Many many books from library on 586/87

by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TheOldHippie

  Just a technical quickie, without interferring with the debate itself:

  When you quote from many books that they state 587 is the year in stead of 607, be aware of the fact that they frequently are quoting from each other. School text books which are referred to, are seldom written by people who have done any primary research themselves, but they sum up other scholars' or researchers' books or works. So if one well-known and respected scholar after his research comes up with they year 587, you will find reference to that in say 30 other books, and so a list of books giving 587 is not THAT impressing, you'll have to find the primary sources and how many they are.

  Again, without interferring, think about the Piltdown Man and how one researcher's work spread throughout the whole world as a proof - and how it then collapsed when it turned out it was fake. So turn to the sources, not to the quoters.
• 

  iggy_the_fish

  Has Scholar ever posted a Neo-Babylonian kinglist? He is a scholar after all, he must have some opinion on who the Neo-Babylonian kings were, how long they reigned and when. Scholar?

  Maybe he has somewhere but I've missed it.

  ig.
• 

  scholar

  Cygnus

  I do not have to explain anything as the Bible itself provides its own chronology and history. Celebrated WT scholars are not concerned about any twenty year gap because this is the result of scholar's ignoring God's Word and compromising the biblical data with the secular data. Hence, confusion is the result as shown by the state of biblical chronology today. Jonsson's explanations are nonsense and illogical and have not found support within the scholarly community. His discussion of the seventy years is ambiguous and is based upon a nuanced meaning of a single Hebrew preposition. The explanations provided in the WT literature are simple and cannot be classified as subterfuge and deception which is what one finds when studying Jonsson's arcane theories.

  scholar JW
• 

  Cygnus

  Scholar said:

  : I do not have to explain anything as the Bible itself provides its own chronology and history.

  It most certainly does not. The Bible dates things in relative terms (such and such king reigned for so long) but in itself contains no absolute dates. The anchor date generally accepted as fact by both historians and the Watchtower is the year Cyrus overthrew Babylon - in 539 BCE. The Insight I volume on "Chronology" does a decent job demonstrating how this date is..... er.... dated. Everything has to work backwards from that anchor date. You won't find it in the Bible however. Astonomical clues and copied record keeping give us our best guess. The Society's interpretation is clearly demolished by Jeremiah 25 where the king of Babylon is said to be punished when the seventy years have expired. The Watchtower only accounts for 68 years. Besides, there were a few Jews left behind in 587. The land was not completely laid "desolate" when Zedekiah was killed. Other expatriations continued to occur. The prophecy was primarily that of servitude to Babylon, the land's desolation(s) were simply corrollarry to that. I say desolation(s) because that is what I believe Daniel 2:1 says, plural (going off the top of my head here). Jeremiah in fact urged servitude to the Chaldean monarch and the timing of such letters to the Jews therin completely conflicts with Watchtower chronology. I'm afraid you're not much more than a troll here, scholar.
• 

  glitter

  JW on Saturday insisted to me that he'd been to the British Museum and seen proof it's 607. Then he said "Well how come all the secular historians agree with the Society?" Me: "They don't."
  
  Where did he get the British Museum part from?
• 

  ithinkisee

  Scholar, you said:

  A list of books that merely quote various dates and cannot agree on a single date is useless.

  But ... man ... you were very very quick to bring everyone's attention to the Furuli book when it came out ... not letting everyone know the guy was a JW.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/44076/1.ashx

  I have a feeling if a few books came out promoting 607 you would be listing them EVERYWHERE.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  JCanon

  WT scholars demonstrate by means of the biblical evidence that the precise year is 607 which is proven by the fulfillment of prophecy with the Gentile Times expiring in 1914 which introduced an unprecedented woes for mankind ever since. Therfore, 607 is the only viable date for that epochal event in the sixth century BCE.

  The Bible does not such thing. There was a LAST DEPORTATION, Scholar, in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52:30).

  Comparing Zechariah 1 and 7 proves that Gedaliah died the following year after the fall of Jerusalem. Mourning for him began 2 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

  And the Jews via Josephus (Ant. 11.1.1) always dated the 70 years from the last deportation not the fall of Jerusalem, so the WTS actually misquotes Josephus regarding this.

  So no way do the "WT scholars" follow the Bible in this regard and can prove nothing. The WT Scholars made the mistake of trusting the secular records and using 539BCE as a "pivotal date" which is what got them into trouble, since that date is now proven to be part of the entire revision of this history.

  Instead, the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" which was supposed to be observed by Daniel actually was fulfilled in the 1st of Cyrus which should be dated to 455BCE. How can you have the "word goes forth to rebuld Jerusalem" be fulfilled in the 20th of Artaxerxes when the homes, the temple and the walls were already finished by then? Jerusalem was alerady rebuilt!

  Fine if the "WT scholars" want to stick with 607BCE, but by no means include them as representing the Bible because they do not. The Bible supports 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus and 529BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, now proven by the VAT4956.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Scholar?

  Books. We want books ....

  C'mon ... there's gotta at least be one, right?

  -ithinkisee

  (Sad ... there isn't even a WT book that can prove it.)

  The problem with these books is that they are not updated and don't address the most recent research. Even Olof Jonsson's excellent book about chronology with lots of astronomical references don't address the latest research.

