need help re 607 date

by hosebracket 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hosebracket

  Hi all

  I am new to this.

  I have a problem. Someone on my ministry asked me about the date that we hold so dear....607 BCE and asked me to prove it to them. This would not be a problem I thought as the F&DS would have solid basis for using such a date. Welll I looked at the encyclopedias at the back of the hall and every single one said that the first fall of Jerusalem was in 587 BCE. I then got in touch with the British Museum and they said the same thing. I even asked them if this date could be wrong and they replied "no" as the evidence is overwhelming. I have to return to this person to answer the question. To be hnest I dont think that I have a case.

  Hose bracket
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Hosebracket, I don't think you have a case, either. There was a very detailed post concerning research done on this date over on Witnet some months ago. All of the research indicated that 607 B.C.E. was a bogus date with almost no support from ANY Bible scholars or historians.

  I'm sure that others here can give you the specific references that were used to negate the use of this date.
• 

  trevor

  There is no support for this date whatsoever. Any encyclopaedia can be checked to verify the true date as 586 BCE.Read Raymond Franz' book 'Crisis of Conscience' available through Amazon web site. R.Franz was responsible for researching this topic for the 'Aid' book.

  As the WT has built it's house of card based on this date and counted forward 2,520 years to 1914 then distorted Biblical text to count 3 & 1/2 years to 1919 they cannot now admit their mistake.What would become of their many applications of prophecy regarding the witnesses lain dead on the Broadway, or the resurection to heaven in 1919 of their chosen members in place of the faithfull men of old .Their house of cards would collapse if this error became common knowledge amoung their members.

  How can a group of men claim Divine guidence and say they are God's only channel of communication with humans and then make such an obbvious mistake. A second grade schoolboy could have done better.But then again the WT does not encourage education!

  All those who believe that Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE despite having never sought confirmation of the TRUTH of this false date say Baaaah!

  Trevor

  Edited by - trevor on 7 January 2001 10:8:40

  Edited by - trevor on 7 January 2001 10:12:7
• 

  Snowball

  This was one of the biggest issues that led me out of the WTS. I spent months researching history for some kind of proof that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. Needless to say, I got very disillusioned.

  The archaeological evidence of 587 is concrete. The Neo-Babylonian dynasty is one of the most well-documented eras in ancient history.

  So, I started looking more internnally to see what the WTS has taught on the matter. I read Studies In the Scriptures and other old books and came to realize that the doctrine has evolved dramatically over the last century. The whole chronology thing was adopted from the Adventists when Russell met Nelson Barbour as a young man. They origginnally thought that Jerusalem fell in 606 due to their ignorance of how to use math in the counting of years. 1914 and the Gentile Times was only a small part in the elaborate puzzle of Parrallel Dispensations, which outlined correlating periods of years in biblical times to matching year periods in modern times. The whole plan of God was supposed to be proven by measuring the Great Pyramid. 1914 was supposed to be the furthest limit of the rule of mankind on Earth. When that didnt happen it was later re-interpreted as the start of the last days (which was previously held in 1799).

  I also carefully read the Bible to see if it supported the 607 date. It soon became apparent that the WTS had made a drastic mistake in thinking that Jeremiahs 70-year prophecy was foretelling a 70-year desolation of Judah. The Bible strongly indicates that this prophecy relates to a 70-year period of Babylon as a world power, which would allow the historic figure of about 50 years that Jerusalem was uninhabited. I also mailed some Jewish historians who agreed that the Babylonian exile was for about 50 years. The WTS constantly refers to historian Josephus figure of 70 years, but fails to ever mention that Josephus had corrected himself in his last writing down to 50 years. I found that the Bible and established history are in harmony on this account. The WTS teachings cause several blundering inconsistencies with the Bible, among the foremost I noticed was the acount of Gedaliah. I shake my head with disbelief that I followed such faulty doctrine for so long.

  After my disfellowshipping, I started reading books by ex-JWs that corroborated my findings. As to be expected, I found I was certainly not the first JW to figure these things out! The most comprehensive book on the subject is Carl Olaf Jonsens' :The Gentile Times Reconsidered. His other book: The Sign Of The Last Days- When? is also excellent. Get these books at http://www.commentarypress.com

  Happy reading!

  Wayne Rogers
• 

  scholar

  Hosebracket, You should feel very confident about 607 BCE as the Society has provided much information that has both a simple methodology of reckoning and is consistent with biblical exegesis. I have read with much interest much information posted on the net in relation to this most conroversial topic. Our critics have compiled scholarly treatises on this subject but the position of the society is sound. The reason why one can be confident is that this date is reckoned with a biblical perspective. One must be extremely cautious in matters of biblical chronology as scholars agree on very little in respect to this subject. For example, scholars cannot agree as to whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 and cannot agree as to the length of the reigns for Judah and israel. Witness scholars who bave both the academic and theocratic experience are most interested in this debate and are only to willing to be of assistance.
  scholar
• 

  thinkers wife

  Welcome Scholar. Where is the proof for 607?
  TW
• 

  Snowball

  Hello Scholar,

  I can understand your desire to view the WTS writings on chronology to be scholarly, I used to believe so myself. But have you truly checked into all the research? Have you traced the historical evolution of the Gentile Times theory? There are several theological problems that arise with the 70-year desolation theory, are you aware of them? Can you explain why the WTS fails to honestly adress the real issues of the critics?

