Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso 87 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pterist

  The prophesy of the 70 years from Jehovah is about the Babylonian rule .........

  Jeremiah 25:

  11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

  12 “But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon

  Its all about Babylon .......**********..70 years for BABYLON .....***********

  If Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar came to power in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon that would be approx 627 BC by your WBTS reckoning....and since your accept approx 537 BC for the Babylon to lose power to Cyrus the great, this equates to approx 90 years .......no where near 70 ....as specified in Jeremiah 25:11-12....

  Either way 1914, and that generation now gone is failed escathology, 1914/1919 is the WBTS Waterloo ......

  Shalom
• 

  EdenOne

  Even if 607 was the correct date; Even if the "gentile times" were seven; Even if those translated into 2520 days; Even if one day / one year "rule" would apply and they were 2520 'years'... 1914 would still be wrong.

  How?

  Because the number 2520 was calculated based on lunar years of 360 days. Now, when you transpose that into solar years, on which our calendars are based, you have to account for the difference of -5,25 days per each year. (A solar year is 365,25 days). This amounts to a difference of over 36 years SHORT. Therefore, if one wants to be intellectually honest and consistent in the calculations, from 607 BCE, 2520 lunar years, which converted, are 2484 solar years, one arrives at a date around 1876 - not 1914.

  Eden
• 

  wizzstick

  That's a particularly stoopid site. When I read it through last year I straight away noticed this:

  Tyre forgotten for 70 years.

  Period begins after the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 26:1), which is 607 BCE. Period ends precisely 70 years later when Tyre's profit becomes holy to Jehovah (Isaiah 23:14), in 537 BCE (Ezra 3:1) when Tyre provides materials for the new temple.

  Which made me laugh as they cheerfully contradict their F&DS on it!!

  http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200275991/23/0

  Doh!

  As AnnOMaly said earlier:

  You 'received'? Somebody sent you this? This is only a c&p from http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/conclusion.html

  You'll find the rebuttals laid out on Jeffro's site: http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/response-to-607-website/#ChapterC

  The rebuttals on Jeffro's site do indeed answer every point.

  It's really simple. If they accept 539BCE then they have to accept 586BCE. It's the same block of evidence!

  I'm suprised they've not used the Tyre idea in the link above and applied it to Jerusalem. Could have their cake and eat it!
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  marked
• 

  redvip2000

  There are scores and scores of archeological and astronomical evidence that support the date of 587, and yet the Watchtower society turns a blind eye to it.

  For me i like the smaller peripheral points of evidence that nobody looks at. For example, in Jeremiah 44 ( which is placed at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem) the writer mentions the ruling pharaoh at that time. In this case Pharaoh Hophra

  Now Pharaoh Hophra ruled from (589 BC – 570 BC) which fits nicely with the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587 BC. In 607 BC he was simply an infant.

  If you study Egyptian history you will learn that during the siege of Jerusalem just prior to it's destruction, Pharaoh Hophra sent an armed to Jerusalem to protect it from the babylonian forces. The Egyptian army was crushed and Jerusalem was destroyed.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  My understanding of this issue is this: there is NO disagreement between the Bible's prophetic decriptions and archaeological evidence point to Jerusalem's destruction as being 587 bce.

  537 bce is a clear and agreed upon date by both secular sources and the WT. 537 bce also estabishes 587 bce as Jerusalem's destruction.

  The problem lies in how WT chooses to interpret what the Bible says. WT accepts as credible historical and archaeological evidence that establishes 537 bce. However, WT then disregards these same sources and unreliable when they also establish 587 bce.

  WT must hang on to 607 in order to make 1914 work.
• 

  sd-7

  This essay and website has been researched, written, and created by brothers who, at one time, believed that 607 BCE was incorrect, and that 587 BCE was more likely. We read the claims of apostates, and were gullible enough to be taken in by them. After some time we realized that the promoters of 587 were not motivated by “truth seeking”, as they so often claim, but rather from an arrogant desire to simply prove the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York wrong, and to prove themselves more clever or more righteous than Jehovah's people, whom they hold in obvious contempt.

  Ad hominem, anyone? Impressive how the authors of this article seem to know exactly what the 'promoters of 587' were thinking or feeling when they reached their conclusions. Predictably, they attribute the same motives that the Watchtower attributes to anyone who disagrees with them.

  There is a very popular book which advocates the 587 BCE date, written by an apostate with a disturbing cult-like following.

  ...but let's not name the book, or the author, because we certainly don't want people to actually weigh both sides of an argument like a good educator might suggest. Also, there is a very popular magazine which advocates the 1914 CE date, written by a group of people with a definite cult-like following. But let's not go there, shall we? "It would be extremely painful. For you."

  If only 607 were the only relevant issue, heck, I might still be a JW. But even if they were dead right about 607 (in the face of every historian on earth who has no subjective motive at all and determined a date for Jerusalem's destruction based only on available facts and not out of desire to see prophecy fulfilled), that would really accomplish nothing of lasting value to a Christian, save maybe to prove Old Testament prophecies may have been accurate.

