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

by Londo111 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro

    Recovery added this leading question pertaining to a strawman argument:

    Question for Jeffro: Was Babylon made a desolate waste at the end of the 70 year servitude? YES or NO?

    An eventual desolation of Babylon is irrelevant to the initial judgement of Babylon's king that definitely ended the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

    Babylon was not "made a desolate waste" in either 539BCE or in 537BCE.

  • Jeffro
    The prophecy at Jeremiah 25:12 is specific: "“‘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." This did not happen at the end of the 70 years, whether it was 539 or 537. So this scripture is not referencing the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, because at the end of the supposed 70 year period, Babylon was not made a desolate waste.

    In this prime example of flawed reasoning, 'Recovery' attempts to claim that because 'the land of the Chaldeans' was not made 'desolate' immediately at the end of the 70 years, that it also supposedly 'cannot' refer to the calling to account of Babylon's king at that time.

    This is problematic not only because Babylon Province is still populated, but also because there was no Babylonian king after 539BCE. Further, the Bible explicitly relates the events of the fall of Babylon and the 'calling to account' of Babylon's final king, which is known to have happened in 539BCE. If 539BCE was not when Babylon's king was 'called to account' (ignoring what is explicitly stated in the book of Daniel as well as other historical sources), then it was a false prophecy anyway because there was no later opportunity for a Babylonian king to be called to account either.

    Once again, either the Bible is right and the JW apoligists are wrong, or the Bible is wrong and the JW apologists are still wrong.

  • AnnOMaly

    It's pretty much been covered, but I thought I'd comment on this tidbit:

    In cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus' first regnalyear is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnalyear of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C.

    I don't know where you came up with this. Strass. Cyrus No. 11 is a receipt and the only thing that can be established from it is that it is dated to Nisanu 4, year 1 of Cyrus. Big wows.

    To attach B.C. dates to Cyrus' reign, you have to go to dated astronomical sources and derive them from there. It has been determined that Cyrus' 1st regnal year began March 23-24, 538 B.C. and concluded on March 10-11, 537 B.C. (see Parker and Dubberstein, p. 29).

    There is no reason why Cyrus couldn't have given the decree early in his 1st year so that the exiles were repatriated by the 7th month of the same year, 538 BCE, and indeed this is the more likely scenario.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    I'm wondering if his fonts will get larger and larger and then resort to all caps shouting mode? ....

    Recovery / Eggnog Jnr... Starting with the false premise that the bible is the unassailable and pure word of God and therefore every word it says is TRUTH will lead you precisely were you are, with your knickers all twisted and not able to see the wood for the trees. Them scholars the WTS likes to bash (unless they can misquote them into appearing to support their theories) KNOW a thing or two. Experts tend to be knowledgeable in their field, so when they all say 586 / 587 they bloody well mean it and have very high degrees of data and facts to back it up with.

    It does however require a humble attitude to back off from a presumed position of truth and finally admit that you have been in error and to let the facts speak for themselves. Some are incapable of this, and their inability has nothing to do with facts, but rather the state of their ego.

    Stick around, you might learn a thing or two.

  • Londo111


    I hope you are enjoying your weekend. I decided to buy out a few minutes in the middle of this long weekend and drop a quick note. I noticed in another topic you talked about reading essays on 607 and that you did lots of research and found the arguments "nothing more than clever lies and half truths designed to deceive the minds".

    I believe you are sincere. Nobody wants to be deceived by clever lies and half truths. You are not alone in this. In fact, that is the reason so many people are here. They discovered that the beliefs they sincerely held to were just as you described. Some, on discovering this, ended up in the hospital. Many are emotionally scarred.

    I believe you said you were pioneering, and thus, you've invested a good portion of your life into this Doctrine. The more a person has invested into something, the more they need to believe they have not wasted their investment. It's too painful to come to a realization that their investment is lost. Therefore, they end up redoubling their efforts in convincing themselves that their investment of time, effort, and resources was sound and makes sense. There is a very good discussion of this in the book When Prophesies Fail, which details the Millerites, as well as a UFO occult group who proclaimed the end of the world.

    My honest opinion of your posts thus far is that in your desire to establish 607 BC and all that rests upon it, that you read texts and evidence selectively, and throw out anything that doesn't match the view. Two examples…I know others have addressed these already, but…

    In your reading of Jeremiah 25:12. Your read the text in such a way to read meaning into it that is not present: to say that as a condition for the 70 years being fulfilled, Babylon must be a desolate waste. However, that is not what the scripture says. The verse says the 70 year ends first. Then AFTER the 70 years end, the King of Babylon and his nation are called into account (this occurs in 539 BC), and Babylon becomes a desolate waste. Babylon becoming a waste occurred after the 70 years end, centuries after.

