C.O. Jonsson's response to Watchtower's latest 607 articles

by wannabefree 73 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  the pharmer

  marking
• 

  jonathan dough

  Wow! I just became aware of the very recent Watchtower article: "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?" I said to myself, "Boy, I hope someone who has researched this topic would post a rebuttal." And, behold, a detailed thoroughly researched response was provided on JWN - with Freeminds bringing my attention to this in the Net Soup section!

  Not only does Jonsson provide a scholarly rebuttal to the recent Watchtower defense of 607, mentioned above, at http://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar1.pdf

  but Doug Mason has done an excellent job in debunking the entire 607 notion as well, and has also recently critiqued the article (7mb) set forth by the society: http://www.jwstudies.com/babylonian_captivity.html
  Critique of When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed

  For those lurking and non-lurking JWs who have read the Society's position and defense, perhaps they should now hear the other side of the argument. Otherwise they are simply ingesting and regurgitating propoganda, nothing more. And for those still not convinced, here are many websites devoted to this particular topic, some in great detail.

  http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/607_bce_586_587_destruction_fall_desolation_jerusalem.html

  Some out there are scratching their heads at what all the fuss is about, and for them, here is a brief overview of the controversy.

  Introduction[top]

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. Mainstream Christian theologians, archeologists and historians take the position that it was destroyed in 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view supported by the overwhelming weight of archeological and historical evidence, and an objective reading of the Bible. The Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this archeological and historical evidence because it does not harmonize with their religious beliefs. Instead, they essentially confine their evidence to their interpretation of Scripture. Accordingly, this paper confines itself primarily to scriptural interpretation, and logic, and proves that Jerusalem was not, and could not have been, destroyed in 607 B.C.E., but was destroyed in either 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view which harmonizes with substantial and persuasive archeological and historical facts.

  The year 607 B.C.E. plays a crucial role in the religious tenets of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In accordance with their interpretation of Scripture, 607 B.C.E. is fundamental, a watershed which serves as a foundation for their faith and philosophy. Based upon mathematical calculations derived primarily from the book of Daniel, the Jehovah’s Witnesses count forward 2,520 years from the fall of 607 B.C.E. to arrive at the fall of A.D. 1914 - the onslaught of World War I and the year in which they believe the End Times commenced. 1914 is also believed to be the year Jesus Christ was enthroned in heaven as ruling king of the Kingdom of God, which is yet another false teaching addressed in detail in the accompanying article found here. This author is primarily concerned with whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

  The Jehovah's Witnesses insist they are God's only true prophet, writing: "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). (See Deut. 18:21.)
  
  With respect to 1914, the Jehovah’s Witnesses regard this year, and the method by which they arrive there, as prophecy. If, however, Jerusalem did not fall in 607 B.C.E. and if it fell in 587/6 B.C.E. their prophetic date is off by twenty years, and false, and would cause other critical dates in their belief structure to fail. The Jehovah's Witnesses regard this enthronement of Christ to be the long-awaited Second Coming of Christ, whereas mainstream Christians believe the Second Coming and His parousia (presence) are in the future as heralded at Matthew 24:30,31 and Mark 13:24-32. The fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Second Coming and parousia have already occurred is cause for serious reflection and concern.

  B. Historical Overview[top]

  For those unfamiliar with the issues, a very brief historical overview is in order. We are basically dealing with events that span roughly 125 years, from 625 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. It includes the end, or fall, of the Assyrian Empire to Babylon in 609 B.C.E. followed by the rise and subsequent end, or fall, of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Babylonian Empire) which lasted seventy years, followed by the rise and early years of the combined empires of the Persians and Medes which ended Babylon’s reign in October 539 B.C.E.

  We are especially concerned with the Jews of Jerusalem and Judah during this time who were caught between these rising and falling empires, particularly the seventy-year period defined here as the Babylonian Empire. These Jews would come to serve Babylon in various capacities, as did all the surrounding nations that fell under the dominion of the Babylonians, or Chaldeans.

  There were numerous Babylonian kings during this era, beginning with Nabopolassar who presided over the final demise of Assyria in 609 B.C.E., followed by his son Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar), the great warrior king who consolidated the empire through numerous military campaigns. It was Nebuchadnezzar who enslaved the Jews, forced them to become vassals, dispersed them to other nations, exiled them to Babylon and annihilated or devastated Jerusalem and Judah. The end of the Babylon Empire was presided over by Nabonidus who was then king, though his son Belshazzer was co-ruler of Babylon when the Persians and Medes conquered them in October 539 B.C.E.

  Our attention is basically focused on three Jewish kings:

  a) Jehoiakim: He ruled eleven years, and had been in power when Nebuchadnezzar ruled in his first year as king of Babylon. Jehoiakim became a vassal to Babylon in his eighth year, rebelled against Babylon, and depending upon which Bible one reads, and other factors, was exiled to Babylon with other Jews (2 Kings 24:1-4).

  b) Jehoiachin (also called Jeconiah): His reign replaced Jehoiakim's but lasted only three months at which time he, and 10,000 others - all of Jerusalem - were exiled to Babylon roughly 800 miles away (2 Kings 24:8 - 17).

  c) Zedekiah: He replaced Jehoiachin, ruled eleven years, became a vassal to Babylon early on, and steadfastly rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar who then utterly destroyed Jerusalem and Judah in Zedekiah’s eleventh year; he either slaughtered, dispersed or exiled the remaining Jews to Babylon. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe this destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 B.C.E., while everyone else for the most part agrees it occurred in 587/6 B.C.E. See generally Jeremiah chapters 24 and 25.
  
  After the Persians and Medes conquered Babylon in 539 B.C.E. the Jews were set free and roughly 50,000 of them returned home to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E.

  C. Overview of the Controversy [top]

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses' task of proving that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. and not 587/6 B.C.E. is no easy feat in light of strong archeological, historical and scriptural evidence to the contrary. Notwithstanding this uphill battle, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone to elaborate lengths to rationalize their position, regrettably causing a dizzying smoke-screen of complexity when the answers and issues, as will be detailed below, are relatively simple and straightforward as the Almighty intended them to be - in order to reach as many people as possible.
  
  At the heart of the controversy is a seventy-year prophetic period of time. The Jehovah’s Witnesses simply count backward seventy years from the fall of 537 B.C.E., the year Jews returned to Judah after being exiled to Babylon, to arrive at 607 B.C.E. Therefore, they reason, Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 607 B.C.E.
  
  The problem is that they have completely misinterpreted and misapplied the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 and accompanying verses because they desperately need 607 B.C.E. in order to arrive at 1914. An abbreviated form of this seventy-year prophecy, unfortunately taken out of context, and reproduced in the article Setting the Record Straight - a fierce and very comprehensive defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses' pro-607 stance - provides:

  The word that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. —Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11.

  According to Setting the Record Straight this prophecy has two parts equal in length, both parts beginning and ending at exactly the same time:
  
  A) The land of Judah, and Jerusalem, would be devastated and remain so without a single inhabitant exactly seventy years commencing with Jerusalem’s destruction and not before, and this period of devastation ended seventy years later only when the exiled Jews physically returned to their homeland Judah from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. The opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and the period of complete devastation lasted only 48 - 50 years.
  
  B) All exiled Jews that fell within the scope of the prophecy were removed at Jerusalem’s destruction, and not before, and remained as exiles serving Babylon a full seventy years until their actual return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. Again, the opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and those exiles removed at that time to Babylon served only 48 - 50 years in captivity.
  
  It should be pointed out that should either prong of this composite two-prong approach fail, the entire prophecy, or their version of it, fails.
  
  As such, we are essentially dealing with two primary areas of interest related to a) when Judah’s devastation began and ended, and the extent of that devastation, and b) when servitude to the king of Babylon began and ended, what servitude meant, and to whom it applied. Saving the Record Straight frames the Jehovah’s Witnesses' position as follows:

  While some critics argue that Jeremiah 25:11 only refers to seventy years of servitude, Daniel 9:2 confirms that the prophecy also entailed seventy years of devastation for the land of Judah. Second Chronicles 36:20, 21 further shows that it was the composite effect of exiling the remaining ones who “came to be servants to [Nebuchadnezzar]” and the resulting devastation and desolation of the land of Judah that began to fulfill the prophecy concerning the seventy years.

  The Watchtower Society in its publication Let Your Kingdom Come and elsewhere confirms that the seventy-year period ended only upon the Jews’ return to Judah, and not before.

  The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (Chronicles 36:17 - 23)
  
  The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem's destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus' decree," - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 463.

  This paper begins with an analysis of the underlying issues presented by the phrase a) “and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (servitude), followed by a discussion of issues pertaining to the phrase b) "all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment” (devastation).
  
  Please, weigh all of the evidence; place it on a scale and see where it tilts.

  http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html#A
• 

  Crisis of Conscience

  Marking
  and
  Bumping
• 

  diamondiiz

  I was just wondering since there was no mention of 1914 in either of the articles nor linking 607 to 1914. How many witnesses realize that 607BC is essential to 1914 BS calculations? When we were in, would we clue in, that 607 date had anything to do with calculating 1914 while reading either of the two articles?

  Besides that, what are the chances that the writers of the two articles and GB actually believe in 607 themselves? After all, we've seen that they chose to quote the sources very carefully, taking sentences out of context and placing emphasis that would require careful manipulation of the source text. They specifically downplay and omit facts which makes me strengthen my belief that these lowlifes know that they are deceiving the r&f.

  Is it possible that Furuli contributed to writing or actually wrote both of the articles himself for wts?

  It's sick how WTS openly deceives their followers who are basically giving up their lives and the lives of their kids for a false believes while being kept in the dark.
• 

  Doug Mason

  diamondiiz,

  You ask: "Is it possible that Furuli contributed to writing or actually wrote both of the articles himself for wts?".

  There can be little doubt that his fingerprints are all over these articles, although his words likely would have been edited in accordance with house style.

