BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

by 88JM 59 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Pterist

    It just says the CONQUEST of Jerusalem, not the destruction !

    But it is interesting that it states 607 and not 605/606 ish.

    ( we all know there was more than one visit from the Babylonian power, and Daniel 9:2 says the "devastations of Jerusalem," )

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Hold your horses, don't get too excited. The presenter is probably referring to when Jerusalem first came under Babylonian control - not when the deportation started or when Jerusalem was razed.

    Or maybe the presenter is an indoctrinated JW or did his research online and got the date from an article on

    Scrap my first paragraph. Having listened to the clip, it is clear that the presenter is a JW, JW sympathizer or has been misled by a JW source.

  • 88JM

    besty - probably half of those references are on here and other exJW sites! 587 is so widely accepted, it's hardly ever contested.

    Island Man - it's difficult to see how they can justify saying 607 in the context they did. They were talking about the events that Psalm 137 references, i.e. exile. I don't think anyone could reasonably say there was any kind of "conquest" or "exile" in 607 B.C. from Jerusalem surely?

    EDIT: Never mind Island Man!

  • besty
  • Slidin Fast
    Slidin Fast

    The BBC respond to complaints even if they are made by a small number of people.

  • Londo111

    If anyone gets a response (assuming it is not a form letter), it would be great if you post it here. Thanks!

  • wizzstick

    If anyone gets a response (assuming it is not a form letter), it would be great if you post it here. Thanks!

    I did - just now!

    Just had a call from a very nice chap at the production company that made the programme.

    He wanted to know whether I would do a voice interview over a land line tomorrow morning. As my wife and I are fading I explained why I couldn't and he said he understood. I think he was trying to understand why this was an issue, so I briefly explained how the Neo-Babylonian period was a very well documented period and that there is no question of when Jerusalem fell. I also said that for Jehovah's Witnesses this is a important point, and the BBC broadcasting this date could result in them using it (in a publication).

    He could see my point and is going to call me back tomorrow. He doesn't know at this point whether it would be included in this weeks Feedback programme.

    He said (if I remember correctly) 3 or 4 complaints were received, so thanks to those that did.

    Good to know they have responded. And I'll let you know how the follow up call goes.

    (If anyone who did fill in the BBC complaint form, and I guess are in the UK, who would like to be interviewed then drop me a PM with your contact details on and I'll pass them on to the production company).

  • wannabefree

    Hopefully if they do interview somebody, it is one who will stick to facts and not throw in craziness ... just sayin'

  • Apognophos

    I'm glad he talked to you, wizzstick, it sounds like you represented the problem well to him.

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    Where is djeggnog (or is it DJDamnfool?) right now? He used to have alot to say on this matter!


Share this