why i do believe in 607

by perspicacia2 68 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • perspicacia2
    perspicacia2

    Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus army in October 539 B.C.E.
    Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was coruler of Babylon. Some
    scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of
    their reigns, from the last year of Nabonidus back to Nebuchadnezzars father
    Nabopolassar.
    According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar
    defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah
    46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume
    the throne. His first regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).
    The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed
    Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included).
    (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian
    chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6
    B.C.E. But on what is this secular chronology based and how does it compare
    with the chronology of the Bible?
    Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:
    Ptolemys Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the
    second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on
    astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemys
    information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns
    (though Ptolemy does omit the reign of Labashi-Marduk). Evidently Ptolemy
    based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period,
    which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. It thus is not
    surprising that Ptolemys figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian
    priest of the Seleucid period.
    Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar
    with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the
    Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures
    given for these three agree with those from Ptolemys Canon.
    VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information
    datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar
    s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th
    regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is admittedly a copy made in
    the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its historical information is
    simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid period.
    Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets
    have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of
    the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have
    been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in
    the accepted chronology of the period.
    From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the
    Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzars 18th year (and the
    destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the
    possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be
    misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and
    kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the
    discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern
    scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically
    alter the chronology of the period.
    Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced
    a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: "It goes
    without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the
    intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less
    he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the
    term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is."The Bible
    and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.
    Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its words
    stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable.
    They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be used as a measuring
    rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) For
    instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon, for
    centuries scholars were confused about him because no secular documents were
    available as to his existence, identity or position. Finally, however,
    archaeologists discovered secular records that confirmed the Bible. Yes, the
    Bibles internal harmony and the care exercised by its writers, even in
    matters of chronology, recommends it so strongly to the Christian that he
    places its authority above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular
    historians.
    But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem was destroyed, and
    how does this compare to secular chronology?
    The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem
    and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He added: "And
    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 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first
    year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles
    36:17-23) We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other
    texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed
    Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate.Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27;
    36:29-31.
    Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of
    that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.
    certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let the
    Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim
    that Jeremiahs prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E. Later writers
    quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar
    extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to
    Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into
    exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon
    beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire
    in 535 B.C.E.
    But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:
    Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his
    accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. More
    significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took
    Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his
    accession year. Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the year of
    the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine
    "excepting Judea," thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim
    that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzars accession year.
    Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.
    Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the
    Babylonians and then says that "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple,
    continued to be a desert for seventy years." (Antiquities of the Jews X, ix,
    7) He pointedly states that "our city was desolate during the interval of
    seventy years, until the days of Cyrus." (Against Apion I, 19) This agrees
    with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 that the foretold 70 years were 70
    years of full desolation for the land. Second-century (C.E.) writer
    Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the 70 years commenced with the
    destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years.See also 2
    Kings 24:1825:21.
    But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claim
    that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyed in
    587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70 years
    would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writer Ezra
    reported that the 70 years ran until "the first year of Cyrus the king of
    Persia," who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland.
    (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept that Cyrus conquered
    Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus first regnal year began in the
    spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus decree came late in his first regnal year, the
    Jews could easily be back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as
    Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537 B.C.E.
    However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus first year from 538
    down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away the problem have in a
    strained manner claimed that in speaking of "the first year of Cyrus" Ezra
    and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewish viewpoint that differed from the
    official count of Cyrus reign. But that cannot be sustained, for both a
    non-Jewish governor and a document from the Persian archives agree that the
    decree occurred in Cyrus first year, even as the Bible writers carefully and
    specifically reported.Ezra 5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.
    Jehovahs "good word" is bound up with the foretold 70-year period, for God
    said:
    "This is what Jehovah has said, In accord with the fulfilling of seventy
    years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will
    establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place."
    (Jeremiah 29:10)
    Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a round
    number but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) And
    that proved to be so.
    Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by Gods Word rather than by
    a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that disagrees
    with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most direct
    understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began
    with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.
    (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence, counting back 70
    years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in 537 B.C.E., we arrive
    at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in his 18th regnal year,
    destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from the throne and brought to an end
    the Judean line of kings on a throne in earthly Jerusalem.Ezekiel 21:19-27.

    Frank.

  • ItsJustlittleoldme
    ItsJustlittleoldme
    It seems evident that the easiest and most direct
    understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began
    with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding what the word generation means

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding organ transplants

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding wether the people of Sodom and Gomorah will be ressurected for a 'second chance'

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding blood transfusions, and the 'blood fractions' that are and are not acceptable

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding celebrations of Christmas/Birthdays/etc

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding the private sex lives of married JW's

    I assume that is the exact reasoning used (it seems evident from bible (scriptural) understanding) regarding scriptural divorce, and what does and does not constitute grounds for such

    Funny thing, is, and I'm sure there are people on this board that can add to this very small list that I made, all of the above (bible/scriptural understandings) have changed over the years...

