607 date of Jerusalems destruction
by benny 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
scholar
benny
No need for confusion because 607 BC for the Fall of Jerusalem is correct as the calculation for this date is based on the biblical evidence and with a 'fine tuning' of 20 years can easily be brought into harmony with secular evidence. The simple fact is that there is secular evidence that supports 607 BCE such as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the Return of the Jewish Exiles in 537 BCE amongst other facts.
The basis for the 607 BCE date is an interpretation of the '70 years of Jeremiah ' and critics of this date must be able to provide a consistent interpretation of this period and therein lies the problem because scholars cannot agree as to the timing and nature of the 70 years. Further, scholars cannot agree or know the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586, 567, 588 etc. thus it is foolish to say that a date is wrong when it cannot be stated what date is correct. Scholars and WT critics need to get their act together and tell the truth about the matter for they are simply deeply confused and divided in contrast to' celebrated' WT scholars.
scholar
-
scholar
benny
I am a great believer in the KISS principle having argued the case for 607 BCE on this forum and others over many years some decades ago. The 70 years can only be interpreted as a definite historical period of Exile in Babylon-Servitude to Babylon and Desolation of Judah beginning in 607 BCE until 537 BCE right to the very seventh month of the year inclusive. Any other theory or hypothesis just does not work despite the very best efforts of WT critics who are all over the place. If you get the 70 years right then all the pieces fit into place as well explained in WT publications over many decades.
scholar
-
cofty
Benny - Please be aware that the ironically named 'scholar' is a JW apologist with a very shallow grasp of his/her topic.
Carl Johnson's book is exhaustive on this topic but I don't know how you would get a copy. Do check out the articles at JWFacts website and see the links to previous threads on this topic.
Suffice to say from the outset that there is literally NO scholarly support for 607. It is not even a debate in academia. It is based on a clumsy interpretation of scripture. It is beyond reasonable doubt that at least some of the GB are aware of their error in this regard.
-
Finkelstein
Simple provable facts .....
Nebuchadnezzar acceded to the throne of Babylon from his father in 605 BCE.
The bible states that Nebuchadnezzar in his 19th year of rein destroyed Jerusalem including the temple, taking much of the inhabitants of the city to Babylon.
605 - 19 = 586 BCE. as it were
This date has been confirmed in many archeological findings in the last century.
Nebuchadnezzar took over Jerusalem in accession and ruled over it in 605 taking some people as slaves and preceded to take more in the following years, replacing ruling Kings as well up until 586 BCE.
Therefore the land of Jerusalem was NOT MADE DESOLATE for 70 years starting in 607 BCE up until 539 BCE.
Sounds like the bible writer in this case Daniel embellished the story to use the sacred to the Hebrews 7 or 70 in this case .
-
scholar
benny
Please be aware that Coffy is a 'Johnny come lately' to this debate. Scholar has debated this subject for many years and has been down every road and trail of this vast and complex subject. Suffice to say that there is no broad scholarly support for 607 but there is scholarly support for this date in the scholarship of Rolf Furuli and others.
Carl Jonsson has written much on this subject but it neglects critical elements such as Theology of the land, accurate Biblical history amongst other matters and much is simply his interpretation of the available evidence.
scholar
-
scholar
Finkelstein
If what you say above is correct then how is it that Carl Jonsson states that it was 587 and not 586? Confusion abounds!
Why did Jonsson postulate 609 as opposed to 605 for the beginning of the 70 years?
scholar
-
Finkelstein
Why did Jonsson postulate 609 as opposed to 605 for the beginning of the 70 years?
Don't know when its documented in many journals that Nebuchadnezzar took to the throne from his father in 605 BCE , the same year he made Jerusalem a vassal to his rule. The 19th year rein of Nebuchadnezzar coincides with other archeological findings concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.
-
Finkelstein
Perhaps Johnson used a 539 + 70 = 609
That would put Nebuchadnezzar taking the throne 4 years apart
609 - 605 = 4
Lets face it the WTS wanted to establish and hold to 607 instead of 586 to support their dating chronology of 2,520 years ending in 1914.
There is a large deferential spread between 607 and 586 BCE, too much to be intellectually honest ( 21 years )
-
jookbeard
all about Carl Olaf Jonsson, nothing else, Biblical evidence! LOL , the Biblical evidence cant even get the Creative Days right!