    The first year of Cyrus as you pointed out when from March 538 BC to March 537 BC. But the theory that the Proclamation came late in the year, where can that be proven? The phrase "may have been made" is very slippery, very indefinite, without anything to back it up. Ezra 3:1 talks about the Jews returning in the seventh month…logically the seventh month of the year mentioned in Ezra 1:1…that is, Tishri 538 BC.

    As I've seen it, the problem is not that the Scriptures do not fit the 609BC to 539 BC chronology, it is that one peculiar interpretation or reading of those Scriptures do not fit them. We cannot look at the evidence selectively, but we must weigh in and harmonize all the evidence…and that includes the corroborating 17 lines of evidence such as the astronomical diaries, the 50000+ cuneiform tablets, the Adad-guppi stele, and so forth. I encourage you to read The Gentile Times Reconsidered for more information.

    After months of careful research, I realize the Scriptures, along with these 17 lines of evidence, all align in such a way that make 607 BC impossible. But it is not the end of the world...far from it. Life goes on. Real Christianity can go on as well, if you so choose it

    Have a good long weekend,

    In Christ,


  • Recovery

    Londo said: The second 70 year period covers from the fall of Jerusalem to around the time temple rebuilding work gets underway, spurred by the prophets Zechariah and Haggai. According to the book of Zechariah, Judah and Jerusalem was still in a desolated state in the 2 nd year of Darius, in 520 BC. See Zechariah 1:7-12. Since I already quoted this passage in the first post, here is just the relevant portion: "In the eighth month in the second year of Darius . . . 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?” So around October/November of 520 BC, it is said that Judah had been denounced 70 years and shown no mercy. 520 BC - 70 = October/November 590 BC. The siege of Jerusalem began in January 589 BC and lasted about 30 months.

    Notice the description of the desolation in Jeremiah 32:43: And fields will certainly be bought in this land of which YOU people will be saying: “It is a desolate waste without man and domestic animal.It has been given into the hand of the Chal·de′ans.”’ Jeremiah 9:23 also adds: "and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant." The supposed 70-year starting period (587 BCE), there were still inhabitants and animals in Jerusalem. In 517, the inhabitants did not suddently return. According to Londo, they had already returned almost 20 years earlier!

    Also notice Leviticus 26:34-35 "At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, WHILE YOU ARE IN THE LAND OF YOUR ENEMIES. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it." The paying off of the sabbaths would occur when the land was desolated, and while the Israelites were in the land of their enemies. But no, not so according to Londo. The 70 year sabbath keeping took place while the Israelites were in their homeland (590 BCE) all the way until 520 BCE (while the Israelites were already in their homeland). This explanation simply causes confusion and contradiction and does not hold up when scrutizined with the clear statements of Jeremiah and Leviticus.

    Your 609 to 539 theory does not hold up because the land of Jerusalem was not without inhabitant and animal for 70 years to pay the sabbaths.

    Your 587 to 517 theory does not hold up because the land of Jerusalem was not without inhabitant and animal for 70 years to pay the sabbaths.

    Hence your statement could be refitted to say the following: We must take into account all the evidence and harmonize it, rather than a selective reading that conforms to a preconceived view. This is exactly what you accuse me of doing, and this is in fact what the 609ers and the 517ers have to do. No matter which starting point they choose they have to contradict the clear Biblical statement that Jerusalem was "without inhabitant, without animal" and that the sabbaths would be paid while they were in the land of their enemies. Not while they were still in Jerusalem. Now on to Jeffro:

    The "calamity" went "from nation to nation". The "calamity" was not something that happened to all the nations at the same time . It therefore cannot be synonymous with the "70 years". 'The Bible' only says the land paid sabbaths for 70 years in translations that do not honestly maintain the context of what was actually stated by Jeremiah . Other translations correctly indicate that Jeremiah did not mention paying off sabbaths, and instead referred to nations serving Babylon . This is false and misleading. The word used for "lying desolated" in 2 Chronicles 36 is shamem. According to the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, the word shamem means, “to be desolated, be deflowered, be deserted”. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. The Bible connects the 70 years of paying sabbaths with the desolation, the desertion of Jerusalem. Let us consult the other translations again:

    God’s Word translation: “While it lay in ruins, the land had its 70 years of rest.

    Contemporary English translation: “Judah was an empty desert, and it stayed that way for seventy years, to make up for all the years it was not allowed to rest.

    New Life Version: “For the seventy years that the land was not being used, the Day of Rest was


    New International Reader’s Version: “It rested. That deserted land wasn't farmed for a full 70 years.”

    New International Version (UK): “The land enjoyed its Sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed."

    See the 609 defenders have a serious problem. They have to get around the fact that the Bible states Jerusalem lay desolate for 70 years, keeping it's sabbath for 70 years. 609 to 539 doesn't work. 587 to 517 doesn't work. 607 to 537, fits perfectly however.

