Scholarly support for 607bce ?

wobble

I mentioned to a bro. who is supposed to be answering some of my "concerns" with WT teaching that all the non-witness refs.I have seen to the fall of Jerusalem place it twenty years later at 587-586 BCE.

He maintains that some scholars support 607. Does anyone know of a reliable scholar ,who is a recognised expert in this period,who does support 607 ?

I am well aware that it makes no difference,as the Bible nowhere gives us 2520 years,but I am fed up with his assertions and would like to blow this one out of the water so I can ask him to please check his facts.

Only help if you really have time ,it's not life or death.

Many thanks

Love

Wobble

MeneMene

"He maintains that some scholars support 607."

I would suggest requesting that he furnish you names & links to those scholars. If he is making that claim he should be able to back it up.

(If you get anything from him share it with us.)

Jeremy C

This thread should catch the attention of posters "scholar" and "thirdwitness" if they are still monitoring this forum. Back in this forum’s heyday, this thread would have turned into a 20 page battle between "scholar" and "AlanF" - which were actually a bit entertaining at times.

Personally, I believe that the 607 / 587 issue is a bit of a diversionary topic which causes one to spend enormous amounts of time battling over scholarly / academic minutia. I believe that one can loose sight of the big picture.

I think it is best to focus one’s attention on the big picture issues such as the Watchtower’s history of false predictions, their use of mind control, the presence of legalism and traditions systemic in the organization, etc. These are issues that the 607 apologists cannot easily grapple with; as most of them choose not even to discuss such issues.

Another major issue that JWs have enormous difficulty debating is the concept of Biblical inerrancy. They are not able to adequately discuss all of the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans have been on earth much longer than 6,000 years, and that a global flood (as described in Genesis) is utterly ridiculous.

The sole purpose to defend the 607 date is the uphold the teaching of the 1914 parousia. The sole reason to uphold that teaching is to uphold the teaching of Christ’s selection of the Watchtower as his earthly proxy. Much time and effort can be wasted on this issue due to the lack of any "smoking gun" evidence for either the 607 date or the 587 date. It’s a debate that could be waged by both sides ad infinitum.

In my opinion, it is best to focus one’s attention on the big picture issues that JWs cannot provide valid answers to.

yknot

Thirdwitness pretty much stays on the topix site these days....

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness

You can post the request there anonymously.....but be warned the other JWs on that site are mostly 'studies' and are 'ding-bats'.

Thirdwitness himself is notorious for using half truths.....but he loves doing that kind of research.

If you do posts the question there .......post a link for us on JWD.

jwfacts

I am unaware of any reliable scholars that agree with 607, or even any unreliable ones not related to the WTS that point to 607. Neither do any encyclopedias point to 607.

Also remember the WTS used to claim it was 606 BC. It was not until the 1940's that they started to say 607, once they removed the year 0 from their calculations.

The best idea is what MeneMene suggested, get him to supply you a list of these scholars and their works so that you can read them. He may then question your devotion to the organization, or do some research and learn something himself.

Doug Mason

Discussions about neo-Babylonian chronology, even about 1914 are a distraction from their Achilles' heel - their supposed anointing in 1918/1919.

BTW, Scholar and Alan have been enjoying a real ding-dong at JWS.

Doug

scholar

Wobble

Reply 204

There is indeed scholarly support for the biblical date and these are the scholars both past and present who aupport 607 BCE: Rolf Furuli, Neil Mc Fadzen, Philip Couture, John Albu and the community of 'celebrated WT scholars'. It must also be pointed out in the interest of intellectual honesty that scholars worldwide cannot agree on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem so it is only JW's who have determoned the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

scholar JW

Jeremy C

It must also be pointed out in the interest of intellectual honesty that scholars worldwide cannot agree on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem so it is only JW's who have determoned the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

LOL !! This reminds me of the statements found in the Watchtower regarding the meaning of the number 144,000. The Watchtower has admitted that Bible scholars have different views on the interpretation of the 144,000; and thus it is only the JWs who have determined the precise meaning of that number.

The Watchtower does indeed have an amusing viewpoint on what constitutes "intellectual honesty".

sir82

Rolf Furuli, Neil Mc Fadzen, Philip Couture, John Albu and the community of 'celebrated WT scholars'.

Boy talk about your unexpected surprises!

This may be one of the biggest coincidences I've ever seen...all these guys just happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses, with a vested intererst in 607 BCE being the right date!

What are the odds?

Almost as long as the WTS using 606 BCE as the date of Jersusalem's fall for 60+ years, until "divine providence" just happened to get them to consider new evidence for 607 BCE in the exact same year that the "celebrated WT scholars" suddenly remembered that there is no "0 year" in the switch from BCE to CE.

DoomVoyager

It must also be pointed out in the interest of intellectual honesty that scholars worldwide cannot agree on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem so it is only JW's who have determoned the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

*insert Outlaw's loonie face here*

Scholarly support for 607bce ?

Share this