the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

by pleaseresearch 82 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • redvip2000

    more importantly.....

    Why the hell would any half intelligent god, make anybody jump through hoops of this sort, including complicated calculations, and derivations to arrive at a date that is supposed to be a warning to everybody that the last days have started?

    Why did we ever believe this stupidity? If this god was really loving an had a brain larger than a peanut, he would simply say " Hey, the last days will start in 1914", and with such a simple statement, thousands of hours of wasteful debate, doubts, and incredulity would be avoided.

  • Fisherman

    The onus of proof is on the one that wants to show JW that 607 is not historical. I believe that it is. There are other beliefs that it ain't -but no solid proof.

  • Londo111
  • David_Jay

    We Jews don't have an exact date for when a lot of these "sure dates" Jehovah's Witnesses claim. In fact, if you note their materials they almost always ignore Jewish history and go straight to saying something like "secular historians claim..." In all honesty, the secular numbers don't always match up with our numbers, but they are far closer.

    To illustrate: Some traditional rabbinical sources date the completion of the first Second Temple edifice as early as of 3408 A.M. (350 B.C.E.) but the best Jewish history and critical estimates have the Temple completed around 3574 A.M. or about 515 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar.

    Even within the 166-year discrepancy, the Jehovah's Witnesses' 607 chronology has us not even returning to Jerusalem until 3596 A.M. (537 B.C.E.), more than 20 years AFTER the latest date for the Second Temple's dedication date. This makes the Watchtower calculations impossible.

    I'll bet almost none of you knew the A.M. dates, right? Why not?

    Because all that JWs are ever exposed to in Watchtower publications is the JW calculations and the secular data they choose. Ever hear of a "straw man ruse"? This is when a debator invents or fabricates a problem in order to trick people into believing he has the solution. Since he made up the original problem, he can also easily tackle it since it is fabricated to begin with. Like a man made out of straw, a fabricated controversy is easily solved by the liar who makes it up.

    This is the whole 607 B.C.E. debate in a nutshell--a cheap trick. All one had to do was check the Jewish date that the Second Temple's pre-Herodian edifice was completed, either the traditional date or the secular one or any in between--and count backward from there. May not get precisely matching dates, but close enough to agree with secular experts for the fall of Jerusalem.

    But the Witnesses don't mention the A.M. dates because then they cannot control the parameters of the argument...

    ...And that's what you want when you present a straw man as your argument.

    • Fisherman2 hours ago

      The onus of proof is on the one that wants to show JW that 607 is not historical. I believe that it is. There are other beliefs that it ain't -but no solid proof.

      I disagree. The onus is on the WTS to prove that they are correct [could be a]. The WTS puts much of it's doctrinal faith of being in the end times in the assertion of being accurate with timing of the fall of Jerusalem [of course, not so much when predicting the demise of humanity hello 1917, 1919, 1924, 1933, etc etc]

  • cofty

    Fisherman - When every expert in the world says you are wrong then onus is really on you to give reasons why you disagree.

    The date of the fall of Jerusalem is not even controversial. It's very silly to make a stand on such a trivial mistake.

  • Finkelstein

    Important breakthrough in Biblical archaeology

    Existence of Babylonian official connected with the Fall of Jerusalem and mentioned in the book of Jeremiah confirmed in cuneiform tablet

    Working at the British Museum, Assyriologist Michael Jursa has made a breakthrough discovery whilst examining a small clay tablet with a Babylonian cuneiform inscription. The document is dated to the 10th year of Nebuchadnezzar II (595 BC). It names a Babylonian officer, Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah was present at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC with Nebuchadnezzar himself. The tablet thus confirms the historical existence of the Biblical figure. Evidence from non-Biblical sources for individuals named in the Bible other than kings is incredibly rare.

    Nebo-Sarsekim is described in the book of Jeremiah as ‘chief eunuch’ (as the title is now translated, rather than ‘chief officer’). The Babylonian tablet proves that his name was really pronounced as Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, and gives the same title, ‘chief eunuch,’ in cuneiform script, thereby confirming the accuracy of the Biblical account.

    The discovery highlights the importance of the study of cuneiform. The British Museum’s collection contains well over one hundred thousand inscribed tablets which are examined by international scholars on a daily basis. Reading and piecing together fragments is painstaking and slow work, but cuneiform tablets are our only chance of obtaining knowledge of this fateful period of human history. Other discoveries made whilst examining tablets include an Assyrian version of the Old Testament flood story, observations of Halley’s Comet and even rules for the world’s oldest board game.

    Dr Jursa, Associate Professor of the University of Vienna, has been studying tablets at the British Museum since 1991. He says of this discovery:
    “Reading Babylonian tablets is often laborious, but also very satisfying: there is so much new information yet to be discovered. But finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date is quite extraordinary.”

    Irving Finkel, Assistant Keeper in the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum, commented: “Cuneiform tablets might all look the same, but sometimes they contain treasure. Here a mundane commercial transaction takes its place as a primary witness to one of the turning points in Old Testament history. This is a tablet that deserves to be famous.’

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot


    So a user named "the-question" said the JW's were right about 607 BCE.

    This is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.

    We all can't wait to hear from you

    Pleaseresearch, please do some research:

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot
    And thanks for the beer.
  • sir82

    The onus of proof is on the one that wants to show JW that 607 is not historical.

    Every historian specializing in that time period agrees on the range 586 - 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem.

    Every. Single. One.

    And yet, somehow, the onus is on "the one who wants to show JW that 607 is not historical"?

Share this