aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 795 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  You reject the idea of Christ being both God and man on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:5, arguing that Paul presents Jesus solely as a man, not as the God-man. You also object to the use of what you see as philosophical categories (like “essence” or “nature”) as later “inventions.” But this critique fails on multiple levels—exegetical, historical, and theological. Let’s start with the text itself:

  “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)

  You assert: “Notice it doesn’t say the God-man Jesus.” – which is nothing more than an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). True—but that does not mean Paul is denying Christ’s divinity. In fact, the context of this verse, and Paul’s own writings elsewhere, demand that we read this incarnationally, not unitarianly. Paul is emphasizing Christ’s role as mediator in His humanity, not defining His entire ontological being. To say “the man Christ Jesus” is to refer to the mode of His mediatorial work—not the totality of His identity. The very fact that Jesus is man does not exclude that He is also God. If anything, this reflects the Pauline pattern of affirming both aspects of Christ. Take Philippians 2:6–7:

  “Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

  The Son, who is in the form of God, becomes man. This is incarnation. The same is echoed in Romans 1:3-4, where Paul says that Christ “was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power...by his resurrection from the dead.”

  Now to 1 Tim 2:5. Paul is saying that the one mediator is the man Christ Jesus because that is the nature through which He mediates. But the assumption is that He must also fully possess the divine nature—because only God can bridge the infinite moral and ontological chasm between sinful man and perfect God. The verse does not preclude Christ's deity; it presupposes it. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas says (ST III, q. 26, a. 1):

  “The office of a mediator belongs to him who unites those between whom he mediates...Now to unite men to God perfectly, it was necessary that there should be one who was true God and true man, so that He might bring men to God, partaking of both.”

  Your analogy of a mediator being outside both parties is mistaken. In biblical thought—and in Roman legal practice—a mediator must represent both parties, not stand as a third, unrelated party. Moses was a mediator as man; but Christ is greater, because He shares in the divine nature (Hebrews 3:1–6). The whole point of the New Covenant is that the Mediator is God Himself (cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15).

  You wrote: “Paul points out in Gal 3:20 that a mediator is not of one.” But let’s read the verse in context:

  “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” (Gal 3:20, NASB)

  Paul is contrasting the Mosaic covenant (mediated by angels and Moses) with the Abrahamic promise. His point is that God’s covenant with Abraham was unilateral—God alone made the promise—whereas the Law was bilateral and required mediation. But this verse is not a definition of what a “mediator” must be ontologically, nor does it suggest that Christ, as Mediator, must be neither God nor man. That is eisegesis. Galatians 3:20 isn’t speaking about Christ at all.

  You suggest that the idea of Christ being both God and man is the result of later philosophy. That’s simply incorrect. As early as Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD), we have the confession of Christ as:

  “God in man...both of Mary and of God.” (Eph. 7)

  This is not Platonism or Greek metaphysics. It is doctrinal exegesis drawn from John 1:14, Col 2:9, Phil 2, and Hebrews 1. It’s also not the result of a Council—Ignatius wrote this before Nicaea.

  Further, the terms “ousia,” “physis,” “hypostasis,” and “prosopon” were not imposed on the Bible; they were refinements to protect biblical truths from heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism. Councils like Chalcedon (451 AD) merely articulated the truth already present in Scripture: that the one person (hypostasis) of the Son possesses two natures—divine and human—without confusion, change, division, or separation.

  Your rejection of “essence” or “nature” is itself a philosophical stance—just an anti-metaphysical one. But language about “one God,” “Son,” “image,” “form,” “likeness,” etc., in the Bible requires ontological reflection. Theology is faith seeking understanding—not blind citation.

  You say “there’s still no Trinity in the Bible.” True—the word “Trinity” isn’t there. But neither is the word “Bible.” What matters is whether the doctrine is taught. And it is. The baptismal formula (Matt 28:19), the benediction (2 Cor 13:14), and the Christological hymns (Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; Heb 1:1–3) all demand a Trinitarian reading. The early Church recognized this not by invention, but by necessity.

  Finally: “The diagrams don’t prove anything.” Of course they don’t. They’re visual aids to help clarify complex but biblically warranted truths. Christianity is not grounded in diagrams—it is grounded in Christ, and the reality of who He is demands careful articulation. That articulation led the Church to confess, not invent, the Trinity.

  To sum up, you misread 1 Tim 2:5 by isolating it from Paul’s broader Christology. You interpret “man” as meaning “merely man,” when Paul teaches elsewhere that the Son is “God over all” (Rom 9:5). Your appeal to Gal 3:20 is out of context. Your claim that essence-language is foreign to Scripture ignores the metaphysical implications of biblical terms. And your denial of the Trinity reflects not biblical fidelity, but a flattening of the biblical witness. Yes, there is one God. But the one God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—not in contradiction to His unity, but as its eternal and living fullness. To deny this is not to uphold Scripture, but to reduce it.

  And Christ—who is God and man—is the only possible mediator between the two.
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  You have presented ten responses defending 607 BCE as the year ancient Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. Below, each argument (Responses 1–10) is addressed in order with rebuttals. Historical, archaeological, biblical, and astronomical evidence consistently shows that the Watchtower Society’s 607 BCE date is untenable, and that Jerusalem actually fell in 586/587 BCE. Each point is examined in detail, demonstrating the flaws in the JW interpretation.

  Response 1: Secular Chronology and the “605 vs 609” Debate

  JW Claim: Secular historians are unsure whether Babylon’s 70-year period of dominance began in 609 BCE or 605 BCE. This alleged uncertainty is used to argue that the entire secular chronology (and the 587 BCE destruction date) is unreliable.

  Rebuttal: The debate over 605 vs 609 BCE concerns a minor question of when Babylon’s domination began, not the date of Jerusalem’s fall. Scholarly discussion of whether the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy started with the battle of Harran in 609 BCE or the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE reflects normal historical inquiry over a 4-year difference – it does not call into question the well-established date of Jerusalem’s destruction. In fact, no reputable historian places Jerusalem’s fall outside 586 or 587 BCE. Multiple independent lines of evidence – including Babylonian chronicles, business records, ancient historians, astronomical tablets, and later Greek and Persian sources – converge on 587 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction. By contrast, the JW position (607 BCE) requires inserting a full 20 extra years into the chronology, a discrepancy far beyond any normal scholarly debate. Such a 20-year distortion is historically impossible given the wealth of evidence that aligns with 587 BCE. In short, minor scholarly debates on Babylon’s rise (609 vs 605) do not invalidate the broad consensus: Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE, and the JW date of 607 BCE stands completely outside this consensus.

  Response 2: Jeremiah 25 & 29 – Context of the 70 Years

  JW Claim: “Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10 refer exclusively to Judah’s exile/desolation lasting 70 years.” In this view, the “70 years” is interpreted as the period of Jerusalem (and Judah) lying desolate, supposedly from 607 BCE until the Jews’ return in 537 BCE.

  Rebuttal: This argument ignores the explicit wording and context of Jeremiah’s prophecy. In Jeremiah 25:11, the prophet says: “This whole land will be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Notice “these nations” – Jeremiah includes not only Judah, but the surrounding nations, under Babylonian domination for 70 years. The 70 years in context refer to Babylon’s period of regional supremacy, during which Judah and others would be subjugated. This period began when Babylon definitively defeated Assyria/Egypt (c. 609–605 BCE) and ended when Babylon itself fell in 539 BCE.

  Furthermore, Jeremiah 29:10 clarifies God’s promise: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.” (NIV). The phrase “for Babylon” indicates the 70 years are counted as Babylon’s tenure as the dominant power History confirms Babylon fell in 539 BCE, and shortly thereafter (538 BCE) Cyrus issued the decree allowing Jews to return. Indeed, the first returnees were back in Judah by 537 BCE, just as Jeremiah’s prophecy implied – after Babylon’s 70-year period ended. The JW interpretation, which isolates the 70 years to only Judah’s exile and pushes the start to 607 BCE, contradicts the biblical text. It ignores that Jeremiah spoke of multiple nations serving Babylon, and it conflicts with historical fact (Babylon’s empire lasted about 70 years, 609–539 BCE). In summary, Jeremiah’s prophecy is about Babylon’s empire and Judah’s servitude during that time, not a 70-year total desolation of Judah starting in 607 BCE. The biblical context and historical timing (539 BCE end of Babylon) harmonize perfectly with a 586/587 BCE fall of Jerusalem, not 607.

  Response 3: Timing of Babylon’s Judgment (Jeremiah 25:12)

  JW Claim: “Babylon’s punishment only began after the Jews returned in 537 BCE.” JWs argue that Jeremiah 25:12 – which says Babylon would be punished after 70 years – means Babylon’s judgment was delayed until 537 BCE, when the exile ended, thus requiring Jerusalem’s destruction to be 607 BCE (70 years earlier).

  Rebuttal: This claim confuses Babylon’s political fall with later events. Jeremiah 25:12 states: “But when the seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation…” The punishment for Babylon began when its 70 years of dominance ended. Historically, this occurred in 539 BCE, when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, toppling its king and empire. That exactly fulfilled Jeremiah’s words: Babylon’s political power was broken “when seventy years [of empire] were completed.” The Jews’ return to Judah in 538–537 BCE was a consequence of Babylon’s fall, not an event that delayed Babylon’s punishment. The JW argument incorrectly shifts Babylon’s judgment 2 years later without evidence, conflating the timeline. In reality, Babylon’s “70 years” ended in 539 BCE with its defeat, and Cyrus’s decree freeing the exiles came shortly thereafter (538 BCE). Babylon’s downfall in 539 BCE is the prophesied judgment – immediately after those 70 years – as confirmed by both Scripture and historical record. There was no need to wait until 537 BCE for Babylon to be “punished,” since its empire was already gone by then. Thus, this JW claim has the sequence backwards: the end of the 70 years (Babylon’s fall) enabled the Jews’ return, rather than the return marking Babylon’s fall. Jeremiah 25:12 fits the 539 BCE fall of Babylon perfectly, leaving no biblical basis to insist on a 607 BCE Jerusalem destruction.

  Response 4: Evidence from Josephus, Archaeology, and Astronomy

  JW Claim: “Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy indirectly support 607 BCE.” It is asserted that these sources either align with a 70-year exile or can be interpreted to favor the Watchtower’s 607 BCE chronology.

  Rebuttal: In reality, historical and scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports 586/587 BCE as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, and directly contradicts the 607 BCE date. Consider the following evidence:

  • Flavius Josephus (1st-century historian): Josephus explicitly records that Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10 - Tufts University). This matches the Biblical account (Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year by Babylonian reckoning, 19th year by Judean reckoning). By secular chronology, Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year corresponds to 587 BCE. Thus, Josephus effectively places the destruction around 587 BCE, not 607. (While Josephus elsewhere mentions “70 years” of exile, he is simply reflecting the biblical 70-year prophecy, which, as shown, doesn’t require a 607 date. He never puts the fall as early as 607.)
  • Archaeology: The archaeological record in Judah unambiguously points to a major destruction circa 586/587 BCE. Excavations at Jerusalem (e.g. the Lachish Letters, destruction layers in the City of David and surrounds) and other Judean sites show burn layers, debris, arrowheads, and Babylonian-era artifacts dating to the late-7th century BCE – consistent with Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign (Evidence of the 587/586 BCE Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem found in Mount Zion excavation - Inside UNC Charlotte). Notably, archaeologists identify only one massive Babylonian destruction in this period, around 587 BCE (Evidence of the 587/586 BCE Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem found in Mount Zion excavation - Inside UNC Charlotte). There is no evidence of a separate destruction in 607 BCE, and indeed no credible archaeologist advocates shifting the date by two decades. The Watchtower’s 607 BCE date would require erasing or relocating a well-attested destruction stratum; such a move finds no support in peer-reviewed archaeology. All material evidence – pottery typology, carbon dating, siege weapon remains, Babylonian arrowheads, etc. – aligns with the early 6th-century BCE (late 580s) conquest of Jerusalem (Evidence of the 587/586 BCE Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem found in Mount Zion excavation - Inside UNC Charlotte), corroborating the 586/587 BCE timeline.
  • Astronomy (Babylonian Astronomical Tablets): Cuneiform tablets from Babylon provide precise astronomical data that anchor Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to absolute dates. The most famous is VAT 4956, an astronomical diary recording planetary and lunar positions in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. Modern scholars (and even the Watchtower’s own publications) acknowledge that the observations on VAT 4956 exactly match 568/567 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. If Year 37 = 568 BCE, then Year 18 = 587 BCE (since 37 – 19 = 18, and 568 + 19 = 587). This aligns perfectly with the accepted date of Jerusalem’s fall. JW apologists have tried to re-interpret VAT 4956 to fit 588 BCE as year 37, but professional astronomers have thoroughly refuted those attempts as impossible. No published academic work supports the 588 BCE reading. Additionally, the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 (the “Jerusalem Chronicle”) documents Nebuchadnezzar’s early campaigns, including the siege of Jerusalem in his 7th year (598–597 BCE), consistent with standard chronology. All astronomical and historical records place Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and Jerusalem’s destruction exactly where secular history says – with no room for an extra 20 years.

  In summary, Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy all point to 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE. Far from supporting the JW date, these lines of evidence flatly contradict it. The claim that they “indirectly” support 607 is false – they directly support the mainstream chronology. In fact, no independent evidence has ever been discovered that corroborates 607 BCE, whereas many lines of evidence decisively support 586/587. The Watchtower’s chronology stands alone, unsupported by the historical record.

  Response 5: Nebuchadnezzar’s “Missing Years” Myth

  JW Claim: “What about Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘missing years’ of madness? Could his reign have had an unrecorded gap?” This argument hints that the Bible’s account of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of madness (Daniel 4) might mean several years of his reign were not recorded in Babylonian history, perhaps creating a 7-year or even 20-year discrepancy that could support the 607 timeline.

  Rebuttal: There are no “missing years” in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign – not in the Bible and not in Babylonian records. The book of Daniel does describe Nebuchadnezzar temporarily losing his sanity (often interpreted as seven years of madness), but importantly, Daniel never suggests that Nebuchadnezzar ceased to be king or that his kingdom timeline paused (Daniel 4:36 says his kingdom was restored “and still more greatness was added”). Babylonian historical sources show continuous year-by-year documentation of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign (605–562 BCE) with no gaps. Thousands of dated economic tablets, administrative documents, and royal inscriptions exist from Nebuchadnezzar’s rule; these are dated by the reigning year of the king and they span every year up through his 43rd year. If Nebuchadnezzar had been absent from power for a lengthy period (whether 7 years or 20 years), we would see a break or co-regency in these dated records – but we do not. In fact, business tablets are dated in an unbroken sequence from Nebuchadnezzar’s first year through his 43rd, followed immediately by his son Amel-Marduk’s first year. There is zero historical hint of any gap or “missing” period that could accommodate extra years.

  The JW idea of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign having unexplained extra years is entirely baseless – it is not drawn from any ancient source, but invented to patch the 20-year hole in the JW chronology. Even if Daniel’s account of madness is taken literally as seven years, those years were part of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign (not additional to it). Babylonian chroniclers continued to date documents by Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years during that time, indicating the kingdom still recognized him as king. In short, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign length is firmly established by both biblical and secular data, and it does not accommodate an extra 20 years. The claim of “missing years” is a myth with no supporting evidence.

  Response 6: Carl Olof Jonsson’s Work and the Exile

  JW Claim: “Carl Olof Jonsson’s Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR) book is flawed – he supposedly ignored the issue of Judah’s exile and the 70 years, undermining his conclusions.” The implication is that Jonsson (a former JW who wrote a seminal critique of the 607 chronology) didn’t address the Biblical exile period, therefore his analysis is incomplete or biased.

  Rebuttal: This characterization of Jonsson’s work is incorrect. In Gentile Times Reconsidered, Jonsson extensively examines the 70-year period of Babylonian domination, the exile, and the desolation of Judah in great detail. Far from “ignoring” the exile, he integrates the biblical data with historical evidence to demonstrate they are compatible with the 587 BCE date. Jonsson shows that the 70 years are best understood as the period of Babylonian supremacy (as per Jeremiah 25 and 29), during which Judah and surrounding nations were subjugated. He discusses the duration of the exile of the Jews in Babylon and the condition of Judah’s land during those decades, citing Scripture (e.g. 2 Chronicles 36:20–23, Daniel 9:2) and historical sources. Jonsson’s analysis concludes that the Jews’ exile in Babylon lasted approximately 50 years (from the first deportation in 597 BCE or the final destruction in 586 BCE, to the return in 538–537 BCE), and that this fits within a broader 70-year period of Babylonian rule (609–539 BCE) as described by Jeremiah. He did not “ignore” the exile; on the contrary, he addressed it head-on and demonstrated that the biblical requirements (land resting, exile duration, 70-year prophecy) harmonize with the historical timeline

  The JW criticism of Jonsson here likely stems not from any actual omission in his work, but from discomfort with his well-documented conclusions. Jonsson painstakingly compiled evidence from ancient tablets, historical chronologies, and scriptural exegesis to refute the 607 BCE date. Dismissing his scholarship by claiming he “ignored” key issues is a straw man argument. Unless one actually engages with the data he presented, such a claim only reveals a lack of familiarity with his research or a deliberate misrepresentation of it. In reality, Jonsson’s work remains one of the most thorough treatments of the subject, and his conclusions supporting 586/587 BCE have stood up to scrutiny, whereas the Watchtower’s 607 BCE has not.

  Response 7: The 537 BCE Return and Counting 70 Years

  JW Claim: “The Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE. Counting back 70 years from 537 BCE gives 607 BCE exactly – proof that Jerusalem fell in 607.” JWs assert that since they accept 537 BCE as the year the exiles returned (after Cyrus’s decree), subtracting the prophesied 70 years yields 607 BCE for the destruction, confirming their timeline.

  Rebuttal: Simply counting 70 years backward from 537 BCE is an artificial calculation that does not match the actual historical and biblical timeline. First, it’s important to note that the Bible does not explicitly say the Jews returned in 537 BCE – this date is inferred from secular history combined with biblical hints. What the Bible does state is that Cyrus’s decree freeing the Jews occurred in Cyrus’s first year (Ezra 1:1–3), and 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 emphasizes this was “to fulfill the word of the LORD by Jeremiah” at the end of 70 years (2 Chronicles 36:20-23 NIV - He carried into exile to Babylon the - Bible Gateway). Cyrus’s first regnal year over Babylon began in late 538 BCE (after he conquered Babylon in October 539). The Jews could depart Babylon by 538 and resettle by 537 BCE, which JWs acknowledge. However, nothing in Scripture insists on pegging the exact end of 70 years to the moment the Jews stepped back into Jerusalem in 537. Rather, the biblical texts tie the end of the 70 years to Babylon’s fall and the rise of the Persian Empire (i.e. 539–538 BCE) (2 Chronicles 36:20-23 NIV - He carried into exile to Babylon the - Bible Gateway).

  Historically, if Babylon fell in 539 BCE and Cyrus’s decree came in 538 BCE, then the 70 years are already complete by 538. Counting 70 years back from 538 BCE (the key turning point) brings us to about 608/609 BCE, which is precisely when Babylon’s rise began (the final defeat of Assyria at Harran in 609 BCE). This aligns perfectly with Jeremiah’s prophecy without any manipulation. The Watchtower’s chronology, by contrast, inserts a two-year delay for which there is no evidence: they assert the 70 years didn’t end until 537 BCE (for a round-number 70-year exile from 607). Yet the Bible’s own chronology in 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 implies the land’s 70-year rest ended when Cyrus became king (i.e. by his first year) (2 Chronicles 36:20-23 NIV - He carried into exile to Babylon the - Bible Gateway). There is no historical or scriptural reason to demand that exactly 70 years elapsed between Jerusalem’s destruction and the return of the exiles – that is a Watchtower assumption, not a biblical statement. The Bible simply says 70 years of Babylonian domination would pass “for Babylon”, after which Babylon falls and the Jews return (Jer. 29:10). That is precisely what happened between ~609 BCE and 539–538 BCE.

  In short, the 607-to-537 count is contrived. It starts from an assumed end point (537) and works backward, ignoring that the actual prophesied period ended in 539 with Babylon’s fall. When one starts at the correct end point – Babylon’s collapse – 70 years earlier lands in the Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar’s madness as lasting “seven times,” often interpreted as seven years, but the original Aramaic text (Daniel 4) and some scholars suggest it could mean a complete period (not necessarily literal years). Even if seven years, those were part of his reign, not additional years after year 43.s late 7th century BCE (≈609), not 607. The bottom line: using 537 BCE as the fixed end point is arbitrary. The biblical and historical end point is 539/538 BCE, and that yields a completely different start date (about 609 BCE) which fits secular history much better. The neat “exactly 70 years” counting back from 537 is a circular proof that assumes what it’s trying to prove. Real history does not accommodate this two-year shift, so the JW chronology inserts it purely to uphold doctrine.

  Response 8: Multiple Deportations and the Myth of a 70-Year Desolation

  JW Claim: “Jeremiah mentions multiple deportations (in 597 BCE, 586 BCE, 582 BCE, etc.), proving that the exile lasted 70 years in total.” The argument suggests that because exiles were taken at different times, one might stretch the period to cover 70 years of Jewish captivity (perhaps from an earliest deportation to the final return), and that this somehow supports a 607 BCE destruction and a 70-year complete desolation of the land.

  Rebuttal: The mention of multiple deportations in Jeremiah and Kings actually undermines the idea of a total, 70-year desolation starting in 607 BCE. Here’s why: If Jerusalem and Judah truly became completely empty and desolate in 607 BCE, one would expect that to be a single, final event – with no one left to deport afterward. However, the Bible itself records that even after the main destruction of Jerusalem (in 586/587 BCE historically), people remained in the land. The Babylonians appointed Gedaliah as governor over those who stayed behind, and a significant population was still in Judah until Gedaliah’s assassination (Jeremiah 40–41). In 582 BCE (Nebuchadnezzar’s 23rd year), after quelling remaining unrest, the Babylonians took a final group of 745 Judeans into exile (Jeremiah 52:24 - 52:30 - Legacy Standard Bible). Jeremiah 52:28-30 lists the deportations: ~3,023 Jews in the 7th year (597 BCE, Jehoiachin’s exile), 832 people in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (586 BCE, destruction of Jerusalem), and 745 people in his 23rd year (582 BCE) (Jeremiah 52:24 - 52:30 - Legacy Standard Bible). Total: 4,600 people exiled over that period. This record makes it clear that Judah was not emptied all at once in 607 BCE – rather, the complete exile was a process over nearly 20 years (597 to 582 BCE).

  What do these data tell us? They fit the conventional timeline: Jerusalem’s initial surrender and first exile of nobles was 597 BCE; the city’s destruction and major depopulation was 586 BCE; a final mop-up exile occurred in 582 BCE. At that point “Judah went into exile from its land” fully (Jeremiah 52:24 - 52:30 - Legacy Standard Bible). Thereafter, the land truly lay desolate, until the exiles returned about 45 years later (538–537 BCE). There is no 70-year absolute desolation indicated. Instead, the land was progressively depopulated and then lay fallow for roughly 50 years (not 70). JWs, by insisting on a 607 BCE destruction to get 70 years of desolation, must ignore that the Bible itself says a sizeable population was still in Judah after 607 (down to 582 BCE). In other words, Jeremiah’s multiple deportations flatly contradict the idea that Judah was completely desolate starting in 607. They actually reinforce the historical reality that Jerusalem’s destruction occurred around 586/587 BCE and that the exile was a complex event, not a single date that can be neatly pegged to 607.

  In summary, the deportations were multiple events that align with a 587 BCE destruction followed by further removals, and they do not support a 607 timeline. The prophecy of “70 years” is satisfied by 70 years of Babylonian rule, not 70 years of an empty Judah. By misapplying that prophecy to a supposed 70-year desolation, the JW argument ends up contradicting the very biblical record of what happened after Jerusalem’s fall. The evidence shows some Jews were still being exiled 25 years after 607 BCE – an untenable scenario if 607 were truly the start of a 70-year complete exile.

  Response 9: The Year 609 BCE in Historical Records

  JW Claim: “609 BCE is just an arbitrary date modern scholars invented.” The suggestion is that secular historians “inserted” 609 BCE to make their chronology work, implying that it’s not a real, documented date like 607 BCE supposedly is.

  Rebuttal: The year 609 BCE is firmly rooted in ancient historical records, not an arbitrary modern invention. Multiple cuneiform documents from Babylonia chronicle the events of that year in detail. For example, the Babylonian Chronicle of Nabopolassar (also known as ABC 3, published by scholar A.K. Grayson) covers the years 616–609 BCE and describes the final campaigns against the Assyrian Empire (BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES – Encyclopaedia Iranica). In 609 BCE specifically, it records the Babylonian and Median forces besieging Harran, the last stronghold of Assyrian remnants, and the involvement of the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Necho II. These chronicles (often referred to in academic literature as ABC 3, 4, 5, etc.) are contemporary clay tablets that give year-by-year accounts of Babylonian kings. They explicitly date events to Nebuchadnezzar’s predecessors and to Nebuchadnezzar’s own reign using the Babylonian calendar – there’s nothing “modern” or “interpolated” about these dates. For instance, Assyria’s final defeat and the shifting of Near Eastern power is recorded around 609 BCE, marking the true beginning of Babylon’s uncontested rule.

  Far from being an “arbitrary” modern construct, 609 BCE emerges from a synthesis of many ancient sources: Babylonian chronicles, Egyptian records (Pharaoh Necho’s campaign is recorded in the Bible as well, at 2 Kings 23:29), and later historians’ accounts (e.g. Berossus). The reason 609 BCE is important is that it marks the end of Assyrian dominance and the rise of Babylon – aligning with the prophecy that “these nations will serve the king of Babylon 70 years.” Counting from 609 BCE (when Babylon’s king effectively became “the one to serve”) to 539 BCE (Babylon’s fall) gives 70 years. Scholars did not invent 609; they derived it from the evidence. On the other hand, 607 BCE is not recorded in any ancient text as the year Jerusalem fell – it’s arrived at only by JW interpretation. Every ancient source that touches on the timing (Babylonian chronicles, Biblical texts, Josephus, Babylonian king lists, etc.) indicates a timeline consistent with 587 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction and acknowledges events in 609 BCE (Assyria’s fall) as a key reference point. Thus, the claim that 609 is an “arbitrary interpolation” ignores the wealth of historical documentation from that era. It is 607 BCE, rather, that stands isolated from the data.

  In summary, 609 BCE is a well-attested historical year marking Babylon’s ascent, whereas 607 BCE is a contrived date unsupported by direct evidence. Any argument that scholars simply “invented” 609 to undermine 607 is a reversal of reality: historians work from ancient evidence, and that evidence simply does not support a 607 BCE destruction.

  Response 10: Scholarly Consensus vs. the Gentile Times Doctrine

  JW Claim: “Our 607 BCE chronology and the related ‘Gentile Times’ doctrine (leading to 1914 CE) withstand all scholarly criticism.” In other words, JWs assert that no matter what historians, archaeologists, or astronomers say, their interpretation is sound and even supported by some scholarship, and that their calculation of 2520 years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE (the Gentile Times) is on solid ground.

  Rebuttal: This claim does not hold up under scrutiny. In reality, no competent historian, archaeologist, or astronomer accepts 607 BCE as the date for Jerusalem’s fall. The consensus that the city fell in 586 or 587 BCE is nearly universal, backed by a mountain of evidence from various disciplines. Over the past century, the Watchtower Society’s 607 BCE date has been repeatedly examined and found wanting by experts – not out of bias against JWs, but because the evidence for the late 7th-century destruction is overwhelming. Key historical records (Babylonian chronicles, king lists, business tablets) and scientific data (astronomical observations like VAT 4956, eclipse records, etc.) all align together. To accept 607 BCE, one must propose that all these independent sources are wrong by the same 20-year margin – an extraordinarily implausible scenario. JWs have attempted to defend 607 by selectively quoting out-of-context statements and by proposing unusual interpretations (for example, claiming scribal errors on astronomical tablets or appealing to biblical prophecy as override). However, those defenses have not convinced the scholarly community, nor have they produced any positive evidence for 607.

  The “Gentile Times” doctrine, which hinges on 607 BCE, further underscores what’s at stake. This doctrine interprets the “seven times” of Daniel 4 as 7 prophetic years (360 days each) = 2520 years, running from Jerusalem’s fall to the start of Christ’s kingdom rule. Using 607 BCE as the start, JWs arrive at 1914 CE for the end of the Gentile Times. But if the starting date is wrong, the entire calculation collapses. Historians and biblical scholars outside the JW community do not support this 2520-year calculation – it’s unique to Adventist and JW tradition. In fact, the “Gentile Times” as 2520 years is not a concept found in scholarly exegesis; it was introduced by 19th-century Bible speculators and later adopted by JWs. Therefore, when 607 BCE is proven wrong, the 1914 doctrine loses its foundation. And 607 BCE has been disproven by converging evidence: Babylonian documents, biblical chronological details, and scientific dating all point to 587 BCE. As a result, 1914 becomes a date with no biblical chronological backing (even if one still respects 1914 for historical reasons, it cannot be arrived at via “seven times” from 607).

  In summary, the JW chronology has not withstood scholarly criticism – it has been overwhelmed by it. The scholarly consensus (including devout Christian historians) places Jerusalem’s destruction in 586/587 BCE. There isn’t a single piece of actual evidence that requires 607 BCE, whereas there are numerous lines of evidence that flatly contradict it. Since the Watchtower’s 1914 prophecy is solely dependent on 607, the collapse of 607 BCE as a credible date means the Gentile Times doctrine is built on sand. It is telling that no peer-reviewed historical journal and no standard reference work on ancient history validates the 607 BCE date – it survives only in insular publications. True scholarship invites verification and critique; by that standard, the JW 607/1914 framework fails, as it cannot be reconciled with established historical facts.

  One Line of Evidence that Disproves 607 BCE

  Finally, you challenge: “Provide one line of evidence disproving 607 BCE.” The implication is that critics have no single clear proof against 607. In reality, there are multiple powerful lines of evidence, but one in particular is often singled out by historians for its precision:

  Astronomical Tablet VAT 4956: This cuneiform tablet is a diary of astronomical observations from Babylon. It specifically logs the positions of the moon and planets in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. Modern analysis (confirmed by scholars like Sachs and Hunger) shows the recorded sky alignments correspond exactly to the year 568/567 BCE. For example, it notes specific lunar phases near certain stars and conjunctions of planets on particular dates – calculations show these phenomena occurred in 568 BCE. If Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was 568 BCE, then counting backward: his 18th year was 587 BCE. This is simple arithmetic and does not depend on any hypothesis – it’s an observational fact recorded by ancient astronomers. The date 587 BCE for Jerusalem’s fall follows directly. Thus, VAT 4956 alone conclusively disproves 607 BCE. If JWs were correct, Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year would have to be 588 BCE (19 years earlier), but the sky in 588 BCE did not match the tablet – it’s not even close on many critical observations, meaning the tablet cannot be referring to 588. The 568 BCE match is essentially one-in-a-million in its precision, leaving no doubt about the chronology.

  All major scholars and institutions (e.g., Otto Neugebauer, Abraham Sachs, Hermann Hunger) agree that the astronomical data on VAT 4956 corresponds only to the year 568/567 BCE. This is confirmed by:

  1. Lunar Eclipse: The eclipse described on the tablet occurred on July 4, 568 BCE (Julian calendar). While a superficial match for a similar eclipse exists in 588 BCE (July 15), this single similarity does not suffice to date the entire tablet.
  2. Full Dataset Match: All 13 sets of lunar positions and 15 planetary positions align uniquely with the year 568/567 BCE. These data points include conjunctions, angular separations, and appearances, which are extraordinarily specific and not repeatable on a 20-year cycle due to lunar-solar planetary variances.

  The Watchtower has claimed, notably in their Watchtower 2011 article and in their timeline arguments, that many of the lunar positions fit 588 BCE better than 568. However, as shown in Jacob Halsey’s letter (March 3, 2018)—which was sent directly to the Watch Tower Society and later published—we find the opposite.

  Halsey used Starry Night Pro Plus astronomy software with accurate Babylonian coordinates to test the tablet’s observations. His findings include:

  • Obv. 3 (Nisanu 9, May 10/11): While the angular separation numerically appears close in 588 BCE, the moon is visibly behind β Virginis, not in front as the tablet says. The claim of an “exact match” fails under visual verification.
  • Obv. 14 (Simanu 5, July 4): Supposed “excellent match” in 588 BCE fails since the moon is 5–6 degrees behind the star, not 1 cubit (2.2°) above/below. This fails both textually and observationally.
  • Obv. 15 (Simanu 8, July 7): Angular separation in 588 BCE is nearly twice the described amount; moon is in front, not below the star as the tablet says.
  • Rev. 5 (Šabātu 1, Feb. 21/22): Moon isn’t even visible on this date in 588 BCE, invalidating the claim that a new month began or that an appearance was seen in Pisces.
  • Rev. 14/15 (Addaru 7, Mar. 29/30): While α Leonis is 28° from the moon, it is behind, not below. The claimed “fold” (halo) does not align with the constellation positions, making this an extremely weak candidate.

  Conclusion: Even the best “matches” from the 588 BCE attempt contradict the descriptions in the tablet. Scholars like Sachs and Hunger already addressed minor discrepancies in 568 BCE as likely scribal approximations. That is far more plausible than rewriting the entire chronology.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that since a lunar eclipse also occurred in 588 BCE, it could be the one mentioned. However, lunar eclipses alone are insufficient for dating, and lunar positions (based on the moon’s complex orbital path) do not repeat in a clean 20-year cycle.Additionally, planetary positions (like Jupiter’s and Saturn’s) are even more irregular and inconsistent across decades. 13 lunar + 15 planetary + 8 solar-moon intervals matching 568 and not 588 completely disqualifies the 588 claim.

  The Watchtower’s claim that 607 BCE is supported by VAT 4956 collapses under scrutiny:

  • It cherry-picks a single eclipse while ignoring contradictory data.
  • It relies on falsified “better matches”, which astronomers have disproven.
  • It inserts theological necessity (to maintain the 1914 doctrine) into scientific data.

  As noted in the Halsey letter, multiple observations from 588 BCE do not match the stated lunar or angular data. This aligns with professional evaluations by Sachs, Hunger, and even conservative evangelical scholars who accept 586/587 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem.

  Why does this matter so much to JWs? Because if Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was in 568 BCE, then his 18th year (when Jerusalem fell) was 587 BCE, not 607. And that destroys the keystone of Watchtower chronology—the start of the “Gentile Times” and the arrival at 1914.

  Thus, Watchtower defenders have tried to:

  • Insert “missing 7 years” into Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (without evidence).
  • Deny the accuracy of secular chronologies (Ptolemy, Berossus, BM tablets).
  • Reinterpret astronomical data contrary to observable science.

  This is just one example. We could also point to the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946, which directly dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year to 598 BCE (and his 8th to 597 BCE when he captured Jerusalem the first time) – again confirming the conventional timeline. Or the Uruk King List and Ptolemy’s Canon, ancient sources that list the lengths of Babylonian kings’ reigns, which align perfectly with Nebuchadnezzar reigning 43 years from 605–562 BCE (leaving no room for an extra 20 years). But since only “one line” was asked for, VAT 4956 serves as that definitive line of evidence. It is a single artifact that single-handedly fixes Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and debunks the 607 BCE claim. To date, no JW publication or apologist has been able to refute the actual data on VAT 4956 – at best, they claim a few points of the text could be scribal errors or ambiguities, but even with generous allowances, the overall alignment with 568 BCE is undeniable, and alternative dates (like 588) fail. In scholarly circles, VAT 4956 is considered ironclad proof of the established chronology.

  So, contrary to the claim that critics “cannot produce one line of evidence,” we have produced one – and indeed there are many more. The challenge has been met: VAT 4956 (and the entire corpus of Babylonian astronomical diaries) stands as a clear, empirical falsification of the 607 BCE date.

  Conclusion

  In reviewing each of the JW’s ten arguments, we find that they rely on misreading scripture, ignoring historical context, selective use of sources, and unsupported conjectures. By contrast, the rebuttals above have presented solid evidence at every turn – biblical, historical, archaeological, and astronomical – all of which consistently point to Jerusalem’s destruction occurring around 586/587 BCE. This conclusion is not drawn from a secular bias or “worldly wisdom,” but from respect for facts: the Bible’s own contextual clues, the records of contemporaries (like the Babylonians), and the analysis of later historians and scientists.

  The Watchtower Society’s insistence on 607 BCE, in service of its 1914 Gentile Times doctrine, has unfortunately led sincere people to defend an indefensible date. As shown, multiple lines of evidence decisively disprove 607 BCE. It is not a matter of “lacking one line of evidence” – we have an abundance of evidence, and even one of those lines (the astronomical data, for example) is enough on its own to unravel the 607 claim. When all the evidence is weighed, the 20-year gap required by the JW chronology finds no support.

  In a respectful dialogue, we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. Here it leads to the conclusion that the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem occurred in 587 BCE (some say 586 depending on calendrical details), and that the “70 years” in prophecy are best understood in context as a period of Babylonian dominance and Jewish exile ending with Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE. All critical evidence aligns with this understanding. The Watchtower interpretation, however well-intentioned, is shown to be flawed and historically untenable.

  Ultimately, truth should be the goal. The facts presented are clear: Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE, and claiming otherwise means dismissing a vast body of scholarly work and physical evidence. It is hoped that this point-by-point rebuttal helps set the record straight and encourages a re-examination of the 607 BCE doctrine in the light of Scripture and documented history. The strength of the truth is that it can face the evidence without fear – and in this case, the evidence against 607 BCE is overwhelming, while the evidence for 586/587 BCE is robust, uncontradicted, and endorsed by essentially all experts in the field.
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  You have presented several arguments defending 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction (instead of the scholarly 587/586 BCE date). These arguments involve claimed scholarly “disagreements” in chronology, interpretations of Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy, statements by the historian Josephus, and even an astronomical tablet (VAT 4956). Below is a respectful but firm, evidence-based point-by-point rebuttal addressing each claim. The goal is to clarify the historical and biblical facts and show why the 587/586 BCE date is strongly supported by multiple lines of evidence, whereas the 607 BCE date is not.

  1. Secular Chronology and the “609 vs. 606 BCE” Argument

  Claim: Because secular scholars allegedly disagree (e.g. whether the 70 years began in 609 vs. 606 BCE), the entire secular chronology for this period is unreliable – implying the JWs’ 607 BCE might be just as valid.

  Response: This claim misrepresents the nature of scholarly discussion. In reality, historians overwhelmingly agree on the absolute chronology of Neo-Babylonian kings and the fall of Jerusalem; minor differences (such as 605 vs. 609 BCE as a starting point for a prophecy) do not invalidate the chronology. All standard historical sources place Jerusalem’s destruction in 587 or 586 BCE, not twenty years earlier. The “609 vs. 606” issue is not a dispute over Jerusalem’s fall at all – it concerns how to interpret Jeremiah’s 70-year period of Babylonian dominance. Some scholars count Babylon’s 70-year empire from 609 BCE (the final fall of Assyria), while others count from 605/604 BCE (Babylon’s victory at Carchemish and first subjugation of Judah). Either way, the 70 years ends with Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE. This discussion in no way implies a 20-year uncertainty on Jerusalem’s destruction – it remained about 587/586 BCE in both interpretations.

  In fact, the apparent “one or two year” differences one finds in historical references (e.g. some sources list Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as 605–562 vs. 604–561 due to different new-year reckoning) are well-understood and limited to a year or less, not decades. Such minor adjustments (e.g. 587 vs. 586 BCE) result from ancient calendar differences (Babylon’s year began in spring, not January. They do not indicate a lack of consensus – certainly not an opening for an alternate date as far off as 607. In summary, secular chronology for this era is built on massive evidence (see Section 9 below) and is consistent within a year or so. There is no serious dispute among historians that Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year – when Jerusalem was destroyed – fell in 587/586 BCE, not.

  2. Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy – Scope and Context

  Claim: Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Jeremiah 29:10 refer exclusively to Judah’s exile and prove a 70-year desolation from 607 BCE (Jerusalem’s fall) to 537 BCE (Jewish return). In this view, secular history’s ~50-year exile (587–537) contradicts Scripture.

  Response: A careful reading of Jeremiah shows the 70 years are not described as 70 years of Judah’s desolation only, but 70 years of Babylonian dominance over “these nations.” Let’s examine the key verses:

  • Jeremiah 25:11-12 – “This whole land will be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after the seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon…” Notice: Jeremiah says “these nations” (plural) would serve Babylon for 70 years. Indeed, Jeremiah 25 lists many nations besides Judah – “Judah, Egypt, the land of the Philistines… the kings of the Medes” and others – all to be conquered by. The prophecy is not restricting the 70 years to Judah’s exile; it’s describing Babylon’s period of regional supremacy. As one analysis explains, the various nations did not all start serving Babylon at the same moment – their subjugation occurred “one after another” as Babylon’s campaign swept through the Near East. Thus, the 70 years refers to the span of Babylonian imperial rule over the region, not a literal 70-year empty land exile for every nation.
  • Jeremiah 29:10 – “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill My good word to bring you back to this place.” Here God’s promise to the exiles is tied to 70 years for Babylon, after which He would bring the Jews home. It does not say 70 years of Jewish exile in Babylon, but 70 years at Babylon – again pointing to Babylon’s tenure as the dominant power. Significantly, Jeremiah 29:10 was written to exiles already in Babylon (in 594 BCE, to those taken in Jehoiachin’s earlier deportation) and told them they would be there until Babylon’s 70 years were finished (i.e. until Babylon’s empire fell).

  What was the 70-year period? Historically, Babylon’s period of supremacy ran from its final defeat of Assyria and Egypt in the late 7th century BCE until its own fall in 539 BCE. Depending on how one marks the start, it’s roughly 609–539 BCE or 605–539 BCE – about 70 years. For example, historians often mark 605 BCE (Battle of Carchemish and the first subjugation of Jerusalem) as a key starting point. Counting 70 years from 605 brings us to 535 BCE, which is within a year or two of the Jewish exiles returning (537 BCE). Alternatively, one could count from 609 BCE (Babylon’s conquest of Assyria’s last stronghold) to 539 BCE – exactly 70 years to Babylon’s collapse. Either way, the end point of the prophecy is clearly the fall of Babylon. Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly says “then after the seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon…” – which happened in 539 BCE when Cyrus conquered Babylon. That same year (539), Babylon’s empire ended and Persian rule began; only then could the Jews go free, which they did shortly afterward (Cyrus’s decree in 538 leading to return by 537).

  In short, Jeremiah’s prophecy is about Babylon’s 70-year reign of terror over the nations, Judah included, ending with Babylon’s judgment. It is not a 70-year exile of Judah running from 607–537. In fact, “the Bible nowhere states that the Jewish exile lasted 70 years” – that phrase is simply not in Scripture. The JW interpretation that the land of Judah lay desolate for exactly 70 years is reading something into the text that isn’t there. Yes, Judah did suffer desolation, but Jeremiah presents that as a consequence of Babylon’s domination, not as the sole definition of the 70 years. The Watchtower’s own insistence on making the 70 years strictly the period 607–537 BCE forces a contradiction between “secular” history and the Bible where none actually exists . When we understand Jeremiah correctly, there is perfect harmony: Babylon’s 70-year period of empire (ending in 539 BCE) overlaps with roughly 50 years of Jerusalem’s desolation (587–537 BCE) – the desolation happened during those 70 years of Babylonian power. There is no need to skew the chronology to make it “fit” 70 exactly.

  3. When Did the 70 Years End: Babylon’s Fall in 539 BCE, or Jewish Return in 537 BCE?

  Claim: The 70 years ended only when the Jews returned to Judah in 537 BCE, not when Babylon fell in 539 BCE. JWs argue that since Jews were freed in 537, that must mark the end of the 70-year period (counting back to 607 BCE).

  Response: Biblically and historically, the critical end-point of the 70 years is Babylon’s downfall (539 BCE) – not the mere arrival of Jews back in their homeland. As noted above, Jeremiah 25:12 ties the end of 70 years to Babylon’s punishment, which occurred in 539. Jeremiah 29:10 likewise implies that once Babylon’s 70 years were complete, God’s restoration could begin – which logically would be when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. The Jews did not immediately trek home that same year, but the obstacle to their return (Babylonian rule) was removed in 539. Cyrus issued the decree allowing their return by his first regnal year (538 BCE), and groups of exiles were back in Judah by 537 BCE. In other words, the exile ended as a result of Babylon’s fall, but the prophetic 70-year clock stopped ticking at 539. The extra year or two for the Jews to physically return is incidental – the prophecy was concerned with Babylon’s dominance, not the travel itinerary of the exiles.