  Either way, I'd rather not get into each prophecy on this. Again.

  On the other hand, we as Jehovah's Witnesses are determined to go with thewhole Bible record and what it says rather than unproven writings of

  historians — who may or may not have an ax to grind and reasons to slant history to suit their own beliefs.

  Apparently, everyone else on earth has an ulterior motive except Jehovah's Witnesses. Convenient, isn't it? The Watchtower is written by persons who seem to have an ax or three to grind and have demonstrably not just slanted, but rewritten history to suit their own beliefs. But let's not get distracted here. It seems that there are a number of ad hominem attacks on apostates and historians. "Unproven writings of historians"? So I wonder, where did you get your secular dating system to arrive at a year like 607 B.C.? Maybe from unproven writings of historians. If they're unproven, how do you know it was 607 years Before Christ? How do you even know when any Biblical event happened? Since you brought up how unreliable historians are, the burden of proof is now on you to provide a purely Biblical dating/calendar system that proves 607 B.C. was when Jerusalem was destroyed. Good luck.

  Romans 17:18-19

  So...is there a 17th chapter of Romans I've never read?

  As foretold, Jerusalem's 70-year desolation ended right on time. ( Jeremiah 25:11 , 29:10 )

  The 70-year desolation in Jeremiah 29:10 was told to people who had been taken into exile 10-11 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. By ignoring the context of that verse, you know, like WHO THE MESSAGE WAS GIVEN TO, you can get away with statements like this. Read Jeremiah 29 from the beginning and you'll see that.

  If 70 years begin in 607 BCE, servitude lasts the full 70 years. Nebuchadnezzar is King at start as prophecies stated.

  But not King at the end, 'cause Babylon faced judgment in 539 BC, and it was the judgment on the king of Babylon that ends the 70-year-servitude of Jer. 25, not the return of the Jews to their land, including transit time. So the Jews served Babylon for 68 years, not 70. Unless you're claiming they were still in servitude during their transit time back to Judah...in which case you contradict yourself.

  I'm not even an expert on this, and there's just not a lot of logic here from a cursory analysis. They discard whatever facts don't suit their opinions, same as they accuse their opponents of doing.

  --sd-7
• 

  snare&racket

  Natural history museum London, the Babylonian tablets number ABC5:

  The Chronicle Concerning the Early Years of Nebuchadnezzar II ("Jerusalem Chronicle"; ABC 5) is one of the historiographical texts from ancient Babylonia . It deals with several subjects, but the reference to the capture of Jerusalem in 597 BCE has received most attention. No less important is the description of Nebuchadnezzar 's campaigns against the Egyptian king Necho II , who had tried to conquer Syria (' Hatti ').

  We already have the answer, why would you try to reach another conclusion. Anyone want to debate Harold getting it in the eye in 1066? The bayouxe tapestry says it in red and oldy yellowy brown. The watchtower would have their yes men followers believe there is a debate about the date... Nope. Its been written in stone, your problem is, you are taking history lessons from 8 ex window cleaners who now run a printing factory in a dirty part of New York.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  TJ Curioso

  Watchtower’s supposed biblical teaching of 607 depends on existence and use of a sole pivotal date.

  Watchtower’s supposed biblical teaching of 607 also depends on an exact period of literally 70 years between Jerusalem’s destruction and it’s re-habitation.

  Problem number 1: The Bible offers no fixed dates, so Watchtower teaching is wholly dependent on secular history for a sole pivotal date. Secular history provides lots of dates for events corresponding to biblical events. But none of them are demonstrably more or less reliable than the next. Watchtower selects one of these dates and hangs its doctrinal hat on it (539) but it fails to prove why or how this secular date (539) is more reliable than other secular dates, such as 587 for Jerusalem’s destruction.

  Problem number 2: Watchtower has waffled about just how literal readers should take biblical depictions of time periods. For instance, the biblical depiction of Tyre being subject to Babylon for 70 years Watchtower teaching says is not to be taken as literally 70 years of Tyre being subject to Babylon.

  Hence Watchtower doctrine depends on a sole secular pivotal date when secular history does not offer a sole pivotal date. On top of this, Watchtower has hedged its position of biblical periods by expressing that when it says “70 years” the Bible should not be taken to literally mean “70 years”.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  snare&racket

  Cant believe people even debate this... watchtower themselves admit there is nothing defending their decision and that all historians disagree... How deluded that they still say 'we are RIGHT the evidence has yet to be found, thats all!....by the way we were wrong about that small issue of the faithful and discreet slave apparantly..."

  Historians have the dates. Look at how JWs came up with 607bce in Franz's book.... Its a ridiculous debate to even have. Lets debate when 9/11 happened.... Duuuhhhhh....