Question for '607' apologists

by Jeffro 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    TORNAPART - that is an interesting question. I chased it back as far as Nabonassar who's reign began in 747BC - and I forget what kind of weasely excuse they had in the Insight book for discrediting the chronology on that one. . . I think you get back to that date with a different set of lunar cycles, cuneiform tablets, and all that good stuff.

  • AnnOMaly

    it's also worth pointing out that the chart also has the wrong starting point for the siege in 609 BCE. In JW chronology, it should start in December 609 BCE.

    Yeah, the WTS definitely say it's an 18-month siege beginning toward the end of December 609 BCE. Tebeth 10 would be, according to P&D, December 27/28, 609 BCE.

    If they went for the conventional years (assuming 587 BCE as Jerusalem's fall), P&D has Tebeth 10 fall on January 15/16, 588 BCE (18-month siege) or January 27/28, 589 BCE (2½ year siege).

    It's interesting that the WTS appear to be using P&D dates but ignoring the kings' years they're attributed to. They have Jehoiachin's surrender on Adar 29 occuring in March 617 BCE. The real year 597 BCE would have the date fall in April. The funny thing is, the months are arranged according to the pattern of attested intercalary months placed in those kings' regnal years. IOW, the synchronization between Babylonian (Hebrew) months and Julian months would differ if those intercalaries were arranged according to WT chronology. I don't think they factored that in.

  • Pterist

    ***** Too bad all the JWs are banned****

    Apparently they (the WTBTS) banned C T Russell, threw him and his SDA chronology under the bus.

  • AnnOMaly

    One things I've wondered is, how far back does the WT go till it's dates coincide with secular history? If the date of Jerusalem's destruction is 20 years out and Jehoiakim is 20 years out, then Josiah must have been 20 years out and so on... at some point they must have chucked the 20 year discrepancy or did it go right back to the Exodus from Egypt and beyond?

    Good question! The two chronologies coincide at 539 BCE and beyond.

    After that time, they diverge again in the 5th century BCE by about a decade - the WTS has Artaxerxes I reigning from 474/3 BCE (so that the 20th year falls at 455/4 BCE), whereas conventional chronology establishes his reign from 464/3 BCE (20th year is therefore 445/4 BCE). Both chronologies have his last regnal year as 424/3 BCE and the dates coincide again from then on.

    Before that time, WTS chronology is always 20 years out ... or more. So e.g. the WTS has Samaria falling in 740 BCE instead of c. 720 (or 722) BCE and the division of the kingdom in 997 BCE instead of 931/0 BCE. To be fair, though, there is more controversy and uncertainty about dates before the beginning of the Nabonassar period which increases the further back in time you go.

  • Phizzy

    Interesting though, once you tell a lie, you have to tell more and more, which they are having to do.

    And they do know full well that 607BCE is a lie. They had it explained to them in many a letter from the 1960's onward, and of course they have read "Gentile Times Reconsidered" and other books on the subject.

    What is really funny, childish even, is when they fall back on "we prefer Bible chronology to secular chronology".

    There is no such thing as "Bible Chronology", the Bible only speaks of years between certain events, and it appears these lengths of time are often approximate or even symbolic.

    What the W.T means is, if the dates established by respected scholars with no axe to grind and the scrutiny of peer review do not agree with our weird doctrines and exegesis, then we prefer W.T chronology.

    W.T chronology= the study of time as the W.T wishes it was, not as it really was.

  • PSacramento

    I wonder what will happen when the WT eventually changes their 607 doctrine because of a 'new light"?

  • Londo111

    Marked. (Good stuff!)

    BTW...Recovery/Ethos, if any of your logins were indeed banned, you weren't the only one. Many "apostates" have been kicked off JWN as well in the last few weeks, including an undercover elder who provided intel and helped many who were facing judicial committees. For better of worse, those in charge of JWN don’t play favorites.

  • St George of England
  • james_woods

    What I have never understood about the great 607 enthusiasm is this:

    What the hell is the point of it all? The only thing the JWs use it for is to mysteriously derive the date 1914 from it.

    Nothing happened in 1914 that was prophecied - now even the "generation of 1914 that would never die" has had to be redefined into nothingness.

    With nothing left to base on 607, why is it still such a big deal to the JW apologists?

  • Finkelstein

    With nothing left to base on 607, why is it still such a big deal to the JW apologists ?

    Probably because its a core doctrine of the faith, in spite of all the contriving information to not support that date.

    The majority of JWS do not scrutinize doctrines, they naively swallow what ever mother feeds them.

    They leave the thinking for the WTS and the GB to do that for them.

    But when they do scrutinize and do some research on their own, thats when red flags do go up.

    Probably the biggest Achilles heel for the WTS. now is that for over 100 years nothing has happened as the organization said was going to happen.

    As 2014 passes this is just going to heighten the matter even worse for the WTS.

    My guess is that if the WTS. sticks around into the future, they will probably drop 1914 all together for another purposed date

    or they may create no date at all and just say we must keep on in the preaching work as instructed by Christ.

Share this