Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Londo111

    Dear Brothers and Sisters,

    I address you, those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, those of you who believe that Scripture should settle all matters. You are reading this, because you, like I was, are wondering if the claims about 607 BC are true or false. Else, you are reading this because you are an apologist, but I've yet to see an apologist that will calmly and rationally give a sound argument.

    Let's be honest. If 607 BC is wrong, then 1914 is wrong, and so is the appointment of a Slave in 1918/1919 over all Christ's belongings. That is the crux of the matter. That is why 607 BC is so heavily defending. That is why you are reading this.

    Brothers and Sisters, I was 39 years old when I discovered the truth about 607 BC. I would not give up a major belief that I held for over three decades on a whim, a lie, a half truth, or a misrepresentation. Be sure I did the due diligence. All I am asking is that you do the same.

    For, what is the Year Text for 2012? "Your Word is Truth".

    1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."

    1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world."

    Acts 17:11 says, "Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so."

    If you examine the Scriptures, if you test this teaching, if you make sure of the matter, Jehovah God will NOT be angry with you. On the contrary, you will be doing what he commands. He will view you as noble-minded. Testing the Watchtower Society is not the same as testing God. And if a human institution or teacher proclaims to be God's messenger, we must test them MORE, not LESS. Read Habakkuk 1: Jehovah invites questions, those who are insecure do not.

    All articles in defense of Jerusalem being destroyed in 607 BC are presented with a false choice: believe every secular scholar (historians, archeologists) that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/587 BC OR believe the Bible says that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. But is this true?

    Here are some useful links on the matter:

    Here are my notes. I know I've posted these in several places on this site already (including the last link), and I know they are not perfect, but I am open to correction. I invite questions. If I cannot answer your question, there are several experts here that certainly can.

    # # #

    According to what we've been taught, the 70 years ended in 537 BCE when the Jews returned to Jerusalem--2 years after 539 BCE, when Cyrus overtook Babylon. Therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of Jerusalem and Exile at Babylon:

    537 BCE - 70 years = 607 BCE.

    Is this true Biblically?

    Jeremiah 25:12, says "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite."

    When was the king of Babylon called into account? Daniel 9:26-28 says, "ME´NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it. TE´KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. PE´RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians."

    So the ending point of the 70 years is 539 BCE.

    539 BCE - 70 years = 609 BCE

    What happened in 609 BCE? "The Babylonians defeat the Assyrian army of Ashur-uballit II and capture Harran. Ashur-uballit, the last Assyrian king, disappears from history." So logically the 70 year period that Jeremiah foretells is the period of Babylon's Dominance of the region and the lands roundabout, from the time Assyria's last stronghold was captured, until Babylon fell to Cyrus.

    In the NWT, Jeremiah 29:10 says: “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

    However, other modern translations, like the ESV, says, “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."

    Professor Ernst Jenni, a Hebrew scholar says, "The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g. Num. 11, 10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151)."

    Therefore, the Jews did not serve AT Babylon 70 years, they were to be subservient and obedient to Babylon the world power (in essence there Superior Authority at the time) for 70 years.

    Daniel 9:1 mentions the "desolations of Jerusalem" during the 70 years. During this time good king Josiah was killed, Egypt installed a puppet king, and then Babylon came and installed a puppet king, and when he rebelled, they installed another. Meanwhile the temple and city was looted. The surrounding land and crops were devastated by both Egyptian and Babylonian armies. There were at least 3 waves of deportation to Babylon. Finally, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, after a two and a half year siege, and everyone went into Exile.

    What is more, there is no Scriptural evidence that the Jews returned in 537 BC. Ezra 1:1 says,"And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia…" And Ezra 3:1 says, "When the seventh month arrived the sons of Israel were in [their] cities. And the people began to gather themselves as one man to Jerusalem."

    From Ezra's timeline, a plain reading would indicate that the first regnal year would be Nissan 538 BC, and therefore, they returned by the 7 th month, Tishri 538 BC. Therefore, the return does NOT seem to have been 537 BC…there is no scripture that indicates this.

    20 years after the exile, Zechariah and Haggai raised up to stir the people to rebuild the temple which is still in ruins. Haggai was written in 520 BCE and the first wave of Jews had returned 18 years earlier.

    Haggai 2:3 says, "‘Who is there among YOU that is remaining over who saw this house in its former glory? And how are YOU people seeing it now? Is it not, in comparison with that, as nothing in YOUR eyes?’"

