drewcoul - I have PMd you, but here is the thread from which Doug Mason's critique can be downloaded. I found it to be very well written and researched.
Question about 607/587
by drewcoul 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AnnOMaly
The 607 thing also goes back to the insistence that Judah's '70 years' was a period of 'desolation, without an inhabitant' and that, as far as the WTS' understanding goes, only began once Zedekiah was dethroned, Jerusalem destroyed and the land made uninhabited. 2 Chron 36:21 and Dan 9:2 are used to support this notion, along with the Dan 4 tree dream as support for the idea that the 'tree' (i.e. God's kingdom as represented on earth) was chopped down when the last king of Judah was removed.
-
mythreesons
LeavingWT said....Let this sink in:
There are no dates in the Bible. Therefore, we have a relative chronology.
That is a great point, so why try to make a square peg go into a round hole. It doesn't matter does it? It's just a made up way to try to show everyone else....see, WE are the only right way, because WE say so.
I always thought it was a bit 'out there' when I went to the hall to make these claims on dates. Especially when explanations include...."lunar years" as opposed to normal years....blah, blah, blah. But then try to make it fit.
-
wobble
If I remember right, the 70 years of servitude to Babylon applies to a number of nations mentioned by Jeremiah, not to Judah alone.
Assuming this was meant as a literal figure, the 70 years, it could be taken to run from 609BCE to Babylon's fall in 539BCE. without arguing with known history.
The thing is with 607BCE nothing (unuasually for those times) happened that year.
The WT's slavish adherence to an errant chronology and a heavily contrived prophetic formula they inherited from the Millerites is quite laughable in the face of the evidence.
Not that evidence bothers the WT, if the evidence contradicts their weird interpretation of scripture and history, then the evidence will be proved wrong in the future, they say.
The thing is, since before ChazzerRussell wrote his looney stuff, historians have said 587/586 for Jerusalem's destruction, the evidence has stood for over 130 years, longer than even an overlapping generation.
-
PSacramento
LWT has made TWO crucial points:
There are no dates in the bible ( as such you need secular dating to get any date)
There is no reason to connect Daniel with Luke.
As for looking for dates and trying to calculate when Christ will come or the "end of days", we have this from Christ himself:
ACTS 1:6-7
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
Christ tells us NOT to try an find out/guess/calculate things that are of God and not of men.
-
cedars
Assuming this was meant as a literal figure, the 70 years, it could be taken to run from 609BCE to Babylon's fall in 539BCE. without arguing with known history.
Doug Mason argues successfully in his critique that the 70-year servitude (whether you consider this the actual exile or not) ended when Cyrus captured Babylon, because Babylon collapsed as a world power as a result of this event. How could the Babylonian Empire STILL be holding God's people in servitude two years later when it no longer actually existed? This alone is powerful argument against 607 BCE.
-
garyneal
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?
As LWT said, there are no dates in the Bible. In order to extrapolate any dates one must use extra biblical sources. This is important.
As someone else already pointed out, scholars and celebrated WT scholars agree to 539 B.C.E. as the capture of Babylon by the neo-persians while denying the same sources that give us 587 B.C.E. for the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. You cannot deny one (587) without denying the other (539).
-
Yan Bibiyan
Even IF the date of 607 BCE is correct, WHY should anyone connect the Book of Daniel to the Book of Luke?
Ugh..c'mon now LWT, because the Bible is the inerrant word of God, it is all color coordinated by God himself and it couldn't have been written by some regular folk based on a story of a story of a story of a story of a story of a tale that someone told their children to make them behave....
-
diamondiiz
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?
Bible has no dates so any dates in the bible are dependent on historians. There is plenty of evidence for 587/6 BC and none for 607BC date. The reason why WTS suggests 587 goes against the bible is because without 607BC they cannot teach that Jesus returned, they cannot teach that we are in the last days, they cannot teach that you better get your ass out in service because the end is so close and you are doing GB's work who are representatives of Jesus on earth BECAUSE FDS (represented by GB) was chosen in 1919 mainly due to 1914. Without 607BC, GB has no authority other than they are self appointed assholes ruining peoples lives.
-
sabastious
are you saying that the WT is correct to say that the archaeology doesn't coincide with the scriptures?
^ I asked a similar question about a month ago.
-Sab