607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AnnOMaly

  90125yesbeverlyhills90210 ;-D

  The other very well known secular time points and timelines are that surrounding Cyrus the Great, because his own legislations and works, and confirmed archaelogies have ascertained the very important 537 BC date which many secular sources recognize as valid, as just a few links show the 30,000+ more refernces to that date in Persian and Jewish global history.

  I hope that was just a typo and you meant 539 BC. Naturally, there's no archaeological evidence to definitely date the exiles' return to 537 BC.

  This is important, because though 607BCE is ascertainable by chronologies accepted by some, they are not accepted by all, as Chronological science has had some difficult navigation, Isaac Newton fixed some common errors previous to his time, and is known to have aided chronological certainties from mathematical and astronomic error.

  607 BCE as the year of Jerusalem's destruction is only held by those who are or have been affliated with the WTS and still pretty much believe Barbour's/Russell's chronology - no one else.

  Studies in NB and biblical chronologies have come a long, long way since Newton's time - why mention him?

  The Very Important date though which can also establish a way to count back to 607 BC, is the date 537 BC*** in Cyrus dominion, because much Babylonian systems were destroyed or converted to Persian use after the conquest and this is why Cyrus the Great has completely reliable determinations as to the role of the year 537BC in his conquest and civil rights legislation.

  Huh? Say again?

  From that well established Persian timing of Cyrus, Artaxerxes and the rest of the chronologies leading to Jesus are reaffirmable.

  From the established Persian timing of Cyrus and the kings that came after him, Artaxerxes' 20th year has also been established to have been 445 BC and not 455 BC.

  You may have picked the sites that say the Jews returned in 537 BC, but you should also acknowledge the many sites that, for good reason, go with 538 BC instead.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Bungi Bill:

  1) Nabonidus, reigned 17 years i.e. 556 - 539 (WT 68 8/15 p.491)

  2) Labashi-Marduk, reigned "less than one year" i.e. 556 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

  3) Neriglassar, reigned 4 years i.e. 560 - 556 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

  4) Evil-Merodach, reigned 2 years i.e. 562 - 560 (WT 65 1/1 p.29)

  5) Nebuchadnezzar, reigned 43 years i.e. 605 - 562 (WT 00 5/5 p.12)

  Not one of the Watchtower articles you cite here provide any of the dates you inserted into your post. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe these dates you provided in your message to be accurate. You didn't get them from the Watchtower, so where did you get them?

  AHHH HA HA HA HAHAHA AHA HAHAHA HA HAHAHAH AH AHAHA AHAHAH AHAH.... Deep breath .... hahaha haha HAH AHAH AHAHHAHAH AHA HAHAHHAHAHAH..

  Priceless. That made my whole day. He said it in such a matter-of-fact way too... "so where did you get them?"
• 

  TD

  Don't you just love it when someone jumps in with a shallow cut & paste after 17 pages of detailed discussion?

  It's not good enough to simply say that experts all agree on 539 BC. How exactly do they arrive at this date?

  The problem to me still seems to be that if you reject 587 BC then you also reject all methods of establishing 539 BC that involve counting forward through the Neo-Babylonian period. You're left with only those methods that involve counting backward through the Persian period.

  And if you accept methods that involve counting backward through the Persian period, then you must also accept that Astyages was defeated and Ecbatana fell in 550 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle indicates that this occurred in Nabonidus' 6th year. If 550 BC was his 6th year, then 539 BC would have been his 17th.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  MeanMrMustard - Yes, I thought that was too funny as well.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  If 550 BC was his 6th year, then 539 BC would have been his 17th.

  And we all know what happened next, ...Babylon fell and he reigned no longer. Zip, nada, end of, game over ,...no more "extra" years to try and insert into his 17 year reign.
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness My Fury:

  If you are not rank and file JW then why not state exactly what you are?

  Why should anyone that chooses to keep his or her anonymity forget all about anonymity and satisfy your curiosity and the curiosity of others? What does your curiosity have to do with my belief that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 607 BC and your belief that this destruction occurred in 587 BC?

  You clearly dont follow the rules at any rate.

  What "rules"?

  The sites status and aims has little to do with it being termed apostate or not. If the make up of the posters is largely of ex jws then that in itself should preclude you from even being here, not legalistic terminology to satisfy your conscience.