    If the temple were destroyed in 607 BCE, how old would Haggai's audience be that they would remember the temple in its glory days? If the temple was destroyed in 587/586, how old would the audience be? It is more plausible that Haggai is referencing 70-somethings, not 90-somethings.

    Zechariah 7:1-5: 'Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Da·ri´us the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zech·a·ri´ah, on the fourth [day] of the ninth month, [that is,] in Chis´lev. And Beth´el proceeded to send Shar·e´zer and Re´gem-mel´ech and his men to soften the face of Jehovah, saying to the priests who belonged to the house of Jehovah of armies, and to the prophets, even saying: “Shall I weep in the fifth month, practicing an abstinence, the way I have done these O how many years?” And the word of Jehovah of armies continued to occur to me, saying: “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When YOU fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did YOU really fast to me, even me?'

    The fourth year of Darius is 518 BC.

    518 BC - 70 years = 588 BC (which leads us in the middle of Babylon's final two and a half year siege from 589-587 BC.)

    This 70 years is therefore not the same as the 70 years of Babylon's Dominance.

    Again, to confirm this Zechariah 1.

    Verses 7, 8:On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, that is, the month She´bat, in the second year of Da·ri´us, the word of Jehovah occurred to Zech·a·ri´ah the son of Ber·e·chi´ah the son of Id´do the prophet, saying:“I saw [in] the night, and, look! a man riding on a red horse, and he was standing still among the myrtle trees that were in the deep place; and behind him there were horses red, bright red, and white.”

    Therefore this is 520 BC.

    Verses 11, 12:And they proceeded to answer the angel of Jehovah who was standing among the myrtle trees and to say: “We have walked about in the earth, and, look! the whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?”

    520 BC - 70 years = 590 BC (the year before Babylon's final two and a half year siege)

    In harmony with this, in Against Apion I, 21, Josephus says,"This statement is both correct and in accordance with our books [that is, the Holy Scriptures]. For in the latter it is recorded that Nabochodonosor in the eighteenth year of his reign devastated our temple, that for fifty years it ceased to exist, that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and lastly that in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed."

    2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 is often used as a prooftext that there was a 70-year exile. It says, "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

    Some read this to indicate that the land had to pay 70 years worth of Sabbaths. However, I feel the text is better interpreted that the land paid off its Sabbaths UNTIL the 70 years were up. During the 70 years, all nations roundabout, including Judah, were to serve Babylon. Unfortunately, Judah kept rebelling. And the subsequent sieges during this time (by Egypt and Babylon, who evidently besieged Jerusalem 3 times) devastated the land. If Zedekiah had not rebelled against Babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened. However, Zedekiah did not listen to Jeremiah and all the nation had to serve out the rest of the 70 years in Exile.

    Let me illustrate it this way: A substitute teacher oversees a classroom of children and her class is to last 70 minutes. During the 70 minutes, the children are to be respectful and submissive to her. However, for 20 minutes, Johnny keeps misbehaving. Finally, the teacher sends Johnny to the principle's office and sits in time out, until the 70 minutes are completed. Then he is allowed to return.

    I believe the mention of Sabbath's has to do with the Jubilee cycle. In the Law, a poor Israelite might go into debt and have to sell his field. Now a wealthier Israelite might purchase that field, but every seventh year was a Sabbath in which the land was given a rest. This cycle of Sabbath years occurred 7 times--for a period of 49 years. The 50th year was the Jubilee year. Hereditary land was returned. Slaves were set free. It was a year of Goodwill.

    Similarly, this relates exactly what happened with the Exile. In 587 BC, Judah lost its hereditary possession and went into slavery. Seven Sabbath years transpired--49 years. Then in the Jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them

    # # #

    Therefore, we find two competing interpretations of the 70 Years of Jeremiah.

    (1) From 607 BC to 537 BC (held to be regarding the Jewish Exile at Babylon)

    (2) From 609 BC to 539 BC (held to be regarding Babylon's period of Dominance)

    If you are still once the fence between these two interpretations, the question becomes: Which interpretation of the Scriptures does the archeological and historical evidence support?

    In his book, The Gentile Times Reconsiders, Brother Carl Olaf Jonson presents 17 lines of evidence that prove Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC.