  Case in point, the VAT4956, which Jonsson says is "the most important" text of them all. Our own AlanF in analyzing the text, line for line with an astronomy program discovered that Sachs/Hunger had lied in Line 18 of the text, claiming the "moon" was below the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" on the 15th of Sivan when the Moon was long gone out of Virgo at the time. Instead, as Alan noted, this was a reference to Venus. The British Museum likewise acknowledged the "error" but no formal correction has been made. And you know why? Because to match that reference to a correct observation for 568BCE, you have to assign the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" to beta-Virginis, which is not what Sachs/Hunger had done. Thus they had misrepersented what is in the text.

  But they are considered the leaders and "experts" in their field and are quoted by everybody else but are liars! So all the books that quote them are not outdated.

  So in this case, the actual dating for the fall of Jerusalem, you have to go beyond the books and get into the DIRECT EVIDENCE, because as someone as noted, many will simply repeat and quote something someone else said.

  In the meantime, though, a very old book was written by Martin Anstey which some adhere to called "The Romance of Bible Chronology" in which he uses the Bible to date the 1st of Cyrus around 457-455BCE based upon the Messiah arriving circa 27-29CE. So there are others out there who reject the popular chronology and actualy do believe based upon the 70 weeks prophecy that Cyrus began his rule in 455BCE.

  Here is a web page that claims the Pope encouraged the Ptolemy canon chronology and suppressed the original Biblical chronology and indicate that the 1st of Cyrus was in 455BCE.

  http://www.reformation.org/seventy.html

  " The true count of the years from Cyrus to Christ was stolen by the Papacy, and the false chronology of Ptolemy was substituted for the correct Old Testament chronology. Ptolemy was a heathen astrologer and astronomer who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, about a hundred years after Christ. Ptolemy invented the Ptolemaic system of astronomy that was in use during the Dark Ages."

  Others as well have used the Bible to understand that the 70 weeks must date Cyrus to 455BCE. I'm not the only one nor the first one.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Here are some links to those who settled on 455BCE or thereabouts for the 1st of Cyrus:

  AJ Agee: http://www.prophecycorner.com/agee/chron.html

  The Return from Captivity

  3589 AH = 454 BC = 1st yr of Cyrus, Sole-Rex, end of the 70 years of servitude (inclusive reckoning), return from captivity under Zerubbabel; Year 54 of the 70 years of indignation (Zech 1:7,12,16). 454 BC, beginning of 483 years of Dan 9:24-26: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks (49 years), and threescore and two weeks (434 years): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." (49 + 434 = 483.) Cyrus gave the command to restore and build Jerusalem. Isa 44:28 says, "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built: and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

  Martin Anstey in "Romance of Bible Chronology" does not abandon the 1st of Cyrus c. 455BCE because of popular chronology but notes an 82-year error in Ptolemy's canon. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html

  But Cyrus' commandment was issued B.C. 536, and these 483 years bring us only to B.C. 53. Marshall places the death of Christ A.D. 33, and this makes the interval 86 years too long. If he had placed the death of Christ at A.D. 29 instead of A.D. 33, the interval would have been 82 years, which is just the exact number by which the Ptolemaic Chronology errs from the truth.
  
  What Marshall and Prideaux say in effect is just this. Since the Messiah was not cut off till 82 years after the date expressed in the prophecy, reckoning from the going forth of the commandment of Cyrus according to the infallible Chronology of Ptolemy's Canon, therefore, the going forth of the commandment of Cyrus was not the event which the prophecy contemplated, and we must seek some other point to reckon from.
  
  The truth is, it is not the starting point of the reckoning, but the Ptolemaic Chronology which is in error, and that by the space of just 82 years.
  
  Other Chronologers take the same view with regard to the abandonment of the Decree of Cyrus, B.C. 536, as the starting point of the reckoning, but they disagree upon the choice of an alternative starting point.

  Phillip Mauro, likewise sided with Martin Anstey in dating the 1st of Cyrus around 454-455BCE.

  http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/MAURO4-2.HTM

  But we are not left to choose between Jewish traditions and heathen traditions, or to base our conclusions upon either. For the Word of God shows us plainly what was the beginning of the prophetic period; and with that information in our possession, we know certainly that it was just 483 years "unto Christ." Therefore, we are bound to reject any and every chronological scheme, whether from Jewish or heathen sources, and any and every system of interpretation based thereon) which conflicts with the facts revealed in the Scriptures.
• 

  ithinkisee

  Scholar, JCanon,
  My issue is really not with EXACTLY what year it is. My only interest is in the fact 607 BC is a bogus date.

  I could care less if it was 586,587,588,589 or whatever. The point is merely that the Society is wrong on one of their most important dates

  Garybuss said:

  The 607 stuff isn't relevant anymore anyway.

  Actually, this date is still VERY relevant to the rank and file. It is still a date that points to EVERYTHING that supposedly qualifies the Governing Body as the SOLE CHANNEL. it is a date that is mentioned several times in this weeks congregation book study:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96060/1.ashx If you questioned the organization on something ... the elder response is STILL .... they are the CHOSEN CHANNEL. Which then leads to asking the elders ... how do you know? Which leads them to explaining 1914 ... which is based on 607 BC.

  -ithinkisee