All interesting comments.
The best undoing of this 607 thing I have seen is in the book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" x Jonsson.
TIL - 537 BC is in the Bible - and more
by berrygerry 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
zeb
-
charity7
Because of Israel’s apostasy, the prophet Jeremiah had foretold that the Jews would be delivered as captives to Babylon. In that foreign land they would be confined for seventy years (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10).
Sure enough, the prophet’s warnings proved accurate. The general period of the Babylonian confinement was seventy years (Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5). But why was a seventy-year captivity decreed? Why not sixty, or eighty? There was a reason for this exact time frame.
The law of Moses had commanded the Israelites to acknowledge every seventh year as a sabbatical year. The ground was to lie at rest (Leviticus 25:1-7).
Apparently, across the centuries Israel had ignored that divinely imposed regulation.
In their pre-captivity history, there seems to be no example of their ever having honored the sabbath-year law.
Thus, according to the testimony of one biblical writer, the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity was assigned “until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths” (2 Chronicles 36:21).
If each of the seventy captivity-years represented a violation of the sabbatical-year requirement (every seventh year), as 2 Chronicles 36:21 appears to suggest, this would indicate that Israel had neglected the divine injunction for approximately 490 years.
The captivity era therefore looked backward upon five centuries of sinful neglect.
At the same time, Daniel’s prophecy telescoped forward to a time—some 490 years into the future—when the “Anointed One” would “make an end of sins” (9:24). Daniel’s prophecy seems to mark a sort of “mid-way” point in the historical scheme of things.
In the first year of Darius, who had been appointed king over the realm of the Chaldeans (c. 538 B.C.), Daniel, reflecting upon the time span suggested by Jeremiah’s prophecies, calculated that the captivity period almost was over (9:1-2).
He thus approached Jehovah in prayer. The prophet confessed his sins, and those of the nation as well. He petitioned Jehovah to turn away His wrath from Jerusalem, and permit the temple to be rebuilt (9:16-17).
The Lord responded to Daniel’s prayer in a message delivered by the angel Gabriel (9:24-27).
The house of God would be rebuilt. A more significant blessing would come, however, in the Person of the Anointed One (Christ), Who is greater than the temple (cf. Matthew 12:6). This prophecy was a delightful message of consolation to the despondent Hebrews in captivity.
-
shepherdless
Just to reinforce the point others above have made about this apologist piece. I went through the lot, trying to find on what basis the author supports the dates of 539 BC and 537 BC. The only thing I could find, was the following, on about page 12:
Of course, there is abundant secular evidence to show that 539 BCE is the date of Babylon’s defeat, and most importantly, such evidence is accepted by us because it does not contradict the scriptures.
So the whole piece rests on that. Accept the secular 539 BC datum and reject the secular 587 BC datum. No explanation as to how one can be accepted and the other rejected.
On another thread, I reported that I went back through the old literature for where 537 BC came from. The history is lengthy. I will try to very briefly summarise.
Russell assumed the dates of 536 BC and 606 BC. Back then, historians had already known for centuries (from Ptolemy's canon) that the date Cyrus conquered Babylon in around 538 or 539 BC (and that Jerusalem fell in about 587 BC), but the date of 536 BC had a special numerical allure for the Millerites. Millerites assumed Ptolomy's calendar was out by 2 years, not understanding that that was impossible, because the timing of the eclipses in Ptolomy's canon could not be out that far. Russell just copied the 536 date as fact, from around the 1890's onwards, without checking.
-
Spoletta
As I understand it, the end of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire was in 609 BC, which seems to fit fit very nicely with 539 BC as the end of the Babylonian empire. Is that correct?
-
Anders Andersen
<never mind :-) >
-
tor1500
Hi,
Many of the witnesses are illiterate....and they are told that if you read all the publications that you are just as educated as anyone who goes to college...so many eat that up, and because they can recite how this 607 is calculated and how Jesus is Michael, and the 144,000, being illiterate and not well educated...because they were able to learn this from the org., they are grateful and drink every word that the org. serves...because without Jehovah they wouldn't be this smart....I'm on the inside...so I hear different reasons why some are witnesses no matter what facts you show them....I know another sister that don't care about the doctrine but that she finds peace in the hall...The org. makes simple people feel they are more than what they are or were...so telling them 607 or 507, 2077, don't matter...they don't care...they have found a place where they fit...
