The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction
scholar: "If secular chronolgy is so accurate then there not be a one year discrepancy for either we know the precise date for the Fall or we dont' Therefore it is foolish and presumptuous of WT critics to demounce 607 BCE when they cannot be certain on a definite alternative."
For thinking persons, there isn't automatically a "one year discrepancy" between the years 586 and 587. They immediately followed one another. Is there automatically a 1 year difference between 2009 and 2010? Well, is there a 1 year difference between Dec. 31, 2009 and Jan. 1, 2010? Of course not! They are hardly a minute apart. I've been spending much of the last two days, in 2010, finishing paperwork and paying bills for 2009. Am I some amazing time traveller that has gone back in history 1 year? No, the books are still open on 2009 here in 2010, just a few days later.
Unfortunately, your theory that the "discrepancy" between 586 and 587 justifies 607 as somehow correct, doesn't work when it comes to paying bills. The United States Treasury wouldn't understand if I trying paying my taxes 20 years from the date the bill actually was incurred.
And we could hardly expect historians of the time to give a rat's ass about recording the actual date when Jerusalem was finally put out of its misery and destroyed as the capitol of the petty, irrelevant Judean kingdom.
scholar: "The twenty gap occurs because of the difference between the two chronologies caused because one ignores the seventy years and the other uses it."
And we know how vital those extra 20 years to come up with 70 years are! As "587 hating" "celebrated JW scholar" Charles F. Redeker notes:
By way of contrast, let us note what would occur if we applied the Jubilee concept to a 587 B. C. date for the fall of Jerusalem and a consequent 50 year period of desolation. In this instance, the foreordained number of Sabbath cycles would be reduced to only 50, "as long as [the land] lay desolate." This would reduce the adjusted cycles when no Jubilees were attempted to merely 31; 31 times 49 years each, equals 1,519 years. Adding the 1,519 years to the previous 950 years when the Jubilee cycles were actually attempted, totals 2,469 years. That many years extended from 1556 B. C., the date the Israelites entered the landaccording to this view, would yield 914 A. D. as the fulfillment of the Jubilee cycles viewed as a prophecy... Such a projected fulfillment is obviously not tenable as it would completely demolish the picture....
As may be seen, there is precise agreement between the actual Pyramid measurements and the Bible chronology. This provides us with strong confirmation of the accuracy of the Bowen/ Russell chronology and also forcibly contradicts a 587 B. C. date for derusalem’s fall. Such a date would be disharmonious with these results and would require 20 years to be removed from each measurement. But as noted earlier, these measurements are 44 etched" in solid stone, extending from one construction feature to another, and simply will not yield to a 20 Pyramid inch correction (an inch for a year). Therefore, we must conclude that we have here a very unique and God- given witness to the accuracy of the true Bible chronology and a forceful refutation of the Babylonian records.
It negatively impacts upon the "Parallel Dispensations" that Bible Students have used indirectly to establish the dates of our Lord’s parousia, the resurrection of the sleeping saints, and the rejection of the nominal church systems. Utilizing a 587 B. C. date for the fall of Jerusalem shortens the length of the Jewish Age and its corresponding time frame of Christian favor to 1,825 years each. This would change the date of the parousia to 1854, and the dates of the resurrection of the sleeping saints and Christ’s judgment of the systems to 1858.Coupling such a framework with an extension of the 6,000 years to 1892 would then have our Lord returning a full 38 years prior to the start of the new (seventh) day in earth’s history. Such a pattern of dating is incompatible with known historical facts relating to the increase of inventions, the beginning of global trouble, and the ministry of that "wise and faithful servant" which are all associated with Christ’s parousia at the later (1874) date.
Indeed, the full 70 year calculation, ignoring all secular, historical, and biblical proof to the contrary, is vital to synchronize 607 BCE with the Jubilee sabbath cycles, the measurements of the great pyramid, and the parallel dispensations which prove Christ's parousia began in 1874!
Good point Billy , and there lies the scholarly foundation from which the WTS has arrived at 1914 as some important
year. Debunking stupidity and ignorance is quite easy when you give it a try.
