The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff 112 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • garyneal


    Post 1856

    Serious scholars support 586, APOSTATES and some scholars support 587, celebrated WT scholars support 607.

    I can understand the one year discrepency between 586 and 587 due to Labashi-Marduk reigning for 3 to 9 months (depending on the source).

    I still don't see the twenty(-one) year discrepency between 586/7 BCE and 607 BCE. You're right, I do have a problem and it appears that the celebrated WT scholars have a problem too.

  • scholar


    Post 509

    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.

    The twenty gap occurs because of the difference between the two chronologies caused because one ignores the seventy years and the other uses it.

    scholar JW

  • isaacaustin

    No pseudoscholar, the one year discrepancy of 586/7 is no big issue- and caused by the question of ascension or regnal dating in Jer 52.

    70 years- Babylonian dominance, no rocket science there. Judah lay desolate for 50 rocket science there. Go read and lay aside your WT crap for awhile and maybe you will learn something.

  • isaacaustin

    Pseudo said:


    Post 507

    1. Only 607 BCE is supported by the Bible, 587 BCE is only supported by Neo-Babylonian chronology and a false interpretation of the biblical 70 years.

    My reply: When we take a secularly secure date of 539BCE as the date of the fall of the Babylonian Empire ONLY 586/7 is supported by the Bible. 607 becomes an impossibility.

    2. Only 607 BCE is supported by the celebrated WT scholars but has indirect support fro scholars and historians. 587 BCE is supported by apostates and some scholars whereas 586 BCE is universally supported by serious scholars.

    My reply- 607 has support of 'celebrated Wt scholars' whose identities you revealed and were exposed as nothing more than followers of Russell and not genuine scholars. Scholars, apostates of the WT, as well as informed individuals realize 586/7 is the date of the fall of Judah.

    What scholars are discovering today is pointing more in the direction of 607 BCE and serious scholars continue to promote 586 rather than 587 BCE so as you correctly say you have one helluva problem.

    scholar JW

    My reply: Total lie pseudoscholar. NO SCHOLAR endorses 607 in the least- no legit scholar. 586 or 587 is no issue, since the rest of those 7 Gentile Times legs of that 'calculation' are all crap- just like much of what you says Pseudoscholar.

  • OnTheWayOut

    Hey, discrepancies in the world of archaeology and history like this are within a margin of error. Even the twenty years would be not such a big deal if it weren't for two facts:

    1. People are betting their life on the accuracy of the WTS view.

    2. Overwhelming evidence exists that there is an approximate 20 year error here.

    Other than WT's house of cards falling apart over this, would it make a hill-of-beans difference if one date or the other were absolutely proven?

  • miseryloveselders

    Well we've had our annual holiday chronology thread. Who's up for the annual Trinity Debate thread?

  • JWoods
    Well we've had our annual holiday chronology thread. Who's up for the annual Trinity Debate thread?

    Might also be time for one on whether Russell was a Mason?

  • thetrueone

    Nebuchadnezzar didn't come into power until 605 BCE, but I would suppose the WTS would

    disregard that fact as well. There has been more archaeological evidence to when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred

    since the known information of Russell and Rutherford times, will the WTS accept that is highly unlikely since it would destroy

    their 1914 doctrine to smithereens, making themselves appear ignorant and unreliable.

    They have built up this organization/kingdom on lies and ignorance by their own design, they have

    therefore a forthright agenda to keep what they have achieved.

    One thing to learn from all of this is, religions who have made strong pronouncements

    involving their own self constructed doctrines, will hardly ever revert their position

    revealing their own created diverse ignorance. Religions such as the JWS operate and sell themselves

    on creating an illusion that they are unique and have special status among other religions.

    To make a move in changing vital doctrine would crack and break open this illusion.

    There seems to be an enormous amount of information now through archaeological findings regarding when

    ancient Jerusalem was invaded by Nebuchadnezzar that give evidence to the 586 BCE date. Will

    the leaders of the WTS. ever confirm that themselves, I hardly doubt it, they aren't really concerned

    about the truth or facts per-say , instead they're only concerned about up holding the truths that

    they themselves created in developing their organization.

    In effect religions taint the truth to support and serve themselves.

  • Goshawk

    Hi Billie the ex,

    Not to detract from you post, and the way pyramidology was used to obtain certain dates.

    Another variable when dealing with pyramidology is that start date for calculation based on measurements using the "pyramid inch" and starting at the lines inscribed in the beginning of the passage.

    If one uses the date calculated by Bishop Ussher for the creation of man, the calculations work out to 1914.

    If one were to use an astronomical event involving the earths procession; such as the last year a certain bright star could be seen from the passage you could come up with the year 2001 from the measurements and calculations.

    With this kind of methodology one could keep moving the goal-posts to get whatever date they desired.


  • undercover
    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'

    Speaking of one year discrepencies, can scholar explain the discrepency between 606 and 607?

Share this