Question about 607/587

by drewcoul 40 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • drewcoul

    I am not an expert on this issue. I have read and re-read information about it, but I guess I am somewhat dense when it comes to this topic.

    My question is simple: The Watchtower suggests that they believe the Bible is the unerring word or God. That it must be believed above anything else. Does Jerusalem's destruction in 587 counter what the Bible says? If not, why does the WT suggest that believing in 587 goes against what the bible says?

  • Alfred

    Because this would screw up their made-up chronology that points to 1914 as the year Jesus took the throne followed by 3.5 years later (1918/1919) when Jesus inspected all the churches and chose the Watchtower as the only true religion on earth...

    But I suggest you search numerous subjects already posted on this subject... also, read "Gentile Times Reconsidered" for a more in-depth explanation....

  • drewcoul

    Alfred, I know it would screw up their 1914/1918/1919 extrapolation. However, if Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, does it contradict what the Bible says? I know there is a lot of information about it, but I can only seem to find information that seems to prove the 587 date. My question, more simply put, is: What is the WTS stated reasoning for 587 not being consistent with the bible? How is 587 actually consistent with what the Bible says?

  • sabastious
    If not, why does the WT suggest that believing in 587 goes against what the bible says?

    The Watchtower asserts that a 587 bce date conflicts with the Bible's depiction of a 70 year Babylonish enslavement of the Jews. The problem with their explanation is that they use a 539 bce mathmatical secular starting date while ignoring field data from the same secular sources for a 587 Jewish exodus from Babylon.

    Either the Bible or Archeology is providing false history.


  • leavingwt

    Let this sink in:

    There are no dates in the Bible. Therefore, we have a relative chronology.

  • Alfred

    Sorry Drew... (didn't mean to insult anyone's intelligence... iwas just my humble 2 cents)

    But to answer your question... no it doesn't... the Bible is clear... 70 years or servitude means 70 years of servitude...

    one question the WT won't answer is... If there was 70 years of servitude, which Babilonian king were the Jews serving between 539 BCE and 537 BCE? I've sent letters to Brooklyn several times asking this very basic question and have only received one response which compltetely dodged the question...

  • cedars

    drewcoul - I think they say that for two reasons.

    Firstly, it interferes with the 1914 extrapolation.

    Secondly, they claim that 587 contradicts the "seventy year" exile of the Jews. If the Jews returned home in 537 (or thereabouts), it is claimed that the exile must automatically have begun 70 years prior to that. However, there are a number of lines of argument to suggest that it isn't that simple. For one thing, Jeremiah's original prophecy was that Israel AND the surrounding nations would be in servitude for seventy years, and NOT NECESSARILY exile beyond their borders. Also, numbers are deeply symbolic, and the word "seventy" must be approached from an ancient Jewish perspective, and not from a modern western date-obsessed perspective.

    I wish I could give a more detailed answer, but I have yet to throughly scrutinize the excellent "Critique of When Was Ancient Jeruslaem Destroyed" by Doug Mason (PM me if you want a link to the download). The truth is, I can't get excited enough about the subject because I no longer believe in the 1914 chronology anyway.

    Hope that is helpful.

  • designs

    There were two major Babylonian military campaigns into the Judean area at those times mentioned. The first campaign took place around the years of 610-606 and the Babylonian army engaged not only Judea but Syria and Egyptian armies. The final campaign was the 587 one. The Society has always treated the first campign as the decisive battle of Jerusalem whereas history recognizes the later date.

  • leavingwt

    Another thing to keep in mind:

    Even IF the date of 607 BCE is correct, WHY should anyone connect the Book of Daniel to the Book of Luke?

  • drewcoul

    Alfred, No need to apologize.....I wasn't insulted. I have just had trouble muddling through all the information to get to what I am really interested in.

    SAB- are you saying that the WT is correct to say that the archaeology doesn't coincide with the scriptures?

    I have never heard of the 70 years being symbolic before.....Interesting.

Share this