Has anyone read this article? I am not familiar enough with the topic to debunk it. They basically accuse the historical record of being unreliable.
I'm surprised it was even discussed. Part 2 comes out next month!
Oct public Wt article about 587/607
by dontplaceliterature 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Crisis of Conscience
My SIL called my wife about this, as she knows I have questioned it. I will read part 1 tonight.
However, it should be no surprise but rather long overdue. Of course most JWs won't look at any other sources. So sad.
CoC
-
allelsefails
Debunking their reasoning is super simple. 2 lines of thought.
They accept 539 BC as the Babylonian destruction because of the secular evidence, They reject the EXACT SAME evidence in denying 587BCE.
Also do a search of 70 years in the bible. There are several different scriptures that mention the 70 years prophecy. They all say something different about the 70 years. There are 2 that indicate some "destruction" of Jerusalem the others all refer to Babylon "ruling" over these kings (609 - 539) or the destruction and rebuilding of the temple (587 - 516). It is not hard to show the bible does not insist on their "607 BCE" theories.
-
Black Sheep
“It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable,” writes Leo Depuydt, one of Ptolemy’s most enthusiastic defenders, “but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.” Regarding this list of kings, Professor Depuydt adds: “As regards the earlier rulers [who included the Neo-Babylonian kings], the Canon would need to be compared with the cuneiform record on a reign by reign basis.”6
L. Depuydt: "More Valuable than all Gold": Ptolemy's Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology PDF
-
garyneal
From that Watchtower:
However, further questions remain. Is there really no historical evidence to support the Bible-based date of 607 B.C.E.? What evidence is revealed by datable cuneiform documents, many of which were written by ancient eyewitnesses? We will consider these questions in our next issue.
Ah, grasping for straws I see. Got to publish something to keep the sheeple in line.
-
-
dozy
This is the first attempt for many years that the WTBTS has made an effort at trying to support this date with some sort of secular proof. Next months article should be interesting with "historical evidence" to support 607 BCE ( maybe they should send a copy to the British Museum and all the experts who have "evidently" got the date wrong all these years ). The initial article is basically a rubbishing of Ptomely and Berossus and trying to create enough confusion to blur matters.
Notice the classic Wathtowerisms - " why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E" , Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. “According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted."
Why hasn't Scholar popped up yet commending the celebrated Watchtower scholars for their masterly analysis?
-
St George of England
Quite a bit of discussion yesterday:
George
-
Alfred
They probably paid some historians a big load of money to "quote" them in the next WT mag...: "oh yeah, us historians have always felt that 70 years of servitude equals 70 years of desolation" ... Cha-ching ... The WT wins and the historians wins. Ok, maybe I'm running ahead of the FDS again... Let's just wait for the article and see what they came up with this time...
-
cantleave
They probably paid some historians a big load of money to "quote" them in the next WT mag
They just took words out of context more like!