Yet, some are very smart, and can come up with 607....but only if they use WT...I have heard many people who have researched outside the org...and found out it wasn't 607...I know of 2 brothers that are no longer elders because of this date....one that I know...he is doing well...very smart man....great writer....the other brother I only know of...and both of them are not returning to the org...they say never...
I'm a baby boomer, so you can figure approx. my age....I have an old set of encylcopedias' my mom gave me years ago....they are maybe over 50 yrs. old...I looked up when it fell, they said, 5 something or other....don't remember the exact date but it wasn't 607...and doesn't the org. quote the encyclopedia ? I could have gone to the brothers and showed them...but what's the point, they would find a reason to reject it...so as long as I know...who cares...
If the org, isn't brought down to their knees about the ARC thing...and it continues, when we are dead and gone, they'll change it...they'll have to...they'll get too many letters from readers...oh you do know that's where the new lights come from...letters from readers...many of the readers poke holes in their doctrines...so not right away, but sometimes they get so many letter regarding a doctrine they are wrong about....and they can no longer support their doctrine...viola....new light...so the new lights don't come from the org...they come from the readers or witnesses that disguise themselves as just readers....
But again no matter what you say Many say they were born a witness and they will die a witness..that's what Baptist say...
They think it's the truth and it keeps their little life all air tight...but what they don't know, no matter how air tight you try to keep your life...something always seeps in...
I used to get frustrated with the friends and yell out in my head...hey stupid...don't you see...waste of time...only when they if they get mistreated then you'll hear them from the rooftop....then they'll expose all they always KNEW ALL THE TIME...witnesses are alright until you mess with them...they have a default button to tear you a new behind...they go from sugar to crap (I won't cuss, but that's not the word I wanted to use), in a nano second...again, I'm a witness and I see all this first hand...if you really want to see who a witness is drive with them or have be a passenger, or go to a restaurant with them....no class, but pretend to have glass by being rude to the help if the silverware is dirty...like they were to the manor born, give me a break...
So leave them to their 607...just sit back, when their toes get stepped on, expect a call out of the blue...
Tor
-
shepherdless
As I understand it, the end of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire was in 609 BC, which seems to fit fit very nicely with 539 BC as the end of the Babylonian empire. Is that correct?
The collapse of the Assyrian empire certainly had a major role in the rise of Babylon as a regional superpower. However, if you are looking for a period to match the biblical 70 years, that is not a likely choice, because the beginning of the 70 years is bionically linked to Nebuchadnezzar. As I see it, there are 2 main alternatives for reconciling the biblical 70 year period with secular history:
(a) the 70 years is actually 68 years, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar commencing his domination of the region - a mainstream view held by religious scholars, at least back as far as Bishop James Ussher, writing in the 17th century; or
(b) the explanation given by Doug Mason, above.
-
shepherdless
I should add that even though my posts concentrate on the academic issues, I broadly agree with Tor that this is not what drives most dubs to stay or leave.
-
Doug Mason
The secular sources that provide the WTS with the 539 BCE date employ a system that commences with Absolute Dates, such as 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and then employing the secular accepted neo-Babylonian chronology to arrive at the intervening dates.
If the WTS tries to locate a precise and exact "70-year period", then it does not understand the mind of the ancient Hebrews or their historiography. Trying to do so imposes 21st century thinking into the minds and perceptions of an agrarian people living in a different culture some 2000 to 2500 years ago.
Today, we might think that the record of history is a tabulation on facts, records of diaries, and so on, but in those days the recording of history was something new and untried. These "historians" were religious scribes whose purpose was religious. For example, to think that the Gospel accounts are literal biographies is to completely misunderstand them. Each is a religious construct by a particular group written for its own group to suit its own religious ends. The earliest - Mark - was written 40 years after Jesus walked, talked, and was executed.
Doug
-
Finkelstein
From out of known facts of what actually did happen to the ancient Israelites of that time one can see that even the ancients were adapted toward theological bullshitting.
The desolation only lasted approximately 47 years starting from Nebuchadnezzar's final destruction of Jerusalem and the exportation of most of that city's inhabitants.
Nebuchadnezzar did take out some people out of Israel at the beginning of his siege in 605 but the land was certainly not laid desolate.