some 68 years AFTER the date of Jerusalem's fall with a date and event that is agreed upon by both the WTS and secular historians. From this date we will count backward by counting forward using the "really stupid ancient people RULE." That date is 539 B.C., the date that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Mede ("Cy").

    Keep in mind we are trying to find the date Jerusalem fell and the Genital Times began.

    "Fallen Baby" tells us that Nabonidus ("Nabby") was King when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. The WTS book "Aid to Bible Understanding" tells that "Nabby" ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C.

    We are now back to 556 B.C.

    "Fallen Baby" tells us that before Nabby, Labashi-Marduk ("Laby the Duck") ruled about nine months. It also tell us that before "Laby The Duck," Neriglissar ("Glissy") ruled for four years.

    So if we go backwards 4 years and nine months from 556 B.C. we're now at 560-561 B.C.

    "Fallen Baby" also tells us that before "Glissy", Evil-Merodach ("Evil Duck") ruled for 2 years. We are now back to 562-563 B.C. and to the last year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzer ("Chad").

    On page 1212 of the Aid to Bible Understanding book we are told that "Chad" ruled 43 years.

    562/563 + 43 years = 605/606 BC, the year when "Chad" started ruling Babylon.

    2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of "Chad's" reign, so if we go forward 19 years from 605/606 B.C. we will have the approximate years of the beginning of the Genital Times.

    Using the "really stupid ancient people RULE" to go forward when you want to go backward we get:

    605/606 B.C. - 19th year of "Chad's" reign = 586/587 B.C!

    That's it! It's that simple.

    Let's summarize:

    "Nabby" ruled Babylon for 17 years from 556 to 539 B.C. Cy messed up Babylon in 539 B.C.

    Before that, "Laby the Duck" ruled for 9 months and "Glissy" ruled for 4 years.

    "Evil Duck" ruled for 2 years.

    "Chad" ruled for 43 years.

    17 years + 9 months + 4 years + 2 years + 43 years = 66 to 67 years.

    Starting at 539 B.C. and going back 66/67 years we arrive at 605/606 B.C. or the start of the reign of "Chad." Remember, none of this would be possible without using the "really stupid ancient people RULE."

    Nineteen years after 605/606 B.C. using this stupid RULE brings us to 586/587 B.C.

    This is so simple that everyone but the Watchtower Society can understand it.

    References:

    Insight on the Scriptures under "Chaldea""

    "Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon."

    Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules, page 184:

    "After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. According to the inscriptions that have been found, this usurper of the throne spent most of his time in building operations and reigned four years. When he died, his son Labashi-Marduk, though not yet of age, succeeded him. He was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin. Nabonidus, who had served as Governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, now took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign till Babylon fell in 539 B.C."

    Aid to Bible Understanding on Nabonidus - P 1195:

    "Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire...On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have rule some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.)."

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/74549/1/587-BC-for-Total-Dunderheads

    Farkel

  • debator
    debator

    Third witness himself set forth a thorough write up of this topic.

    http://thirdwitness.com/607_BCE/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/

    What people arguing over this issue rarely mention is that this is one where the Bible is said to be inacurate by the other side not just the witnesses.

    Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe something the secular historians do not. We believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, so we take the Bible's prophecies into account when calculating ancient chronology.

    The prophet Daniel tells us, “Jerusalem will lie in ruins for seventy years.” (Daniel 9:2, Contemporary English Translation) However, the secular chronology disagrees with the Bible. Their chronology allows only fifty years – not seventy – from 587 BCE when Jerusalem was supposed to be destroyed, until the Jews returned home in 537 BCE.

    Josephus's account

    Although his book isn't part of the Bible, his account of the event does fill in some of the blanks and agrees with the Biblical account.

  • Ding
    Ding

    How then does it happen that the person who wrote the Chronology section of the Aid to Bible Understanding Book later admitted that there is no support for the 607 BCE date?

  • Joey Jo-Jo
    Joey Jo-Jo

    debator how about debating my example.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    Third witness himself set forth a thorough write up of this topic.

    Enough with the bluster already, Debator. Grow a pair .... Draw us up a king list ..... Make us all look like fools.

  • diamondiiz
    diamondiiz

    Bigmouth: You should get Carl Johnsson' book Gentile Time Reconsidered it will answer many things and will show where the 1914 came from. The original 1914 wasn't Barbour's nor Millers idea if I remember correctly. I would have to check the book for the actual names as it's been awhile since I've read it. John Aquila Brown had original ideas that play part of 1914 calculation. By reading the book you may decide to add info to your letter that you otherwise may not have on hand.

    There is no debate. Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in 607 as mountain of artifacts show it could not have happened. Lunar eclipses as described by the finds show beyond doubt that the events described could not have been off by 20years as wts and it's braindead scholars claim. One cannot accept 2500 years of archeaological finds and agree with everything upto 539BC while ignoring the next 100 years of evidence only to accept the older history as acceptable. The 100 years that wts doesn't agree with is only because they cannot accept it as fact because their BS theolagy would fall apart and they would be shown to be a fraud to everyone and would loose the control over their members. Josephus' writings also don't support 70 years as initially he claimed 70 years but in his writtings he chaged that to be closer to 50 years. 1914 followers can continue believing in nonsense as their last days are almost 100 years old, in fact if the end came any time now, the pagan Mayans would have been closer to the divine date than any so called Jehovah's witnesses - and how could that be?

  • debator
    debator

    Hi Joey jo jo

    I certainly haven't done the research into this that thirdwitness has.

    For the record witnesses say and I agree that any interpretation of Bible prophecy is only a "Ccurrent understanding" prophecy is subjective. We have to research the Bible and correlate that with fulfillment in the world around us so it is not an exact science (nor is it meant to be) but unity demands we have to be in agreement with each other as Christians and I think the "times" prophecy is a solid one.

    For the record others throughout history have recognised it's significance as a prophecy but haven't beed able to connect all the dots. I could be wrong but I think Martin Luther also attempted chronology on "times"

    The use of "times" by Daniel and Jesus who uniquely mentions "Daniel" as a bible book and it's usage in Revelation by John I think is too significant to ignore.

    secular evidence apposing the bible is simply one alternate source from stone tablets that is liable to human error but that is rarely mentioned. Daniels time frames are known to be accurate.

    The bible holds a lot of prophecies as Jesus himself revealed which "tense" is never really an issue since Jesus fulfilled prophecies written about David apparently for David himself in the present, past or future tense.

    Bible chronology is an established biblical practise from Daniel itself by the jews that were in expectation of Jesus as messiah from it.

    "lowliest" is in it's first fulfilment a reference to king Neb a singular person. I'm surprised some translations make it plural anyway?

    Did that answer your points Joey?

  • bohm
    bohm

    Debator, man up and answer Black Sheeps question, or at least admit you cant.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit