by digderidoo 51 Replies latest jw friends
The thing that has me about 607 v 587/6 is that the latter doesn't take into account the 70 year desolation. For me scholars should at the very least take the bible as an historical document. I am not saying 607 is the date, but 587/6 has a flaw.
Paul
The flaw is that you, as well as the WT, want to make a prophesy fit into history. Could it be possible that the prophesy was missapplied or never came true at all?
changeling :)
The flaw is that you, as well as the WT, want to make a prophesy fit into history. Could it be possible that the prophesy was missapplied of never came true at all?
I do not want to make any prophecies. What i want to do is look at all the evidence before i make a decision. I do not want to accept that 587/6 is the date just because the majority of scholars say so. I would rather examine it for myself. Upon examing it the probability is that 587/6 is the date, but it is not 100% as some portray.
And yes the prophecy is/was missapplied.
Paul
That's what I did. I planted myself at Barnes and Noble one afternoon, determined to find something to support 607. I started with the Judaica section. I figured: "If anybody knows when Jerusalem was destroyed it's the Jews". Well, everything in that section supported 587/6. Then I went to the history section and pulled out every book that dealt with ancient history. Same result. The next day I went to Borders and searched for books that were not at Barnes and Noble. Same thing there.
I also spent hours and hours reading history sites on the internet. NOTHING pointed to 607!
Have fun with your quest!
changeling :)
Paul,
The 587 date does match the Bible...
(Jeremiah 25:11) 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’
The 1st time the Bible mentions the 70 years period it mentions that Babylon would dominate other nations for 70 years. It does not say here that the Jews would be in Babylon for 70 years, although this is an idea in Jeremriah 29:10 (NWT):
(Jeremiah 29:10) 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.’
However, all other Bible translations that I know of translate use the word "for" instead of "at"...
i.e.:NIV: 10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
This translation harmonizes with Jer 25:11 with the idea that 70 years refers to Babylon's time, not the Jews exile.
Babylon's domination ended in 539BCE, a date agreed upon by the WTS. This would mean that the 70 years period would have to start in 609BCE. What happened in that year? Babylon attacked Assyria in 609 BCE.
This would harmonize with both secular history and the Bible. Josephus also mentions that the Jews were in Babylon for 50 years, not 70. So it all coincides. No need to think that the WTS knows it all... (The above argument adapted from COJonnson's The Gentile Times Reconsidered).
Of course, the 607/587 controversy is meaninghless when you consider that the 7 times prophecy was about Nebuchadnezzar, since Jesus did not link the Gentile Times with Daniel's 7 times at all. So there goes 1914 out the window.
I am passionate about this subject because this 1914 was the first point of WT doctrine that I began to see through. For me, doctrine was a major issue...
Lance
Interesting stuff lance. I have not thought of this that Babylon conquered Assyria in 609 BCE. I should read Johnsons book.
I also haven't come across the other translations of "for" babylon instead of "at" babylon.
I have just come across this site, showing the Babylonian empire from 609-539bce
http://www.science.co.il/Maps-Near-East-Empires.asp
Paul
Also i feel that i no longer fear JW's and their teachings. It is as if i have wrestled back a bit of that power.
Paul
It kind of gives you this restful and peaceful place when you no longer fear... Glad your back! And doing well. hope4others
Okay, this is probably neither the time, nor the place, to hijack this thread with a question. But it just popped up, and it troubled me for years.
The age of Daniel. According to WT, he would have been around 100 when he was THROWN into the lion's den, right? If we remove the questionable 20 years, Daniel would have been 80 instead, right? So, wouldn't he have mentioned in his book that he was miraculously old at 100 by this time? 80 would have been old, but 100 would have been super-old, right? I wouldn't have imagined that other satraps would have been jealous and sought to kill a 100 year-old man, his days are numbered. But an 80 year old man, if spry, could be around for another decade or so and a worthy adversary. Is this addressed anywhere?
It's really not a big deal to me. After I reread the old publications, it's clear enough to me that 1914 was just another guess that happened to be the year the WWI started. Russell's Scripture Studies have years and numbers all over the place that are meaningless by current JW teaching. 1914 was pure luck, not divine providence.
Thanks,
B the X
You summed it up when saying you enjoyed it for "nostalgia". You are not going back because it is "truth", but rather it is what you know and are comfortable with. If you had been a Mormon you would now be going back to Mormon meetings.
The thing that has me about 607 v 587/6 is that the latter doesn't take into account the 70 year desolation. For me scholars should at the very least take the bible as an historical document. I am not saying 607 is the date, but 587/6 has a flaw.
The JW's have an agenda in using 607. Why did they use 606 then change it when
they discovered their own math flaw? The vast majority of sources for 587/6 do not
have a religious agenda. They have no reason to support or denounce 607, they just
know it isn't right.
The 70 year desolation- I believe this portion of the Bible was written afterward, so it
would most likely not be flawed. You need to look at what was meant by the 70 years
from sources outside of JW's with an agenda. I don't want to guide you to answers
as you will feel that I steered you to only those with "an agenda." But look at what
the experts say about the 70 years and how it was applied. If I am wrong about it
being written afterward, you can still see what the writers meant in "prophecy" instead
of what the JW's meant in "false prophecy."