    Again, the calamity cannot be 'the 70 years' and still come upon different nations at different times . Jeremiah 25:11 doesn't say, "Jerusalem will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and then other nations will serve for other various shorter periods of time." It says the 70 years were a specific period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon. The calamity happened to different nations at different times during the 70 years. The scripture says calamity is going forth "from nation to nation", so the 70 year servitude does not require that the calamity happens to all the nations at the exact time. The scripture confirms this when it says "FROM NATION TO NATION". It is just like Paul saying he went "FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE". Did he have to knock on all the doors at all the same time? No, of course not.

    There were at least five kings that ruled Babylon during the 70 years. And that's not counting the extra imaginary ones in JW fantasy land during the extra 20 years. The Bible doesn't mention all of those either. The Bible never mentions that Nabonidus was actually king when Belshazzar was really only a prince , but apparently that's okay because of the secret magical reason. The Bible doesn't have to mention every King that succeeded Neb. The hebrew word for "father" and "son" can also be rendered "descendant of", "ancestor of". The use of the word 'son' in connection with ascension to a throne also simply mean the person ascended the throne after a specific said king (see the Assyrian's reference to the son of Omri). Belshazzar acted on behalf of his father on numerous occassions and performed many king-like duties, and is referred to as a "governor" and a "king" by ancient sources, so the Biblical reference to Belshazzar as king is correct and the distinction between the two isn't necessary for the audience Daniel was writing to.

    So here is my question for 609 proponents:

    Was Jerusalem desolated, uninhabited, keeping its sabbaths or not for a full year 70 years? YES or NO? They cannot answer this simple question. They have to invent imaginary 70 year periods beginning with the irrelevant fall of certain nations, and have to disregard the clear scriptural statement that Jerusalem would be desolate, without inhabitant, without animal, keeping sabbaths for 70 years.

    When was Jerusalem desolated without inhabitant for 70 years?

  • Londo111

    Was Jerusalem desolated, uninhabited, keeping its sabbaths or not for a full year 70 years? Nope.

    When was Jerusalem desolated without inhabitant for 70 years? Never.

    Both are misreadings of Scripture.

    Jeremiah 9 and 32 mentions Judah would be uninhabited, but it does not say for how long. BTW--the verse is Jeremiah 9:11 not 9:23.

    The Scripture in Leviticus, fulfilled in 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 was fulfilled from 587 BC to 538 BC. Leviticus 25:8-10 says, "And you must count for yourself seven sabbaths of years, seven times seven years, and the days of the seven sabbaths of years must amount to forty-nine years for you. And you must cause the horn of loud tone to sound in the seventh month on the tenth of the month; on the day of atonement YOU people should cause the horn to sound in all YOUR land. And YOU must sanctify the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty in the land to all its inhabitants. It will become a Jubilee for YOU, and YOU must return each one to his possession and YOU should return each one to his family."

    The land experienced 7 Sabbath cycles (7*7=49 years) from the years 587 BC to 538 BC. By the seventh month of 538 BC (according to Ezra 3:1) the Jews returned and claimed their possession. Their enslavement had ended. It was a Jubilee.

    Other translations of 2 Chronicles 36:21:

    NKJV: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

    NLT: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled, just as the prophet had said."

    NIV: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."

    ESV: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

    NJB: "to fulfill Yahweh's prophecy through Jeremiah: Until the country has paid off its Sabbaths, it will lie fallow for all the days of its desolation -- until the seventy years are complete."

    And I agree with all these translations and feel they do support the 70 years of Babylonian servitude from 609 BC to 539 BC, as well as the 49 year Sabbath year cycle.

    From 587 BC onward, Judah had to sit in "time out" for the remainder of the 70 years, but not for 70 years.

    To repeat my illustration: 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 corner of the room and sits in time out with a huge DUNCE hat, until the 70 minutes are completed. Then he is allowed to return to his desk. Therefore, he sits in the corner to fulfill his time out, until the 70 minutes are fulfilled.

    So this reading of that verse is consistent with the 609 BC to 538 BC, especially when you tie in all the other Scriptures and the 17 lines of collaborating evidence.

    Again, even after the Jews returned in 538 BC, the cities and land was still in desolation up until 520 BC. This is evidenced by the angel in Zechariah's vision in 520 BC: the land had been denounced for 70 years, according to the angel and he asks when is Jehovah going to show mercy. Do the math, calculate this backwards. So while this is not the 70 years of Jeremiah 25, which ended in 539 BC, this also encompassed a 70 year period. If Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BC, the angel would have asked why the land had been denounced 90 years, not 70.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Daniel was fully aware of Leviticus 26:32 - 35 which the Chronicler quoted in part at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 where Moses wrote that the desolation would end while the exiles were still in Babylon, in the land of their enemies, not when they returned. He would not have understood the seventy years to have ended two years in the future when they returned. Once again, the time frame falls short of seventy years.

