Joey Jo-Jo - 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).
- Thanks JX3, I remember way back when I was starting out on FS, the brother with me said "Don't bother taking other peoples literature or debating with them. We have the Truth. We do the teaching." As an 18 year old, I felt invincible just knowing that my religion was right. No need to check anything outside of the Society's literature.
Farkel cracks me up.- "The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that." - The WTS are peerless in using language this way. I will have a go at your method. I'll start with a few drinks first and see where I get. The dude who wrote the chronology section of the Aids Book seems to know what he's talking about.
Debator - "Third witness himself set forth a thorough write up of this topic. http://thirdwitness.com/607_BCE/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/"
Thanks Debator, I came across this site when I was researching the subject using Google. I was somewhat put off with this chap as he came across as rather....angry? I don't know. He seemed a little overwrought in the way he put his argument across. The bottom line with him seemed that the 70 years must be right despite secular records indicating nearer to 50 years. He believes, by faith only, that the Bible must be correct and the sheer weight of material evidence is in error.
Hi diamondiiz, thanks for that. It's been recommended by others too. Actually I made the last post before I left for work and just before I went I found an old post that asked the very same question. I didn't have time to read any of it but I'm home now and I'll see if I can locate it again somehow. Maybe through my 'history'.
586/7 vs. 607 (another one) Critique my letter please....
by bigmouth 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
bigmouth
-
bigmouth
Found an answer to my question here : http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/104230
A reply to the posted question by TD;
Was the 7 times prophecy from Daniel used before or after the Watchtower used the pyramids to predict 1914/1915?
John Aquila Brown wrote a two volume work in 1823 entitled The Even-Tide; or, Last Triumph of the Blessed and Only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Brown predicted that "The full glory of the kingdom of Israel shall be perfected" based upon a period of 2520 years. This is the first known record of an expositor claiming that the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar were a prophetic 2,520 year period.
Around 1818, another gentleman by the name of William Miller had became convinced that he could calculate the date for Christ's return. Miller initially based his calculation upon the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. Eventually Miller's scriptural reckoning was expanded to fifteen separate proofs that Christ’s return and the start of the millennium or 7th "day" would occur sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. These included such things as counting 2520 years from the year 677 BC, which he believed to be the year when Jerusalem fell. Miller recorded his interpretation in a sixty-four page pamphlet published in 1833 entitled Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year AD 1843.
Nelson H. Barbour joined the Millerite movement in 1843 at the age of 19, but in his own words, "…lost his religion completely after the Great Disappointment." He subsequently became a miner during the Australian gold rush and did not return home until some years later in 1859. It was during his voyage home that Barbour discovered what he believed to be the critical error in Miller's reckoning. While Miller had started his count of the 1260, 1290, and 1335 "year days" of Revelation 11 and Daniel 12 at different points in the past, Barbour decided that all three periods should be counted from a common starting point --- 538 CE. Soon an eschatological picture every bit as complex as Miller's emerged based upon additional concepts such as "Israel's double," the "Jubilee cycle," "Parallel dispensations" and Brown’s 2520 years derived from the seven times of Daniel chapter four. Barbour located the latter between the years 606 BC and 1914 AD. Barbour subsequently published specific details as to the end of the Gentile Times in his monthly periodical, which now carried the abbreviated title Herald Of The Morning.
Charles Taze Russell first came into contact with Barbour's research in January of 1876. Although Russell had been intrigued by some aspects of Adventism since about 1869, he had previously rejected Adventist chronology and date setting. However he was so impressed with Barbour's work that he paid his expenses to come to Philadelphia to meet with him. Russell was convinced by Barbour and this is the origin of the JW 1914 date.
It definitely precedes the pyramid calculations.
When was the date first mentioned, where, and in what matter?
If you mean specifically with regard to the Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses, the 1914 date is first mentioned in the December 1879 issue of Zion's Watch Tower on page 3. If your question is general, then I've given some background above.
When was the "invisible return of Christ" first mentioned in reference to 1914?
The Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses dated the "invisible return of Christ" to 1874 clear up until the early 1930's. The last clear statement in support of 1874 appeared in the 1929 book, Prophecy. The first clear statement in support of 1914 in The Watchtower appeared in December of 1933. -
debator
Hi Bigmouth
It’s not as if all secular evidence contradicts 607 – because it doesn't. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus argued that Jerusalem was empty for 70 years. He also lists the reigns of the Babylonian Kings – a list which curiously contradicts the Cannon of Ptolemy — for reasons that remain unknown.
Interestingly, not all experts support 587. At least one, Rolf Furuli of Oslo University, writes:
“The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein [hereafter, P&D] has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539...”
