Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

steve2

Celebrated scholars?
What a laugh!
I notice scholar doesn't answer questions about who they are. A typical Watchtower ploy: Make a claim and head for the hills.
I wonder if "scholar" is one of the celebrated scholars?
The Leological One

No, it displays a loyalty to the WT FDS Teaching/Writing Committees, as does all other JW teachings.
100% Exactly~!
Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars have investigated chronology since the time of the early Bible Students and have produced a chronology for both the OT and NT that has erved the Lord's people well for decades.

It has only [s]erved them well in that they have been able to keep most members from studying external sources and finding out the truth of the matter. 607 is simply a flawed basis for a typical end-time prophecy. Fringe-dwelling religious groups need end-time prophecies to scare people in, so I guess 607 has served them well after all.
The calculation of 607 has a simple methodology based strictly on God;s Word and cannot be overturned because the Bible is faithful and true.
NO, scholar, a calculation cannot have a "methodology". You are using "methodology" instead of method perhaps because you think it makes you look superior, but it just illustrates your poor use of the English language. The broad field of chronology has a methodology. A calucalation does not.
"Strictly"? Isaiah 45:1 Jeremiah 25:12 Daniel 5:26-31.
Secular chronology prompted by apostates is confusing, complex and unfruitful because it provides no coherent chronology. Such advocates cannot agree on the theinterpretation of the seventy years and the a date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
Secular chronology isn't prompted by apostates. By your definition, these apostates are ex JWs, who by and large have had very little to do with the actual work of the chronologers who made available the information that disproves the Society's interpretations. Cannot agree? You can't find anyone at all who agrees with the Society about 607, so what is your point?
The biblical 607 date is based upon solid secular evidence otherwise such a date would not be possible and it is also based on a solid pivotal date. The Jonsson hypothesis is just a criticism with its onject to invalidate our superior chronology and contains too many assumptions to be of any scholarly value which is understandable as its author is not a scholar.
Irrespective of interpretations, 607 is not a "biblical" date. The time and event used by the Society for the end of the 70 years is wrong. The significance given to the 70 years is wrong. There is no secular evidence at all that points to 607. There you go with that "Jonsson hypothesis" stuff again. Are you suggesting that Jonsson translated the tablets found at the British museum and wrote all of the other sources that state that Jerusalem fell in 587? No, you're just trying to use a label to imply deride the facts.
Hellrider

...I was going to say something... but Jeffro covered it all.
Scholar, after reading numerous posts by you, I strongly suspect that you have some sort of severe personality disorder. But all in all, you should praise the lord for your illness. A "normal" JW (if there is such a thing) being exposed to true scholarship, brilliant minds and ...normality, for as long as you have, on this board, would have gone apostate for a long time now. Don`t ever go see a psychiatrist, Scholar. Yours is to much work. Better to stay the way you are (and I mean that from the bottom of my heart).
steve2

I think we should give scholar his due: It is quite a skill to remain doggedly attached to a belief despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. I'm trying to think what the name of that skill is...Let me think. Ah, now I recall it: Rigidity of thinking. Come hell or high water, ain't nothin' gonna stop him thinkin' that way.
stillajwexelder

Woodsman - welcome to the forum and excellent first post thankyou.
Kid-A EXCELLENT
Alleymom
Scholar ---
More than two years ago in the KISS thread I quoted from some of your "celebrated WT scholars" who gave information about the reigns of the neo-Babylonian kings.
I think those "celebrated WT scholars" gave accurate information about the reigns of the neo-Babylonian kings.
You think their information is inaccurate.
Isn't it strange that I, a non-JW Christian, believe that the data on the reigns given by these "celebrated JW scholars" is accurate, but you, a loyal JW, choose to disregard it?
Here is a link to the message, along with an excerpt:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/807453/post.ashx#807453
From WT literature, we have the kings of Babylon and the length of their reigns:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

Evil-Merodach -- 2 years

Neriglissar -- 4 years

Labashi-Marduk -- assassinated within 9 months

Nabonidus -- 17 years
This agrees with the thousands of cuneiform tablets which show:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

Evil-Merodach -- 2 years

Neriglissar -- 4 years

Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months

Nabonidus -- 17 years
Here are quotations from WT literature showing the lengths of each king's reign:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years

*** w00 5/15 p. 12 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign...

*** w86 11/1 p. 5 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion.

*** dp chap. 7 p. 99 Four Words That Changed the World ***Proud King Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E.

*** dp chap. 4 pp. 50-51 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image *** 9 Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus’ son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E

*** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon ***Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.
Evil-Merodach --- 2 years
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived *** Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year

kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.
Neriglissar -- 4 years
***
w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
*** dx30-85 Labashi-Marduk ***

LABASHI-MARDUK

king of Babylon: w65 29; bf 183-4

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months . Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus -- 17 years
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***

NABONIDUS

(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].

Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).

w68 8/15 p. 491 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates *** 17 Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13. Footnote" VII/14/17 ": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign.
So there you have it.
If you start with the WTS's own date of 539 for the fall of Babylon and count backwards through the Kings of Babylon for each year of their reigns, you arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18 th /19 th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.
I think the key quotation is the one from WT 1965 1/1 p. 29 , which shows Evil-merodach reigned two years, followed by Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, followed by Labashi-Marduk, who reigned less than 9 months, followed by Nabonidus.
This is an important quotation because it shows the succession of the kings, with no room for an extra king in between, and it also agrees with the conventional chronology's regnal lengths.
Using the WTS's own data for the neo-Babylonian kings and the lengths of their reigns, there is NO ROOM for an extra king or for an extra 20 years.
If you start at 539, the WTS's own date, and count backward according to their own data regarding each king and his reign, you will arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.
I like this approach because it requires no specialized knowledge.
Marjorie Alley
-------------------------
Regards,
Marjorie
oldflame

This just blows me away, in the fact that there are several still JW's here on this forum who know full well that this is an apostate site and yet they frequent this site and become members of an apostate site and for what to support their religion ? I for one am not interested in reading those post from those who still support the JW teachings............
kazar

Jehovah's Witnesses' theory of 607 BC ireminds me of The DaVinci Code's convoluted symbolism and mysticism. And, both are works of fiction.
Honesty

Celebrated WT scholars have provided sufficient information to dispel any concerns raised by the Jonsson hypothesis in the book Gentile Times Reconsidered. The claculation of 607 is based on biblical and secular evidence and its simplicity is well presented in the publications in recent years. Apostate thinking poses no threat to our chronology as its methodology and interpretation demonstrates a loyalty to God's inspired Word.
Celebrated WT scholars have investigated chronology since the time of the early Bible Students and have produced a chronology for both the OT and NT that has erved the Lord's people well for decades. The calculation of 607 has a simple methodology based strictly on God;s Word and cannot be overturned because the Bible is faithful and true. Secular chronology prompted by apostates is confusing, complex and unfruitful because it provides no coherent chronology. Such advocates cannot agree on the theinterpretation of the seventy years and the a date for the Fall of Jerusalem. The biblical 607 date is based upon solid secular evidence otherwise such a date would not be possible and it is also based on a solid pivotal date. The Jonsson hypothesis is just a criticism with its onject to invalidate our superior chronology and contains too many assumptions to be of any scholarly value which is understandable as its author is not a scholar. scholar JW
Did you get a discount on your Lifetime Ticket to Ride on Ozzy's 'Crazy Train'?

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

Share this