    In addition to the same reasons stated above, the author of 2 Chronicles 36 could not have meant that “All the days of laying desolated it kept the Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years” referred to seventy uninhabited years of devastation beginning with Jerusalem’s destruction. Nowhere does the Chronicler claim that the land would be, or was, uninhabited. Desolated, yes, but not uninhabited. The reference to keeping the land Sabbath is metaphor - the land was unproductive and rested, not uninhabited. In fact, “Sabbath” connotes a human condition or presence, defined as “the day of rest and religious observance of the Jews….” Paying off its sabbaths is akin to paying off a loan, which was fulfilled, or accomplished, or ended, or finished, while the exiles were still in the land of their enemies, Babylon. The fulfillment of seventy years at 2 Chronicles 26 referred to the conclusion of the desolation and sabbatical-like condition which began with Babylon’s fall and Persia’s rise to power. Ezra was not saying the land was desolated without inhabitant for seventy years ending in 537 B.C.E.

    It bears repeating, because the "sabbaths” were paid off while the exiles were still in Babylon the author could not have meant that the reference to seventy years meant that Judah lie desolate without inhabitant exactly seventy years ending upon the exiles’ physical return in 537 B.C.E. It’s impossible because it falls short. Remember, the chronicler also had access to Jeremiah’s prophecy. He knew the fulfillment and timing of seventy years was tied directly to the fall of the Babylonian Empire and the rise of Persian royalty.

  • AnnOMaly


    If the land and Jerusalem were 'uninhabited' and 'desolate' or 'devastated' in Month V of 607 BCE (WT time), certainly by Month VII after Gedaliah's assassination, why, in Month X of 607 BCE did Jehovah tell Ezekiel "inhabitants of these devastated places" were still living in the land and that he had to give them a message? (Ezek. 33:21f.)

  • Londo111

    To all the apologists and those seeking the truth about this matter:

    I've said this quite a bit, but I feel this bears repeating. The issue far is greater than the invalidity of 607 BC, and what that implies in regard to 1914 and 1918/19. People might honestly believe something and be mistaken. However, what opened my eyes to the truth about 'the Truth' was the Society's lack of total honesty and integrity in presenting their side of the issue.

    For Christians, the larger issues should be:

    (1) Worshiping God in "spirit and truth".

    (2) Having agape love which "rejoices in truth".

    The October/November 2011 articles on Jerusalem's Destruction in public Watchtower brought the issue of lack of honesty and journalistic integrity to the fore. The same goes for the June 2012 Awake quoting Ephraim Stern. I encourage all who have not done so to check the quotations and citations used in these articles in context.

    They have quoted the words of scholars selectively in such a way to misrepresent their thoughts. It is better not to quote than to quote out of context. To back certain assertions, they listed references…but there references did not back their assertions at all.

    Here are two examples that jumped out at me:

    November 2011 Public Watchtower, page 28, note 18: "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."

    The reference Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology is cited to support why they should throw out the planetary observations on VAT4956. But the pages listed say nothing of the sort. VAT 4956 contains clear and unambiguous planetary names and positions.

    Note 17: "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."

    Here is the problem with that: In all the centuries of the Babylonian calendar, the month of Nissan NEVER began in May. Intercalary months were only added so that the year wouldn't begin before the spring equinox. Never would it have been added in such a way to make the year start exceedingly late like this. The Society readjusts the known calendar for this year in order to point to a lunar observation and force it to agree with VAT 4956.

    Never are the researchers named, never is the full results listed (if anything they could have posted a link to a website with the full results). In the real world, results like this would be peer reviewed by professionals in that field of study. Where is the peer review?

    Notice the leaps of logic in this quote from the article: "Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period. Therefore, neither the Babylonian chronicles nor the business tablets provide a basis to establish with certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E."

    Could + If so <> Therefore!!! In reality, the business tablets are really damning evidence that alone establish there were no other kings in the chronology.

    What did Scholars who were cited think of these Watchtower articles and the way they were quoted?

    Read the words of John Steele:

    Dear Ms Alley,

    Thank you for your email concerning the citation of my work in the recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were restricted to a distinct and small group of texts which are different to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.

    I've looked at the date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the conventional date.


    John Steele

    Ronald Sack was more harsh, but perhaps deservedly so: "The watchtower article is a lie. The correct date is 587. I have NEVER been interviewed of this subject. "

    If you look through this thread, you will see many scans of references, and quotes in context:

    Of course, in regard to 607 BC, this is not the first time there was intellectual dishonesty on the matter. This goes all the way back to Russell. Unfortunately, I have found this is not the only matter in which quotations are taken out of context. This seems to have happened quite a bit in the history of the Watchtower Society.

    For the apologists here, I say to you that this is something serious to ponder upon, regardless when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Share this