Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals (page 51)

Witness My Fury

Ethos last post was 5 days ago, ...not sure if he got kicked or just left in a huff LOL

I quite agree with never a jw.. there are no dates in the bible at all that can be fixed on. It is all pure conjecture. The only way any dates can be assumed is based on secular evidence, whether it's for 587BCE or 539BCE or any other date. Anyone reading the bible and the events in there have to make IT fit with secular evidence and not the other way around.

Where in the bible does it give an exact date for the fall of Jerusalem? It doesn't. Where in the bible does it gve an exact date for the fall of Babylon? It doesn't.

jgnat

OK, I give up at about page 4. The arguments start repeating themselves anyways. Here's a summary, roughly broken down by the main topics. I summarized brutally, and left out the "slings and arrows" of insult. Ethos picked one bible interpretation and gave his own alternative. He did not bother to go in to secular dating, and as far as I know, he was not able to defend another way of arriving at 1914.

607 Debate Summary

Ethos’ summary of the 537/538 debate, based on a thread that Londo 111 had started earlier.

Jeremiah 25:12 After 70 years, Babylon will be called to account
Daniel 9:26-28 Babylon will be taken over by the Medes and the Persians
Jeremiah 29:10 When the 70 years is over for Babylon, Jehovah will bring his people back
Quoting Hebrew scholar Ernst Jenni on the interpretation of some verbs, the Isrealites return when Babylon is overthrown.
Conclusion, the ending point is 539 BCE. [Not stated but assumed, that Babylon was destroyed in 539 BCE - JK]
Counting backwards from 539 BCE, we have 609 BCE

Servitude
Jews did not leave Babylon in 539 B.C.E. Therefore, their servitude, included in the nations aforementioned in Jeremiah 25, had not yet ended at the supposed ending point of 539 B.C.E. Cyrus had not yet changed Babylonian policy when he ascended the Babylonian throne. Ethos post 43

The servitude started with Nebuchadnezzer. Ethos post 43
The 70 year-servitude could not have begun in 609 BCE, and therefore could not have ended in 539 B.C.E. Ethos post 43
609 BCE marks the fall of the Assyrian empire, with the fall of Harran. Babylonia was the world empire from 609 BCE until 539 BCE. Jeffro post 6785

There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile. Jeremiah 25:8-12 refers to "all the nations" serving the king of Babylon rather than Jewish exile. Jeffro post 2785

Jeremiah 25 is not speaking to the exiles already in Babylon. It is speaking to the entire nation of Judea. Ethos post 50
Jeffro was alluding to Jer. 29, not 25. Would you like to make a comment on Jeffro's argument about Jer. 29? AnnOmaly Post 2928
Jeremiah 29 is referring to a completely different supposed exile and mentions the 70 years. So what? Its a weak argument either way. There are two exiles. Ethos post 55
In the JW interpretation (of Jeremiah 29:10 [that's in Jeremiah chapter 29 by the way]), we're expected to believe that Jews already in Babylon since 617 were told in 614 that they would be in Babylon for 70 years, but they're not told that itstarts from some unstated point in the future.
In reality, Jews who had been in Babylon since 597 were told in 594 that they wouldn't go home until Babylon had been the dominant power for 70 years (i.e. all the nations served Babylon), which they could reasonably have known started when Assyria was overthrown, the same year Josiah died (609). Jeffro post 2801
So to tell the exiles already in Babylon that the 70 years period was to start at some indeterminate time in the future - maybe, if ever - is just nonsensical. AnnOmaly post 2931

All nations, including Judah, were to serve Babylon or face the consequences. When Cyrus overthrew Babylon, these nations no longer had to serve it. The 70 years were up. Londo111 post 938

There were 3 Visits to Jerusalem
1. Daniel and sundry were exiled in the first visit by Babylon 609/607 BC
2. The good figs namely Jechoniah and his brothers visit by Babylon approx. 597 BC
3. The bad figs were destroyed and WOULD NOT come back under Zedekiah when Jerusalem was destroyed approx. 586/587 BC Pterist post 109, 110
Once again......the WTBS bases the critical date of Zedekiah's loss of kingship and the destruction of Jerusalem.....587 BC or 607 BC The address at Jeremiah 29:10 is to those already in exile (Daniel the first group and Jechoniah's group) Zedekiah was still in Jerusalem ruling, and that last group that did NOT obey Jehovah to go into exile are the bad figs. Pterist post 111
[I am sorry, Pterist, I could not summarize your figs tale on post 112. I interpret it to mean that three waves of exiles means three sets of 70 years with different fulfillment dates. Which does not work-JK] also Pterist 133