“ A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal years of Babylonian and Persian kings intercalary months were added, reveals that 51 percent of the "evidence" used by P&D has no real value, in this author’s judgement . A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings that contradict P&D’s scheme , which was based on first and last tablet dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of P&D should be radically revised....”
“As of present I have reviewed data from about 7.000 business tablets from the New Babylonian Empire. There are so many tablets that are anomalous (from the point of view of the traditional chronology), that the whole scheme of P&D breaks down; each king seems to have ruled longer than P&D says .”
As we can see, at least some experts will support the Bible’s viewpoint against the traditional 587 date.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/appendix.html#sectionb
-
isaacaustin
Reniaa said:
Hi Bigmouth
It’s not as if all secular evidence contradicts 607 – because it doesn't. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus argued that Jerusalem was empty for 70 years. He also lists the reigns of the Babylonian Kings – a list which curiously contradicts the Cannon of Ptolemy — for reasons that remain unknown.
My reply: Josephus later acknowledged that Jerusalem was desolate for 50 years. So yes, all evidence makes 607BCE impossible.
Reniaa said:
Interestingly, not all experts support 587.
My reply: Right, some support 586.
Reniaa said:
At least one, Rolf Furuli of Oslo University, writes:
“The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein [hereafter, P&D] has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539...”
“ A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal years of Babylonian and Persian kings intercalary months were added, reveals that 51 percent of the "evidence" used by P&D has no real value, in this author’s judgement . A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings that contradict P&D’s scheme , which was based on first and last tablet dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of P&D should be radically revised....”
“As of present I have reviewed data from about 7.000 business tablets from the New Babylonian Empire. There are so many tablets that are anomalous (from the point of view of the traditional chronology), that the whole scheme of P&D breaks down; each king seems to have ruled longer than P&D says .”
My reply: Dubious as a scholar...he is a JW you forgot to mention...
Reniaa said:
As we can see, at least some experts will support the Bible’s viewpoint against the traditional 587 date.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/appendix.html#sectionb
My reply: Not the case. Furuli is considered an expert in ancient languages NOT Neo-Babylonian chronology!
Very dishonest posting by you Reniaa! Also circular reasoning since you call 607BCE the bible's viewpoint- a notion easily refuted many times here and elsewhere.
-
isaacaustin
Rolf Furuli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Rolf Johan Furuli
Rolf Johan Furuli (born 19 December 1942) is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of OsloRolf Johan Furuli (born 19 December 1942 [ 1 ] ) is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo. He became a magister artium in 1995.
He is currently involved in translation of non-Christian religious texts, and is considered an expert in ancient languages. In 2005, he finished a doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of Classical Hebrew. This study has been privately published.
Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984. Based on these studies, he has attempted to defend the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses—of which Furuli is a member—that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC rather than 587 BC.
Alongside Norwegian, English and Hebrew, he is able to read Akkadian, Aramaic and Greek. He has written works about Bible translation and Biblical issues.
-
Ding
I agree with Black Sheep.
The more you assert as truth, the more you give him to attack and use against you.
The WTS programs JWs to think the Society has answers for everything.
Put the monkey on the elder's back to do research and answer specific questions.
-
Ultimate Reality
Debator claims that Josephus wrote that Jerusalem was empty for 70 years. This is NOT true. The 'secular evidence' claims it was 50 years (marked from the Temple destruction), during a 70 year period of servitude while Babylon was the world power (609 BCE to 539 BCE). So, it's either 50 or 70 years, hence the 20 year difference.
The Society marks the beginning of the countdown with the destruction of the Temple in 607 BCE (on the WT calendar). However, Josephus' understanding supports the 'secular' evidence:
“These accounts agree with the true history in our books [the Hebrew Scriptures]; for in them it is written that
Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state for fifty years;
but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid and it was finished again in the second year
of Darius.” - Against Apion I, 21
-
isaacaustin
Ultimate Reality, thank you for posting that...where Josephus agrees with a 70 year babylonian rule over the nations, and Jeru itself laying desolate for 50 years.
-
PSacramento
There is NO chronology in the bible, the bible does NOT list dates of these events or any events, dates must be collaborated via secular methods and as such, the bible dates are DEPENDANT on these methods, not the other way around.
-
isaacaustin
Exactly PSac...and also the fact that this is simply an academic date. If secular historians are wrong it is not a big deal...it simply means they are off on some dates. If the WT is wrong, their so-called 7 Gentile Times teaching is not so Biblical after all. Even if 607 were proven correct it does not prove the WT teaching correct- it is still full of ridiculous leaps of logic on every link of scripture combined and conflated to make up the 7 Gentiles Times doctrine.