  I've already responded to this notion of yours in a previous message. You have beliefs that have not a thing to do with reality. It's probably better that I say no more to you regarding this particular belief of yours.

  Calling Bill a liar is a bit of an insult coming from one so proficient in it as yourself:

  I will insult who I will, and if I should choose to do so, that would be my business, not yours. However, I didn't call @Bungi Bill a liar.

  OK the DATES inserted by Bill...

  Bravo!

  Well we can all add and subtract cant we?

  I know that faith isn't really permissible here, but intellect? I'm not so sure about that either.

  But you cant Egg. 607 is blinding you into SEEing extra years as being needed on Nabonidus reign to reach your target date. Provide the PROOF with quotes to this effect. i.e NOT what you BELIEVE to be the case, but what you can PROVE to be the case.

  I'm not blind at all. What I might regard as proof is not something that someone lacking faith in the prophetic word of God would accept as such, so it is expected that you and I would see things differently. Not everyone has faith.

  @Bungi Bill:

  Indeed - as I said at the outset, those various WTS publications mention the length of the reigns of the various Babylonian kings:

  - "go read the Watchtower!"

  You didn't say any such thing "at the outset." At the outset you stated the following:

  This is the main reason that I finally broke with the WTS:

  - i.e. being more and more placed in a position of having to try and defend the indefensible.

  You claim to have "broken" ranks "with the WTS," although I don't think you have ever been to Bethel so it is more with Jehovah's Witnesses with whom you broke ranks than with the WTS, as you put it, since the WTS is just the publishing arm that is staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses. But why did you even bother becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you really thought that we were defending the indefensible? Our beliefs regarding Solomon's temple being destroyed by Babylonian armies back in 607 BC isn't some new doctrine, so your break with us had to have come for other reasons. I don't believe your dissent against this particular belief of Jehovah's Witnesses was what caused you to leave our ranks.

  All one has to do in order to realize the 607 BC date is wrong is to:

  (i) Read what WTS literature itself says about the reigns of the five last Babylonian kings.

  (ii) Then count backwards from what the WTS calls that "Absolute Date" - 539 BC.

  You cited several Watchtower articles for the proposition that they would indicate our having accepted the dates indicated by secular sources in the Babylonian king-lists, but you made all of that up, did you not? You misrepresented what the articles you cited actually stated, did you not? Why did you do that? The only year that Jehovah's Witnesses accept is 539 BC, for we are satisfied that 539 BC is the year when Cyrus deposed Babylon, and it is based on this year and on the fact that in Cyrus' second year, or 537 BC, the Jews had by then begun to repatriate the land of Judah, that we calculate the 70-year period of desolation to have begun in 607 BC. Not one of Jehovah's Witnesses is forced to believe our calculation to be true, but I believe our exercising faith in the ransom paid by Jesus Christ is much more important than whether 607 BC is the year when Nebuchadnezzar's armies razed Solomon's temple to the ground and utterly destroyed Jerusalem.

  That's like a mother that should get so upset that she leaves the doctor's office to which she and her child had travelled some 90 minutes for a 11:00 am appointment in order to obtain immunization against a disease for which he child had already begun presenting symptoms upon being informed that the doctor would be unavoidably delayed for 45 minutes due to an emergency at a nearby hospital, so that he was expected to arrive at 11:45 am. One would think that a child's life would be more important than whether someone was 90 minutes late for an appointment. Isn't the prospect of receiving everlasting life more important than maybe the likelihood that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about 607 BC?

  Frankly, you left our ranks because you wanted to leave, preferring to do your own thing than to live up to your dedication.

  - All anybody has to do is to then count backwards from what the WTS believes to be the "Absolute Date" of 539 BC to establish the dates of the reigns of the five last kings of Babylon ( not too difficult a task, surely - but then again maybe to some it is beyond their capabilities?)