  Importantly, the Bible itself provides evidence that the 70 years did not extend to 537. Daniel 9:1-2 describes Daniel in Babylon “in the first year of Darius the Mede” (right after Babylon fell in 539) coming to understand Jeremiah’s prophecies of the 70 years. Daniel realized that with the fall of Babylon, the 70 years were fulfilled and the restoration was at hand. He then prayed for God to act, which God did – moving Cyrus to free the Jews. If the 70 years were only up in 537, Daniel’s sense of urgency in 539/538 BCE (when he read Jeremiah’s “70 years” and prayed) would be premature. Clearly, Daniel (living through those events) connected the completion of 70 years with Babylon’s collapse (539 BCE) and immediately expected the return. And indeed, by 537 the return was accomplished – just as one would expect after the prophesied period ended. Thus, 539 BCE marks the close of the 70 years in biblical terms, and 537 marks the resettlement that followed.

  Even the JWs’ own cited scriptures hint at this. 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 says that to fulfill Jeremiah’s words, the land lay desolate until “the kingdom of Persia began to reign” – which is 539 BCE – and then God stirred Cyrus to make his decree. So the Chronicler acknowledges the key moment was the Persian takeover ending Babylon’s empire. The two-year difference between 539 and 537 is simply the interval between decree and the completed journey/homecoming. It is not part of the servitude; it’s the beginning of restoration. Insisting the 70 years had to end precisely when the Jews set foot back in Judah (537) is an over-literalization not demanded by the text.

  To summarize: Babylon’s 70-year period ended in 539 BCE with its fall. The Jews’ return by 537 was a direct consequence that confirmed the end of that era, but the Bible doesn’t require the count to extend to that exact year. This understanding removes the need for the unhistorical 607 BCE date entirely – because Scripture and history both align with an exile of about 49–50 years (587 to about 538/537) within a 70-year Babylonian domination (c.609–539). There is no biblical or historical requirement for a 70-year exile starting in 607.

  4. What Josephus Really Said (Desolation: 70 Years or 50 Years?)

  Claim: The ancient historian Flavius Josephus supposedly supports the JW view, as he mentions a 70-year desolation of Judah. The JW argument quotes Josephus to claim that Jerusalem lay desolate for 70 years (thus 607–537).

  Response: It is true that Josephus, in his writings, alludes to the biblical 70-year period – but context is key. In one place, Josephus paraphrases the prophecy by saying “Judea and Jerusalem… continued in a desolate state for seventy years”. However, elsewhere Josephus explicitly calculates the time between the temple’s destruction and the rebuilding of the temple as about 50 years. For example, Josephus’s Against Apion 1.21 states: “Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid…”. Here Josephus is being specific: from the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar (587 BCE) to Cyrus’ 2nd year (537/536 BCE) he counts 50 years of the temple being desolate. This aligns with the actual historical interval (~50 years).

  How do we reconcile Josephus mentioning “seventy years” elsewhere? Josephus was simply referencing the prophecy of Jeremiah in a general way, not declaring a precise chronological calculation of his own. In Antiquities of the Jews (Book X, ch. 7, §3), he paraphrases Jeremiah’s prediction that the land would be desolate and the people in servitude for 70 years. In Antiquities Book XI, §1, he notes that the Jews were released “in the first year of Cyrus, that the word of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, that Jerusalem lay desolate seventy years.” These are references to prophecy – essentially Josephus saying “as Jeremiah foretold, 70 years.” But Josephus knew the actual history was about 50 years of desolation, as his more precise statement in Against Apion shows. There is no conflict once we realize Josephus is not infallible Scripture; he sometimes mirrors biblical language (70 years) but elsewhere gives the factual timeline (50 years).

  The Watchtower publications have selectively emphasized the word “desolate” in Josephus’s 70-year phrasing to claim he meant a full 70-year desolation. But note Josephus’s wording: “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” If emphasis is on “during,” it implies the desolation occurred at some point during that 70-year interval, not that it lasted the entire interval. Josephus likely understood Judah’s desolation as a subset of the 70-year domination by Babylon. In fact, that reading makes Josephus consistent: Babylon ruled ~70 years, during which Jerusalem lay desolate for about 50 of them. Thus, Josephus’s accounts – far from bolstering 607 BCE – actually harmonize with the standard 587 BCE date when properly understood. And of course, Josephus was not inspired, but even if we take his histories at face value, he does not unambiguously support a 607–537 exile. He explicitly says 50 years of desolation, matching the historical reality.

  In addition, Josephus elsewhere provides details consistent with the conventional chronology. For instance, he recounts that the first deportation of Jews to Babylon (with Daniel and King Jehoiachin) occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year, and the final destruction in his 18th year – which lines up with 597 BCE and 587 BCE respectively. There’s no hint in Josephus of adding an extra 20 years to Babylon’s timeline. Thus, any misuse of Josephus to defend 607 is taking his words out of context. Modern archaeology and all contemporary Babylonian records confirm the shorter (~50-year) exile, and Josephus’s more precise remarks agree with that.

  5. Archaeological and Historical Evidence for 587/586 BCE

  (Related to Josephus, but broader:) The JW claim was that there is “not one line of evidence” disproving 607 BCE. In reality, there is an overwhelming convergence of evidence on the 587/586 date. Before specifically addressing VAT 4956 (in the next section), consider the collective witness of archaeology and historical documents:

  • Babylonian Chronicles: Clay tablets (Akkadian chronicles) record year-by-year events. The “Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle” notes his campaigns, including the capture of Jerusalem in his 7th year (597 BCE). The sequence of these chronicles aligns perfectly with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year falling in 587/6. No chronicle places a campaign in 607.
  • Business and Administrative Tablets: More than two thousand dated cuneiform documents from Neo-Babylonian times have been found. These are contracts, receipts, legal documents dated by the reigning king’s year. They cover every single year of the Neo-Babylonian kings in sequence – ensuring no “gap” in the timeline. Raymond P. Dougherty noted back in 1929 that the reigns of these kings are securely fixed by thousands of dated tablets, calling this “the ultimate criterion” for the chronology. For Nebuchadnezzar II specifically, his 43-year reign is abundantly documented from year 1 through year 43 without interruption. There is no room for an “extra” 20 years. If Jerusalem had really fallen in 607, Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year would be 607 – but then his documented 37th year (which we can tie to 568 BCE by astronomy) would land around 588 BCE, adding 20 unaccounted years to his reign. That would imply Nebuchadnezzar reigned 63 years, which he did not – no king lists, inscriptions, or tablets support such a fantasy. In fact, economic tablets show Evil-Merodach (Nebuchadnezzar’s son) began ruling immediately after Nebuchadnezzar’s 43rd year, with overlap evidence suggesting Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE (his 43rd year) and Evil-Merodach’s accession started then () (). There’s zero evidence of a 20-year coregency or gap.
  • Queen (Mother) Adad-guppi Stele: This inscription of Nabonidus’s mother Adad-guppi traces her long life span across the reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings, giving their reign lengths. It matches the established timeline (Nabopolassar ~21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43, Evil-Merodach 2, Neriglissar 4, Labashi-Marduk <1, Nabonidus 17) and confirms no extra kings or years. If one were to insert 20 extra years, Adad-guppi would end up absurdly old (well over 120). The prosopography (study of individuals named in documents) also shows many individuals active across reigns – adding 20 years would make them improbably old (many over 100). This is a powerful internal consistency check that the JW chronology fails.
  • Archaeological Destruction Layers: Excavations at Jerusalem and other Judean sites (Lachish, etc.) show widespread destruction layers dated to the early 6th century BCE. Archaeologists consistently date the destruction of Jerusalem’s First Temple to about 587/586 BCE based on pottery, stratigraphy, and Babylonian arrows, etc. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and archaeological publications note destruction evidence at multiple sites around 586 BCE. No layer of destruction c. 607 has been found – because none happened then. In fact, every line of archaeological evidence lines up with Babylon’s campaign at the end of Zedekiah’s reign (587/6). As one summary states: “There is not a single known case of a town in Judah being continuously inhabited during the exile” – the Babylonians “made a clean sweep” in 587/6. This confirms the biblical outline of events, but with the timing pinned to 587/586. Archaeology is silent about any separate event in 607.

  Given this consilience of evidence – Babylonian written records, chronological lists, administrative documents, and archaeology – historians are as certain as one can reasonably be that Jerusalem fell in 587/586 BCE. It is not a mere preference for “secular” sources over the Bible; rather, when understood correctly the Bible’s narrative fits perfectly into this timeline. The 607 BCE date, by contrast, has no support outside the interpretations of JW publications. It requires positing that all these independent evidences (including astronomical data we’ll cover next) are somehow misdated by exactly 20 years – an almost impossible conspiracy of errors. The claim that there is “not one line of evidence” against 607 is therefore demonstrably false: there are literally tens of thousands of lines – on cuneiform tablets – that contradict 607 and firmly support the 587 date. In the face of such evidence, insisting on 607 because of an interpretation of a single prophecy is misguided. As one researcher aptly put it, by insisting on 607, an “artificial conflict” is created between the Bible and the evidence, when in fact no conflict exists if we interpret the 70 years correctly.

  6. Astronomical Diary VAT 4956: Does It “Prove 607 BCE” or 587 BCE?

  Claim: The cuneiform tablet VAT 4956 (an astronomical diary) has been reinterpreted by “recent astronomical research” to actually support 607 BCE. Specifically, they claim that many planetary observations on the tablet fit the year 588/587 BCE (which would make Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year = 588 and his 18th year = 607). They often note a supposed “summer solstice” discrepancy and unclear planetary data to cast doubt on the conventional 568/567 BCE dating of VAT 4956.

  Response: This claim misrepresents the evidence. VAT 4956 is one of the most detailed and valuable astronomical texts from Babylon, and it unequivocally points to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year being 568/567 BCE – not 588/587. Mainstream scholars and expert analyses (Neugebauer, Sachs, Jonsson, etc.) have examined this tablet in detail. The Watchtower’s own 2011 article admitted the tablet lists “15 sets of planetary observations” and numerous lunar observations, but tried to claim some signs are unclear or could be interpreted differently. Let’s break down the key points:

  • Clear Matching of 568/567 BCE: VAT 4956’s first line explicitly dates itself: “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon….” and then records positions of the moon and planets throughout that year. When these observations are input into astronomy software or calculated, the only year that fits all (or nearly all) the data is 568/567 BCE. For example, the tablet notes a specific lunar eclipse and multiple exact conjunctions/positions (e.g. “Jupiter rose exactly as the sun set on month I, day 12”, “Mars was in the constellation Praesepe on month II, day 4”, etc.). These events line up with 568/567 to the day. It is statistically absurd to think they could also line up in 588/587 by chance. In fact, researchers have identified at least 5 celestial observations on VAT 4956 that pinpoint 568/567 BCE – making it an “absolute date” for Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. By extension, if his 37th year was 568/567, then counting back 19 years (to his 18th year) lands on 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem’s fall. This is why VAT 4956 is celebrated for confirming the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem.
  • The “Summer Solstice” Issue: One of the tablet’s entries says (paraphrasing) “Month III, day 9, solstice.” In 568 BCE, the summer solstice occurred around June 29, which indeed corresponded to the 9th of month III that year). In 588 BCE, however, the summer solstice fell on June 29 as well – but if one tries to align 588 with the tablet, Month III, day 9 would fall in early July due to needing an extra month (intercalation) to fit the observations. In other words, to make 588 work, one has to assume the Babylonians inserted an extra month in that year very late (making Nisan begin in May 588). But Babylonian calendar experts have noted this would be unprecedented – intercalations were used to keep the calendar on track, not to wildly shift it into summer. The solstice entry on VAT 4956 fits perfectly in 568 BCE (no calendar fudging needed), but is off by over a week if applied to 588 BCE. This strongly indicates the tablet is describing 568’s solstice, not 588’s. As one analysis concludes: “VAT 4956 fits 568 BC hand in glove… [Whereas] the claim that 588 BC began in May is absolutely false,” because it would put the solstice far off the recorded date.
  • “Much of the data fits 588”? The Watchtower footnotes admitted that because some planetary positions are recorded with ambiguous wording, they chose to ignore the planetary data and focus only on easier lunar data – then they claimed what’s left “fits” 588. This is a classic case of cherry-picking. Yes, if you throw out a lot of specific observations (especially the ones that don’t fit 588!), you might force a partial match. But the best and least ambiguous data on the tablet – e.g. the position of the moon relative to specific stars on certain nights, the lunar eclipse, the mentioned solstice, and certain unique planetary conjunctions – simply do not match 588. The JW argument hinges on a few uncertainties, but even those uncertainties don’t automatically make 588 viable; they merely could be interpreted in multiple ways. When all 30+ observations are considered, only 568/567 BCE satisfies the majority of them without contortion. There is scholarly consensus on this point, which is why no professional historian dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 588. The few advocates of the 588 theory (such as some JW researchers or sympathizers like Rolf Furuli or Gerard Gertoux) have had to propose extremely implausible scenarios – e.g. unusual intercalary months, copying errors for nearly every planet’s name, or dismissing the data as “open to interpretation” when it plainly isn’t in sum total.

  In conclusion, VAT 4956 powerfully supports the traditional chronology (Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year = 568/567, thus his 18th = 587/586). It is one of multiple astronomical texts that do so – another example is BM 32312 which dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year by an eclipse, confirming 597 BCE for that year. The JWs’ attempt to co-opt VAT 4956 for 607 rests on selectively omitting data (as noted by independent researchers who reviewed the Watchtower’s claims. When the full tablet is fairly considered, it absolutely does not “prove 607” – on the contrary, it disproves it by anchoring Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in line with secular history. The so-called “recent research” touted by 607 defenders has been reviewed and found wanting. For example, the planetary positions in VAT 4956 are actually labeled with distinctive names that Babylonian scholars knew (Jupiter, Venus, etc.), and analysis shows they are not as ambiguous as claimed. The Watchtower’s own cited source (David Brown) didn’t conclude VAT 4956 could indicate 588; he was categorizing how planets were named in various texts, not overturning the chronology.

  Bottom line: Astronomical evidence, often considered the most precise dating method for antiquity, firmly refutes the 607 timeline. VAT 4956, rather than being an ally to the 607 theory, is one of the strongest enemies of it – it ties Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/7 BCE with a “good measure of certainty”, leaving no room for shifting his 18th year to 607.

  7. Nebuchadnezzar’s “Seven-Year Absence” – No Evidence for a Gap

  Claim: Some have suggested Nebuchadnezzar had a period of incapacity (often linked to the biblical account in Daniel 4 where he is insane for “seven times,” interpreted as seven years) that is not reflected in Babylonian records – possibly implying a gap that could account for extra years in chronology. The argument would be that secular history “missed” a seven-year period in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, perhaps making room for the 607 date.

  Response: This theory doesn’t hold up. First, even if Nebuchadnezzar was temporarily incapacitated, the Babylonians still counted his reign continuously. There is no indication he abdicated or was replaced during those “seven times” – the Bible story itself shows his kingdom was kept intact for him (Daniel 4:26). Babylonian records do not show any break in the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar. Documents are dated to each year from his accession to his 43rd year. Business tablets have been found from Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd … through 43rd years without exception. If there had been an unrecognized co-regency or interregnum of 7 years, we would find contracts dated to some other person or an unexplained gap – but we don’t. The year after Nebuchadnezzar’s 43rd is explicitly the start of his son Evil-Merodach’s reign in the tablets () ().