    Here are some things for you to research:

    (1) Early historians, the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, and the Uruk kinglist
    (2) Inscriptions Nabon. No.18 and Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah stele)
    (3) Nabon. H 1, B (the Adad-guppi’ stele)
    (4) Economic-administrative and legal documents [numbering in the tens of thousands]
    (5) Prosopographical evidence
    (6) Chronological interlocking joints
    (7) Synchronisms with the contemporary Egyptian chronology
    (8) The Astronomical diary VAT 4956
    (9) The astronomical diary B.M. 32312
    (10) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813
    (11) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417
    (12) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1419
    (13) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420
    (14) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421
    (15) LBAT 1415
    (16) Lunar eclipse Text no. 5 in Hunger, ADT V.
    (17) Text no. 52 in Hunger, ADT V.
    (18) Planetary tablet, SBTU IV 171

    PLEASE consider VAT 4956 if nothing else, which pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37 th year. It forms an astronomical fingerprint that lists of Babylonian planetary and lunar observations that occurred over a year's time and could only describe one year in human history. Once you have that, it is a simple matter of going back to his 18 th year, the year he destroyed Jerusalem.

    In regard these astronomical texts: the sky does not lie.

    For more discussions regarding the evidence for 587 BC see:

    My Christian Love to all of you,


  • TJ Curioso
    TJ Curioso

    Thanks Londo111!

    I invite you all to visit this site and to read the article with the theme:


    Here is only the introduction:


    The date 1914 A.D. has played a dominant role in the eschatology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from its inception in 1879 with the writings of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. For over a hundred years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been teaching that 1914 marks the conclusion of a prophetic time period they call “the Times of the Gentiles” or “appointed times of the nations” which they claim began with the fall of Jerusalem in 607/606 B.C.

    Prior to 1914, Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaimed that the end of this period would culminate in the destruction of all earthly governments in the “Battle of Armageddon.” 1. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, it seemed to them that such prophetic declarations by the Watchtower Society were indeed being fulfilled and that the new system of things under Christ’s millennial reign of 1,000 years was just around the corner. Heralding such statements, Jehovah’s Witnesses flocked to the streets, urging prospective converts to join the Watchtower organization in order to avoid the impending doom that they claimed would occur near this date.

    When Christ failed to appear in 1914 and World I failed to abolish earthly governments, Joseph F. Rutherford, successor to Charles Taze Russell, enacted a major shift in the way Jehovah’s Witnesses view 1914. No longer was 1914 promoted as the conclusion of the prophetic “time of the end,” 2. but rather as it is seen now, the “beginning” of this period. 3. This major shift in Watchtower chronological doctrine on 1914, has allowed Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue to promote this false date as the time that Christ setup an “invisible” reign in the heavens. They assert that this time period will eventually climax with the end of human governmental rule at the Battle of Armageddon.


    Read the rest here:

    I hope that this article helps has many as possible! See the others articles too in this website.

  • Bobcat


    Some read this to indicate that the land had to pay 70 years worth of Sabbaths. However, I feel the text is better interpreted that the land paid off its Sabbaths UNTIL the 70 years were up.

    There is a fascinating footnote about the time the land had to pay off its Sabbaths in Gentile Times Reconsidered, p.223, footnote 37. (It could be you've seen it. So this is for anyone else researching.)

    The book that led me to be convinced about 587 was "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." (Edwin Thiele) It was only after this that I was moved to get Johnsson's book (GTR). Theile's book is not about 607/587 per se, but rather, the dating of all the Jewish kings from the time of the split in the kingdom.

    Thiele's book is a tough read, about 250 pages, which isn't bad, but the subject was a little difficult to bend my mind around. But it approaches the subject from a different angle than Johnsson. Yet they both arrive at the same conclusion about 587. Then, after reading GTR, the evidence was just overwhelmingly solid in favor of 587 from two different angles. Now, I couldn't ever see myself going back to 607. I'd have to just give up interest in the subject all together. Giving up interest wouldn't be dishonest. Going back to 607 would.

    Before reading Thiele's book, I was trying to leave the subject to others as something too difficult. Boy am I glad now that I took the plunge on this subject.

    Take care

  • Finkelstein

    The Final destruction of ancient Jerusalem including the temple, is verified by the bible's own time scale as well as archaeological evidence.

    The calculable time equation made by the WTS. has little verifiable scripture support as to pin point out exactly when

    Jesus would return to take his place invisibly as King of god's heavenly kingdom. It simply happened in 1914 because the leaders of the WTS.

    wanted it to happen. The real Truth of the matter is the head editorial writers of the WTS exploited and embellished this date to draw

    attention to themselves and their newly printed published goods. In essence it became a marketing vehicle toward the public who already

    had a set belief in the bible. Todays leaders of the WTS say C T Russell and J Rutherford were faithful devoted Christians who had spread the gospel

    truth toward mankind, in reality they were fraudulent commercialized charlatans, cultivating their own self empowering notoriety from

    the public's own naive ignorance.

