Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!! (page 7)

Jeffro

The JW chronology is indeed very badly flawed.

A few more quick examples of problems introduced by their baseless interpretation of 'kingship' at Daniel 1:1:

In their interpretation of 2 Kings 24:1-6, the JW chronology bundles up Jehoiakim refusing to pay tribute, the subsequent marauder bands and Jehoiakim's death all up into just a few months from late 618BCE until early 617BCE. However, a comparison with lines 9 to 11 on the reverse side of BM21946 confirms that when Jehoikaim stopped paying tribute after 601 BCE, "marauder bands" were sent against Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 6th year (for about 3 months, starting from December 599BCE), and Jehoiakim died when Jerusalem was sieged a year after that (December 598BCE).
JWs (The Watchtower 15 October 1964 p 636; Insight I, p 1269) say the Bible "does not disclose" why the "copper fetters" were not used on Jehoiakim in what they call 617BCE. However, a comparison of 2 Chronicles 36:6 with Kings 24:1 (and lines 12 and 13 on the front of BM21496) indicates that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (February 604BCE) that the copper fetters were to be used, but Jehoiakim avoided that by paying tribute.
Insight (I, p 791) guesses that the '30th year' at Ezekiel 1:1 'might' be Ezekiel's age at the time. However, when the Bible's chronology is used, it becomes apparent that it was actually the 30th year since the "Book of the Law" had been found in the temple (2 Kings 22:3, 8).

These are good topics in regard the October 1, 2011 Watchtower article on this subject. Here in these topics, we find more quotes that have been misrepresented, along with scans of the quotes within their proper context.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/213808/1/When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed-Why-It-Matters-What-the-Evidence-Shows

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/214475/1/The-Section-on-Berossus-in-WT-Oct-1-2011-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/214040/1/What-was-the-source-of-Ptolemys-Astronomical-Data-used-in-the-Almagest

Once again, the main issue is the Bible principle of serving God in "spirit and truth".

Londo111

This link was posted on another thread, but I thought I'd swipe it: http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/uruk.html

The Uruk King list is another line of evidence that fits hand to glove with known Neo-Babylonian Chronology.

krejames

Thanks for posting the articles - I'm going to read these in detail.

Slight side issue that I'll mention - I was staying at a family friend's house a couple of weeks ago (JWs) and in the bedroom I slept in was a thick green book of Charles Taze Russel's sermons (published by the WT in 1917). Very interesting! Obviously I read as much as I could before I went to sleep and then the following morning but at best all I could do was skim read it. But I did find one sermon that discussed the calculation of 1914 (I think the book said this particular sermon was given in 1910). Charles Taze Russel outlined his calculation of 1914 using 607BCE but I was interested to notice he said that many people believe the fall of Jerusalem was in 587BCE and not 607BCE. He acknowledged they may be right but said, even so, it just means the gentile times will end 20 years later...(I may have misquoted the exact words but the essence is right)

I know it's a bit of a non issue really but I just found it interesting that he was not as dogmatic about 1914 as I had expected him to be. The WT on the other hand is dogmatic about everything!

Londo111

Interesting stuff, Krejames! Thanks.

Of course, 607 BC only became the date in the 1940's, up until then it was 606 BC. I do know at times Russell was very defensive of 1914, even when it was pointed out to him there was no 0 year. If I'm not mistaken he said something like, "These are God's dates, not our own. We couldn't adjust them if we could."

Since he believed Christ to have returned invisibly in 1874, I believe it was very important for him to keep 1914 as the culmination of the 40 year harvest. To adjust 1914 for him would have implications in regard to 1874.

It will be interesting to see the results of the upcoming Annual Meeting this Saturday. Will they finally drop 607? And thus 1914? If so…it will be the last vestige of Russell's chronology and the chronology of the Second Adventists. Of course, for them to do so would be to topple their authority and monopoly as God's only Channel.

To me, this seems like a conclusion and the closest thing to an admission by the JW apologist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/244292/1/The-truth-about-the-Truth-Recovery

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

Share this