  Furthermore, the lengths of reigns are well documented by multiple sources (Ptolemy’s Canon, Berossus, Babylonian king lists, etc.), all of which agree Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years total. There’s no mysterious “+7 years” anywhere. If the “seven times” of Daniel 4 were indeed seven years of madness, those years were still part of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign – they don’t add extra years beyond the 43. In other words, even if one believes the biblical account literally, Nebuchadnezzar would have ruled (on paper) for 43 years, with perhaps a hiatus in his ability; but his officials would have kept dating documents in his name. And that’s exactly what we see – continuous dating in Nebuchadnezzar’s name up to year 43 ().

  This means there is no “vacancy” in Babylon’s kingly line where an extra seven (or twenty) years could be inserted. Some JW writers once speculated about overlaps (for example, that Evil-Merodach’s accession might overlap Nebuchadnezzar’s last year or two). But new evidence even showed that any minor overlap at the transition was just a matter of months at most, not years () (). In fact, newly examined tablets show Nebuchadnezzar was still being acknowledged as king up until the time of his death, and Evil-Merodach’s accession year started just before Nebuchadnezzar died – a co-regency of only weeks (). So rather than adding years, these findings tighten the timeline even more. One scholarly source put it plainly: Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years — which agrees with history. Therefore, we cannot add 20 (or even 7) years to Nebuchadnezzar)

  In short, there is no evidence whatsoever from Babylonian history of an unrecorded multi-year gap in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. All evidence indicates a continuous reign and a continuous timeline from Nebuchadnezzar down to Cyrus with no room for padding. The “seven times” of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness are sometimes brought into the 607 argument, but they actually undercut it: if one insists on reading those as literal years, then one must also accept that those years were counted within Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign, which again fixes his 18th year in 587, not 607. If instead one interprets “seven times” prophetically (as JWs do for the Gentile Times – see next section), then it has nothing to do with chronology gaps in Nebuchadnezzar’s actual reign anyway. Either way, the secular record is intact and matches the Bible’s own outline of successive kings.

  8. Carl Olof Jonsson’s Work and the Exile

  Claim: You claimed that Carl Olof Jonsson’s research (in The Gentile Times Reconsidered and related writings) failed to address the biblical 70-year exile issue – implying his work is incomplete or avoids scripture.

  Response: This is a mischaracterization of Jonsson’s work. Carl Olof Jonsson (a former JW elder) extensively researched both the secular evidence and the biblical texts regarding the 607 vs. 587 debate. Far from ignoring the exile or Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jonsson directly confronted it. For example, in his critique “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?” (responding to a 2011 Watchtower article), Jonsson wrote: “The Bible nowhere states that the Jewish exile lasted for 70 years. Jeremiah clearly states that the 70 years would be a period of Babylonian rule (‘seventy years for Babylon’), when the nations in the Near East would ‘serve the king of Babylon.’ (Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11) This servitude ended in 539 B.C.”. This single sentence shows Jonsson did address the issue head-on: he explained the meaning of the 70 years in Jeremiah, citing the verses, and identified the end as 539 BCE. Jonsson also discussed 2 Chronicles 36 and Daniel 9, demonstrating that a 70-year servitude/desolation can be understood in harmony with a 587 destruction date.

  In fact, Jonsson devotes sections of his book to examining the Watchtower’s interpretation of the 70 years and why it is flawed. He notes that the insistence on tying the 70 years strictly to Jerusalem’s desolation forces JW writers to “misrepresent, misapply, and twist the Bible” (strong words, but illustrating how far from the text their interpretation is). Jonsson shows that if one lets the Bible speak – acknowledging Jeremiah 25 and 29 refer to Babylon’s period – there is no conflict between the “secular” 587 date and Scripture . The conflict is only between secular facts and the Watchtower’s interpretation of Scripture.

  Additionally, Jonsson compiled extensive evidence from Bible chronology itself: for instance, he pointed out that the Bible’s own timeline from the fall of Jerusalem to the second year of Darius (Zechariah 1:12) is not 70 years, and that Zechariah (in 520 BCE) refers to those past years in a way that doesn’t support a 607 start. He also quotes other scholars who demonstrate that the 70-year figure in prophecy is a round number or symbolic period common in ancient Near Eastern literature (for example, Babylon itself was said to fall after 70 years in Isaiah’s prophecy – which turned out to be an approximate period). All this is to say, Jonsson’s approach was holistic: he dealt with both the historical evidence and the biblical exegesis, and he provided a cohesive picture where the Bible’s chronology and secular chronology match when properly understood.

  If possible, get hold of Jonsson’s Gentile Times Reconsidered – you will find entire chapters on the 70 years. Jonsson even addresses why the Jews of the post-exilic period (and thus the Bible writers) used the figure of 70: it had theological significance (the land “enjoyed its sabbaths” for 70 years, 2 Chron. 36:21) and it neatly spanned the era of Babylon’s reign of terror. But he emphasizes that the Bible nowhere says “the Jews were exiled for 70 years.” That phrase is an interpretation the Watchtower superimposes. In reality, the Jews were exiled for 50 years – exactly as archaeology, Josephus, and the Bible’s own timeline indicate – and that 50-year exile occurred within the prophesied 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jonsson absolutely covers this, quoting scripture extensively. Any claim that he “didn’t address the exile” is unfounded. On the contrary, it is the Watchtower that often fails to address the full range of biblical evidence (like the verses in Jeremiah that mention other nations, or Zechariah’s timing, or the context of 2 Chronicles) when promoting 607.

  In summary, Carl Olof Jonsson’s work remains one of the most thorough examinations of this topic. He gives the Bible its due respect and respects the secular data, showing they harmonize on 587/586 BCE. He even sympathizes with the desire to uphold Scripture – but shows we must be careful how we interpret Scripture. His conclusion: The Watchtower’s 607 chronology is an interpretation that creates a conflict with facts, whereas the Bible itself, read in context, does not require 607 at all. So dismissing Jonsson as not addressing exile is simply incorrect – he did, and he demonstrated that the exile’s length as understood by JWs is a misunderstanding.

  9. “Gentile Times” (Daniel 4) – Why the 2520-Year Calculation is Invalid

  Claim: Even if 607 vs. 587 is debated, JWs believe that 607 BCE is crucial as the start of the “Gentile Times” – a prophetic period of 2520 years leading to 1914 CE (based on Daniel 4’s “seven times”). Therefore, they argue, 607 must be defended for theological reasons, not just historical.

  Response: The “Gentile Times” doctrine is a distinct JW teaching that lacks any explicit biblical basis tying it to 607 BCE or to a 2520-year span. Here’s why the calculation is widely considered invalid by non-JW Bible scholars and historians:

  • Misapplication of Daniel 4: Daniel chapter 4 is about King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a great tree that is cut down for “seven times” (periods of time) as a punishment until he learns humility. The straightforward interpretation – which Daniel himself gives – is that it was a prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar losing his sanity and kingdom for a period, then being restored. Nothing in Daniel 4 indicates this dream’s “seven times” should be applied to a long-range timeline beyond Nebuchadnezzar. The chapter concludes with Nebuchadnezzar praising God after his reason returned. There is no mention of Jerusalem, the Gentiles, or the Messiah’s kingdom in that chapter. JWs derive the idea that the “seven times” represent 7 years = 2520 days = 2520 years and that it represents a long period where God’s throne is overturned, from Jerusalem’s fall until Christ’s kingship in 1914. However, this is a string of interpretations that the Bible itself never connects. It’s essentially an interpretive leap: taking a symbolic dream and reinterpreting it as a global prophecy. Most Bible commentators see Daniel 4 as fully fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s experience – period.
  • No Biblical Link of “Seven Times” to Luke 21:24: The phrase “Gentile Times” comes from Luke 21:24 where Jesus says Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. JWs link this to Daniel 4’s “seven times.” But Jesus did not cite Daniel 4 there. If anything, some link Luke 21:24 to Daniel chapter 7 or 8 or to general prophecies of Gentile domination. There is zero indication Jesus intended a 2520-year chronology. In fact, early Watchtower leaders acknowledged that the 2520-year calculation originated not from exegesis of Daniel 4 by Miller or Russell, but from an earlier 19th-century writer (John Aquila Brown) who speculated on Leviticus 26’s “seven times” of punishment, combining it with the idea of a “day for a year.” Charles Taze Russell originally thought the Gentile Times ran from 606 BCE to 1914, but had to adjust to 607 due to the no-zero-year issue. This shows the calculation’s origin is rooted in Adventist-era speculative prophecy charts, not plain Scripture.
  • Arbitrary Start Date (607) and End Date (1914): The only reason 607 was chosen as the start of the Gentile Times is because it was believed Jerusalem fell that year. If Jerusalem actually fell in 587, the 2520 years from then would end in 1934 – which JWs do not teach. So the entire doctrine hinges on the premise of 607. If 607 is wrong, 1914 loses its only tether. And as we’ve shown above, 607 is historically wrong, which already undermines the 1914 calculation. But even assuming for a moment 607 was right, one must ask: where does the Bible say that the span from Jerusalem’s fall to God’s Kingdom would be 2520 years? It doesn’t. The Watchtower’s argument is essentially: “Seven times” in Daniel 4 = 7 prophetic years of 360 days (they assume a 360-day ancient year) = 2520 days. Then they cite Ezekiel 4:6’s day-for-year principle (which was a specific symbolic action of Ezekiel, not a blanket formula) to get 2520 years. Then they attach those years to “Jerusalem’s fall” (607) and get 1914. Each step is conjectural. Even the 360-day year is an oversimplification – the Jews used lunar years with intercalary months, not a fixed 360-day calendar for long periods. Nowhere are we instructed to do this math in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It’s telling that no one in Christianity taught this “seven times = 2520 years” doctrine until the 19th century. It’s not an ancient understanding; it arose from date-setting enthusiasm leading up to 1914.
  • Gentile Times Already Fulfilled? Another perspective: Many Christian scholars think “the times of the Gentiles” Jesus mentioned simply referred to the indefinite period of Gentile dominion over Jerusalem (which indeed started with Babylon’s conquest and continued through the Persian, Greek, Roman, even Islamic periods). Jesus didn’t quantify it. One could argue it ended in 1967 when Jerusalem came back under Jewish control, or one could see it as ending when Christ returns – but the Bible doesn’t specify. Importantly, the early Christians did not preach that Christ’s kingdom would begin in 1914 or any distant date; they believed Jesus was made king in the 1st century (see Matthew 28:18, “All authority has been given me…”). The JWs uniquely insist Jesus only became King in 1914. This entire teaching thus stands on a very shaky foundation: an interpretation of a dream, an assumption about a start date, a mathematical conversion, and a modern historical event.

  Given the dubious underpinnings, it’s not surprising that outside Jehovah’s Witnesses, no historians or biblical scholars accept the 607 B.C.E. to 1914 calculation. Even many JW-origin offshoots (like the Bible Student groups) have abandoned that approach when faced with evidence. In fact, the Watchtower itself once admitted that if not for its interpretation of prophecy, everyone would accept 587 B.C. as the correct date. They prioritize their interpretation of “infallible Scripture” over “fallible secular data” – but as we’ve seen, it’s really prioritizing a particular reading of Scripture over both evidence and even other scriptures.

  In summary, the “Gentile Times” calculation is invalid because it lacks scriptural mandate and conflicts with established facts. It is a lynchpin doctrine for 1914, which is perhaps why so much effort is made to defend 607. But if one is willing to reconsider that doctrine, the whole weight on 607 can be lifted. The Bible’s prophecies about the end of Gentile rule and the Messiah’s kingdom do not require a 2520-year count starting in 607. That idea is an interpretive tradition of the Watchtower, not a clear biblical teaching. Therefore, insisting on 607 to save the 1914 doctrine is trying to save a house built on sand. Christians can affirm God’s Word and accept the clear evidence that Jerusalem fell in 587/6, without any theological crisis – once we realize the 2520-year Gentile Times concept isn’t actually taught by Jeremiah, Daniel, or Jesus in the way the Watchtower asserts.

  10. “Not One Line of Evidence against 607”? – Think Again

  Finally, to directly answer the challenge that “there is not one line of evidence disproving 607 BCE”: This claim could not be further from the truth. There are countless lines of evidence, from diverse sources, all converging on the conclusion that Jerusalem was destroyed around 587/586 BCE and not in 607. To recap some of the most powerful pieces of evidence (each a “line” of evidence in its own right):

  • Babylonian Cuneiform Records: Over 100,000 cuneiform tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period have been excavated. Thousands are dated business records mapping an unbroken timeline through the reigns of Babylon’s kings. The dates on these tablets align with 587/6 BCE for Jerusalem’s fall and leave no gap for an alternative 607 chronology. If 607 were true, every one of these dated records from Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year onward would be misdated by 20 years – an impossibility given they mesh with lunar eclipses, seasonal references, and later Persian dates.
  • Royal Inscriptions and King Lists: Babylonian king lists (such as the Uruk King List) and Ptolemy’s Canon (a later compilation of reigns) both list the lengths of reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings that add up to the period 609–539 BCE. This matches the historical timeline. Inserting an extra 20 years (as 607 requires) would create too large a total and conflict with the well-known date of 539 BCE for Cyrus. Remember, even the Watchtower accepts 539 BCE from secular history – but 539 to 607 is 68 years, not 70. They quietly rely on secular chronology from Cyrus onward; it’s inconsistent to accept 539 BCE and reject everything that leads to 587 BCE.
  • Contemporary Historians: Ancient historians like Berosus (Babylonian priest) and Josephus (as discussed) relay data that agrees with the conventional chronology. Berosus (3rd century BCE) explicitly gave the lengths of the Neo-Babylonian kings which match the figures we have today (and thus place the fall of Jerusalem in 18th of Nebuchadnezzar = 586/7). No ancient historian mentions an earlier 607 date or extra kings to cover such time.
  • Archaeology in Judah: Stratigraphic evidence shows cities like Lachish and Jerusalem were destroyed in the late 7th/early 6th century BCE. Not only that, but no habitation continued through that period – indicating the land was desolate, but only until about the mid-6th century when returnees resettled. The timeline of pottery styles, ruins, and even carbon dating, if applicable, all line up with a destruction ~587 and resettlement in the Persian period. This physical evidence would have to be wrong by 20 years for 607 to hold – an extremely unlikely scenario because tree-ring chronologies and other benchmarks anchor the dating.
  • Biblical Synchronisms: The Bible itself provides cross-dates that back 587. For example, 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 note that the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year, and Jeremiah 52:28-30 lists exiles taken in years 7, 18, and 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. We know from Babylonian records that Nebuchadnezzar’s year 7 was 598/597 (matching Jehoiachin’s exile in 597), his year 18 was 588/587 (fall of Jerusalem), and year 23 was a later campaign (582). These align with the 587 chronology perfectly. To put Jerusalem in 607, one has to redefine Nebuchadnezzar’s year 18 as 607, which contradicts all those other anchor points. It would also put year 7 at 618 BCE, meaning Jehoiachin and Daniel went into exile then – a date no historian accepts and which finds no support (the Babylonian Chronicle fixed that event in 597 BCE). Thus, even the Bible’s internal timeline of events in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign points to a later date than 607.
  • Astronomical Tablets (Multiple): We discussed VAT 4956. There is also BM 32312 which records an eclipse in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year on Ululu 13. That eclipse can be calculated and is an exact match for 597 BCE (there was a lunar eclipse on September 597 BCE that fits) – again confirming Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year as 597. Likewise, other tablets from the reign of Amel-Marduk, etc., have celestial references that tie down their chronology to the same timeline. The stars have no bias – they indicate the same chronology as historians use. For 607 to be right, all these astronomical references would have to miraculously also fit a scenario 20 years earlier, which they do not (barring extreme special pleading as we saw).

