Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 1389
Are you saying that Jehovah is not the God of True Prophecy and has no interest in Prophecy or its Revelation?
Read the literature published by apostates, scoffers and higher critics and examine their attitude towards the Bible.
There is nothing erroneous about the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE for the events at that time and since proves the matter.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology adjusted by twenty years because all chronologies are imperfect or in short, fallible. All of the pieces do indeed fit together and that is why Bible chronology works whereas others fail.
Your chronology trivializes the Bible, ignores prophecy and theology it indeed at the very least has a margin of error of at least one year but it is worse than that because at least twenty years is manifest.
What I am saying is that Young is a scholar who has written ground-breaking articles on the importance of Methodology in the construction of Chronology. His efforts are to be commended but as yet his chronology remains his opinion and his conclusions thereof have not received acclamation from other serious scholars who enjoy the fame of scholarship, widely publihed and recognized.
I beg to differ, it was scholar who first introduced Young on this board and this was before COJ referred to him at Channel C and if my memory is correct it was only the context of COJ mentioning the names of scholars who supported 587 BCE. Scholar was also the first person who introduced the concept of Methodology as a requisite in Chronology and came across Young's articles which elaborated for the first time in scholarship this subject.
scholar JW
isaacaustin

'scholal', wake up from your delsuions. There is no 7 Gentile Times. It is simply not in the Bible.
MrFreeze

The whole point scholar is that they base the accuracy of 1914 on 607. That's the ONLY reason 1914 is even the year they went with. Why don't you provide some EVIDENCE of your claims besides punking out and essentially saying "Just because"? Why would God be happy with 607 if his "organization" is lieing about the reason 607 would be important and using that false information to lead millions to believe something false? Are you telling me that God is happy is organization is lieing? That sounds EXACTLY like what you are telling me. Why are you even posting here? Doesn't your GB tell you not to go on apostate websites or do you only pick and choose which things you want to listen to?
10p

So where does the 537 BCE date come from?
Where did 1874 come from?
Does anyone have CT Russell's own words about how he says he got the 1914 date?
PSacramento

Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE because it pays...
Actually, God is NOt ahppy with anyone making up dates or chaging verifiable events because they make up a date and wnat it to be legit.
God is also NOT happy with the WT for going over his "head" and marking a date when God AND his SON said thet ONLY GOD knows the day.
God is also NOT happy with the WT and JW's for calling him a name created by a RC priest in medivel Christendom.
Jesus himself reminds us of what is written by his words "only my father in Heaven knows" and what is written by Luke in ACTS Chapter 1.
AnnOMaly

Are you saying that Jehovah is not the God of True Prophecy and has no interest in Prophecy or its Revelation?
Red herring to avoid sustantiating the statement, "Jehovah is very happy with 607 BCE ..."
Read the literature published by apostates, scoffers and higher critics and examine their attitude towards the Bible.
Sweeping generalization to avoid acknowledging that Bible-believing scholars with the utmost respect for the Scriptures disagree with the WT chronology for good reason.
There is nothing erroneous about the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE for the events at that time and since proves the matter.
Repeated baseless assertion.
Yes you can use an imperfect chronology adjusted by twenty years because all chronologies are imperfect or in short, fallible. All of the pieces do indeed fit together and that is why Bible chronology works whereas others fail.
Pure delusion, Neil. The pieces don't fit together if there's a 20 year hole where the edges of the WT chronology and secular chronology don't meet up! 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem cannot be "firmly established" using a secular chronology which already firmly establishes that 607 BCE was Nabopolassar's 19th regnal year and Nebuchadnezzar was still crown prince!
Your chronology trivializes the Bible, ignores prophecy and theology ...
It has been shown to you ad nauseum that this is not the case. You're too bull-headed and too much of a "celebrated WT scholars" worshipper to see it.
... it indeed at the very least has a margin of error of at least one year but it is worse than that because at least twenty years is manifest.
WT chronology has a discrepancy of 20 years. Secular/Bible chronology has, at most, 1 - thereby making the latter the most harmonious with ALL the available evidence.
What I am saying is that Young is a scholar who has written ground-breaking articles on the importance of Methodology in the construction of Chronology. His efforts are to be commended but as yet his chronology remains his opinion and his conclusions thereof have not received acclamation from other serious scholars who enjoy the fame of scholarship, widely publihed and recognized.
Oh that's just horse-hooey and you know it. 587 is widely recognized along with 586. I refer you to:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/194806/1/Library-Visit-2-607-BCE-vs-587-BCE-With-Pictures
and
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/107943/1/listing-of-authorities-and-their-date-for-the-fall-of-Jerusalem
I beg to differ, it was scholar who first introduced Young on this board and this was before COJ referred to him at Channel C and if my memory is correct it was only the context of COJ mentioning the names of scholars who supported 587 BCE. Scholar was also the first person who introduced the concept of Methodology as a requisite in Chronology and came across Young's articles which elaborated for the first time in scholarship this subject.
That was carefully worded in another attempt to elevate yourself but still it doesn't overturn the truth of my statement. You had dialogues with COJ in 2004 about 587/586 on ChannelC. I know for fact that COJ knew of Young's article in 2004. You introduced the article to JWD/JWN in October 2005 (laughably mis-named and mis-referenced on your part!). And I thanked you in February 2006 for the unique experience of something useful (Young's article) coming from one of your Touchstone forum posts. But then, I can't expect your memory to have improved since your erroneous assertion that AlanF agreed with you about your claims regarding the John Aquila Brown issue, can I?
scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 1394
If Jehovah is not happy with 607 BCE so pray tell what date is he happy with?
Methinks this is no sweeping generalization but an astute observation on the scholarly literature published over many decades for the simple fact is that most modern scholars subscribe to 'higher criticism'.
No baseless assertion is necessary for the events of modern history confirm the fact of the matter.
Delusion not needed but simply the use of a chronology to suit ones own purposes. If I choose to use Babylonian chronology with a slight adjustment of twenty years then I have every right to do so provided I make such methodology apparent to all.
Your chronology does indeed ignore theology and prophecy for one only has to read such presentations of such chronology to see its 'dead-end aspect'. This is nicely confirmed in COJ's criticism of the Gentile Times and his presentation of secular chronology.
WT chronology has indeed a difference of some twenty years when compared to secular chronology but then all chronologies differ from each other and that is to be expected from different chronologies. Further, your chronology is out by far more than one year because if it is compared to others there are rather significant differences.
the date 586 is more widely endorsed by serious scholars than 587 and this is because of the recognition paid to Edwin Thiele who championed 586 rather than the apostate's date of 587.
I did have a debate with COJ some years ago on Channel C regarding 586/587 and he may have made a brief not of Rodger Young's support of 587 but the issue at hand is who first of all introduced the substance of Young's articles which was Methodology and its importance in Chronology and this was first introduced by scholar who first of all raised the imnportance of this which was later confirmed by Young's seminal articles. Take a bow scholar!
scholar JW
hotspur