  I am sure that you regard the lengthy information in the Aid/Insight book as credible reliable information. Are you aware that Ray Franz was the writer/researcher of that info? Ray has told of how he became aware of how weak the 607 date was when researching for the Aid book, but feelings of loyalty to the WTS motivated him to defend the WT interpretation at all costs. Later, a Swwedish elder, Carl Olaf Jonsen sent a massive research packet to Bethel outlining exactly why 607 was an erroneous date. Ray was quite impressed with the depth of this research, and it covered many of the things he discovered himself. So, you see, the most scholarly work that the WTS has produced on the 607 chronology, was writen by a man who does not even believe what he wrote himself.

  It would behoove you to look further into this issue. But be warned that you may not like what you discover. I certainly did not want to believe that I had put all my faith into an error, but intellectual honesty is important to me, as I am sure it is to you.

  I have come to accept that the only real reason for accepting 607 is if you are trying to 'prove' that 1914 is the fulfillment of some biblical prophecy.

  My recomendations to you are to read Carl's books: "The Gentile Times Reconsidered", and "The Sign Of The Last Days- When?". You can order them on http://www.commentarypress.com . At least know what the issues are before criticizing them. If you have any valid arguments after reading these books I would certainly like to hear them.

  Another thing you should do is analyse the scriptural context in the Bible and see if you are able to recognise how the 70-year desolation theory creates many scriptural problems. I'm not gonna tell you what they are right now. I want to see if you can find them yourself.

  Happy searching!

  Wayne Rogers
• 

  logical

  Scholar:

  Deviating slightly, but still related

  I was at the Daniel book study (during the lunar eclipse i REALLY wanted to see and Im sure Jehovah wouldnt have minded a break in a study to see his WONDERFUL creation at work) and the 1914 was brought back up.

  Now I had read somewhere why did they not take the three and a half times (1260 days) "a day for a year" as they did with the 7 times? I cannot get a reasonable explanation as to this from the book "Pay Attention to Daniels Prophecy"

  What gives them the right to convert 7 times into 2,520 years, yet 3 1/2 times into 1,260 days? Which is right? Surely if they insist on using the Ezekiel scripture (Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34)

  28 Since the "seven times" are prophetic, we must apply to the 2,520 days the Scriptural rule "A day for a year" - Pay Attention to Daniels Prophecy, Chapter 6

  Therefore according to WT thinking, then the three and a half times should amount to 1,260 YEARS and not days as they say.

  Also, just because of the similarities of the prophecy of the three and a half times (1260 days) in Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 doesnt mean that they are the same prophecy. Daniel 12:7 is referring to the Great Tribulation? and Daniel 7:25 is talking about harassment under the rule of the 4th beast. Are these two events the same? Again, the book is cleverly avoiding the subject and answering with trickery.

  Either that or Im just one of the bad guys not able to understand the "Truth" due to being evil and set aside for destruction, a goat.

  Edited by - logical on 11 January 2001 12:59:55
• 

  scholar

  My reply to Hosebracket's dilemna brought a mixed response and sadly indicates accuracy in these comments. It is incorrect to say that there is overwhelming evidence for 587. Other scholars prefer 586, so how can such dates be factual. The bottom line is that any chronology in respect to dating the fall of Jerusalem is based on interpretation and methodology. The scholar therfore is subjective in his analysis of all of the evidence. One has only to read scholarly works such as Carl Jonsson's 'Gentile Times Reconsidered'(First edition,suppl.,Second edition) to see this complex subject as a hypothesis. It reflects the opinion of its author. Similarly you have the 'Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings' written by a Seventh Day Adventist scholar, Edwin R. Thiele which also is a hypotheical chronology for the monarchies of Judah and Israel. The society in its wisdom have presented a simple, historical and scriptural methodolgy for dating the fall of Jerusalem as nicely explained in the literature. In this age of 'higher criticism' it is pleasing to see that with the aid of secular chronologies based upon eclipses and the Babylonian records can brings us to within a striking distance of some twenty years to 607.
  The secular date of 586 or 587 in its own way confirms the validity of a scripturally reckoned date of 607. I make this somewhat surprising statement because there are some scholars who regard the chronology in the old testament as symbolic or mythical.

  scholar

  econsideredta
• 

  Deacon

  I can say with absolute certainty that 607 is a date.....