Scholar said:
There is much controversy concerning the Fall of Jerusalem as to whether it is reckoned to be 586/587 or 607 BCE. There is evidence supporting both claims and it simply boils down to personal preference. The generally accepted dates of 586/587 is based upon a considerable amount of secular evidence but falls short in dealing with the problematic seventy years.
Uhh, the secular evidence I have seen does NOT in any way contradict the 70 years as you imply here.. Accepting all of the evidence from secular history (arrived at by the same scientific means, I might add) contradicts the WT's formula and interpretations in such a manner as to disprove the 1914/607 dates that WT claims.
So, unless you can show me your evidence of the 607 date, your above logic is wrong, and here is why:
The WT claims 1914 as the date Christ came back invisibly to rule in heaven. (I assume as a scholar in Religion that you are aware that origianlly the WT claimed that 1914 was the date for Armageddon)
This 1914 date is based on a formula the WT uses (basically the year of the fall of Jeresalem + 2,520 years), and is based on the fact that they believe in 607 Jeruselam fell.
Secular history points to the fall of Jeruselam in 586/7 (which would result in a date according to WT interpretation of scripture to be 1933/4)...
The simple fact of the matter is that there are NO dates in the bible, so the WT had to rely on secular evidence to come up with a date, and then using that date they calculated using their own formula they believe to be correct from their interpretation of scripture and prophecies to conclude that 607 was the fall of Jeresalem.
The evidence that they use as their 'start date' in their calculations is based on secular evidence that Babylon fell in 539.
The same scientific methods used to provide secular evidence that the WT accepts to show that Babylon fell in 539 is rejected when the methods also show that Jeresalam fell in 587.. In fact, there is more proof not available with the 539 date that is available with the 587/6 date that makes it the more solid of the two dates from a secular standpoint.
So, your statement is illogical and not based in sound reasoning.
The bible offers no dates whatsoever, so to say that the bible 'agrees' with secular history RE the 539 date is completely meaningless... The bible does not agree with that date, or any other date for that matter.. It's all relative from the bible's standpoint, as there is not one single absolute date found in all the scriptures of the bible!. However, if you accept the interpretation of the 70 years found in Jeremiah 25 and 29 the way the WT interprets then, then obvioulsy the above 2 dates cannot agree, for there is NOT 70 years between the two events.
So, therefor, the WT accepts one date, but rejects the other date.. The WT has chosen to accept the 539 date and reject the 587/6 date..
The WT's interpretation is therefor still valid, however, in doing so, they had to rely on secular evidence for a 'start' date, but then reject the secular evidence afterwards, even though the secular evidence is arrived at with the exact same scientific methods...
So, the dilemna the WT has created for itself is this:
Explain why secular methods are 'ok' for 539, but not 'ok' for 587/6.. This is very hard to do in light of whatever they say to prove 539 or disprove 587 can equally be applied to the other date, as the methods they are attacking are the same for both dates.
Of course, the bible as we agree has no dates in it, so the bible can no more agree or disagree with any absolute date as we have no starting point to prove or disprove those dates. So, then the only way we can conclude dates in the bible is have a secular starting point, and then use our interpretations of scripture to arrive at an end point...
In this case, the WT has interpreted Jeremiah 25 and 29 to mean literally 70 years between the fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem. That is what THEY have interpreted that to mean. THAT IS A HUMAN INTERPRETATION !!!!!!!
There is another way to interpret the bible which make more logical sense then the way the WT interprets that, and guess what, the more logical and straight forward interpretation also agrees with the secular evidence of BOTH dates, 539 and 587!!!!
The WT is using trickery to make people believe that the 'bible' agrees with the 539 date but disagrees with the 587 date.. The bible cannot agree with it, because Jeremiah 25 and 29 are not clear cut (add 70 years to the fall of babylon and you get the fall of Jerusalem -- that is an interpretation made by men as to how to read Jeremiah and make a mathematical formula from the scriptures).. Those scriptures require interpretation to arrive at dates.. That's the formula the WT came up with... Secular evidence has shown that their formula is incorrect. More over, there is a much more straight forward way to interpret Jeremiah that is logical and does support the secular evidence..
Either way, however, you cannot in any way claim that the BIBLE either supports or rejects any secular chronology in this regard, as the bible doesn't have any absolute dates.. To suggest that 539 is biblically correct because you add 70 years, adjusting a year or two for the reignal years of the kings (as the WT interprets Jeremiah to mean) it to arrive at 607 which then corrosponds to adding 2,520 years (which the WT interprets) which points to 1914 (Which incidentally was the date the WT society predicted armageddon would occur, and was later changed to the year Christ started his rule) is ludacrious and circular logic.
You are using the 1914 date, and backtracking 2,520 years to arrive at 607 and then subtracting 70 to arrive at 537 (assention years of kings accounts for the 2 year discrepancy -- 539 plus 2 = 537). THat is a human formula, as that is NOT clearly stated as a formula in the bible!!!!! Therefor, you cannot claim that the BIBLE supports any of those dates!!! HUMANS are supporting those dates, because one of the 5 numbers is based on secular evidence.. The rest is based on a formula that the WT came up with..
Instead of being honest and stating that secular evidence does NOT support their formula, they are being dishonest and accepting only part of the secular evidence (which they need to arrive at any date whatsoever, since the bible has no dates), and rejecting other evidence which would disprove their formula. And, to further add insult to injury, they are then purporting their interpretation of scripture, and their formula as evidence that the one date they agree with is "supported from the bible"..
Circular logic at it's finest!!!!
Please show me the secular evidence that points to 607 as the date..
Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:7:22
Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:8:11
Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:10:36
