by SpiceItUp 18 Replies latest jw friends
This site looks reputable:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook06.html#The%20Exile
as does this one:
http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp
and this one from Kent State University
http://fpsrv.dl.kent.edu/21020/jewishhistory.htm
and of course worldhistory.com
http://www.worldhistory.com/jews.htm
as well as Information Please
I recently finished reading "Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Jonsson (GTR by COJ).
The book focuses on shedding light on the 607 date, but there is a good deal of history on the early Adventist movements, as well. The book is well written, easy to read but is very detail oriented and contains significant technical jargon.
CyrusThePersian's idea is a good one; this steers you out of the "apostate" arena. You will have to stress: these sources NEVER WERE OF JW ORIGIN, so they can't be "apostate".
However, these sources my be very scattered. So, you will have a tough time finding a "non-apostate" reference that is more helpful than GTR. That is because no one but an "apostate" would go to the effort to concentrate so on the 607 date.
However, you can gather the sources and references used in GTR into a list and say "check these out" to someone. Or you can gather a bunch of these and present them "standalone" w/o GTR.
If anyone wants to challenge the ideas in GTR and champion the 607 date, knock yourself out. My money is on COJ finding another counter-argument.
The following are my initial personal notes, written to refer to when I read it the second time, so as to make a comprehensive review of the book:
1) The Bible has no astronomical references for use as a "touchstone" w/ an absolute date. Thus the Bible is only a RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY; Babylonian and other records that refer to astronomical data are ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGIES.
2) Judean Regnal Years differ from Judean Calendar Years (Tishri start versus Nisan start).
3) Regnal years differ for Judah & Babylon (accession versus non-accession years).
4) WTS applied 70 years (Jeremiah) wrongly: the destruction and subsequent desolation of Jerusalem was only 50 years. The case is made that Jeremiah's writing actually referred to "70 years for Babylon"; this "70 years for Babylon" is SERVITUDE to Babylon by all or most of the nations in the Middle East.
5) Once common dates (where the Bible refers to Babylonian history and Babylonian history connects to astronomical reference points) are applied to #1, and #2 & #3 are factored in, the Bible and Babylonian records combine and agree very well w/ secular history (where secular history is defined as that taught or based on sources beyond the Bible).
6) The Bible, Babylonian records & secular history agree on Jerusalem's destruction in 587. BTW, Babylonian history and records are probably the most well established of all ancient history prior to Christ.
7) Only WTS's misapplication of 70 years creates 607 BC as the date for Jerusalem's destruction. No other supporters of this date are to be found. Note that the case is made that WTS actually disagrees with the Bible, as well as secular history and Babylonian records.
8) #7 ALLOWS FOR 1914 AD (w/ other minor mod's); this date seems to be arrived at w/ the sheerest of luck and probably a great lack of information at the time (~1870's). 1914 hit a major world event & has seemed significant enough to be the "cornerstone of something".
9) Due to #8, WTS cannot back down.
10) The GTR book points out 14 "lines of evidence" which DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH ALONE against the 607 date; WTS has only one very weak "line of evidence", and thus drops back to a requirement of FAITH against credible scholastic evidence. The one weak "line of evidence" is very nearly scholastically discredited.
11) The WTS theories have almost no scholastic evidence for support. The WTS theories require FAITH IN THE PROPOSED THEORY for their only real support, in the face of overwhelming scholastic evidence to the contrary. In addition, it is hoped that "new and yet undiscovered documents or manuscripts will be found to reverse the current understanding of secular history".
12) The last statement of #12 points out the summation of WTS Chronology: WISHFUL THINKING!!!
Mustang
To JH:
If 587BC is the right date, doesn't this just bring the generation 20 years closer? So in a way, it's as if we would be in the 69th year of the generation of 1934 instead of the 89th year of the generation of 1914.
Maybe the witnesses should accept this as new light. It would buy them 20 more years...
Might seem this way at first glance, but the Watchtower has based the fulfillment of the composite sign spoken by Jesus to have begun in 1914; the outbreak of World war I, Spanish Influenza, et cetera. If they lose 1914, they've lost it all. Albatross
Thanks for all the input and suggestions.
Cyrus, I took your recommendation. I went to the library and made copies from 4 different Encyclopedias. I also checked out 10 books on Israel that had Jerusalem history in it.
My father has not had time to do his own research yet (work project to finish) but I left all the info I found on the table for him to look at.
I'll check out some of those links. Thanks again.
I remember the first time I saw that reference to 607 being the wrong date...back in 1996. And I walked over to my book shelves where I had a copy of Readers Digest Encyclopedia of the Bible which was some freebie book I got from them like in 1980. I looked up "destruction of Jerusalem" in the index...flipped to the page and there it was in BOLD BLACK AND WHITE...."-586-587 BC"
I tell you what I about came out of my skin....then reference after reference I picked up said the SAME THING and I knew damn good an well all those people were not "opposers of Jehovah" conspiring to write the wrong dates in all their references. It was an eye opener. While I was at the library that day, I picked up Crisis of Conscience, ran into the POs wife on the library steps too....hid the book behind the baby I was carrying and went home. And that was the END OF THE END!!! :)
Spicy,
Just read all you write about your parents.
Great, I’m sure it will work - after a while, for even when they see it black on white, they shall not be “willing” to leave directly: It takes time to acknowledge that everything you believed at, actually is wrong.
Good luck
Branda
I am new to this and to most of these ideas, but when I asked my mother about this one, she said that they didn't belive it fell in 607, but that that was when they returned or something...Does that make sense ot anyone? (I still don't know much about what the dates represent, anyway, so sorry if this doesn't mean anything to the topic-just what I was told)
Stephanie,
JW's believe that Jerusalem fell in 607.
Briefly, they arrive at this date by accepting 539 for the fall of Babylon, assuming that the captive Jews would have returned to their homeland two years later in 537 and counting 70 years back from this date. (They arrive at the 1914 date by counting 2520 years forward from 607, but that's a slightly different topic.)
It sounds like your mother has gotten herself turned around here. You could perhaps refer her to the JW Bible Dictionary "Insight on the Scriptures"?
Tom
well time for an update on this....
My father looked over some of the material I copied and checked out of the library. We got into a discussion last week over the dates. He told me that he sees how the WT got the 607 date (the "70 " years thing). However he is still going to do the research to find out why everyone else says the 586/7 date.
Since then I have bought "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and have passed it to my parents to read. They scanned through it enough to discover that its an "apostate" book. However, they will still look into it.
It seems to be going very slow but I also can't expect them to just up and not believe everything they have believed for over 30 years.
The way I figure I have given them the information and its up to them what to do with it. I am keeping my fingers crossed and can only hope that the information will sink in.
Thanks for all your support and suggestions. I will post updates as they happen.