If Jehovah is not happy with 607 BCE so pray tell what date is he happy with?
That's an easy one..... the date he alone has set and knows! Don't forget Jesus stated he (Son of Man) doesn't know.... so why would the WTS know and reveal it? Delusional to the extreme.
the issue at hand is who first of all introduced the substance of Young's articles which was Methodology and its importance in Chronology
Smoke and mirrors! The issue at hand is where did 607 come from? Something you've still NEVER verified with any degree of veracity.... nor will you ever! Don't forget there is the issue of Pyramidolgy you have to factor in when coming to your conclusion of 607BCE or will you miss that out too - as if the book "Divine Plan of the Ages" was never written?
Oh - as thread stealer, just when were the WT Scholars celebrated (and by whom) if you're so into Chronology? Indeed. Should they have been celebrated at all?
AnnOMaly

If Jehovah is not happy with 607 BCE so pray tell what date is he happy with?
I wouldn't presume to speak for Him, Neil. However, if He is the God of Truth and He hates lies and falsehoods - and 607 BCE being claimed as the date of Jerusalem's destruction is a provable falsehood - then logically ...
Methinks this is no sweeping generalization but an astute observation on the scholarly literature published over many decades for the simple fact is that most modern scholars subscribe to 'higher criticism'.
There. You did it again - made another sweeping generalization which does nothing to uphold your previous sweeping generalizations.
Delusion not needed but simply the use of a chronology to suit ones own purposes. If I choose to use Babylonian chronology with a slight adjustment of twenty years then I have every right to do so provided I make such methodology apparent to all.
Ah well said, Neil. I pretty much agree. This is just what we've been telling you all along: the WTS simply adjusts and uses a chronology to suit its own purposes - never mind the adjustment resulting in a big 20 year unfillable, historical void. Its own purposes involves keeping alive the myth surrounding the prophetic significance of 1914 and the 1919 'appointment' doctrine.
But if 'using and adjusting a Babylonian chronology to suit one's own purposes' hasn't been done because of a delusion, as you suggest above, then the alternative must be that it was done out of a deliberate, calculated, cynical attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes, wouldn't you say? Sure, you can stretch and manipulate a chronology for your own ends if you so wish, and you can make your "methodology" apparent to all as much as you like, but it doesn't magically make it valid nor does it entitle you to promote it as Truth. So what would you rather we think, huh? A deluded Organization or a deliberately misleading Organization?
As for the rest of your post - it's been dealt with already and you're only spouting more silly nonsense. Thank you, however, for acknowledging that COJ 'may have' tipped you off about the Young article after all. It's a pity that, in the end, the article didn't benefit you one jot because you're of the same benighted opinion as you were before you'd heard of it. C'est la vie.
PSacramento

RE: Dates- from the NWT:
ACTS 1:
Acts 1:1-26
1 The first account, O The·oph´i·lus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach, 2 until the day that he was taken up, after he had given commandment through holy spirit to the apostles whom he chose. 3 To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God. 4 And while he was meeting with them he gave them the orders: “Do not withdraw from Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which YOU heard from me; 5 because John, indeed, baptized with water, but YOU will be baptized in holy spirit not many days after this.”
6 When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction; 8 but YOU will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon YOU , and YOU will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Ju·de´a and Sa·mar´i·a and to the most distant part of the earth.” 9 And after he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision. 10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them, 11 and they said: “Men of Gal´i·lee, why do YOU stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.”

Where did 607 come from?

Share this