  • garyneal



  • Londo111

    Another good 607 thread… in which the JW apologist Djeggnog contributed to a lively debate. Questions, research, debates like this are always to be encouraged. A faulty position cannot stand up to scrutiny. The more it is researched, the more it falls apart. Therefore, I would like to cannibalize from previous posts, particularly from the above mentioned discussion.

    The issue is greater then the 607 BC interpretation, it is even greater than whether the teachings of 1914 or 1918/1919 are true or not. Everybody can be honestly mistaken. After all, nobody knows it all. However, the issue is twofold. One is HONESTY. The second is the consequence of a Witness honestly holding to the truth about 587 BC: they face not only a secret tribunal that results in their expulsion, but their name is maligned, and they are robbed of family and friends. Case in point: Brother Carl Olaf Jonson, who had been for a number of years presenting the truth of the matter to the Governing Body.

    Christians are to speak truth at all times. We must worship God in "spirit and truth". Christian love "rejoices in truth". Again, if a person wishes to believe and teach 607 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, that is their prerogative, but never at the cost of honesty and integrity.

    I feel the Society fails at this fundamental principle. It is better not to quote someone, than to quote selectively in such a way to misrepresent their thoughts. Their presentation of the work of scholars, archeologists and historians, in order to support their view leaves much to be desired. If you don't believe me, please look into the matter yourself. I believe you will be surprised.

    I would like to highlight a few instances.

    The November 2011 Public Watchtower, page 28. Note 18, regarding VAT 4956 says, " Though the cuneiform sign for the moon is clear and unambiguous, some of the signs for the names of the planets and their positions are unclear. (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 53-57) Because of this, the planetary observations are open to speculation and to several different interpretations."

    Again setting aside whether 607 BC is correct, or if VAT 4569 is a reliable witness--the reference Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology is cited to support that idea why the planetary observations should be thrown out. However, the reference says no such thing. VAT 4956 contains clear and unambiguous planetary names.

    Note 17 says, "Therefore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu) would have started the new year two months earlier, on May 2/3. While normally the year of this eclipse would have begun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states on line 6 that an extra month (intercalary) was added after the twelfth (last) month (Addaru) of the preceding year. (The tablet reads: “8th of month II2.”) Therefore, this made the new year actually not start until May 2/3."

    In all the years of this calendar system, the month of Nissan never began in May. Intercalary months were only added so that the year would not begin before the spring equinox. It would never have been added in such a way to make the year start exceedingly late like this. Here, the Society readjusted the known calendar for this year in order to point to a lunar observation and force it agree with VAT 4956.

    See also this topic:

    Here we see that the June 2012 Awake selectively quoting Ephraim Stern in an effort to prove the case for 607 BC. However, when reading the quotation in full context, it is a flagrant misrepresentation of what the scholar is saying.

    There are many other misrepresentations in Part 1 & 2, as well as other articles, and AnnOMaly and others have pointed them out. For the benefit of the lurkers, as well as yourself, I would consult the following links posted about this subject. Digging will be required, but the secular quotations in their context can be found in abundance, as well as what some of these scholars thought of how they were quoted.

    In this history of defending 607 BC, this is not new. In fact, this dishonesty about the date for the fall of Jerusalem goes back for well over a century:

    In his book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olaf Jonson details other instances where they placed fast and loose with the facts. I really urge those who have not read it, to do so.

  • Londo111

    An addendum to the above post about the Few-Words/607 thread and the apologist Djeggnog. I noticed that in the middle of the debate, he vanished. He had nothing to say about the misquotes. I wonder if we gave him food for thought.

  • kepler


    Congratulations on your 587,607 and other posting mileposts. I confess that I am not the intended audience for number 607, but I read your posts on this subject with interest and take your concerns seriously.

    As mentioned earlier, I had read Carl Olaf Jonsson's examination of this matter - and it was of great help to me in sorting out the evidence and finding sources for continued study. But as I continued to examine the case that both you and Jonsson present, I see suggestion that if this particular issue is settled, all the other issues of Biblical study will remain just where they were.

    I think that counter to the basic notion of a Bible student. None of us would study if we didn't understand. And I have discovered in my exposure to the Bible that the things I thought I understood I should have questioned earlier. Why do I raise that point? Because even among the citations you give above, there are significant issues.

    Does that make me hostile to the Bible? If it has, since I discovered this problem I have purchased and examined more Bibles and translations than I ever had in my life. I obtained more sense of who wrote its books in what background than I ever had before - several versions.

