Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hoping4Change

  Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and their Apologists there remains the most Supreme supporter of 607 BCE for the Fall and that is no less than the Great Chronologist and Timekeeper, Jehovah God

  Come on, that is a really bad answer. There is not one shred of proof or evidence that suggests that 'Jehovah God' supports 607BCE. Tough to take any answers seriously if the best answer to my questions is this.

  My questions stand:

  Where else, other than the literature from the WTBTS or literature from JW apologists is it suggested that 607 (or any other date) is correct? The Bible DOES NOT say anything about ANY date and at best, it appears to point to the dates used by the world over. I again emphasize, I would love nothing more than to see the 'world proved wrong' but that proof has not been forthcoming.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1379

  I have received no vision or direct revelation but Jehovah has revealed such matters to His Church, Elect, Body of Christ, Christian Congregation, Faithful and Discreet Slave and the 'celebrated WTY scholars by means of Revelation such process involves God's Inspired Word and Holy Spirit.

  The date 607 BCE is firmly established, Neo-Babylonian Chronology with some fine-tuning can be utilized in support of that date.

  The problem of indecision or uncertainty concerning 586 or 587 BCE is due to the biblical data because the celebrated WT scholars use the same biblical data arriving at a specific calender date, 607 BCE. Your problem is 'methodology' freely admitted to by Rodger's Young's article.

  scholar JW
• 

  wobble

  "The date 607 is firmly established" Only in your mind "scholar", I have seen no proof that stands up.

  "Neo-Babylonian Chronology with some fine tuning............. " fine tuning being ignoring the 20 year gap in a 70 year period.

  As to where it came from, Russell worked from what he believed was the first year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon and got back to 606 BCE.

  He claimed that adding 606 and 1914 together , in other words taking each year as complete, gave you 2520 years. (2520 years not found in scripture, only in Adventist imagination, and plagiarised by Russell.)

  The later tinkering with "no year nought" etc. resulted in revising to the year 607 BCE.

  All because of wanting to hang on to 1914 as significant in some way to believers in the Bible.

  1914 is essential to the GB's claim to authority, and so they, and apologists, will defend it whatever the evidence says, or they will have to give up the whole scam.
• 

  hotspur

  I can't believe nobody has yet mentioned Russel's "pyramid inches" which suddenly had to me re-measured to make the dates (sorry, Bible Chronolgy) correct. Tsk....

  Pivotal to the whole gamut of JW doctrine is the year 1914.... if that is proven wrong, which it has been quite emphatically, then the veracity of any thing they write upon this foundation is quite fraudulent. The guilt they carry reaches clear to the heavens!

  I really do like the Portugese donkey and two little sticks - most apposite.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Pseudoscholar said:

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1379

  I have received no vision or direct revelation but Jehovah has revealed such matters to His Church, Elect, Body of Christ, Christian Congregation, Faithful and Discreet Slave and the 'celebrated WTY scholars by means of Revelation such process involves God's Inspired Word and Holy Spirit.

  My reply: I agree you have received no vision from Jehovah on this. But neither has the Holy Spirit guided anyone to 607 either, since the Holy Spirit would not guide one into falsehood.

  'Scholar' said:

  The date 607 BCE is firmly established, Neo-Babylonian Chronology with some fine-tuning can be utilized in support of that date.

  My reply: Hefty assertion you have never been able to prove.

  'Scholar' said:

  The problem of indecision or uncertainty concerning 586 or 587 BCE is due to the biblical data because the celebrated WT scholars use the same biblical data arriving at a specific calender date, 607 BCE. Your problem is 'methodology' freely admitted to by Rodger's Young's article.

  scholar JW

  My reply: The difference of 586 or 587 is not a problem to anyone- except those who need the 607 date to arrive at 1914. The Wt does not use the same date that 586/587 adherent use. The WT simply counts back from the year they need.
• 

  wannabefree

  - I sometimes wondered about 607 but just assumed this was all based on historic fact. We (JW's) state this date like it is in stone and count forward to 1914 to prove that date, when in actuality it was derived from counting backwards.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I have received no vision or direct revelation but Jehovah has revealed such matters to His Church, Elect, Body of Christ, Christian Congregation, Faithful and Discreet Slave and the 'celebrated WTY scholars by means of Revelation such process involves God's Inspired Word and Holy Spirit.

  Really? Has He therefore revealed His personal support for the 607 BCE date in the sacred Scriptures anywhere? Are you claiming the holy spirit inspired the "celebrated WT scholars" to choose 607?

  The date 607 BCE is firmly established, Neo-Babylonian Chronology with some fine-tuning can be utilized in support of that date.

  Dearie, you can't utilize a secular chronology to "firmly establish" a WTS date if the secular chronology is out by 20 years! The fact that it is out by 20 years means that it can't "firmly establish" jack. Only when the two chronologies coincide can there be any attempt to "firmly establish" something. How can you not get that?

  The problem of indecision or uncertainty concerning 586 or 587 BCE is due to the biblical data ...

  Isn't that what I said?

  ... because the celebrated WT scholars use the same biblical data arriving at a specific calender date, 607 BCE.

  The same biblical data that originally led them to 606 BCE!

  Your problem is 'methodology' freely admitted to by Rodger's Young's article.

  And the problem was resolved by him. 587 BCE was concluded to be the correct date - as you would already know if you read his article to the end! So you can quit banging that drum.
• 

  isaacaustin

  'scholar' were you picked on and abused as a kid in school? Because you sure get your butt whipped every time you walk around on this board!
• 

  PSacramento

  This reminds me of those people that believe that if they state some falsehood enough it will eventually become "truth".

  "Scholar" is a true blood JW in that regard.
• 

  miseryloveselders

  Not to change the direction of this thread or anything, but once you come to the conclusion that "Servitude" to Babylon for 70 years by all the neighboring nations is what the prophecy meant, the weight that the JW side of yourself wants to give in support of 607 becomes worthless. 587 makes more sense at that point. Especially considering the battle of Carchemish. That, and umm reading the entire prophecy in context as opposed to the copy and pasting from old publications the Writing Department does nowadays.