  But Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the king-lists to which you refer as accurate. For all we know, Nabonidus may not have succeeded Neriglassar's son, Labashi-Marduk, to the throne in 575 BC. But we believe that Belshazzar was appointed coregent of Babylon during this father, Nabonidus' third regnal year, which would have been 572 BC according to our reckoning that he and his son ruled jointly from 572 BC until 539 BC when Cyrus' armies deposed Babylon. Of course, we could be wrong, but so what? What if it should turn out that we are wrong about the global deluge occurring in the year 2370 BC? What if it should turn out that it wasn't in the year 1943 BC that the Abrahamic Covenant as instituted, and that it wasn't some 25 years later in 1918 BC that Abraham's son, Issac, was born? What it is should turn out that Moses didn't lead the enslaved descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob out of Egypt in the year 1513 BC as Jehovah's Witnesses teach? As far as all such dates are concerned, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on calculations made using the drop dead year 539 BC. We could be mistaken, but we don't believe we are mistaken.

  Of course, if certain ones (no names mentioned!) still want to continue denying the obvious, then that is their problem.

  What might be "obvious" to you may not be obvious to someone else, and what seems not to be obvious to you is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept that dates assigned by some to the regnal years of the kings of the Babylonian Dynasty since these date assignments are in conflict with our understanding of God's word.

  @Dutch-scientist:

  So all mentioned dates in the WT are not accurate ( 1914, 607BC, 537BC and 539BC )

  Jehovah's Witnesses believe these dates to be accurate based on the many calculations that we have made and on the sound conclusions we have subsequently reached.

  If you [prove] 539BC then you [disprove] 607 BC or if you state 607 BC is true then you [disprove] 539BC ( then the 70 years are also wrong!) .

  I don't follow you. How?

  I think you do your cherry picking stuff and that you cannot choose any statement then i didnt mentioned to motivate one of your statements!

  I don't believe I "cherry picked" anything. What do you mean?

  @AnnOMaly:

  Ok.

  @Witness My Fury:

  Hmm well i'm sure there are some here who would say otherwise due to personal experience. Plus if this was really the case why do you keep bleating on about saying this ISN'T an apostate website... if it doesnt matter?

  I responded to a message that you posted regarding the efficacy (or the criminality, I guess!) of me posting messages to JWN where apostates like yourself also post. You are the one doing the "bleating" since I would prefer that we stay on topic (and you were off-topic).

  @Bungi Bill:

  WTS literature agrees that Nabonidus ruled for 17 years, and you only have to pick up your copy of Insight on the Scriptures to find this (Volume 2, p.457, Nabonidus), where it clearly states:

  Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire, father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts, he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556 - 539). He was given to literature, art and religion.

  (Quoted word for word)

  Do you understand what you just quoted from the "Insight" book? Notice the words, "On the basis of cuneiform texts..." This doesn't mean that Jehovah's Witnesses believe what such cuneiform texts state, but merely that Nabonidus "... is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556 - 539)," but here's the point you missed: Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe this. It is believed by some that Nabonidus ruled during the years 556 BC-539 BC, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not join in this belief of some. You will often see statements quoted in our literature, such as when we make mention of the trinity doctrine, but this doesn't mean because you might read such statements in our literature that such are among the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @MeanMrMustard:

  Priceless. That made my whole day. He said it in such a matter-of-fact way too... "so where did you get them?"

  So, like @WMF, you, too, didn't get it either? That @Bungi Bill inferred that the dates he included in his post were dates published in those three (3) Watchtower articles that he cited?

  @TD:

  It's not good enough to simply say that experts all agree on 539 BC. How exactly do they arrive at this date?

  But Jehovah's Witnesses agree with the year 539 BC as being the year when Cyrus deposed Babylon.

  The problem to me still seems to be that if you reject 587 BC then you also reject all methods of establishing 539 BC that involve counting forward through the Neo-Babylonian period. You're left with only those methods that involve counting backward through the Persian period.

  Maybe so, but we accept that we cannot know for sure when it was these Babylonian kings actually ruled, so upon our acceptance of 539 BC, and realization that it was during Cyrus' second year that the Jews repatriated the land of Judah, we accept what many others do not choose to accept as to the 70 years of desolation commencing in the year 607 BC. We read in the Bible about the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor, Evil-Merodach, and believe that the secular sources are correct about these two reigns, but things begin to get more than a bit "iffy" after Evil-Merodach's death, so that we have concluded that Nabonidus' accession year had to have been 575 BC, and that his reign came to an end in 539 BC.

  And if you accept methods that involve counting backward through the Persian period, then you must also accept that Astyages was defeated and Ecbatana fell in 550 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle indicates that this occurred in Nabonidus' 6th year. If 550 BC was his 6th year, then 539 BC would have been his 17th.