    This is not without precedent. For if you consider the basic issue here of Jerusalem's and the Temple's destruction, it happened several times. Subsequently, in light of all the covenant guarantees to the contrary to what had occurred in history Judaism in practiced changed course. Less time was spent at sacrificial temples and more in meetings examining their scriptures and "wondering why". What was it that they had missed?

    The Bible is simply what it is. We have it in various translations, versions, sequences, inclusions... It's NOT God, but a collection of testaments to God. Sub-testaments if you like. But in the name of fundamentalism and inerrancy, canon categories are mostly IGNORED in concocting fantasies like the pamphlet with which I was introduced to this subject: "What the Bible Really Teaches". Verses are cherry-picked into a cat's cradle of interlocking quotes hardly with any consideration for context.

    Things are not going to be OK just by remembering Jeremiah 25:12 or Daniel 9:1; because there are some serious considerations in verses like these too. Jeremiah 25:12 says something like Babylon was nuked after 70 years. It wasn't. Life was brighter for the upper classes there than it was before, when they were ruled by the last Neo-Babylonian ruler Nabonidus who wasn't paying attention to the ceremonial needs of Marduk. And even though most of the captive Judean population was free to return, most remained in Babylon - and wrote the Bible. See, for example, the last chapter of the recent book"Babylon" by Paul Kriwaczek, "Passing the torch". Even the NWT appendices give credence to the idea that Babylon continued: it claims Peter's epistles were written there. What could confound its claim of destructive prophecies and inerrancy more than its own litera-lmindedness?

    As to Daniel 9:1, there is no historical basis for Darius the Mede - save that Greek writer Thucydides (circa 430 BC) claims when the Persians invaded Greece and they were repulsed at Marathon in 490 BC that they were Medes and their king was Darius, Darius the 1st of Persia, 522-486 BC. He makes this claim about 50 times; so maybe a later author or two bought into it. But it gets worse. In chapter 3, when Nebuchadnezzar builds his golden statue, he summons "satraps" to observe the ceremony, satraps who are an institution of the Persian king Darius mentioned above. Of all the books of the OT to select to build a coherent structure! From chapter to chapter, changing narrative language and person, demonstrating questionable chronicling - the book of Daniel has no consistency.

    Yet passages in support of a desolation from Daniel or Jeremiah weigh as much or more than Gospel parables or the beatitudes in these discussions of doctrine...

    Yes, there are consequences to examining these passages. Both seeing what observant JWs see and seeing what my own eyes behold. Truly disturbing and I don't know how I will resolve it all. I do Know that it would have been truly dangerous though to accept what I had been told. But in effect, when representatives of the Watchtower knock on my door or the door of someone else, they are inviting others to do just that thing: either accept a truly outlandish story or uncover some very unpleasant truths through investigation.

  • Londo111


    I respect your views. I was an almost agnostic for a time, while vaguely acknowledging a higher power, even if nothing more than humanity's collective unconscious. I certainly lost faith in the Bible and didn't even want to look at one. I have been there, so I understand and have sympathy for those in that boat.

    Eventually I picked up the pieces and rebuilt my Christian faith. You could say I am a moderate to liberal Christian. I do believe God's word can be found in the Bible, but I don't believe everything written in the accepted canon is inherent or inspired. But as I'm restudying the Bible from scratch, I am getting more impressed by it, and finding great value. I believe much of it is inspired, even though not everything is literal.

    I'm finding many problems lie in translation and interpretation, especially in Hebrew. For instance, olam does not mean everlasting, but could well have an indefinite endpoint within one's lifetime. And the Hebrew word for earth, most times means land, not the planet. In Jeremiah 25:12, Babylon as a world power was no more, and its dynasty was called into account. Eventually the city became a waste. Of course, that is a matter of interpretation. BTW--I don't believe Peter was writing from Babylon, rather Babylon the Great, that is to say, first century Jerusalem. Again, just my interpretation.

    However, as you mentioned, you weren't the audience for these posts. Mostly I was appealing to JWs who are looking for answers and approaching matters from their viewpoint and frame of mind. From the Bible's standpoint, 587 BC fits very nicely as the time Jerusalem was destroyed. 607 BC does not fit at all.

    Perhaps at a later time, they can reexamine the Bible canon, and what parts of the Bible are inspired, if any, the Documentary hypothesis, Markian precedence, and so forth. And then they can examine what that means to them personally. However, for now, I'd rather keep the topic about how the Bible and Christian principles relate to Society's teaching of 607 BC.

  • exwhyzee

    Marked for later...Thanks !

Share this