When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Not just delusional but an outright liar. Pathetic--

  ---,

  That is what you admit in your Blog.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  nicolaou

  scholar JW: it is far better to rely on the ancient inspired historical record of the Holy Bible

  And there we have it folks. If anyone was wondering if our resident 'scholar' might actually be onto something you can be assured that his ramblings are based on nothing but faith. Rational enquiry has nothing to do with it.
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  That is what you admit in your Blog.

  No such ‘admission’ exists. Either you’re just lying, or you are taking something out of context.

  All of the evidence indicates 587 BCE. It is only if a person does not accept the evidence at all that no precise date can be identified.
• 

  TonusOH

  scholar: My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence.

  Isn't it the consensus of historians (the people who would know this stuff) that the actual date is either 587BC or 586BC? This seems to be what even you have said. If the people who actually know this stuff have a date different than the 607BC that the WTS uses, wouldn't that be the strongest evidence against your claim? Is this even an issue amongst historians?

  Mind you, I understand why you are willing to die on this hill. But your approach is predicated on everyone else being wrong and the WTS being right. The same WTS that admits its fallibility after decades of being wrong about stuff. "Bible chronology" is the domain of con-men and charlatans. Why would anyone need to disprove a made-up timeline?
• 

  DisgruntledFool

  "Celebrated WT scholars..." - Scholar

  That's the stupidest statement I've heard so far this year.
• 

  Rattigan350

  607 did not originate with the Watchtower or CT Russell. It started back in the 1820s.

  The problem is that they base the start of the gentile times on the destruction of Jerusalem when that is not the trigger of it.
• 

  Jeffro

  Rattigan350:

  607 did not originate with the Watchtower or CT Russell. It started back in the 1820s.

  That is only ’accurate’ to the extent that it is entirely mundane. Adventists in the 19th century made stabs at dozens of years with convoluted calculations loosely based on Daniel. There’s scarcely a year of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that some nutty Adventist didn’t claim was ‘marked in scripture’. See also ‘Texas sharpshooter fallacy’.

  But you know who never said Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE? Russell. He said Jerusalem was destroyed in 606BCE. Because he didn’t know there was no ‘year 0’.
• 

  St George of England

  Isn't it the consensus of historians (the people who would know this stuff) that the actual date is either 587BC or 586BC?

  These historians and archaeologists don't really care when Jerusalem was destroyed. They just report the facts as they are. They have no axe to grind. The ONLY people who care about the date are JW's because the entire religion is based on this erroneous date. Without 607, there is no 1914. Without 1914 there is no 1919 when the FDS/GB etc were chosen. The fact that JFR and his companions were released from jail in that year is of no significance.

  Of course the average "Jonny come lately" JW doesn't understand any of this anyway.

  George

  
  
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  TO ALL OPPONENTS AND CRITICS OF 607 BCE
  In all of my many decades in the pursuit of scholarship pertaining to 607 BCE whether from scholars or our critics I have not read any scholarship that disproves that 607 BCE was not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. I have read every piece of literature published in English from the fifties to date and have not found a one, single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall.
  My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence. Surely, that is not too much to ask?
  scholar JW

  This has been done so many times and you continue to reject based on your cognitive dissonance.

  It's pointless when you refuse to accept EVERYONE ELSE's factual evidence and rely on your own interpretation.

  You are in the minority with your view and 587 is backed up factually by a plethora of SME's in the field.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Celebrated WT scholars have long championed the date 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem

  “WT scholars”

  NOW THATS FUNNY!!