The Society knows that there is no evidence for their date of 607 for the fall of Jerusalem, in fact ALL the evidence, and there is considerable, proves another date all together. But the WTS can't change their date because that's the only way they can come up with 1914. Most Witnesses have no idea that Russell originally came up with the 1914 date using pyramidology, which the WTS now considers spiritism!
As a witness, former witness and anointed, you must understand this is a completely incompetent assertion. Why? Because 607 BCE is solidly founded on 2 Chronicles 36 where it clearly says that the LAND will pay back sabbaths 70 years. You will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be able to convince anyone reading the Bible for it's face value that that is not what is implied at 2 Chronicles. Let me quote it for you:
21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
So while 607 BCE based on 539 BCE might be a false date, compared to 587 BCE, it is a more credible date when 539 BCE is considered the absolute "pivotal date" for the fall of Jerusalem. So this argument makes no sense.
Basically, the WTS' position is that when there is a clear contradiction between "secular" records and history and the Bible, then the secular records are dismissed as fraudulent or erroneous. That's just the rule. Since you can never, ever, ever, ever get past 2 Chronicles that state that the land is desolated to pay back sabbaths 70 years, you can't expect to win this argument. All you are really saying is that all the pagan Babylonian records point to a different date than the Bible so the Bible must be wrong. How come? Because the Babylonians are more reliable than the Jews? That doesn't work. Sorry.
But case in point, this is why many don't get far taking to witnesses because they themselves do not understand the issues. The issue is NOT 607 BCE, but when the 70 years of desolation take place and whether those are literal or not. For a witness, that will always be at least 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem because of 2 Chronicles which clearly links the land being desolate 70 years to pay back its sabbaths.
But even moreso, when you consider Josephus, who reflects both the Biblical as well as the traditional Jewish history in relation to the 70 years, and in particular the fulfillment of Jeremiah, he too introduces 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem, only more specifically, beginning at the last deportation.
ANT. 11:1.1:
IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.
So why would your wife or any JW pay any attention to you when you don't know what you're talking about? Bilibcally, you have zero foundation. But academically you clearly have a conflict and a CHOICE. Both the Bible and Josephus represent a 26-year longer NB Period than the survivinb NB records. That's it! That's the REALITY. You either decide Josephus and the Bible are correct or that the pagan records are correct. Since you can't very well do this without further examination, that leaves you with the choice until you do.
If you do bother to actually investigate, rather than follow some non-Biblical theories about the 70 years, then you might find out what I found out, and that is, that the Persians did revise all the Babylonian records and did, indeed, remove 26 years from the Neo-Babylonian kings, and used those years along with others to artificially expand the Persian Period, a key fact being that Xerxes and Artaxeres were the same king. Now this doesn't help 607 BCE, but 587 BCE is a JOKE as well, based upon the JOKE of 539 BCE.
Now I think your wife should challenge 607 BCE and every other witness teaching, but you certainly can't correct her nor the Bible with anything incompetently coming from secular records.
So you haven't PROVEN YOUR POINT why 607 BCE is incorrect, as long as both of you think 539 BCE is the true date for the fall of Babylon. She's be completely stupid to listen to you and ignore 2 Chronicles.
What you must realize is that 539 BCE is the ultimate deception in both the secular 587 BCE dating and the 607 BCE dating. They are both based on a revised timeline. Period. The Bible requires Cyrus to begin his rule in 455 BCE. So all you are doing int swapping one false teaching, one NON-BIBLICAL false teaching for another and trying to convince someone your false teaching is better than theirs. But that is specifically NOT the case. 607 BCE is a more Biblically responsible date than 587 BCE because 2 Chronicles requires a 70-year period of the land to pay back its sabbaths. You can't get past that reference for any witness.
Yes, 607 BCE is wrong and incorrect, but far from the reasons you give. So if she rejects your argument it's probably because she's read 2 Chronicles 36:21.
You must understand that this has been researched by a variety of witnesses. You must understand that you can never, ever, ever claim there was less than 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem and the 1st of Cyrus, because the Bible AND Josephus reflect that. You have to DEAL with dismissing THAT before you can dismiss 607 BCE.
You can't do that without first admitting a contradiction in the Bible vs the Babylonian timeline. Once it is admitted you need to list the facts involved with the Bible vs the Neo-Babylonian records. Once you do that, you'll see the Persian Period immediately implodes upon itself and self-reduces quite quickly by 82 years and 455 BCE reverts to the 1st of Cyrus.
So in reality, both YOU and your wife are being deceived and you're just trading one deception for another, but comparing deceptions, for any JW who is Bible-preferenced, 607 BCE makes more sense than 587 BCE and always will. So you have no purchase here. Zero leverage of any kind.
The FACT is, Xerxes used his second name, Artaxerxes to claim he was another king and faked his death. This was so well done and such a delicious secret it has remained a secret down to this day. But adjusting the timeline to the extra rule of Xerxes apart from Artaxeres is the only reason why the Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and secular records to 537 BCE. Until you ACCEPT REALITY in this regard, all your arguments are false and why should anybody change their own view, false or otherwise, to accept another false view?
I'm on the wife's side. IFat one point one believes that 537 BCE is the year the Jews returned, then 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, initially makes more sense than 587 BCE, which is too short and does not recognize the clear 70-year period of desolation when the land is paying back its sabbaths.
It boils down to YOU trying to tell me that 2 Chronicles does not in any way imply that 70 years of lying desolate ever occured. I'll just laugh at you, since that is precisely what it says. There is no meaning in your argument. Even if I don't realize the timeline has been revised.
JC
