I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.

by XPeterX 157 Replies latest jw friends

  • XPeterX


    Ha!The Bible is right.The destruction of Jerousalem took place in 607.

    The 587 BCE contradicts many prophecies.


  • isaacaustin

    Not true XPeterX. 587 only contradicts prophecies when seen in the slanted light of that website.

  • isaacaustin

    XPeterX, you may be interested in the following thread where the org deceptively makes their reference appear to say something it doesn't to change the date of a battle and substantiate their 607 date


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    Draw us up a king list that makes sense then.

    I couldn't do it.

    Let's see how you go.



  • isaacaustin

    XPeterX, try to do what Black Sheep requested- use the WT as a reference for the length of reigns for the Babylonian kings.

  • Titus

    Isaac, that's interesting idea. But there is one king without reference for the length of his reign. You know that probably....

    w65 1/1 p. 29 says:

    Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations.

    I mentioned that several times on this forum. There is no any evidensce that Neriglissar reigned for four years only. It is from the WT, and they admited it was wrong.

    Later, the w69 2/1 p. 89 said:

    As to this latter monarch, the text does not necessarily limit his reign to four years; rather it tells of something that happened in his fourth year.

    Peter, I don't wanna discourage you from using your brain. My advice was friendly - take care of your brain. Use it for something more productive.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    What that website does is state a bundle of stuff as fact, when in reality, every one of their facts has at least one assumption built into it.

    The object of the game is to distract you from the easy stuff with an overwhelming barrage of information that takes you so long to thoroughly investigate each claim to arrive at the truth, that you will give up and go with the flow.

    You have probably noticed that the replys you had were many and complicated and required you to buy books and digest websites.

    If you have the time, you can go through every statement on that website and find the faults in the data or logic with each and every claim. I only looked at the first claim and recognise it as one that has been discussed here before and is discussed in the books and websites you have been referred to, but I can't be bothered with chipping away at every distraction that the Watchtower and its followers use to fool us from looking at the real issues.

    I say keep it simple. If you can't fault the king list and/or the data and make it add up to 607, then 607 is wrong. You cannot have two correct, but different, answers. Try that first. It's easy. Simple schoolkid maths with data straight out of Watchtower publications on your CD or bookshelf. Then get onto the tricky stuff.

    I haven't bothered to read the entire website you linked to, but the page you linked to does not make any attempt to discredit the length of the reigns, or the succession, of the Neo-Babylonian kings given in Watchtower publications. There is a reason for that. What do you think it is??????????



  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    Found this: http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm it's not WT publication

    This is JW chronology through and through. It isn't published by the WTS but it is a JW view.

    Peter, here is a great source of information about that issue.


    I am going to do my homework now!

    This is also a JW source of information. There is NO secular support for 607. ONLY the JWs support this date and it can ONLY be arrived at via the JW interpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy COUPLED WITH THE SECULARLY SUPPORTED DATE of 537BCE.

    What is interesting is that the secular support for 537 as the date the Jews were set free is more scanty than the secular support for 587 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Yet, the WTS relies on 537 to count backwards to 607 (based on THEIR interpretation of Jeremiah) but refuses to accept the better-supported 587 date.

    Again, NO ONE but JWs (and maybe some IBS splinter groups) believes in 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, or that anything Biblical happened in 1914.

  • XPeterX

    Bible wins.You got owned too.607 is the date.Period

  • isaacaustin

    Titus, what source is the WT quoting from? Also, taking that approach of "the text does not necessarily limit..." can be used very loosely and to one's advantage.

    Let's look at both sides of the coin: Let's assume Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE. What? It still doesn't prove 1914 is correct, that all those texts in Daniel, Revelation,, Numbers, Ezekiel and Luke belong together to equate to 7 gentile times. It would simply mean the WT had a date correct and the starting point for which they begin counting that forumla. What would it mean to the community of historians? Not much really...they would scratch their heads and return to the drawing board...and seek more evidence.

    Let's assume Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/7. Then what? It would prove 1914 wrong, at least by the difference of 19/20 years (assuming the formula of the 7 gentile times was correct). What else? The 3 and 1/2 years following Jesus turning his attention toward the earth and examining the religions claiming to represent him, the antitypical babylonish captivity, release and appointment as steward of Chirst's earthly affairs in 1919 would not have happened. The orgs claims on which their authority rests would crumble. What effect would this have on historians. None really...it would simply confirm what their research has show as they would likely still conitnue to study it.

    Being wrong would not really effect the community of historians. It would prove detrimental to the WT.

Share this