  Given all of the above, to say “not one line of evidence” disproves 607 is the opposite of reality. Every credible line of evidence points away from 607. To date, no archaeological find or document has been discovered that requires a 607 date or even suggests the conventional 587 date is wrong by such a large margin. At best, 607 proponents cherry-pick a phrase here or there (like Josephus’s mention of 70 years, or a possible ambiguity in an astronomical text), but when those are examined in context, they fall in line with 587/6.

  Thus, we have not just “one line” but multiple independent lines of evidence converging: Babylonian chronology records, biblical chronology (when understood properly), ancient historians, astronomical calculations, and archaeological layers all converge on the 587/586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. Not one line of solid evidence supports 607 BCE. It exists only as a derived date from a particular interpretation of prophecy.

  Conclusion: In a respectful dialogue, one can acknowledge that JWs uphold 607 BCE out of a sincere desire to honor what they believe the Bible says. However, as shown above, the Bible doesn’t actually require that date – and the overwhelming historical evidence contradicts it. The scholarly disagreements cited by the JW side are either misunderstandings or exaggerations (no one is disputing 20 missing years, only debating how to reckon the 70-year prophecy which itself points to 539 BCE). Jeremiah’s prophecy, read in context, supports the 587 timeline by defining the 70 years as Babylon’s period (ending 539). Josephus’s statements, when fully considered, align with 50 years of desolation (not 70) and thus 587. VAT 4956 and other tablets firmly anchor Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to the conventional dates – any “new research” claiming otherwise originates from partisan attempts that don’t stand up to scrutiny. There is no gap or missing king in Babylonian history to account for 607. Jonsson and other researchers have thoroughly addressed the biblical and historical issues and found the Watchtower’s interpretation wanting. And the Gentile Times 2520-year doctrine, while core to Watchtower chronology, is not grounded in clear scripture – it should not be used to override hard evidence and clear biblical context.

  To anyone evaluating the 607 vs 587 question, the sensible conclusion – and indeed the one held by essentially all historians and Bible scholars – is that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 587/586 BCE, the Jews returned around 538–537 BCE, and the “70 years” is understood as a round number for Babylon’s empire (or the period of servitude) from the late 7th century to 539 BCE. There is no historical or biblical need for the year 607 BCE at all.

  In light of this evidence, the 607 BCE claim is soundly refuted. The respectful challenge to our JW friends is to reconsider the data objectively. One line of evidence might be explained away, but when all the lines of evidence are saying the same thing, it’s time to re-examine the assumptions. As the old saying goes, “If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not unicorns.” In this case, all the “hoofbeats” (evidence) point to 587 BCE – the “horse” that everyone recognizes – rather than the “unicorn” of 607 BCE that requires dismissing or contorting nearly every piece of evidence in the field.

  Sources:

  • Jonsson, Carl O. The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed. (2004). (See especially analysis of Jeremiah’s 70 years ((PDF) Carl-olof-jonsson-when-jerusalem-destroyed p2) and critique of Watchtower’s 607 defense ((PDF) Carl-olof-jonsson-when-jerusalem-destroyed p2).)
  • When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? – Watchtower October 1 & November 1, 2011 [JW publications defending 607, as critiqued by Jonsson].
  • Dougherty, Raymond. Nabonidus and Belshazzar (1929) – Notes 2,000 dated cuneiform records as basis for Neo-Babylonian chronology (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Nebuchadrezzar” & Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology – archaeological evidence of Jerusalem’s 586 BCE destruction (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
  • VAT 4956 – Astronomical diary in Babylonian text pinpointing Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/7 BCE (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914); see also analysis in Investigator magazine (2018) (VAT 4956 | aperi mentis).
  • Josephus, Against Apion I.21 (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) and Antiquities X-XI (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) – on the 50-year desolation vs. 70-year prophecy.
  • Investigator Magazine No. 182 (2018) – “Babylon; Jerusalem and 70 Years — 586 BCE or 607 BCE?” (Anonymous) (Archaeology and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE) (Archaeology and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE) (Archaeology and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE). This article concisely addresses the 70-year prophecy context and archaeological confirmations.
  • JWfacts.com – “607 BCE and the 70 years of desolation” (accessed for collation of sources) (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) (Facts about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  You reference 1 Timothy 2:5 and claim that this verse proves that Jesus cannot be God. The claim ignores the fact that mediation requires the Mediator to be both divine and human—which is exactly the point of 1 Tim 2:5. Aquinas (ST III, q. 26, a. 1) teaches:

  “Christ is called a Mediator, inasmuch as He joins together two parties: God and man. Now to unite these two, He must partake of both. Therefore, it was necessary that He should be both God and man.”

  So the verse presupposes—not denies—Christ’s divinity. He is Mediator as man, not only man. He mediates because as God He possesses infinite merit, and as man, He shares in our nature. The phrase “the man Christ Jesus” emphasizes His role as incarnate mediator, not that He is merely a man. The same Paul who wrote 1 Tim 2:5 also says in Titus 2:13:

  “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

  And in Romans 9:5:

  “Christ... who is God over all, blessed forever.”

  St. Augustine explains this apparent duality in The City of God, Book X, ch. 29:

  “As man, He is Mediator; but as the Word, He is equal to God, and God with God.”

  Thus, Paul’s statement is not unitarian or subordinationist—it’s incarnational and soteriological.

  The notion that “no first-century Christian believed in the Trinity” is contradicted by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the structure of New Testament texts.

  “There is one Physician... both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true Life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible—Jesus Christ our Lord.”
  - Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 107 AD), Epistle to the Ephesians 7.

  This is less than a decade after the apostolic era. He clearly confesses a Christ who is God and man, eternal and temporal—not a mere creature.

  1 Corinthians 8:6 is another oft-cited verse by Arians:

  “One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

  Yet “Lord” (Kyrios) was the Greek translation of YHWH in the Septuagint. The passage consciously echoes the Shema (Deut 6:4), now reinterpreted Christologically, distributing divine prerogatives between Father and Son without dividing the essence. As Richard Bauckham points out: this is not a denial of Christ’s divinity, but an inclusion of Jesus within the divine identity (cf. Jesus and the God of Israel, 2008).

  Multiple Church Fathers—including Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian, and Augustine—interpret 1 Tim 2:5 in line with the Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy:

  • Tertullian (Against Praxeas, ch. 27): Christ is one person in two natures, not a mere human being.
  • Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V.17): Christ is both the Word through whom Adam received the command and the One who forgives sin—clearly divine.
  • Augustine (Confessions, XLI.18): Christ is mediator as man, but equal to God as Word.

  Aquinas distinguishes between the ontological Trinity (equality of nature) and the economic missions (order in operation). Christ is “subordinate” in function—not in being.

  “In the Trinity, there is order of origin, not of time or nature.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)

  Thus, the Son’s mediation reflects His mission, not His essence.

  Your reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 as denying Christ’s divinity is flawed. The verse affirms the incarnation and mediatorship of the God-man, not His creatureliness. The text fits perfectly within the Trinitarian framework, developed not by paganism or council politics, but from a careful exegesis of the full counsel of Scripture, and attested from the earliest Fathers.

  “There is one God…” Yes—and the one God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  “…and one mediator…” Yes—and only one is qualified to stand between God and man: the One who is both.

  
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  Claim 1: "Scholarly uncertainty about 605 or 609 BCE invalidates the secular chronology"

  You claim that because some scholars debate whether the 70 years began in 605 or 609 BCE, secular chronology is uncertain. This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of historical chronology. Scholarly debates about minor details (such as whether the start date for Babylon's dominance is precisely 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, or 605 BCE after Carchemish) reflect healthy scholarly inquiry into specific events. Such small variances are common in ancient history and are measured in just a few years. However, no reputable historian places Jerusalem's destruction outside of the clearly established range of 586/587 BCE because multiple independent lines of evidence (Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical texts, archaeological layers, and Persian, Greek, and Egyptian records) converge powerfully upon this date. The JW position (607 BCE) demands a full 20-year distortion, not a minor scholarly debate of 3 or 4 years. Such a large distortion is historically impossible given the wealth of independent evidence.

  Claim 2: "Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10 refer only to Judah’s exile."

  You state Jeremiah’s prophecy relates exclusively to Judah and its exile.Jeremiah explicitly includes multiple nations ("these nations") serving Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11), indicating Babylonian regional dominance, not exclusively Judah’s exile or land desolation. Jeremiah 29:10 explicitly says after Babylon's 70-year domination ends, Judah would return. Historical records show Babylon fell precisely in 539 BCE, Cyrus issued the decree in 538 BCE (historically verified by the Cyrus Cylinder), and the Jews returned shortly thereafter—not arbitrarily delayed until 537 BCE as your chronology imposes without evidence. The JW interpretation artificially isolates Judah, ignoring biblical wording and historical evidence.

  Claim 3: "Babylon’s judgment (Jer. 25:12) began after the Jews returned in 537 BCE."

  You assert Babylon’s judgment began only after the Jews returned in 537 BCE. Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly states Babylon’s punishment would begin "when seventy years are completed." Babylon lost its political sovereignty precisely in 539 BCE with Cyrus's conquest, marking the exact end of Babylon’s dominance as prophesied. Your argument confuses Babylon’s political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation over centuries. Jeremiah’s prophecy refers directly to political overthrow, fulfilled immediately upon Babylon's fall in 539 BCE, confirmed historically and biblically.

  Claim 4: "Josephus, archaeology, astronomy indirectly support 607 BCE."

  You argue Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy support JW chronology indirectly.

  • Josephus explicitly states Jerusalem fell in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Astronomical tablets (VAT 4956, BM 21946) date Nebuchadnezzar’s reign conclusively, placing his 18th year in 586/587 BCE. Josephus thus explicitly contradicts your claim of 607 BCE.
  • Archaeology unanimously confirms Jerusalem's destruction at 586/587 BCE (clearly marked by destruction layers at Lachish, Jerusalem, Azekah, and dozens of other Judean sites). No reputable archaeologist supports 607 BCE—none at all.
  • Astronomy (VAT 4956) conclusively dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/567 BCE, making his 18th year precisely 586/587 BCE. JW attempts to match VAT 4956 to 588 BCE have been thoroughly refuted by astronomers as impossible—no published astronomical paper validates the JW chronology.

  Your assertion that recent research validates 607 BCE astronomically is categorically false. No professional astronomical or archaeological research supports 607 BCE.

  Claim 5: "Nebuchadnezzar’s 'missing years' and madness."

  You question Nebuchadnezzar’s reign continuity, asking rhetorically about his alleged "missing years." Babylonian historical and administrative records show continuous documentation through Nebuchadnezzar’s entire 43-year reign (605–562 BCE). Daniel 4 describes a temporary period of incapacity, but never loss of the throne or administrative discontinuity. No historical record suggests a vacancy in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Your claim of "missing years" is completely invented, unsupported by any ancient source, and directly contradicted by continuous contemporary Babylonian texts.

  Claim 6: "Carl Olof Jonsson ignored the Exile in his GTR."

  You demand proof that Carl Olof Jonsson addresses Judah’s exile. Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR) explicitly and extensively analyzes the exile as integral to the 70-year prophecy. He demonstrates conclusively the exile's compatibility with the historically verified Babylonian domination period (609–539 BCE). Your claim that Jonsson "ignored exile" reveals you either haven’t carefully read Jonsson’s thorough scholarship or deliberately misrepresent his detailed discussion of exile and desolation.

  Claim 7: "Counting back from 537 BCE yields exactly 607 BCE."

  You repeat the claim that counting back 70 years from a supposed 537 BCE return yields 607 BCE exactly. The Bible and historical records explicitly date Babylon’s fall to 539 BCE, Cyrus's decree in 538 BCE, and return shortly thereafter. There's no historical reason to artificially delay two years to 537 BCE. Counting back exactly 70 years from the historically confirmed decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE clearly places the beginning of Babylon’s supremacy around 609 BCE, precisely matching Nabopolassar’s final defeat of Assyria at Harran, not 607 BCE. Your arbitrary insertion of an unsupported two-year delay is purely doctrinal, not historical or biblical.

  Claim 8: "Jeremiah’s multiple deportations prove a 70-year exile."

  You claim Jeremiah’s multiple deportations (597, 586, 582 BCE) confirm your 70-year exile. Jeremiah’s multiple deportations explicitly contradict the JW claim of total desolation from exactly 607 BCE onward. Clearly, the land was inhabited and not entirely desolate after 607 BCE. These deportations confirm precisely the historically accepted scholarly scenario: a prolonged Babylonian subjugation culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction in 586/587 BCE, not total immediate desolation in 607 BCE.

  Claim 9: "609 BCE is an arbitrary modern interpolation."

  You claim scholars arbitrarily "invented" 609 BCE. The date 609 BCE is explicitly documented in multiple independent ancient Babylonian Chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). Assyria’s defeat, Egyptian interventions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns against Harran are clearly dated historically and archaeologically. No modern interpolation occurred. Your claim of "arbitrariness" ignores the historical evidence from the Babylonian Chronicles.

  Claim 10: "607 BCE and JW's Gentile Times withstand scholarly criticism."

  You claim JW chronology is validated by modern scholarship and history. No reputable historian, archaeologist, or astronomer supports the JW chronology (607 BCE). JW chronology has been repeatedly and comprehensively disproven by overwhelming evidence from Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and astronomical sources. The date 1914 CE, dependent solely on your false 607 BCE date, therefore collapses entirely, exposed as historically untenable.

  Your Final Challenge: "Provide ONE line of evidence disproving 607 BCE."

  Answer to Your Challenge:

  Here is ONE definitive line of evidence:

  • VAT 4956, an astronomical tablet from Babylon, precisely dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/567 BCE through multiple verifiable astronomical observations (moon positions, planetary positions, eclipses). Counting back 19 years to his 18th year (Jerusalem’s destruction, 2 Kings 25:8–9), the result is indisputably 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE.
    This single astronomical tablet alone conclusively disproves the JW 607 BCE chronology. No JW researcher or advocate has successfully refuted this evidence, despite numerous attempts.

  Conclusion:

  Your arguments consistently rely upon selective quotations, misrepresentation, outdated assertions, invented scenarios, and disregard for established historical, archaeological, and astronomical facts.

  The scholarly consensus, supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, remains irrefutably that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE.