Unfortunate for the typical JWS they think what they are being taught is accurate truth, when its nothing of the sort.
Moral of the story is don't trust religious charlatans selling books and magazines, who identify themselves
as being guided by god's holy spirit, for they may be actually by guided by the holy dollar.
goshawk: "With this kind of methodology one could keep moving the goal-posts to get whatever date they desired."
Well you may have "your methodology" with "your date desired", but Chuck T. Rustle was quite sure that the great pyramid was built by Melchizedek in 2170 B.C., as clearly explained on pp. 321 & 322 of Studies Vol. 3. Yep, this was built within one single year!
Since the Noachian flood ended about 200 years earlier, in 2369 B.C., and the Tower of Babel was condemned by God about 100 years earlier, there would have undoubtedly been millions of camels and several million unemployed people eager to help Melchizedek get this thing built in the one year 2170 B.C.
Thanks Billy and thetrueone,
You two are the only ones who has given me sources 'outside the WT' used to 'validate' 607 BCE. Granted, both sources are highly suspect and one is rooted in the occult (though someone posted on my thread of this topic that 'biblical pyramidology' was not of the occult).
Anyway, even if it was possible to conclude that 607 BCE was the accurate date it still doesn't prove 1914 because no one who has ever set dates on events concerning Christ's second advent was ever right. This is something we are not suppose to know.
Still though, I am curious why celebrated WT scholars insist that the Kings list is incorrect.
Could you show me from the Bible alone why the king's list is not correct?
Seems that scholar will argue that historians can't make up their mind on 586 or 587 as being the date so he will try to imply that the educated and professional scholars can't be acurate. If that's the case how can you trust 539BC? After all 539 BC is also supported by the very same scholars that are implied to be so wrong about the 586/7!! Keep debating this simple fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 is like debating that a square is not a square but is really an circle. WTF! The whole world accepts 586/587 date except for few nut cases who insist on 607 so it fits their chronology BS so they can keep telling themselves that Jesus returned and paradise is just around the corner.
I think it was all a pass over from Russell's teachings concerning pyramidology beliefs that the WTS. thought wise to let go of,
for one being commercial reasons of the publishing corporation. Just to give an idea of how the bible students were so enthralled
with this idealogical concept they actually built a mini pyramid where Russell was laid to rest.
So you see it was a very strong part of the Bible Students beliefs which they actual hold to to this very day.
When Rutherford took over the WTS. he was with intension of disowning himself from as much of Russell teachings
as he could, which initially broke the BS away. The power of the corporation was his now and now it was the time for the
light to shine on him.
The truth is though if these men were truly sincere about their beliefs in the word of god they would have never
created there own predictions and dates, the difference was though that they owned a publishing company and proselytizing
the return of Christ drew much interest to their talks and attention to their literature.
And guess what it still does to this day
This has all the flavor of a trinity debate.
Is there any serious side by side comparison of the actual numbers on this site?
freydo: "This has all the flavor of a trinity debate. Is there any serious side by side comparison of the actual numbers on this site?"
Actually, with the trinity debate, it all comes down to interpretation of scripture.
With this 586/587 vs. 607 debate, there is very little interpretation of scripture involved. The Bible doesn't include the year numbers we use for marking history. For that period of Babylonian history, there are extensive and well preserved inscriptions that record when things happened based on their calendar of the day. Their calendar included extensive recordings of astrological events, enabling modern researchers to put events to the actual day in some cases, to the year in most cases. While both sides of the "debate" accept the evidence that Babylon fell to the Persians in 539 BC, one side rejects the exact same proof for the time of Jerusalem's fall and instead resort to numerology and verbal gymnastics to prop up their agenda.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of the actual numbers that are on either side of the debate:
607 B.C.E. 586/587 B.C.
about 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses about 7 billion non-Jehovah Witnesses
"scholar JW" everyone else
Guess I will have to find the 3rd volume & read it now that the curiosity has been piqued.
Celebrated WT scholars have an interest in all secular sources because these documents are of value and provide much information for all but in terms of constructing an accurate Bible chronology these
resources are either unnecessary or of limited value.
Ignores facts he does`nt like..