I want to know whether 607 is valid or not. (page 3)

undercover

If 607 is a lie then 1914 is lie.

Exactly. If 607 is a lie then the entire WT theology comes crashing down. This was a biggie for me when I was first waking up from the JW stupor.

Now there are excellent threads already pointed out to you, but do what changeling, mentallyfree and others, including myself, have done...go to the library or a bookstore and look it up. Pick up the book(s), hold them in your hands, read with your own eyes all the evidence supporting 586/7. Don't rely on what we tell you. Don't rely on what the WTS tells you. Convince yourself what the real truth is. Only then can you really know what the deal is.

garyneal

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607

That source has been largely debunked right here on this network.

changeling

If it annoys you that I want Peter and everyone to use their brain then so be it.

garyneal

Also, this source:

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/

Says under the picture that, "The Bible says Jerusalem was devastated for seventy years, starting in 607 BCE."

The Bible says no such thing.

changeling

Correct, garyneal. The Bible offers no such date. And that site is a JW apologist site that uses JW reasoning, not history.

yknot

Better yet...

Here is a link to most of the previous WTS publications.......yea keepin' it all Sept 2007 QB!

http://www.archive.org/details/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0

http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/archive.htm#magazines

http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com/downloads/

Poster Chasson has a very nice collection online as well....

http://www.wtarchive.org/deposit/

_______________

Peter the best way is to:

1)Examine our history via publications. .( especially Russell, Rutherford and early Knorr )

2) read Steve Hassan

______________

Olin Moyles Ghost

Peter, here are my thoughts on the answer to your question. To me, it all boils down to who you're going to trust: experts or the clergy.

There are scholars who have spent their entire adult lives studying neo-Babylonian history and archaeology. These scholars have examined the primary sources and unanimously agree that Jerusalem fell in either 586 or 587. For evidence of this, look in any (I mean any) encyclopedia. Every single one will say that Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587.

These same scholars use the same evidence to support their conclusion that Babylon fell in 539 BC. Interestingly, the Watchtower Society agrees with this. But they disagree with the 586/587 date--which is supported by the same scholars looking at the same evidence! That should tell you something.

Think about the motives of the parties involved. Neo-Babylonian scholars have no incentive to fabricate the 586/587 date. In fact, if a scholar were able to prove that that another date was correct, that would increase his prestige! But on the other hand, the Society has tremendous incentive to argue for the 607 date. Without it, the entire system of Watchtower chronology is wrong.

So, on the one hand, we have the experts in the field, with no motive to lie about 586/587. On the other hand, we have the clergy (the WTS) who must argue for 607 in order to survive and thus have every motive to discredit 586/587 at all costs. Who are you going to believe?

Black Sheep

I see you have a whole raft of stuff to look at now, but I would encourage you to just sit down with a piece of paper a pencil and a WTCD and draw yourself up a list of years of the Neo-Babylonian empire and then fill in those years with which king was reigning in each year.

To make it easier to backtrack if you make a mistake, include your references as you go. Use the CD and/or any secular sources you trust. If you are in the UK, go to the British Museum and argue the toss with the curator of the Egyptian section.

It is easy to get sidetracked by a whole bunch of side issues. JWs and their WT make as much noise as possible with these diversions to distract you from the easy stuff, like the king list, but all of these diversions require you to believe at least one assumption, sometimes many. Forget them all for now. If you can't demonstrate that there is a mistake in the king list, or an error in the data, and the king list doesn't support 607, then the assumptions that the WT use to 'prove' their calculations are faulty.

Cheers

Chris

OnTheWayOut

Explain it in a few words

The problem for JW's is that you cannot "explain it in a few words." The average JW just turns it off when all the evidence is presented.

Here's a rather deep and scholarly book that makes it crystal clear if you are willing to invest the time:

Edited to add: BUY IT HERE: http://commentarypress.bigcartel.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Gentile-Times-Reconsidered-Carl-Jonsson/dp/0914675079

I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.

Share this