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the dates indicated in the Babylonian Chronicle, but we are aware that others that do not concern themselves with how the dates in the Chronicle conflict with the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses accept what things the Bible states first, and will always resolve any discrepancy that might exist between what it says and what others might say in favor of the Bible, which we view as being inerrant. If anyone should disagree with out opinions and our assessments on matters, they are free to do so, but at least we make it clear where both our loyalty and our faith lies.

  @djeggnog
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Not one of Jehovah's Witnesses is forced to believe our calculation to be true

  So when I tell the elders that I dont believe 607 / 1914 they wont disfellowship me? is that what you are saying?

  I didn't ask WHO you are, I asked WHAT you are. How does stating that you are a baptised JW who was baptised in xxxx year and serves as MS, Elder, Pioneer, CO, DO, GB, Archangel, Jesus etc have anything to do with anonimity? Or are you actually just a lowly long suffering JW wife with dreams of grandeur and we have you gender confused?

  The rest is your usual insulting MO. (and you wonder why people tell you to fuck off.)
• 

  Bungi Bill

  By referring to information in just two of the WTS's publications - Insight on the Scriptures and Babylon the Great has fallen,God's Kingdom Rules (who could ever forget that one!) - and then counting backwards from 539 BC, it becomes evident that the WTS is contradicting itself when it insists on the 607 BC date.

  1) That Nabonidus was the last "supreme ruler of the Babylonian Empire" and "ruled for some 17 years" is stated in Volume 2 of Insight on the Scriptures (p.457, under the heading "Nabonidus"). In that particular passage, Insight on the Scriptures even performs the calculation for you!

  i.e. It even gives the years of his reign as being from 556 to 559 BC.

  2) "Labashi-Marduk ... was a vicious boy, and within nine months had his throat cut by an assassin." (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules. p184)

  That leaves us still in the year 556 BC.

  3)"Neriglassar ... reigned for four years." (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom Rules. p184)

  So, (when I went to school, at least!), 556 + 4 = 560 BC.

  4) "After reigning but two years, King Evil-Merodach was murdered" (Babylon the Great has fallen, God's Kingdom rules. p184).

  Adding two years to 560 BC takes us to (560 + 2 )= 562 BC for the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign.

  5) "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years" (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, p.480, under the heading "Nebuchadnezzar").

  Adding 43 years to 562 BC (562 + 43) brings us to the year 605 BC as being the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

  i.e. two years before the WTS would have us believe that he destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. (Which 2 Kings 25: 2, 8 tells us occurred during the 19th year of his reign - NOTtwo years before it started!. Again, simple maths takes us from 605 - 19 = 586 BC).

  It is not for nothing that all informed researchers agree on 586 or 587 BC as being the date of the Jerusalem Temple's destruction - Archeology alone providing overwhelming evidence. However, one only needs to go to the information provided by the Watchtower Society's own publications -and then do some simple mathematics - to see that the 607 BC date is wrong.

  Yes, it is contradictory; and yes, it is totally irrational - and those stubbornly clinging to the 607 BC date are well and truly deluding themselves!

  Bill.
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness My Fury:

  So when I tell the elders that I dont believe 607 / 1914 they wont disfellowship me? is that what you are saying?

  No, I didn't say that, and it is impossible for me to say one way or the other what will happen if you were to approach one of the local elders in the congregation to let him know your thoughts on how solid you believe the year 607 BC not to be.

  If you don't believe that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 607 BC (why do you keep bringing up the year 1914, when we are not talking about 1914, are we?), you don't have to believe this to be true. What you say to others in your ministry in this case ought to be that we, that is, Jehovah's Witnesses, believe or have concluded that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Solomon's temple in 607 BC, although we do so in reliance upon God's prophecies delivered through Jeremiah that this had to have been the year when Jerusalem's temple was destroyed.

  It occurs to me that you could also, if you wanted, indicate to whoever it is you are speaking, that is, if you feel you need to do so, that while you cannot prove scripturally that the temple was destroyed in 607 BC, that this date was calculated by Jehovah's Witnesses by their adding 70 years to 537 BC, since we, that is, Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that the temple was destroyed after the land of Judah had lay desolate for 70 years from 607 BC until 537 BC.