    The Governing Body claim that all the information they get is uninspired and just gathered from examining the scriptures themselves.. Yet every JW in good standing 'agrees' with however they interpret the scriptures. And when the scriptural interpretation changes (or in some case, not even a scriptural interpretation -- example -- beards) all the JW's re-read the scriptures, and say, yup, I agree that's what it says to me too... (or at least that is what the world is lead to believe)...

    Would you state to me right now INFACTICALLY that if the INTERPRETATION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF 607 B.C.E for Jerusalem is changed by the WTBTS to some other date in the future, that you will leave the organization because you KNOW absolutely that they are false, and that you have researched for yourself and come to the conclusion all by yourself that the 607 date is correct. So correct in fact, that a change in that date will force you to DA yourself from the JW religion because you KNOW that is the correct date!!!

    My guess is that you will not state the above, because you know in your heart that if the organization came out tomorrow and said, "upon reexamination of the scriptures, we conclude that Jerusalem was destroyed in 539 BCE" you would suddenly look back at the scriptures they used to arrive at the new date, and say, yup, I see that... Thank Jehovah for giving us new light...

    So, my question then is, if you will not agree that a change in the date that you so elequently argued for is correct, no matter what the WTBTS states in the future (and indeed if the organization changes that date you will out of conscience DA yourself from the organization) , can you then explain to me how you are NOT following the dictates of men, just like Jesus warned the Pharisees about?

    Edited by - ItsJustlittleoldme on 16 June 2002 16:41:9

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Reproducing the appendix to chapter 14 from the Let Your Kingdom Come book is useless, as it has already been thoroughly debunked by Carl Jonsson writing in various versions of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. The Watchtower's information is deliberately incomplete and misleading.

    AlanF

  • sleepy
    sleepy

    perspicacia2

    If I'm not wrong this is a dircet copy out of a society book, is it not?

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Yes,

    Another cut 'n paste gunslinger comes to town....

    HS

    Edited by - hillary_step on 16 June 2002 16:56:10

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    [Whip]-[Bang]

  • ItsJustlittleoldme
    ItsJustlittleoldme

    So much for perspicacia2

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    hillary_step,

    :Another cut 'n paste gunslinger comes to town....

    LOL!! (And he left on the horse he rode in on!)

    Dubs are so lazy. They nearly never do their own research to back up what their religious masters tell them. And when they do, well, they promptly end up quitting their cult.

    Farkel

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Hi Farkel,

    Yes, and not just about doctrinal matter either.

    When the WTS detached itself into smaller corporations a couple of years ago, I discussed this event with a CO a few weeks after the announcement. He started at me in astonished amazement and declared, "When did this happen?", "Why?". It was obvious that his 'bosses' had not even seen fit to inform him what had happened.

    When I told him that it was 'all over the Internet', his eyes narrowed in suspicion, "Step, are you sure you can trust this information"...lol

    Best regards Farkel, and how about another in your series "A Day In The Life Of JW.Com", that was a highly amusing post.

    HS

  • perspicacia2
    perspicacia2

    I will not leave the BORG because i know they are imperfect men
    and they can make mistakes.
    DO NOT CONFOUND LOYALTY WITH PERFECTION.

    YOU WROTE:

    My guess is that you will not state the above, because you
    know in your heart that if the organization came out tomorrow
    and said, "upon reexamination of the scriptures, we conclude
    that Jerusalem was destroyed in 539 BCE" you would suddenly
    look back at the scriptures they used to arrive at the new
    date, and say, yup, I see that... Thank Jehovah for giving
    us new light...

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the WTBTS will say that, they will have to explain it.
    At today, i've examined the documents (VAT 4956 included)
    and i do belive in 607.
    If in the next future other documents will be found, then i
    will re-examine the situation and the new WT statements.
    If i will agree, than i will say: Sorry ..we made a mistake.
    (I've no problems about humility). If I will not agree
    with new statements of WT, i will let them know my position
    and i will confirm them my loyalty. I'm sure in the New
    World God will let us know a lot of new informations.

    About the Pharisees, the oral traditions was more important of
    bible. That's why i do not think it's a good compare.
    Anyway, as you can check in my previous message, the subject
    was: why I do believe in 607. I have not the pretension to force to
    convince others.

    Frank.
    p.s.

    Sorry for my Engilish. It's not my native language.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit