Can some one explain how 607 is wrong

by XQsThaiPoes 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  XQs....The quick answer as to why Christian books give the date of Jerusalem's destruction in 587/6 and the beginning of the 70 years in 609 or 605 BC is that they don't view the 70 years as starting in the year Jerusalem was destroyed. The Jeremiah prophecy refers to 70 years of servitude for the nations "round about" (i.e. not just Judah but also the surrounding nations) and 70 years for Babylon (i.e. as world power). It is thus thought that 70 years of Babylon as world power began in 609 BC at the final defeat of Assyria (609-539 BC), and the servitude of Judah and the surrounding nations began long before 587/6 BC -- at least by 605 BC for Judah, Moab, Egypt, Syria, etc. and 609 BC if you include Assyria.

  I think tho that it is a mistake to insist too strongly on a literal interpretation of the 70 years as this was a genuine prediction, not a vaticinium ex eventu, and thus did not have the foresight of history. As such, it should not be privileged as a chronological datum superior to direct evidence of the period. As PP said, it is also a symbolic/mythological number. One should also be careful to distinguish the original prophecy from its later interpretations (or reinterpretations) by the author of Daniel, Josephus, etc.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Mathematics, statistics and archeology, scrolls etc. That is why 607BCE is suspect.

  IMHO it is not necessarily wrong BUT - BUT the vast majority of evidence - not every little scrap - the VAST MAJORITY of evidence points to Jerusalems destruction in 586/587 BCE and as has been pointed out EVEN the WTBTS admits this is the secular date - So IMHO since the VAST MAJORITY of evidence points to 587/586 BCE then that is the date I accept at this moment unless there is an earth shattering archeological breakthrough that adds a scrap of evidence to 607BCE.

  I also - like Farkel - would like to see Scholar produce a tiny piece of secular evidence to support 607 -- I really would like that Scholar - PLEASE
• 

  boa

  XQ, once again I've enjoyed yer surreal approach to all things jw.

  I have read COJ's GTR and am convinced as much as anything can be convincing about the hole the society is in with their crazy patchwork chronology. I've seen picture frames repaired with duct tape stand up and look better than their dating of 'times and seasons'.

  I've become much more interested in the fascinating historical record of this religion now. Since it is a dead religion in effect, regardless of how alive the great fallen tree may still appear, to me its only value is an interesting study in apolcalyptic sects and the size they can achieve with the gullible human mind (mine was one too).

  I wonder what the next supergroup/organization will be to make it big THIS century. Likely it has already started.

  boa.....mmmmm coffee is good this morning..
• 

  City Fan

  I also - like Farkel - would like to see Scholar produce a tiny piece of secular evidence to support 607

  If he follows his usual pattern then he will post some secular evidence for 539 BC instead. Or he will drone on with his "is it 586 or 587?" non-argument. I'm afraid you're in for a very long wait if you want him to produce any secular evidence for 607. I've been asking him the same question for at least 12 months. I'm sure he realises by now that there is not a shred of secular evidence to support 607 BC, so it's strange he keeps saying that there is.
• 

  Triple A

  XQsThaiPoes

  For the most part, main stream Christians are not concerned with whether the temple was destroyed in 607 BC or 586 BC. That is because there is no authority that is established by it for these denomination by these dates. I was raised and joined the Methodist, as a teen attended a Presbyterian church (because of a girl), and when I was 31 start attending and joined the Christian Reformed Church (again a woman and now wife of 20 years). We talk about these dates as to when they occurred, but we never set anything significants to them as far as authority or prophecy for our denominations.

  We do look at prophecy, but for the most part we do not set a date for when it is suppose to happen. Example: Jesus is going to return and for the most part we beleive that it could happen before I post this or thousands of years from now. It does not matter to us when, we just beleive that He will return.

  Still trying to find out something about why the Christian Science (not a main stream Christian faith, they are concidered a cult) uses the 607 instead of the 586 date.

  Triple A
• 

  Triple A

  XQsThaiPoes, I came across the following site, it appears that the Christian Science are not locked on the 607 BC date. Nor does it have any other significance other than the time that God punished the Jews for their d isobedience .

  http://www.endtime.org/standard/vol12no2.html
  Volume 12, Number 2 ? November 2003 The Christian Science Standard THE LESSON OF THE GREAT TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM
  The history of the great Temple at Jerusalem illustrates the results of observing this law and the fatal consequences from rejecting it. The way to escape the judgment of God in these latter days is by adhering to this law and recognizing and acknowledging "the two anointed ones." Christian Scientists can escape the difficulties of these latter days by applying the lesson of the

  Triple A
• 

  Triple A

  This did not post with the last input

  Originally built by Solomon in 966 B.C., the
• 

  Triple A

  Okay, I am having problems so I will just retype the last paragraph. Originally built by Solomon in 966 B.C., the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed four hundred years later in B.C. 586 when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and carried the inhabitants of Judah into exile. Subsequently, during the reign of Cyrus the Persian, the Jewish captives and exiles were allowed to return to Palestine. Then the prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, appealed tothe people to rebuild the Temple. Sorry for the misposts, Triple A
• 

  heathen

  I think if you look in the WTBTS concordant you will find some interesting things on the appointed times of the nations . Unlike what many christians would believe they state that the trampling on of nations started when Babylon sacked Judah instead of when the romans sacked Israel . The Davidic line was interupted so they did not have an anointed king .

  I think these discussions are interesting and would also like to see some more evidence that Babylon sacked Judah in 607 bce or that the medes and persians sacked Babylon in 537 bce . I do think it such a stretch that the 7 times of Daniel 4 are in fact pointing to the appointed times of nations .
• 

  scholar

  XQ

  At last you recognize that Jonsson and his supporters have dug a hole for themselves in connection with the beginning of the seventy years and its duration. Critics of 607 cannot agree amongst themselves as to what calender year should be assigned to the seventy years, Is it 605 or 609 or other candidates? Jonsson will shortly publish a revised fourth edition of GTR and no doubt it will continue with similar errors and sloppy reasoning such as his already public remarks concerning Jeremiah 29: 10 on the use of the Hebrew proposition.

  For the benefit of the other posers on this board I have already shown the evidence for 607 and it begins with the evidence for the Absolute Date of 539 followed by the Decree of Cyus in 537 folloewd by the seventy year exile which fixes the beginning of the exile in 607 at the time of Jerusalems destruction under Neb and Zedekiak in their respective regnal years. There is evidence in scripture and in the secular history for these three distinctive scriptural and historical events. The methodology for this calculation is simple and immediate and cannot be refuted by any scholar, critic or apostate fella. You try to demonstrate a simple, coherent and united presentation of all the chronological data for the confused 586 or 587. You ask Jonsson to present such a simple schema and he cannot do so but seeks to confuse the reader with deceit and gibberish.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion