Research on the validity of 1914 (page 3)

City Fan

Scholar,

There is considerable secular evidence available to support WT chronology

Once again, please name one piece of secular evidence that supports 607. Come on, there must be at least one!

CF.

scholar

City Fan

I have already provided secular evidence for the establishment of 607. Do you think that the Society has made it up? Has not the Society demonstrated the basis for its calculation? i repeat:

1. Fall of Babylon in 539

2. Decree of Cyrus and release of exilles in 537

3. Length of exile and desolation of Judah was 70 years

4. Simple arithmetic calculates from 537 plus 70 years leads us to 607 which is the beginning of the exile and end of the Judean Monarchy. Is there not secular and historical evidence for these historical event

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

City Fan

Scholar,

Again, could you please provide one piece of secular evidence for 607 BC.

CF.

scholar

City Fan

In order to calculate 607 one needs a pivotal date which is 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. This date is calculated from secular evidence. Such secular evidence is in the form of the Nabonidus Chronicle establishes the day and month of Babylon's Fall. Further, the year is established by a Babylonian clay tablet which provides astronomical data for the seventh year of Cambyses 2 which is the spring of 523BCE. From this one easily arrives at 539 for the accession year for Cyrus 2 preceeding his first year in 538 BCE. More detail could be supplied but I think you get the drift at least I hope so This proves that 607 is a calcuable date and is based upon secular evidence which provides a foundation for the calculation.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

outbutnotdown

scholar said:

The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and has prophetic significance leading to 1914 as shown by the recent disaster in Asia.

I am curious to see what you are going to say is the significance of the disaster in Asia in regards to "prophetic significance" relating to 1914. I will await your response on that.

In the meantime, the thing I find interesting with the WT whole cronology is how strongly they latched onto 1914, despite the fact that they already had other dates dismissed (1874, 1878, 1881, I believe) as only being "partly" fulfilled.

This may be going "outside the box" as far as the usual arguments go in this area, but here goes:

The WT finally had something to hold onto with the war starting, later to even be called WWI. When you are in a doomsday group/cult you need doom to sell. In no way do I believe that it was "proof" of Jesus kicking Satan and the demons out of Heaven but I used to. It used to scare the living crap out of me when I was younger.

Look at what they did with Rutherford and the boys getting thrown in jail (1919 ?) and years later, the bans on JW's....... while the rest of the world looked at them as being dangers to society as a whole, the JW leaders took the exact same situation and convinced their own followers even more that they were the one "true religion".

To sum up, in my opinion, sticking with 1914 was more important in their self-deluded prophecies than the fact that any reasonable person would see it as hogwash. Their teachings are in essence the opposite of the real-world life lessons. They attract more followers with their own deadly potion than they will with honey. Poor chaps!!!

Brad

pennycandy

I hope no one minds an uneducated female sticking her nose in here, but looking into this topic was what initiated my leaving the witnesses.

The secular establishment of the 539 BCE date has nothing to do with the secular establishment of the 607 date. One can only arrive at the 607 date by applying the Watchtower's unique interpretation of scripture.

There are, however, thousands of pieces of evidence, legal documents, astronomical diaries, royal succession lists, which all fit together nicely placing the date of Jerusalem's destruction at 586/587 BCE. Literally thousands, making 586/587 an absolute date. Considered with the very reasonable explanations for the 70 years, the Bible is consistent with secular history.

The pieces of evidence you gave in your above response applied to the 539 date, which isn't in question. I haven't seen any evidence given that applies to the 607 date. Actually, if I remember correctly, there is much more evidence to establish the 586/587 date than there is to establish the 539 date.

The Society itself, in the 5/15/71 Watchtower, p. 316, "Testimony of the Nabonidus Chronicle", admits the Nabonidus Chronicle of itself doesn't provide the basis for establishing the year for the fall of Babylon. It depends on other evidence to complete the puzzle, which it does. But the WT doesn't seem to mind that there is no evidence whatsoever except their own opinion to establish the 607 date.

I'm not a scolar and just have my computer and library to teach me, but that's my $.02.

PennyCandy

Neo

pennycandy,

I think this is a great summary of the whole issue. Thanks very much!

Neo

PS: If one takes 539 as a valid date, it means they accept the "secular" evidence towards that date. So, it is completely against common sense and plain logic to deny the historical date for Jerusalem's fall, because there's a myriad times more evidence to back it up than there is for 539. Multiple independent converging lines of evidence conspire to establish it.

City Fan

Scholar,

This proves that 607 is a calcuable date and is based upon secular evidence

As Pennycandy explained to you, it is 539BC which is based on secular evidence not 607BC. All secular evidence gives 586/587BC for the date of the destruction of the temple.

But I'm glad you now understand how the date 539BC is obtained, since I explained all this to you in a thread from last year: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/69004/1087167/post.ashx#1087167

So, well done, your slowly learning about the chronology of this period!

CF.

scholar

City Fan

I have long stated that 607 is a calcuable date which is derived from 539 and 537 both of which are derived from secular evidence. Similarly, the calender dates of 586 and 587 are also calcuable dates derived from secular evidence..In short, the calender years 586, 587 and 607 are derived or calcuable dates and are not based on any existing, direct secular evidence. For this reason 586 or 587 cannot be Absolute Dates.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

outbutnotdown

Scholar,

Can you respond to my question re: how the disaster in Asia has anything to do with the 1914 prophecy?

Brad

Research on the validity of 1914

Share this