Could someone explain why this date is incorrect, I had always been told that this date for Babylon's conquest of Israel was widely accepted by historians etc. (Hence it was also critical in calculating 1914.)
607 BC
by minstrel 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
drwtsn32
As far as I know, only JWs teach that 607 is the correct date. Historians agree on 586/587. See this site for more info:
-
Simon
You'll probably get some good answers on this but if you are really interested in confirming the inaccuracy or impossibility of this date then you should take a look at Carl Olaf Jonsson's book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered"
You're right, the 1914 date does depend on this and by implication the notion that the GB were 'chosen' by Christ in 1914. That is why they defend it so vehemently against all evidence because it's a peg they have hung everything on and archeological and other evidence has proven beyond doubt that it was not possibly this date.
-
minimus
So what??? What will/would happen if they discontinued 607 BCE? Nothing. It's not usually used to support anything now, anyway.
-
drwtsn32
minimus, if the 607 date fell apart then so would 1914. If 1914 fell apart then so would so many of the understandings of prophecies that have been fulfilled in our day. It would not be good for the org.
-
minimus
Yeah , and then what would happen? A few would leave. "Adjustments" by the "slave" would be presented and life would go on. "New lite" would show that we should not consume ourselves with all these inconsequential matters and just leave such things in Jehovah's hands.....No big deal.
-
AlanF
Minstrel said:
: Could someone explain why this date is incorrect, I had always been told that this date for Babylon's conquest of Israel was widely accepted by historians etc.
It can get pretty complicated to explain this, if you get into all possible details. Simon referred to Carl Jonsson's The Gentile Times Reconsidered (you can get it from Commentary Press: http://www.commentarypress.com/booklist-eng.html ) and it certainly goes into all the details.
No one outside the JWs and some Bible Students cling to the 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Good scholars agree on either 587 or 586 B.C., the discrepancy being due to some difficult passages in the book of Jeremiah.
However, the Bible itself proves that 607 is wrong. The JWs count the date by starting with a date on which they agree with scholars: 539 B.C. for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. Then they claim that the Jews who were released from captivity in Babylon by Cyrus returned to Jerusalem by the autumn of 537 B.C. Then they take the passage at Jeremiah 29:10 and claim that the 70 years it mentions ended in 537 and therefore the 70 years must have begun in 607 B.C. But these claims ignore a great many Biblical and secular considerations.
In particular, 2 Chronicles 36:20 and Jeremiah 25:11, 12 together are fatal to JW claims. The first passage states:
Those who had escaped from the sword he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia ...
If the Jews were servants to the Babylonians until the rule of the Persians, and the Persians began to rule in 539 B.C., then the Jews were no longer servants to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings after 539 B.C. This is exactly what was predicted by Jeremiah in the second passage which states:
This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 'Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,' declares the LORD ...
Thus, when the king of Babylon was punished in 539 B.C., the 70 years predicted by Jeremiah must have ended.
So there are two Biblical passages which, on their own and especially in conjunction with one another, completely disprove the JW claim that the "seventy years of Jeremiah" ended in 537 B.C., and therefore their entire chronology falls on its face.
For your information, no JW has ever refuted the above arguments.
AlanF
-
minimus
AlanF...Don't you agree that it still wouldn't matter to the most typical JW? You've shown in a nutshell the error of the WBTS. But I think the average JW doesn't understand the Society's explanation, anyway.
-
Simon
Most current JWs have a hard time explaining what the societies current beliefs are beyond vague notions of "Jesus is God's son" and "God's kingdom is a-coming"
I reckon 99% haven't a clue about 607-1914 and why it's so important and what any of the alleged proofs are.
-
AlanF
Of course, Minimus and Simon! But all doctrine beyond The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is irrelevant to 99% of JWs anyway. The Society is well aware of this, and this largely explains the paucity of "deep" material in recent WTS publications. So explanations such as I've given, and the far more extensive work of Carl Jonsson and others, are aimed at the 1% of JWs who are with it enough actually to think about these things. Traditionally it has only been such 'thinkers' who have influenced Watchtower leaders to change their doctrines, so this is nothing new.
Of course, a few JWs who get wind of the Society's poor doctrinal stand on chronology will write the Society, and this brings a certain amount of pressure on the leaders. That has been my focus for many years.
AlanF