Titus, everytihng I see in WT lit related to this issue is dishonest, misinterpretations and very weak technicalities...like the one you pointed out before that a source does not limit the length of one's reign to only 4 years...I looked briefy online and from what i saw that source spoke of Neriglissar's reign as 4 years. So if the org does not say "These are the words of Jehovah" they are not a false prophet, even though they have said it in other ways? if a source doesnot specifically say "Neriglissar's reign lasted 4, and only 4 years..." then it was likely longer and thus a good support for 607BCE?
I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.
by XPeterX 157 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
All the proof anyone needs to confirm the truth about 607 and 1914 can be found here...
... and here ...
Forget theology, all anyone needs is pyramidology! Who needs some paper Bible since C. T. Russell discovered Jehovah's Great Stone Witness... otherwise known as the Great Pyramid!
But it wasn't just Russell that understood the great 607/1914 connection. The exhaustive list of "non-JW scholars" began to be discussed midway through this thread... http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/175650/17/70-years-3d-607
-
changeling
My last 2cents and I'm off this thread:
The date of 587 does NOT contradict the Bible; it contradicts the WT. Big difference. You can believe the Bible and history (in this case) and have no problem, but you can't believe both history and the WT w/o a major discrepancy.
The date of 607, contradicts well known and confirmed historical evidence, and the Bible.
So, here are your choices:
1) Believe in 607 and agree with the WT and it's apologists, but not the Bible.
2) Believe in 587, history, and the Bible as it pertains to the reign of the Babylonian kings.
Take your pick! :)
-
TD
MS, believe me, I have answers, but I don't have honest conversationalists.
Try me!
I don't have an axe to grind. It would not matter to me one way or the other if the JW's are correct with the 607 BC date. Actually it would at some level, even make me happy, since I have tendency to cheer for the underdog.
The problem for me is my JW friends and relatives would have me throw all my history books away and trust them on their word alone.
Should I listen to them?
-
JWoods
I still say it matters not a hill of beans, simply because -
NOTHING OF ANY RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE HAPPENED IN 1914 ANYWAY.
Just like the failed 1874, 1925, 1975 and so on.
It does not take any chronological research to see that nothing happened the way Russell had been predicting.
-
XPeterX
I will search more and more until I am convinced.Thanx for helping me find answers although I have a lot of reading to do.
-
hamsterbait
Look at the "Oxford History of Ancient Egypt."
The Egyptians clearly recorded that Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 585.
The WT said jerusalem fell in 606 - until years after 1914, when they realised that would have given 1913 as the date for WWI
They are still flying by the seat of their pants...
HB
-
Black Sheep
Guys stop arguing.I didn't lost interest.I just know the date: 607 B.C.E that's all
In the seven years I have been on this forum, I have never seen a supporter of 607 post a table showing which king reigned in which year.
I have also never seen any evidence presented in any book or forum showing that the return to Jerusalem occurred in 537 BC. There is no Bible proof. They are just relying on "I just know the date:" and hoping that nobody gets their Bible out and uses Ezra to demonstrate that 537 is not only an assumption that is not supported by the Bible, it is an assumption that is contradicted by the Bible.
So, there are two challenges that no 607 supporters have taken on......
Grow a pair.
Have a go.
Or else, just lie back in that uncomfortable bed you are making for yourself by knowing that you have 'just believed' instead of getting your calculator out and proving that your beliefs are not just the product of a bunch of nut jobs in Brooklyn who's belief that they are directed by God has led them to become sloppy in their research.
Cheers
Chris
-
NiceDream
My husband and I searched to "prove" 607 was correct, but we couldn't find any evidence outside WTBTS books. A prophecy isn't a prophecy unless it can be verified with history...607 can't, and therefore, 1914 isn't correct.
Read Gentile Times Reconsidered, the evidence stacks up for 586/587 - Lunar eclipses, secular history of different nations, 1000s of cuneiform tablets.
How do you know 539 is an absolute date without using secular history? There are no dates in the Bible, you need to look at secular history. Why pick one date and reject another? Does that honestly make sense?
Compare King's lists of Babylon/Assyria and Eygpt. The dates work with the 586/587 chronology and Battle of Carchemish. Unless of course you believe that two different nations conspired together and altered historical books so the WTBTS could prophecy and then forget to add a "0" year and change the date again.
-
TD
I don't know if any of you remember because it's been at least 12 years.
The Watchtower had quoted research from three experts in a way that implied agreement with the 607 BC date:
These were Dr. Jane Cahill senior member of the City of David Archaeology project, the late Dr. Yigael Yadin and Dr. David Tarler, who I believe was with Tel Aviv University at the time.
One of the participants from the old H20 site got curious and emailed Doctors Cahill and Tarler with the quote and their responses were about what you would expect: Mild annoyance and complete disagreement.
I've got this archived and could dig it out over the weekend. (Not that it would change the mind of anyone already convinced they know more on the subject than the experts do.)
