Sorry, another 607 question? I'm confused.

by lost_light06 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  Hellrider, you're spot on about scholar pretendus' ability to mold 'reality' into whatever is needed to satisfy the requirements of his Brooklyn Mommy. This is absolutely typical of the cult mentality, and JW mentality especially. Remember Ray Franz' description of how some WT official said, "If the Society says that this here green bible is black, then by golly! It's black!"

  I'm also reminded of a Star Trek Next Generation episode where Captain Picard had been captured and tortured horribly. His tormenter wanted to break his spirit, and nearly succeeded. At one point he held up four fingers and told Picard that he needed to actually see five. The implication was that the torture would resume if he did not. Picard later told someone, "When he held up those fingers and I knew that I needed to see five, I actually thought I could see five."

  The human mind is truly an amazing thing, and it's sad that cults like the JWs are so able to take advantage of its ability to defend itself.

  AlanF
• 

  confusedjw

  Scholar said "...Fall of Jerusalem is dated to 586 or 587 BCE. Biblical chronology based upon necessary secular data avoids this problem..."
  
  
  Scholar in the past you have frequently brought up the difficulty of secular data as pinpointing the Fall of Jerusalem to either 586 or 587 as being some sort of actual proof that secular dating is totally incorrect and that since it can't be termined whether it's 586 or 587 that it's all wrong. Also in the past you have stated that it then adds weight to the theory presented by the WT for 607 - as it pinpoints a year.
  
  What do you think about the FACT that until a late date that the WT taught the Fall of Jerusalem took place in 606? In a similar vein of reasoning does not that invalidate the dating system of "celebrated WT scholars" due to wavering from 606 to 607? Which is it and why did "celebrated WT scholars" change it?
  
  Naturally I don't expect that you will or can answer this.
• 

  james_woods

  As to "secular" dating - isn't it obvious that there would be no "biblical" dating without it? The bible itself has nothing to fix time in relation to our present calender unless you can find a proven and well-documented historical date that is also clearly referenced in the bible.

  As far as the events concerned here, there were a lot more "world shaking" events in this time period than the so-called exile of the Jews.

  For example: Every reference I can find says Nebuchadnezzer began his rule in 605bce. They further indicate that he defeated Pharoah Necho earlier in 605bce. The recently discovered Bablyonian Chronicle (found about 1956) states that Nebuchadnezzar was first made a general in the 19th year of his father's reign (Nabopolasser) which would correspond to 607bce.

  The date for Pharoah Necho's defeat at Carchemish (605) would then follow, rather than predate, Jerusalem's destruction if you accept the WTS 607. This is an anomaly if you follow the historical sequence. First, Egypt is defeated. Then, full of hope, the Jews revolt. Later, Jehoichin is captured. Years later, Zedekiah makes another revolt, ending in Jerusalem's destruction. This is in 586/587bce, the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

  Incidentally, it is generally thought (and I believe the WT agrees here) that Josiah of Judah was earlier defeated by Necho and Megiddo and was killed in that battle. This is dated at 609bce.

  What bothers me most about this jump backwards of 20 years for the temple destruction, is that not only just the destruction of the temple is moved, but it requires us to move every single important date in human history from 625 to 525 bce by the same 20 years, if you want to maintain the historical sequence of events.

  Maybe what the WT needs to do is pick a new "beginning" and "end" for the seventy years, to make it work. Maybe a symbolic one. After all, fullfilment of the derived 20th century dates from 607bce is so obviously trashed by now that they could set this straight (like the 7000 year creative day) and probably nobody in that org (but our scholar) would even notice...

  For me, it doesn't make a hill of beans if the date was 607, 606, 587, 586, or whatever. But it does freak me out to completely reorder all the historical sequences of the day to stubbornly count backward 70 years from a date you arbitrarily pick!

  James -

  I only wrote this because the Theocrat never would tell me when Nebuchadnezzar died.
• 

  AuldSoul

  scholar: Celebrated WT scholars prefer an 'event-based' approach to chronology rather than the 'regnal-based-approach' because it avoids the confusion over the use of regnal years conicciding with know historical events. For example, this is the reason why scholars and apostates have found themselves in a predicament with using a regnal-based chronology because it fails to determine whether the historical event of the Fall of Jerusalem is dated to 586 or 587 BCE. Biblical chronology based upon necessary secular data avoids this problem by simply factoring historic events such as the seventy years and coinciding this with biblical and regnal data for the reigns of the both the Judean and Babylonian Monarchy.

  scholar,

  Are you really so far gone you no longer even distinguish between a historic event and an organizational interpretation of a prophecy?