  Your challenge for "one line of evidence" has been conclusively answered: VAT 4956 alone disproves your chronology decisively and unambiguously. Your repeated assertions are thus thoroughly and conclusively refuted.
• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Yes, the Father is unbegotten—but this doesn’t make the Son ontologically inferior. The Father’s property as unbegotten is not a mark of ontological superiority, but a relational distinction. In Trinitarian theology, each divine Person possesses the one divine essence fully, but is distinguished by their relational origin:

  • The Father is unbegotten.
  • The Son is begotten from the Father.
  • The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

  As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it:

  “The Son receives His being from the Father by eternal generation, but the being He receives is numerically identical with the Father's. Therefore, He is equal in essence, even though His origin is from another.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)

  So: to say that the Father is the cause or that the Son receives His being from the Father does not imply that the Son is created or inferior—only that He is eternally generated from the Father.

  Eusebius’s early writings show confusion, but he later affirms Nicene orthodoxy, he is not the standard of orthodoxy in Trinitarian theology. In fact, his early writings (like the one quoted) show signs of semi-Arian sympathies. He admired Origen and often leaned toward subordinationist language, especially prior to the Council of Nicaea. But after the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), Eusebius publicly signed the Nicene Creed, which affirms:

  “The Son is begotten, not made, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.”

  He even explained his agreement in his letter to his church at Caesarea, stating that this language affirmed what he always believed: that the Son is eternally from the Father, and not created. So, the quote you’ve cited reflects Eusebius’s earlier, imprecise pre-Nicene thinking. It was corrected by the Nicene definition, which Eusebius explicitly accepted. In short: even if Eusebius once spoke in a way that sounds subordinationist, he eventually submitted to the Church’s judgment and affirmed the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son. Your interpret Eusebius's phrase:

  “The Son... received from the Father both His Being and the character of His Being”

  …as though it meant the Son didn’t always exist. But this is not a creation ex nihilo, which is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, it's a reference to the eternal generation of the Son. St. Augustine explains it this way:

  “The Son is from the Father—not made, but begotten. And just as the Father is eternal, so also is the Son eternally begotten.” (De Trinitate, I.15)

  Likewise, St. Gregory Nazianzen writes:

  “The begetting of God must be honored by silence… it is eternal, incomprehensible, and not in time.” (Oration 29.3)

  So, the Son “receiving” His being from the Father means eternal generation, not temporal creation. The Son is not an independent source, but He has the same divine essence, fully received. This is standard Catholic—and Nicene—doctrine. It does not support the JW view that the Son is a creature.

  Eusebius and other early Fathers used terms like “second,” “from,” or “subordinate” in functional or relational senses, but they never meant ontological inequality. As St. Basil the Great clarifies:

  “The terms ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ apply only to the Son’s mission in time, not to His essence.” (Against Eunomius, II.24)

  This distinction is key:

  • Economic subordination = The Son obeys the Father in the Incarnation.
  • Ontological equality = The Son is fully God, equal in essence.

  So when Eusebius calls the Father “first in order,” he is not implying that the Son is a creature, but expressing the monarchia (principle) of the Father as the source of the Son.

  While your position seems at first glance to rest on “plain readings” of Scripture, it actually reflects a reductionist and anachronistic hermeneutic—one that flattens the complex, interwoven theological claims of the New Testament into something deceptively simple and ultimately inconsistent with the total witness of Scripture. Let me respond in detail.

  “If you handed the Bible to someone fresh…”

  This is a popular rhetorical move but not a valid theological methodology. Yes, if we handed the Bible to someone without the guidance of tradition, linguistic understanding, or doctrinal formation, they would likely also struggle to affirm:

  • The canon of Scripture (How do they know which books are inspired?)
  • The hypostatic union (that Jesus is both fully God and fully man)
  • The Incarnation and virgin birth
  • That Jesus is the Messiah in fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures

  Scripture is not a standalone codebook. It was written within the Church, preserved by the Church, and requires interpretation within the context of the Church. The Bereans were praised (Acts 17:11) not for private interpretation, but for examining the Scriptures in light of the apostolic preaching.

  “Christians believed this until the 4th century”

  This is historically false. The belief that Jesus was divine, pre-existent, and one with the Father was proclaimed from the beginning, and it is well attested before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Some clear examples:

  • Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh.” (Letter to the Ephesians 7)
  • Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): “The Word, being the first-begotten of God, is even God.” (Dialogue with Trypho 61)
  • Tertullian (c. 200 AD): “The Son is derived from the substance of the Father, and is therefore God and true God.” (Against Praxeas 9)

  These are pre-Nicene fathers who explicitly affirm the divinity of Christ and a form of Trinitarian belief. What the Council of Nicaea did was define and defend what had already been believed in substance, in response to the novelty of Arianism, which claimed Jesus was a creature.

  “The Bible explicitly says God is one” – Galatians 3:20

  Yes! Absolutely, and this asserts precisely monotheism, not unitarianism. Monotheism is the bedrock of Christian theology:

  “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deut. 6:4)

  But monotheism does not exclude Trinitarianism. The Trinity is not three gods. It is one God in three persons (hypostaseis), not three beings. The Christian claim is not that “Jesus is another God,” but that the one being of God exists eternally in three persons. This preserves monotheism while making sense of the full witness of Scripture, which attributes divine glory, honor, and worship to the Son and the Spirit.

  “Jesus is the firstborn of all creation” – Colossians 1:15

  This is a classic misreading. The Greek word prototokos does not mean “first created” (which would be protoktistos). Rather, prototokos means:

  • Preeminent heir (cf. Ps 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”)
  • Supreme over creation, not a part of it

  Paul explains this in the very next verse:

  “For by him all things were created…” (Col 1:16)

  If all things were created by Him, then He cannot be a creature. Unless you want to say He created Himself, which is absurd. This passage affirms that the Son is the agent of creation, which means He pre-existed creation and is not part of it.

  “Jesus is subject to God” – 1 Cor 11:3

  Yes, and classical Trinitarian theology agrees.

  • The Son is eternally from the Father (ex Patre), but not inferior to the Father.
  • This is an eternal relation of origin, not a difference in essence or divinity.

  The analogy used by Paul—man is the head of woman—does not imply ontological inferiority, but relational order. Similarly, the Son's submission to the Father is not because He is a creature, but because He is the Son. Even in the Incarnation, Jesus takes a human nature, and thus says: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) — because the Son humbled Himself in assuming flesh (Phil 2:6–7). But this is a difference of role, not essence.

  “There are no verses that say God is three coequal persons”

  You're right — the word Trinity and that exact phrasing are not in the Bible. But neither is the word “Bible”, “incarnation”, or “omniscience.” What matters is whether the concept is there. And it absolutely is:

  • Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands baptism “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
  • John 1:1: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
  • Acts 5:3–4: Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.
  • Phil 2:6–11: Jesus shares in God’s name (kyrios) and is worshiped by all creation.
  • Hebrews 1:3: The Son is “the exact imprint of God’s nature” and is “worshipped” by angels (Heb 1:6).

  There is a triadic structure to revelation. The Trinity is the only framework that coherently accounts for all this data.

  To deny the Trinity is to:

  • Make God’s love dependent on creation (if God is not eternally love in Himself, whom did He love before creation?)
  • Make Christ a creature, though Scripture says all things were created through Him
  • Ignore that the Church has universally affirmed Trinitarian belief from its earliest centuries
  • Contradict the worship of Jesus by the apostles (Matt 28:17, John 20:28, Rev 5)

  The Trinity is not a “philosophical construct.” It is the only explanation that accounts for all of Scripture without contradiction: God is one in being, three in persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, but all are fully and equally God.

  “This is the faith of the apostles, the faith of the Church, the faith that gives us eternal life.”

  To deny the Trinity is to misunderstand Christ. To misunderstand Christ is to miss salvation itself.
• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Halcon

  You're absolutely right to note that there is a "subordination" in some sense between the Son and the Father. The real question, as you’ve pinpointed, is: in what way is the Son subordinate—and does it matter for salvation? Classical theology makes an essential distinction:

  • Subordination of origin: The Son proceeds eternally from the Father (John 1:14; "begotten not made"). This procession implies a real relation of origin (the Son is ex Patre), but not a subordination in essence. The Father communicates the whole divine essence to the Son, such that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.
  • Subordination of essence or will: This would mean that the Son has a lesser or derivative will, power, or nature compared to the Father. That is heresy, historically condemned in Arianism, Subordinationism, and Unitarianism.

  Thomas Aquinas clarifies this in the Summa Theologiae:

  “The Son is said to be less than the Father in His human nature, but not in His divine nature. For in the divine nature, there is no inequality, because the essence is one and the same.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)

  You ask why salvation would be lost if we see the Son as subordinate by will. If the Son is not fully God—equal in power, will, and essence with the Father—then He cannot be the Savior. The Psalmist declares: “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him” (Ps. 49:7). If Christ is a creature, even the highest, He is still finite. A finite being cannot offer infinite atonement for the sins of the world. Only God can. St. Gregory of Nazianzus expressed it succinctly:

  “That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.” (Ep. 101)

  Only true God taking on true humanity brings about the reconciliation of man to God.

  If we misunderstand Christ's divine nature, we risk idolatry on one hand (if we worship a creature), or denial of His rightful worship (if we refuse to honor Him equally with the Father). Yet Scripture explicitly shows the Son receiving worship (cf. Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:13), and He accepts it (cf. John 20:28) without rebuke—something no faithful creature would ever do. If Christ is not consubstantial with the Father, then worship of the Son is either blasphemy or a violation of monotheism. The Scriptures teach unity, not separation of will:

  • “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
  • “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15)
  • “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19)—not because the Son is less, but because He is one in will and nature with the Father.

  The will of the Son is numerically the same divine will as the Father, not a separate will that voluntarily aligns with the Father's. If that were the case, it would imply the Son had a nature separate from the Father’s—thus falling into tritheism or Arianism.

  The relational roles in the economic Trinity (how God acts in salvation history) reflect the immanent Trinity (God in Himself). The Son is sent, the Father sends. This does not mean inequality—being sent does not entail inferiority (cf. Gal 4:4). Rather, the Son’s mission reflects His eternal generation: He is from the Father, not inferior to Him. Aquinas again:

  “Mission implies origin, not inequality.” (ST I, q.43, a.3)

  To reduce the Son’s subordination to merely a matter of "will" or "functional hierarchy" (as some semi-Arian or modern subordinationist theologies do) undermines:

  • The reality of the Incarnation,
  • The power of Christ's redemptive act, and
  • The unity of God Himself.

  The Church's insistence on the Son’s co-equality, co-eternity, and consubstantiality with the Father is not speculative philosophy, but a direct guardrail against heresy that protects the truth of our salvation. As St. Athanasius proclaimed:

  “If the Son is not truly God, then we are not truly saved.”

  And that is why denying the full divinity of the Son—even under the guise of "order" or "will"—is not a harmless speculation, but a fatal error.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  The JW position hinges on the idea that the Son began to exist. But Tertullian consistently denies this. In Against Hermogenes 5, he explicitly states that God was never alone because He always had His own Reason within Himself, and that this Reason was internal until it was expressed as the Word:

  “Even then [before creation] God was not alone, for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself—His own Reason… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Hermog. 5)

  That is, the Word/Son was not a separate creation, but the eternal, interior Logos of God who is later expressed outwardly in the economy of salvation. Tertullian uses temporal language (e.g., "God became Father") not to describe a literal beginning of the Son’s existence, but to emphasize that the names “Father” and “Son” become relevant when God’s eternal Word is expressed—just as “Lord” becomes a relevant title once creation exists. This is perfectly in line with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that the eternal generation of the Son is not temporal, even if economic revelation (in time) reveals it gradually.

  You say: “It’s only if you impose a strict idea that Word = Son that there is a problem.” But Tertullian himself equates the Word (Logos) with the Son:

  “The Word was always in the Father, just as your own reason is in yourself... That Word, therefore, is in the Father, always in the Father... He then sent the Word to be His Son.” (Adv. Prax. 5)

  So no—this is not an “imposition” by later theologians. It’s Tertullian’s own theological framework. The Son is the Word made manifest, eternally present in the divine substance. Therefore, if God always had the Word, and if the Word is the Son, then the Son is eternally in God, even if the relation of paternity becomes conceptually clear only later in the economy.

  You say: “Tertullian said the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. That means the Father is greater.” But again, this misunderstands how Tertullian (and the entire tradition) uses the term “derivatio”. Tertullian is not saying that the Son is a separate essence or a lesser deity, as Arius would claim. Instead, Tertullian explains that the Son is derived from the Father’s own substance—that is, the Son is consubstantial, not separate. He literally says:

  “The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole... not by division... but by distinction.” (Adv. Prax. 9)

  He’s not dividing God’s essence into parts, but articulating real distinction of Persons within the one divine substance. The Son receives the same divine essence by eternal generation. The Father is the principle without principle, and the Son is from the Father, but not after Him in time or less in nature. Portio is used imperfectly to describe a mode of distinction, not ontological inferiority. Later theology clarified this as homoousios (of the same essence) and rejected all misunderstandings of “subordinationism” precisely to affirm what Tertullian intended: distinction without division.

  Tertullian quotes John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I”) to show the distinction of Persons. But as St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the Church Fathers all taught, this refers to the Son’s mission and humility—not to His divine essence. Tertullian’s functional subordination is economic: the Son is sent, the Father sends. This fits exactly with orthodox Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes:

  • Immanent Trinity: The Father eternally begets the Son—equal in being.
  • Economic Trinity: The Son is sent into the world and submits in the plan of salvation.

  Even in Adv. Prax. 2, Tertullian is adamant that this distinction does not divide the Godhead:

  “All are of one: by unity of substance. While the mystery of the economy is still guarded, which distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

  You say: “Tertullian believed Jesus is divine in some sense, just like JWs do.” No, he didn’t. Tertullian repeatedly says that the Son is God Himself:

  “The Word was with God and was God... The Son is also God.” (Adv. Prax. 13)

  He explicitly denies that Jesus is:

  • A created being (like the angels),
  • A mere creature (De Carne Christi 14),
  • Or lesser in nature.

  He affirms that:

  • The Son is “true God from true God” (Adv. Prax. 13)
  • The Son is eternal, as the inner Reason of God (Adv. Hermog. 5)
  • The Trinity is one substance, three Persons (Adv. Prax. 2, 5, 9, 13)

  This is exactly what the Nicene Creed affirms:

  “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

  That’s not Jehovah’s Witness theology.

  You are trying to force Tertullian into a Jehovah’s Witness mold—suggesting he believed the Son was a lesser god who came into being. But his theology—though expressed in pre-Nicene terms—clearly teaches:

  • The eternal existence of the Son as God’s Word and Wisdom.
  • The Son is from the Father’s own divine substance.
  • There is one divine essence, fully possessed by three distinct Persons.
  • The Son is divine in nature, not merely in title.
  • He is not a created being like the angels (see De Carne Christi 14).

  Tertullian anticipated Nicene orthodoxy, not Arianism or JW Christology. If anything, his terminology paved the way for the clearer articulations of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. The Catholic tradition receives him as an early defender of the Trinity, and rightly so.
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  JW CLAIM 1: "Because scholars cannot agree as to whether the 70 years began in either 606 or 609 BCE, their chronology is worthless... WT scholars, based on the biblical evidence, know for certain."