  I do not know whether he considers himself to be one of the Anointed 144,000 , but I suggest that it would not be uncommon for members of the "Other Sheep" class to write the Watchtower's articles.

  Nevertheless, the GB, individually and collectively must take full responsibility for anything that is written on behalf of the organisation.

  Doug
• 

  jookbeard

  marked , not heard much from COJ over the years, I would say his writing were perhaps even more important then Franz' works to my departure from the Cancer, The Sign of the Last Days/The Gentile times Reconsidered are "musts" for anyone's library.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  DIAMONDIIZ - "Besides that, what are the chances that the writers of the two articles and GB actually believe in 607 themselves? After all, we've seen that they chose to quote the sources very carefully, taking sentences out of context and placing emphasis that would require careful manipulation of the source text. They specifically downplay and omit facts which makes me strengthen my belief that these lowlifes know that they are deceiving the r&f."

  This is a great observation, and its the conclusion I have reached as well. You CANNOT POSSIBLY do all that research and come away with the idea that Jersalem was sacked in 607, let alone write an entire article about it OMITTING SPECIFIC EVIDENCE to lead the reader to a completely false conclusion without knowing you are full of shit.
• 

  Quendi

  There is still another very important point that most have skipped over in this discussion about 607 BC being the date for Jerusalem's first destruction and I think it bears repeating and emphasizing. Nowhere, NOWHERE, will you find the number 2,520 mentioned in the Bible, particularly in the book of Daniel. What makes this more remarkable is the fact that Daniel does contain some very specific numbers: 70; 1,290; 1,335;, and 2,300. This is a major point. If the number 2,520 was so important for the calculation of the length of the Gentile Times by the WTS and others (for C.T. Russell wasn't the only one who taught this), why is it not explicitly stated anywhere?

  In that sense, then, the date of Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians is inconsequential because no link can be established between it and the length of the "times of the nations" in Luke 21:24. Christ himself makes no such connection between his statement and Daniel's words. Furthermore, when Christ does mention Daniel in the great Olivet prophecy, the reference is certainly not to the tree-dream Nebuchadnezzar had and Daniel interpreted. If the tree-dream was so vital to understanding when to expect the kingdom to come, then why is it that neither Christ nor the New Testament writers ever reference it? They pass over it in complete silence.

  Another point to keep in mind is this. Daniel plainly, simply and explicitly states that the tree is Nebuchadnezzar and the prophecy's fulfillment will come entirely upon him. That was his understanding when he gives the interpretation and it was still his belief decades later. On the night of Babylon's fall to the Medes and Persians Daniel reminds Belshazzar of what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar in fulfillment of the prophecy. --Daniel 4:20-22; 5:18-21

  Charles Russell believed that this prophecy had a "double application". He was not the only one to think so and from this premise there arose the elaborate calculations of what to expect in the twentieth century and when they would occur. The Bible Students weren't the only group looking for great things to happen in 1914. They were merely the loudest proclaimers of this belief. But the expectations they had as well as others depended on the dispensationalist teaching that Daniel 4 had a second fulfillment and the number 2,520 figured most importantly in this. Determining that 1914 would see Armageddon was a direct result.

  Some have suggested that perhaps the WTS is trying to back away from 1914 because the two Watchtower articles which discuss the year of Jerusalem's destruction make no reference to it. I disagree with this idea. If that were the case, why bring up the subject at all? Obviously, the Governing Body and the WTS are getting a lot of questions about the legitimacy of the date, especially with 2014 looming on the horizon. As a matter of fact, the October piece states that the article is a response to a reader's question. The only reason to discuss the year of Jerusalem's destruction is to validate 1914 as the start of the last days. That is the cornerstone teaching of this religion. Take that away, and the whole structure will collapse. I wouldn't be surprised to see future articles build on what these two have tried to establish and underline the belief that the last days began in 1914 and Armageddon's arrival must be very close at hand.

  Quendi
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Quendi - I agree with your point. Taking Daniel 4 and giving it a minor and major application is pure creative thinking. However, I think its much easier to argue that 1914 means nothing because Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in 607 (FACT) verses saying that Daniel 4 doesnt' have a major application that stretches 2,520 years into our time (theological interpretation).

  Putting them together is certainly more powerful if the person believes 607/1914 because of the WTS interpretation of Daniel, but I know for me, I always believed Daniel to have the "major" application because I believed 607. Without 607, I quickly realized that the explaination of Daniel was actually given by Daniel himself and that it was a huge stretch to think he meant anything more than he explained. Interestingly enough, when Daniel was talking about the future, he actually said so. So why didn't he say so when explaining the tree dream?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Is it possible that Furuli contributed to writing or actually wrote both of the articles himself for wts?

  Hell yes! Most of the arguments and source material are from his book(s)! I do not think another writer would be so familiar with the intricacies of his work, to the level necessary, to untangle all its knots and attempt to write a summary suitable for general readership. If Furuli didn't write the articles directly, he was very closely involved with the process, IMO. I agree with Doug.