Servitude continued after the rebuilding of the temple. Ezra 4:11-22. Nehemiah 9:36, 37 AnnOmaly post 2927

Returning the temple utensils
The error that was to be called into account had not been atoned for until Cyrus' first regnal year with the returning of the temple utensils. Ethos post 44
Jeremiah 28:3 states that the temple utensils will be returned two years after Cyrus’ degree. (Castthefirststone, post 29)
Jeremiah 28:3 is a false prophecy by Hannaniah. Ethos post 48
True but Jeremiah ratifies that prophecy in Jer 28:6 by saying Amen. Castthefirststone post 30
None of what Hannaniah was actually a sentiment or a statement on behalf of Jehovah, and he was punished for it. Jeremiah did say "Amen", because he momentarily perceived it to be a message from a true prophet sent by Jehovah.(Jeremiah 28:15-8) Ethos post 52

Where does it state in the Bible that it will take 70 years for the utensils to be restored? casthefirststone post 32

3. The temple was raided of its utensils 3 times - in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when Jehoiachin and several thousands were taken into exile, and when Jerusalem and the temple were finally destroyed (Dan. 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:12,13; 25:13-17). AnnOmaly post 2927

Board response to the calling in to account
There is no reason to connect Jeremiah 1:34 to Nebuchadnezzer’s calling in to account. Jeffro post 2779
How can Nebuchadnezzar have been 'called to account' when he was DEAD? AnnOmaly post 2927
There was no vengeance on Cyrus,... (Isaiah 45:1). He did not render an account, for, he did nothing to incur Jehovah’s anger. Londo 111 post 938

Why hung up with 607/1914?
I understand how hung up JWs are about 607 BCE, becau[s]e if it isn't the right date then neither is 1914. But I ask you, why is 1914 so important? 607 BCE and 1914 are inextricably tied. One will not work without the other. Tornapart post 1064, 1067, 1071 Finklestein post 1601,1603, 1604 Rather be in Hades 1379, notjustyet post 334, DATA-DOG post 735, isaacaustin post 6985, Witness My Fury post 1554

607 is selected because it the only date of destruction for Jerusalem that will not undermine the prophecied 70 year servitude and exile in Babylon to appease conjectured secular evidence. Ethos post 51
607 is selected because it fits with the WTS's (untenable) chronological scheme. The secular evidence is not conjectured, it's based on several lines of independently verified evidence. AnnOMaly post 2928
The secular evidence is far from conjecture. The Neo-Babylonian chronology is firmly established. Londo 111 post 959
586/7 works just fine regarding the prophecied 70 year servitude of the nations to Babylon. isaacaustin post 988
I found that 607 is not only unlikely but actually impossible in the face of what the Bible actually says. Jeffro post 284

1914 can be worked out with other methods. Ethos post 51, 52
First of all Ethos, the 2520 days/years method is hardly concrete as a method, it is bordering on crazy, but what other method could give you 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction ?

Or did you mean 1914 can be arrived at by another method, regardless of the incorrectness of 607 ? that you could ditch 607 and still prove 1914? If so how? Phizzy post 333

Ethos I would be interested to know what these are. I think Russel arrived at it by measuring the stone pyramids. Are these concrete methods similar? Ucantnome post 376

You start off by taking a verse that clearly states it was fulfilled in nebuchadnezzar and insist on a second fulfillment. You then jump to an array of unrelated verses and string them together...insisting that the 7 times passing over Neb related to the Luke account of the nations being trampled...then jumping to Revelation and equating the 3 and 1/2 times mentioned there to half the 7 times spoken of in Daniel. Isaacaustin post 6979

Board response to the seventy years
The seventy years references Babylon’s domination, not the length of Jewish servitude. Captives were taken by Babylon at three separate times. Jeffro post 2777

