"If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it wel enough" Albert Einstein
Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect.
by XPeterX 102 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Alfred
OK... let me take a crack at this...
No Babilonian king was alive between 539 BCE and 537 BCE... So the 70 years of SERVITUDE ran from 609 BCE to 539 BCE... END OF STORY...
How's that for a few words???
-
cedars
Ooh, can I have a go?
....Because NO secular historian outside of the influence of the Watch Tower Society concurs with the historicity of that date!
Cedars
-
usualusername
coz http://www.607v587.com/ says so.
-
Jeffro
There are many things wrong with 607.
As a starting point, Jeremiah 25:12 says a period of 70 years would be fulfilled, and then the king of Babylon would be called to account. Setting aside the fact that the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon and not Jews in exile, the simple direct order of events means the 70 years could not end any later than 539BCE.
-
AnnOMaly
Because its fundamental flaw is misunderstanding what the 70 years applies to.
Instead of it applying to 70 years of captivity (or servitude) to Babylon, Russell wrongly insisted that "the Lord expressly declares them to be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the land should lie 'desolate, without an inhabitant.' Such was not the case prior to Zedekiah's dethronement." (Studies, The Time Is At Hand, p. 52)
-
cedars
I like the idea of this thread. I think it's good to be able to explain to others quickly and succinctly why the chronology is wrong. That said, I can't muster up the enthusiasm to look into it in any great depth, which is what I would need to do in order to formulate my own authentic response. Quite simply, I don't believe that the prophecy of Nebuchanezzar's madness had anything to do with the so-called "gentile times" - and even if it did, I don't think 1914 signalled the end of any such period. That world events conspired to seemingly grant a level of credence to Russell's predictions was extremely fortuitous on his part, but ultimately it was a tragic coincidence. The fact that we are now in 2012 proves that 1914 could not possibly have been the beginning of a "short period of time" culminating in Armageddon. Without a 1914, there can be no 607.
Cedars
-
slimboyfat
JWs use the same historical evidence as the basis for their 537 BCE date that they reject when it comes 607 BCE. Why accept the evidence as reliable for one date and not the other?
-
Black Sheep
Never mind using words. Just get the lengths of the Baby king's reigns (you can use the WTCD for this) and do the sums.
-
Londo111
VAT4956