in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?
i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.
i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.
onacruse
No leap of faith required here but good old solid exegesis and a strong belief in the authenticity of God's Word over and become the confused nonsense of apostates and higher critics who cannot decide which year Jerusalem fell, when the seventy years began or ended. When you have sorted our your mess then you can properly be in a position to criticize the chronology developed over many centuries by the celebrated WT scholars.
scholar JW
do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.
1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.
has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.
Auld Soul
Touche! But just think and pause for a moment because you will never know their identity or their qualifications. The mystery remains.
scholar JW
do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.
1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.
has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.
jayhawk1
Post 3591
In your dreams. Alan F has never won a single point and it was I that trounced him in the discussion of 607 BCE. Perhaps you should read the dialoque more carefully before allowing your emotions to rule your head,
scholar JW
according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.
my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.
i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.
Doug Mason
Post 424
Your question is simply answered. It should come as no surprise that the the missing twenty years is only located within the bounds of the Neo-Babylonian period wherein the last Judean kings reigned and whence the pivotal dates are established then it simply a matter of adding the regnal data over the Monarchic period to determine the approximate years for the respective reigns for Judah and Israel. So. it is the case that the celebrated WT scholars have developed a consistent chronology of the Divided Monarchy that approximates the 390 prophetic period specified by Ezekiel.
However, you err in assuming that the twenty years must govern throughout the period the position of the regnal years rather it is the case that each respective reign is positioned by the scriptural data alone. Further, you are mistaken in using only one column for so called 'conventional dates'. There is no such thing as a tabulation of conventional dates. I assume because of your SDA influence that you adopt the chronology of Edwin Theile but there are equally many other scholars that have their own chronologies for the period so there can be no conventional chronology.
The reason for this is because scholars such as Thiele, Hooker, Hayes, Bright, Cogan and Tadmor and others have foolishly adopted a methodology that creates confusion, contradictions by allegiance to Neo-Babylonian chronology and ignoring the Scriptures such as the historical fact of the seventy years. In illustration of this confusion is shown by conslting the chart ' The Kings of Judah' on page 30 in Chronological And Background Charts of the Old Testament by John H. Walton, 1994, Zondervan Publishing House.
The chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah as presented in the WT publications succeeds where others fail simply because it is simpleand wholly upon history and the Bible. Nothing succeeds more than truth.
scholar JW
do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.
1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.
has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.
Leolaia and Narkissos
Thus it is not 'over translating' but simply being the most accurate-brilliant translation ever made and we all can be so ever grateful to the Author of the Holy Scriptures and His Holy Spirit and the 'celebrated WT scholars for making this possible in this most important of times.
scholar JW
in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?
i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.
i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.
Lady Liberty
Your comments that the Society's use of Grayson's publication by altering ir inserting their dates is somehow dishonest or improper shows that you have know knowledge of academic practice or convention. The Society has done nothing wrong by inserting a different date enclosed within square brackets because this is done to indicate to the reader that a correction or explanation is made. You should consult a Style Manual to verify this and if you are living in the USA then the most popular Style Manual is the Chicago Manual of Style, for authors, editors and copyrighters. The Society as a longtime publicher has also its Syle Manual adopted for its own use which also is the case with most Government department, Institutions such as Universities.
So, as long as the adjusted date is enclosed within square brackets and within the quotation followed bythe source properly referenced then everything is OK.
scholar JW
according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.
my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.
i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.
Doug Mason
At first glance there is no apparent drift in the chart of dates which simply reproduces the chart of the Kings of Israel and Judah presented in the Insight vol 1, pp.464-466. If you are comparing such a chart with other secular charts then there would be many conflicting differences. Your Word file is inaccessible.
scholar JW
in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?
i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.
i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.
whereami
You are incorrect in claiming that no 'respected scholars accept 607 BCE for there are many scholars including the 'celebrated WT scholars who do in fact accept that date but have seen to it through the scholarly journal The Watchtower over many decades published the biblical-secular evidence for this date.
The recognition of the fact of 537 BCE for the Return of the Jews proves the validity of 607 BCE because of Jeremiah's 'seventy years' of Exile-Desolation-Servitude. The recognition of this fixed historic period demonstrates the overwhelming fact that 607 BCE is the only possible date. Other proposed dates such as 587 or 586 are impossible because such dates cannot account for the seventy years despite the many crazy interpretations of higher critics and apostates.
scholar JW
do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.
1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.
has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.
behemot
The answer to your question is simple for it aptly demonstrates the brilliance and superiority of the NWT over all other Bible translations. The pertinent phrase in Daniel 1:2 "In time" renders the literal Hebrew verb "And gave". This verb is the future/imperfect form yiten of the verb natan (give) and when combined with waw properly has the meaning 'and then' or 'in time'. This combination (waw + imperfect=yiqtol) is known as a wayyiqtol. The actual time involved is not specified but is determined by the context which in this case is the preceeding verse one indicating that the action was not immedciate but a succession of events.
Interestingly, celebrated WT scholars have long perceived that the 'third year of Jehoiakim' was not of his reign but of his vassalage which correctly interprets Biblical history. Accurate history means accurate chronology and this perception of matters correctly establishes 607 BCE as the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW
if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.
10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .
also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.
Alleymom
Post 1173
As you have revisited your KISS nonsense I respond forthwith:
Your three step model misrepresents the facts because the Watch Tower Society has never endorsed a regnal list for the Neo-Babylonian period as you claim are cited as such in our literature. The simple fact is that we have simply stated what current knowledge is on the names of the monarchs and their repective reigns knowing full welll that the overall period is twenty years in error.
Celebrated WT scholars have advanced a chronology independent of the pagan Babylonians based upon the historical evidence in the Bible alone so there is no need for certainty for these specific reigns. Furuli has 'blown out of the water' such so called 'Absolute Chronology by showing that the traditional chronology is uncertain and unreliable (Furuli,2007,2:26-Table 1.1 Neo-Babyloian kings).
Furuli also shows differences between Ptolemy's Canon and the Adad-guppi Stele as compared in Table 2.3 which demonstrates 'gaps' between reigns. Regardless of the astronomical integrity of some of the sources this does not always relate to accurate history or chronology for the 'devil' lies in the interpretation of the data. Even if the astrobomical data is certain then there remains scholar's Babylonian Gap problem of twenty years which can be used as a yardstick in constructing a biblical chronology. To wit, let us use these sources with whatever dates are calcuable such as the Fall of Jerusalem in 586/578 BCE add twenty years equals 607 BCE. Or we can simply drop the Babylonian nonsense and work from the Bible's primary data;
1. Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE
2. Return of Jewish Exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem in 537 BCE
3. Seventy year period of Jewish Exile and Desolation of Judah
4. Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
This is the KISS principle in all its glory and simplicity.
scholar JW
