Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect. (page 9)

AnnOMaly

breakfast of champions - you've got it all right.

It's all been done before with eggie.

Good bedtime reading - http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/209971/15/607-wrong-using-ONLY-the-bible-and-some-common-sense

Maybe Phizzy is right. Maybe this back-and-forth has been useful after all. A foil provided argument and counter-argument, allowing the issue to be rehashed from different angles, as well as providing points for research to anyone interested and contrasted argument styles. In the end, the truth points to itself for those looking.

Thanks, Eggy! We must do this more often.

Londo111

Since this is my 537th post, I decided to bump this thread to the top.

To reiterate: The 70 years did not end in the year 537BC...therefore, the 70 years could not have began in 607BC.

Londo111

Ezra 1:1 says, "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia…" And Ezra 3:1 says, "When the seventh month arrived the sons of Israel were in [their] cities. And the people began to gather themselves as one man to Jerusalem."

From Ezra's timeline, a plain reading would indicate that the first regnal year would be Nissan 538 BC, and therefore, they returned by the 7 th month, Tishri 538 BC.

Londo111

Jeremiah 25:12, says "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite."

When was the king of Babylon called into account? Daniel 9:26-28 says, "ME´NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it. TE´KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. PE´RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians."

So the ending point of the 70 years is 539 BCE.

539 BCE - 70 years = 609 BCE

What happened in 609 BCE? "The Babylonians defeat the Assyrian army of Ashur-uballit II and capture Harran. Ashur-uballit, the last Assyrian king, disappears from history." So logically the 70 year period that Jeremiah foretells is the period of Babylon's Dominance of the region and the lands roundabout, from the time Assyria's last stronghold was captured, until Babylon fell to Cyrus.

BroMac

Londo111 so simply put, thanks

this is a great thread.

Jeffro

There's a very good reason why no Watch Tower Society publication has quoted Jeremiah 25:12 in over 30 years.

Londo111

Looking on the CD-ROM, their attempts to explain the verse away leaves much to be desired.

BroMac

Jeffro, is that true! wow, that is amazing.... 30yrs.. Jer 25:12.. but verse 11 has maybe a hundred or more references? i mean verse 12 is THE answer to what 70yrs means without any GUESSING for what a desolation may mean.

BTW thanks for your blog on this subject.

BluesBrother

I used to think that I was too thick to understand the WTS reasoning to get to 607bce & 1914 ce...now I know that I am too thick to follow all the detailed debate over that date and 587bce. I do know though that all the archaologists agree that 587 is the likely date - so what is the argument against it?

The WTS publishes the scripture that says "Let God be found true though every man be found a liar" . That is OK, provided that one believes , so I would not argue against Scripture with a dub. What gets to me though is the WTS ascribing the same principle to their own writings, not scripture at all!

Take last Sunday's WT study "Trust in Jehovah, The God of Times and Seasons" we had a discussion of how God is the great timekeeper and his word is as good as done - so far so good. They then use that to quell the flock's rising impatience with the "times and seasons" provided by the WTS NOT God at all.

Who forecast the end in 1914? Not God. Who promised a ressurrection by 1925? Not God ...We could go on and on , as we know only too well.

To take your own flawed writings and attribute them to God - is blasphemy!

O K I drifted off topic a bit, but it is related , I think..

Explain in a FEW word's why the 607 date is incorrect.

Share this