  Scholars use regnal years, AND events, AND astronomical observations. WT "scholars" use the end date they want to end up with and count backwards 2,520 years. This is provable: When they taught Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BC it was because they forgot there is no zero year. A scholar would have changed 1914 to 1915, which would have been required if they actually believed (1) the destruction of Solomon's temple marked the beginning point and (2) that the temple was destroyed in 606 BC.

  We now know for certain they had more confidence in 1914 than in the date of an event some 2,520 years prior. We know this because they adjusted the starting point, not the terminus. Their viewpoint on ANE chronology has nothing whatsoever to do with scholarship or events, and everything to do with organizational interpretation of prophecy.

  I wonder, when the leadership is finally forced to leave off that insane doctrine (in the straits of time), will you admit even then that they were not scholarly? Or will you be some years planted six-feet under by then, like those who defended the Bible Student's chronology when it first emerged on the world scene? The confidence such early adherents demonstrated in the scholarship of this organization has long since been abandoned by those they championed, few dates remain of those originally taught and none of the things prophesied to occur on any of their dates came true.

  Looking at the history of this organizations interpretative failures is enough for me to dismiss this one. It would be so very strange if out of the hundred of false proclamations they got this one right. But, even if that were not the case, the debate regarding the particulars surrounding which year an event occurred due to problems of some 6 to 8 months pales in comparison to your missing 20-27 years.

  I say 20-27 years because if you take the line of the kings and their reigns as the WT scholars have laid them out and still insist on 607 BC there is a gap of 20 years. And according to you, we might have to allow for the son of Nebuchadnezzar taking over during a seven-year vacancy on the throne. You posited that this king's reign may have begun seven years prior to the accepted scholarly commencement for his reign. While this would make historians wrong (apparently your delight in life), it would also mean you had to account for 27 years worth of missing kings, as opposed to 20 years. And this 27 years would have to be accounted for between 607 BC and the commencement of the reign of Nabonidus in 555 BC, because we know for sure when he started to rule and we know for sure when his rule ended.

  So far, all I get from your posts is an avid desire to muddy the waters and studiously (<-- heh-heh) avoid the question that would settle ALL of this, once and for all. Can you show a kings list that accounts for the Baylonian rulers and their reigns (showing both commencement and end dates) for this ANE period: 607 BC through 539 BC? It is so simple, scholar. Anyone who has followed your posts knows the weakness in your armor. You have no alternate history that accounts for the whole period, you have nothing that differs from the historian's view except an overriding assertion that an interpretation of prophecy by a specific group of men is correct.

  That group of men has a wonderful track record of interpreting prophecy incorrectly. Every change in interpretation since 1879 was as a direct result of failing to get it right the first time, or the second time, or the third time. And every time it changes they prove again that no one should call them scholars.

  AuldSoul
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  1641

  Your last few posts have explained nothing as I am quite familiar with the line of argument used by apostates in order to uphold their secular chronology. As I have nicely explained you favour a regnal based approch which ignores the biblical 'seventy years' wheras the celebrated WT scholars favour an event based approach which fully utilizes the biblical 'seventy years' and thus fine tunes regnal based chronology eliminating the problematic twenty year gap between sacred chronology and demonic secular chronology.

  Apostates are experts when it comes to the power of the mind, the power of imagination ov er reality because they are victims of their own deceit and treachery having found no true religion to replace the belief system that they abandoned.

  scholar JW
• 

  ozziepost

  scholar:

  Where were you today? I was hoping you could show me this support in the Moore Library.

  When can we make it?

  Ozzie (free to speak to anyone class)
• 

  Dansk

  Where were you today?

  Ozzie:

  If it's one thing I can't stand it's making arrangements to meet someone and they don't turn up!

  Scholar:

  Where were you? And you still haven't answered my question about allowing me to view some of your university work (or other works you may have had published).

  Ian
• 

  Jeffro

  LOL... 'scholar' has popped up here after abandoning the other current 607 threads because they got too specific and he couldn't refute the bare facts. So he jumps to another unspecific thread, in which he can rattle off the same old tired rhetoric without having to actually provide any proof whatsoever.

  So, 'scholar', why not jump back to the other threads and give some valid response to the simple diagram I laid out for you?
• 

  Jeffro

  Certainly 539 and 537 uses secular evidence that is also used for the construction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but the methodologies used for biblical and secular chronology differ. Celebrated WT scholars use a 'event-based approach' whereas secular scholars use 'regnal-based approach' both produce different outcomes such as 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem or 607 BCE. The celebrated ones have wisely noted the historical relevance of the 'biblical seventy years' which escapes the attention of secular scholars hence a twenty year gap is produced.

  Of course, 537 isn't actually based on any secular evidence at all. The secular evidence firmly places the return of the Jews in 538, because the temple foundations are indicated by Ezra and Josephus to have begun in Iyyar (May) of 537, with the Jews returning the previous October.