  This argument is logically flawed. Scholarly disagreement over whether the Babylonian domination began precisely in 609 or 605 BCE does not indicate ignorance or uncertainty about the destruction date of Jerusalem itself. All credible historical and archaeological evidence conclusively establishes 586/587 BCE as the destruction date of Jerusalem, with extensive documentation through Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical tablets (VAT 4956), archaeological excavation layers, and corroborative Persian, Egyptian, and Greek records.

  The JW assertion that disagreement on whether the Babylonian domination started in 609 or 605 BCE invalidates scholarly chronology entirely is untenable. Such minor disagreement (within a 3–4 year range) in no way supports a 607 BCE destruction date, a claim completely lacking historical, archaeological, and astronomical support. The Watchtower’s date (607 BCE) is not "biblical certainty"; it is a doctrinal invention contradicted by every credible historical record.

  JW CLAIM 2: "Jer. 25:11 clearly applies to Judah alone…Jer. 29:10 indicates the Jews return from exile only after the 70 years."

  Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly includes "these nations" in the 70-year prophecy, which indicates regional Babylonian supremacy, not just Judah’s exile. The JW argument artificially isolates Judah, ignoring explicit biblical references to the wider region.

  Jeremiah 29:10 indeed foretells a return after 70 years are completed, precisely upon Babylon’s defeat (539 BCE), not two years later (537 BCE). Cyrus’s decree, historically confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, occurred shortly after Babylon's fall in 538 BCE, fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. The JW insistence on a 537 BCE fulfillment ignores historical data, arbitrarily imposing an unnecessary two-year gap between Babylon’s fall and the end of the 70 years.

  JW CLAIM 3: "Babylon fell in 539 BCE, but total destruction foretold in Jer. 25:12 did not occur then; further judgment was pending."

  This argument confuses Babylon’s immediate fall and political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation of the city, which took centuries. Jeremiah 25:12 states explicitly that punishment begins after the 70 years end, referring clearly to Babylon's political fall. Babylon ceased being sovereign precisely in 539 BCE, fulfilling the immediate judgment. Physical destruction occurred progressively much later under Persian and Greek rule, not linked explicitly to the 70-year prophecy’s termination date.

  The JW argument mistakenly conflates Babylon’s immediate political fall with its later physical desolation, misinterpreting biblical prophecy.

  JW CLAIM 4: "Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy support the JW 607 BCE chronology."

  • Josephus: Explicitly places Jerusalem’s destruction in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, historically confirmed as 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE. Josephus never supports a 607 BCE date explicitly. JW claims to Josephus’s support involve selective misrepresentation of texts.
  • Archaeology: Every archaeological site in Judah unequivocally dates Jerusalem’s destruction layers to 586/587 BCE. No reputable archaeologist supports 607 BCE, directly refuting JW claims.
  • Astronomy: VAT 4956 unambiguously dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/567 BCE, thereby confirming Jerusalem’s fall in 586/587 BCE. JW attempts to reinterpret VAT 4956 for 588 BCE are mathematically impossible, discredited by professional astronomers. JW claims of astronomical support for 607 BCE are false and misleading.

  JW CLAIM 5: "Nebuchadnezzar’s seven-year madness is historically crucial and creates a chronological gap."

  Babylonian administrative and historical texts demonstrate uninterrupted governmental continuity during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. No ancient source indicates Nebuchadnezzar lost the throne, nor do historical records support a chronological gap. Daniel 4 describes temporary mental incapacity, not removal from kingship. JW claims of a seven-year chronological gap are historically baseless inventions intended solely to justify their faulty chronology.

  JW CLAIM 6: "Carl Olof Jonsson ignores exile as part of the 70 years."

  This claim is blatantly incorrect. Carl Olof Jonsson, in "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," thoroughly addresses Judah’s exile, servitude, and land desolation within his analysis of the 70 years. He explicitly demonstrates the prophecy concerns Babylonian dominance, incorporating Judah’s exile. JW arguments misrepresent COJ’s comprehensive scholarly research.

  JW CLAIM 7: "Counting back 70 years from the return in 537 BCE yields 607 BCE precisely."

  Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, immediately freeing captives in 538 BCE (Cyrus Cylinder). Counting back exactly 70 years correctly places the start of Babylonian dominance around 609 BCE, not 607 BCE. The JW claim arbitrarily inserts two extra years without historical support, relying entirely on doctrinal preference rather than documented events. This is a deliberate miscalculation to align with JW prophetic speculations about 1914.

  JW CLAIM 8: "Jeremiah’s three deportations confirm land desolation since 607 BCE."

  Jeremiah 52 explicitly lists multiple deportations: Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (597 BCE), 18th year (586 BCE), and 23rd year (582 BCE). Multiple deportations after 607 BCE destroy JW arguments, showing the land was not completely desolated in 607 BCE. Rather, these deportations confirm a prolonged Babylonian campaign consistent only with the scholarly 586/587 BCE destruction date. The JW argument inadvertently refutes itself by citing this evidence.

  JW CLAIM 9: "Ancient documents don’t have modern dates; translators insert 609 BCE artificially."

  The date 609 BCE is explicitly derived from historically attested events (Assyrian defeat at Harran, Egyptian actions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns) confirmed in multiple Babylonian chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). These dates are well-attested, not arbitrary insertions. JW’s claim of “interpolation” is entirely unfounded historically and represents a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern chronological research.

  JW CLAIM 10: "The Gentile Times (2520 years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE) are historically and astronomically accurate."

  The JW’s entire Gentile Times calculation depends wholly upon the false 607 BCE destruction date. Since 607 BCE is conclusively disproven historically, archaeologically, and astronomically, the JW 1914 doctrine also collapses. Astronomical and historical records categorically contradict 607 BCE, demonstrating the JW prophetic calculation as incorrect and baseless.

  CONCLUSION:

  • The JW chronology of 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction is not "firmly established"; it is entirely contradicted by overwhelming external historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence.
  • The 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah explicitly aligns historically with Babylonian dominance (609–539 BCE), not an arbitrary 607–537 BCE JW reinterpretation.
  • Josephus explicitly supports 586/587 BCE, not JW’s invented 607 BCE date.
  • Ezra and Daniel nowhere support the JW date; rather, they fit perfectly into a 586/587 BCE destruction scenario.
  • The date 539 BCE for Babylon’s fall is indeed universally recognized, but counting backward 70 years correctly yields 609 BCE, not 607 BCE.

  The JW arguments advocating for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem are based upon significant historical errors, textual misinterpretations, selective misuse of sources, and deliberate ignorance of well-established historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence. Scholarly consensus unanimously supports a 586/587 BCE destruction date. The JW claim of “certainty” for their 607 BCE date is demonstrably false and historically unsustainable.
• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Well—not very clear at all, if you ignore the context, genre, intent, and overall theology of the author.

  This is what you're doing: lifting one rhetorical phrase from Against Hermogenes (3), where Tertullian is refuting a heretic, and then ripping it from both its argumentative context and Tertullian's wider Trinitarian theology—as if a 2nd-century apologist who explicitly taught the Son's eternal origin from the Father, and called Him “God of God” (Adv. Prax. 13), suddenly became an Arian in one line. That is not honest exegesis. That is quote-mining. Let me show you why this doesn’t hold up.

  In Against Hermogenes 3, Tertullian writes that there was a time “when… the Son [did not exist]”—but this is not a metaphysical statement about the Son’s ontological origin. It’s part of a rhetorical argument against the idea that God was always “Lord” because He ruled over matter from eternity. Tertullian refutes this by pointing out that titles like “Lord,” “Father,” and “Judge” are relational designations, not essential names:

  “God is the designation of the substance itself… but ‘Lord’ is not a designation of substance, but of power.” (Adv. Herm. 3)

  So when he says “there was a time when… the Son [did not exist],” he means: from our human vantage point, the name “Father” only applies after the begetting of the Son is revealed—not that the divine Word/Logos had a beginning in time. Just four chapters later, in Against Hermogenes 5, Tertullian explicitly denies that the Son came into existence from nothing:

  “Yet even not then was [God] alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason [Logos]… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Herm. 5)

  And in Against Praxeas 5–7:

  “The Word was always in the Father… even before all things, God was not alone… He had with Him that Reason which was His own.” (Adv. Prax. 5–7)

  So your interpretation—if taken at face value—contradicts Tertullian himself. He cannot mean in Hermogenes 3 that the Son was not, ontologically, because he clearly teaches elsewhere that:

  • The Word is eternal in God’s substance.
  • The Word is not created, but begotten from within God’s own Reason.
  • The Word is God, not an angel or creature (Adv. Prax. 14).

  You're treating temporal-sounding rhetoric as if it were doctrinal metaphysics. That’s a false equivalence.

  Yes—if a Jehovah’s Witness said “there was a time when the Son was not,” and meant it ontologically, as if the Son were a created being, that would be heresy. But Tertullian did not mean it ontologically. That’s the point. He’s not a Jehovah’s Witness. He’s a 2nd-century Christian writer who affirms over and over again:

  • The Word is “God from God.”
  • The Son is of the same divine substantia as the Father (Adv. Prax. 9, 13).
  • The Son is “always in the Father” (Adv. Prax. 5).
  • The Son is not an angel but the Lord Himself (De Carne Christi 14).

  You are projecting later Arian categories onto someone who would have anathematized Arius for denying that the Son is eternal, divine, and uncreated. You’re trying to weaponize a quote from a Trinitarian against Trinitarianism, without regard for his own consistent teachings.

  St. Thomas Aquinas settled this clearly:

  “In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside time.” (ST I, q.27, a.2)

  And:

  “If God were not eternally Father, then His essence would have changed at some point—something impossible for the immutable God.” (ST I, q.9)

  So yes—God is eternally Father because the Son is eternally begotten, not in time, but in the divine nature. Tertullian points to the Son's economic revelation and names—not His ontological origin.

  Let’s be honest. You wouldn’t accept a Jehovah’s Witness quote from Athanasius or Augustine where they speculate pastorally about Christ’s mission, and then ignore everything else they wrote about His divinity and eternal Sonship.

  So don’t do it to Tertullian.

  If you want to reject the Trinity, then do so. But don’t pretend you’re doing it with the backing of Tertullian—he taught the divinity, preexistence, eternal generation, and consubstantiality of the Son, long before Nicaea canonized the vocabulary.

  He was not Arian. He was not a Modalist. He was, as even Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelly admit, a pre-Nicene Trinitarian working out the mystery with the vocabulary available to him.
• 
  225

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  First of all, I note that even the Arian creeds acknowledged about the Son:

  • "He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρόνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything..." (Profession of Faith of Arius)
  • "And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema." (Dedication Creed)
  • "who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence" (Homoiousian Creed of Nike)

  Here is a more balanced treatise on Tertullian:

  Tertullian on the Trinity

  A recurring claim among antitrinitarians and certain critics of Nicene orthodoxy is that some early Christian writers, such as Tertullian, supposedly denied the eternal generation of the Son—asserting instead that God “became” Father only once the Son came into existence. The quote most often cited in this regard is from Against Hermogenes, chapter 3, where Tertullian writes:

  “There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

  On a superficial reading, it might appear that Tertullian is affirming that the Son had a beginning in time. But this is not a sound or complete interpretation of either the passage or Tertullian's larger theology. Let’s unpack why this argument collapses under scrutiny. Tertullian is engaging with Hermogenes’ dualistic teaching that matter existed eternally alongside God, and that God has always been “Lord” over it. Tertullian’s response is that terms like “Lord,” “Father,” and “Judge” are relational titles, and do not refer to God's essence (substantia) but to His relation to creation and sin:

  “God is the designation of the substance itself… but ‘Lord’ is not a designation of substance, but of power.” (Adv. Hermog. 3)

  In other words, God has always been God by nature, but titles like “Father” or “Judge” arise only with the existence of a Son or of sin—from our perspective in time and history. These are not ontological changes in God, but logical or economic designations. As Aquinas later explains:

  “In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside of time.” (ST I, q.27, a.2)

  Tertullian’s rhetorical device—“there was a time when… the Son was not”—should not be read as a denial of the eternal Logos but as an explanation of why titles like 'Father' or 'Lord' appear progressively in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 2:15 introduces “Lord God”). In Adversus Praxean, his key anti-modalist work, Tertullian clearly teaches the Son’s eternal preexistence, as the divine Logos within the Father:

  “Even before all things, God was not alone, for He had within Himself Reason [Logos], and Reason was in Him as His own substance.” (Adv. Prax. 5)

  This “Word,” he writes, proceeds from the Father—not as a creation, but as an emanation from the divine substance:

  “Whatever therefore was the substance of the Word… I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.” (Adv. Prax. 7)

  This aligns perfectly with the later Nicene formulation: the Son is begotten, not made, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.

  Antitrinitarians often quote Tertullian’s phrase:

  “The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.” (Adv. Prax. 9.2)

  But this language reflects eternal generation, not subordination or creaturehood. Tertullian uses the term portio in a Stoic context—not to imply division of essence, but participation without separation. As he clarifies:

  “The Father and the Son are of one substance, but the persons are distinct.” (Adv. Prax. 13)

  This is fully Trinitarian in substance, if not yet in post-Nicene vocabulary. The Son derives from the Father as Light from Light—“not made,” but eternally begotten. According to Thomas Aquinas, God’s paternity is not accidental or acquired in time. Rather, the Father is eternally Father because the Son is eternally begotten:

  “The divine persons are distinguished by relations alone, and paternity is a real relation founded on the eternal generation of the Son.” (ST I, q.28, a.1)

  If God were not eternally Father, then something would be added to His nature when He becomes Father—contradicting divine immutability (cf. ST I, q.9), which Scripture itself affirms:

  • “I the Lord do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)
  • “With God there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17)

  Thus, the Father must always be Father, because the Son is eternally from Him. Despite his occasional use of imprecise language (understandable before the Nicene debates), Tertullian explicitly affirms the Son’s full divinity and personal distinction from the Father and the Spirit:

  • He is the Word eternally in God (Adv. Prax. 5).
  • He is God and yet distinct from the Father (Adv. Prax. 13).
  • He is Creator of all things, not a creature (Adv. Prax. 7).
  • He is not an angel, but divine in nature (De Carne Christi 14).

  His famous formula—“una substantia, tres personae”—prefigures the Nicene and later Trinitarian orthodoxy. Far from Arianism, Tertullian is a Trinitarian pioneer, combating both modalism and subordinationism. So your argument that “Tertullian said there was a time when the Son was not” collapses once:

  • Context is properly understood.
  • His full writings are considered.
  • The philosophical and theological vocabulary of his time is taken into account.

  He affirmed that the Son, as Word and Wisdom, existed eternally in God, proceeding from the Father but not as a created being. He anticipated Nicene theology by affirming the unity of substance and the real distinction of persons. Therefore, Tertullian cannot be invoked as a witness against the Trinity, unless one quotes him selectively and ignores his overall theological vision. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms:

  “The Church’s faith confesses that the Word who became flesh is the Son of the eternal Father. He was not made, but begotten, not in time but from eternity.” (CCC 262)

  So did Tertullian.