  It occurs to me that you could even mention the fact that Cyrus is known to have deposed Babylon in 539 BC if you want, but you do not need to say anything to anyone that you do not believe, but you need to be careful with your tongue, for it is easy for some to conclude that your unwillingness to accept 607 BC as being the year when Solomon's temple was destroyed as being rebelliousness, when, according to you, this is not what it is.

  Now if you should be disfellowshipped for this reason, you will soon be reinstated again as long as when you ask to be reinstated you make clear that you are not an apostate and that you would never think to teach your own beliefs about 607 BC. You will need to make clear that you are just not convinced that the temple was destroyed in 607 BC based on what secular sources indicate. The body of elders are human beings, and the judgments they make are not always going to be perfect ones, but you would have the comfort of knowing that you are still exercising faith in Jesus Christ, and helping others to come into a knowledge of the truth despite whatever trials (like disfellowshipping) you might have to endure.

  The decision may be not to disfellowship you at all, but you could be marked in the congregation for a time, and you might not be permitted to engage in the field ministry for fear you could stumble those we meet in our ministry by this particular dissenting viewpoint, but at least you will still be in the faith waiting along with the rest of us for the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ and the end of the present system of things.

  I didn't ask WHO you are, I asked WHAT you are. How does stating that you are a baptised JW who was baptised in xxxx year and serves as MS, Elder, Pioneer, CO, DO, GB, Archangel, Jesus etc have anything to do with [anonymity]? Or are you actually just a lowly long suffering JW wife with dreams of grandeur and we have you gender confused?

  You were fishing, and I'm not a fish. I'd rather you think me to be "a lowly long suffering JW wife with dreams of grandeur" (whatever that means!) if it is not possible for you to accept that I am but a lowly servant of Jehovah God. Your knowing "who" or "what" I am won't persuade you to return to Jehovah, will it? Even if I were able to prove conclusively that Nabonidus' reign began in 575 BC and ended in 539 BC, you would still find a reason to "diss" (as the kids say) the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses because you do not wish to believe that God is using just us in connection with his eternal purpose because you do not wish to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

  The rest is your usual insulting MO. (and you wonder why people tell you to fuck off.)

  Actually, I don't wonder at all as to why it was you told me to "fuck off" and (earlier) told me to "get the fuck off this site," @WMF. I'm willing to share with you at least this much about me: I'm an adult and I know why, and if someone said the same thing to you, assuming that you're not a child, I'm quite sure that you would also know why.

  @djeggnog
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Why do you make any assumptions about my relationship with Jehovah? Equating Jehovah with Jehovahs Witnesses was a stroke of genius by Rutherford and serves to this day to close up the minds of JWs and hold them captive. Whom shall we go away to? Ring any bells?

  Why make any assumptions about my belief in Jesus? Is it because you need to convince yourself that those who leave the JWs do so to pursue all manner of illicit pleasures and a godless life? And matters of doctrine or chronology could NEVER be the hub of the matter and is only some form of excuse?. The WTS would have you believe that. Why not put some rational thought into it and think for yourself instead of being told what to and what not to believe?

  You may well convince yourself that these are YOUR thoughts, but they are not. You are not allowed to think. The regular repitition at meetings, assemblies, disctict conventions all serve to dull individuality and freedom of thought.

  If you are JW as you appear to claim (though it's difficult to be sure you are or not from your distancing yourself from them on the one hand and then claiming to be one on the other) then deep down you will know this. You may deny it, but you do know it.

  I'll tell you how it feels to discover that being a JW is based on lies / false chronology and mis interpretation of scripture. It SUCKS.

  That's right it sucks. I did lots of research before reaching this point in my life and did not take this decision lightly as you would wish to believe. I carefully made sure of these things. I wanted to PROVE that the "truth" was indeed the truth and so that my best years (40) has not been wasted in just another cult.

  So to discover instead that the WTS lies, twists, supresses information, cherry picks, misquotes etc etc just to uphold their delusion of being God appointed and MASTERs of my faith is in fact a hard pill to swallow. If ever you take your blinkers of and SEE then you will know what this feels like, and you will understand for yourself the hurt and anger often on display on sites like this one.

  No one is trying to hoodwink you here Egg. The WTS has already done that job on you.