... these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years- Jeremiah 25:11 Nabonidus and Belshezzar killed in 539... 609-539=70 Calebs Airpane post 82

I see three conclusions here:
The 70 years went from 609 to 539 and hence the Gentile times ended 1912
Science proves that Jerusalem fell 587, bible prophecy shows this fits with the 70 years, so the Gentile times ended 1934
jwfacts post 6989, 6991

The captivity likely started in 605 under Nebuchadnezzer. Finkelstein post 1601
That is a completely different argument. Ethos post 46

Reigns of Kings
Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE
Nabonidus -- 17 years, Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months, Neriglissar -- 4 years,
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years, Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years (In the 19th year of his reign he destroyed Jerusalem) Punkofnice post 2363
Close. Except the author of 2 Kings (possibly Jeremiah) includes accession years, placing his reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 587BCE, not 586BCE. - Jeffro post 2783

Accepting Secular Chronology
Your conclusion implies that you trust secular chronology and history. Never a JW post 78
It would be helpful to explain why some secular dates are accepted while others are not.
TD post 4200, 4203

538 or 539?
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army, and a few weeks later the great conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus, made his triumphal entry into the fallen city. One of the official acts of the new ruler in Babylon was to give to the exiled Jews full liberty to return to Judah.." - Ethos post 43

I want to point out that despite the quotes from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia or the Catholic Encyclopedia, based on research on the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Battle of Opis, Cyrus entered Babylon on October, 29 539 BC. Therefore, what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army” is a year off. Londo 111 post 938.

jgnat

I promised a graph. Here's a graph.

607 Timeline

TD

The only way any dates can be assumed is based on secular evidence, whether it's for 587BCE or 539BCE or any other date. Anyone reading the bible and the events in there have to make IT fit with secular evidence and not the other way around.

That pretty much strikes the nail on the head for someone like me.

Typical example: The June 15th 1997 Watchtower quoted Jane Cahill and David Tarler from Yigael Yadin's book Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Although it was not explicitly stated, the quote left the impression that archeological evidence supported 607.

Both Cahill and Tarler were contacted by email and asked if they agreed with the quote. Here are their respective replies:

No, I have no idea what this guy is talking about. I have never heard of the Watchtower Society, I have never published anything suggesting that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, and - as far as I know - Yigal never published anything like that either. I would respond that I know of no evidence supporting such a date. Hope that answers your query.

Take care!

Jane Cahill

I am not familiar with the article you cited - and I would appreciate receiving a copy of it - but I never said that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. I do not think that, today, archeologists could differentiate between 607 B.C.E. and 587 B.C.E. material cultural remains. Assuming that there are material remains from a 604 B.C.E. destruction at Tel Miqne/Ekron and from a 587 B.C.E. destruction at the City of David/Jerusalem, comprehensive analysis of these remains conceivably could yield chronological indicators for other sites, but even then, the archeological conclusions would derive from those assumed dates; the dates themselves would not derive from the archeology.

David Tarler

The situation is similar with the Bible. A legitimate discussion would revolve around how secular dating supports the Bible and not how the Bible may be interpreted in a way that overturns that secular dating. --And in that respect, everything about this thread, including the title strikes me as backwards and kittywampus.

AnnOMaly

jgnat, I don't understand the placing of Jerusalem's destruction at the 575 mark under "Ann O'Maly Astronomical." The bar should match the one under "Established Scholarly."

jgnat

AnnOmaly, when I was reading the astronomical thread and from what I could see, 565 was an even better fit than 585. Did I read it wrong? My graph is in 5-year increments so it is not "accurate".

AnnOMaly

It's just that you tag it as 'DJ' - destruction of Jerusalem. The astronomical thread about VAT 4956 gives evidence in favor of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being 568/7 BCE (rather than the WTS's/Furuli's year of 588/7 BCE). This would mean his 18th year, in which he destroyed Jerusalem, would be 587/6 BCE (rather than the WTS's/Furuli's year of 607/6 BCE). This would match the "Established Scholarly" bar.

Londo111

Jgnat: Thanks for your hard work rereading and summarizing! I think I have a person like you on my team at work.

tornapart

Wow! Excellent summary Gnat! 25 pages condensed into one post. Awesome!

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this