Personally I believe that 607 is not the right date, but here is another point of view.
Does 607 or 587 or 609 or 586 or 1914 really matter? No, I know it does if your whole theology is based on whether or not Christ began ruling some fabled intermediary kingdom before the real Messianic kingdom.
I focus this at guys like scholar and other proponents of the 607 date. Look, lets agree on a few things.
1. 539 BC is based purely on archeological evidence.
2. Without archeology there would be no basis for counting back to 607 or 587.
Now scholar, I know what you?re going to say, ?We can count the reigns of the kings of Israel up to 607 without archeology? But if that were the case I think that would be how the Society would do it. They start counting backward from the pivotal date of 539 BC. It is pivotal because it is historic. 539 isn?t proven by the bible, it is proven by history. You cannot reach 607 without 539, and you cannot reach 539 with out archeology. Am I right or wrong? Hey I'm just going by what the Society says right here.
*** si p. 282 Study Number 2?Time and the Holy Scriptures ***27 Pivotal Dates. Reliable Bible chronology is based on certain pivotal dates. A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds to a specific event recorded in the Bible. It can then be used as the starting point from which a series of Bible events can be located on the calendar with certainty. Once this pivotal point is fixed, calculations forward or backward from this date are made from accurate records in the Bible itself, such as the stated life spans of people or the duration of the reigns of kings. Thus, starting from a pegged point, we can use the reliable internal chronology of the Bible itself in dating many Bible events. Yes but only after you have a pivotal date
*** si p. 285 Study Number 3?Measuring Events in the Stream of Time ***5 Starting From the Pivotal Date. The pivotal date for counting back to Adam?s creation is that of Cyrus? overthrow of the Babylonian dynasty, 539 B.C.E.
Ok here is the kicker.
What good is a prophecy that lives or dies; stands or falls based on archeology? Any prophecy of relevance, especially one this big should be provable internally. I?ve seen the bible coincide with history. I?ve seen history agree with the bible. But I?ve never seen a prophecy that can only be proven with the aid of a secular historic pivotal date. What good is the bible if you have to be a historian, archeologist, Hebrew and Greek scholar just to understand it? Are we really to believe that this prophecy could only be understood after the relevant archeological discoveries were made?
For a Christian, dates don?t matter. The law of the Christ does. So while I see you guys bat dates and archeology back and forth, none of it really is relative to faith.
Now if you want to be involved in a purely academic discussion of when Jerusalem fell, well that?s cool, but it?s just not relevant to being a Christian, it?s only relevant to the cult that builds its teachings around that date.
:)!!!!! Bye