the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

by pleaseresearch 82 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RichardHaley

    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.

    Isn't 537 B.C.E. before (earlier/older) than 515 B.C.E.? Either way they are off.
  • Sanchy

    Redvip2000: 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.

    I ask myself the same thing everyday. I believed this BS for 30 years of my life. I'm ashamed.

  • David_Jay

    RichardHaley wrote

    Isn't 537 B.C.E. before (earlier/older) than 515 B.C.E.? Either way they are off.

    Yes, I made an error due to two things: first, I spoke in A.M. terms, saying AFTER when I meant BEFORE (A.M. counts forward as B.C.E. goes backward), and second, I used a calculator to determine the Jewish A.M. dates (which I forget doesn't work).

    I am getting help from some rabbinical assistance as I write this. Right now they are explaining to me that the real error in the Witnesses dating is that they are counting 70 years as if they are SOLAR, but in reality the 70 years are LUNAR.

    Even if the 607 B.C.E. date is correct (and let's say it is), 2,520 Biblical years would be LUNAR years. You can't count the years between 607 B.C.E. in 12 month increments as they have to reach 1914. In solar years the equivalent of 2,520 lunar Biblical years is only about 2447.

    This means that 1914 would not be the date according to the JW formula. 2,520 Biblical years from the 607 B.C.E. date would land you in 1841 C.E.

    In order for the year 1914 to work, the 2,520 Biblical years would have to be counted from about 535 B.C.E.

  • David_Jay

    Footnote: Because I wrote the above in haste through excitement, I will reiterate.

    The 70 years of captivity upon Jerusalem are LUNAR years, as are all the years mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.

    Because of this the 2,520 years the Witnesses claim make up the Gentile Times would also have to be LUNAR years. It is the only calendar the Jews knew.

    The Jewish calendar has 12 lunar months with an extra month added every so often to compensate for the 29.5 day monthly lunar cycle to catch up with the solar year. But when counting time you don't compensate to match the solar year. You merely count 12 lunar months, adding the leap year when you have enough extra days.

    In the process of counting 2,520 years, about 70 years are lost in solar years (which is of interest for those you understand the Jubilee year connection). There was a 2.7 year loss as well in the calculations made to compensate for the fact that the first year of 607 counts for only a partial year and that some solar years in the time period ate a few days along the way due to leap year considerations.

  • David_Jay

    One more to add: one of the rabbis said that since the Witnesses are using "mean" or average years in their count, it would be fair only to do the same. This would mean we would remove all years calculated via leap years and such.

    The number is lower: 2,520 lunar years averages to 2293 solar years, all partial and leap years removed.

    My math skills suck by comparison (and they are also talking something about the Jewish calendar of the past I know nothing about), but they are taking this up further this next week to get other views and refine things. But the result will always be the same: the Witnesses have counted 2,520 solar years from 607 BCE to get to 1914. They should have counted lunar years, which would leave you with far less solar years to count.

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

    Indeed, and every church I ever attended accepts the dates promoted by the historians. Even my annotated copy of the King James Bible uses these dates concerning the passages that speak of this. Meanwhile, the WT provides not a single positive piece of evidence to support 607 BCE. Just a passage of scripture that does not take into account to two extra years (as pointed out earlier). The rest of their "proof" is simply them trying to call doubt on the evidence that supports 586/7 BCE.

  • zeb

    david jay and village idiot.

    Thank you both for your postings. I have the book by Jonsson; its quite a read to follow but to me the important thing is the way he was treated by the gb for his work and submissions.. It must have set a fire under the gb as it crumbles the key foundation stone of all wt dogma being this 607 thing.

  • Fisherman


    GTR is mostly commentary. However, on page 403 of the latest revision of said book, the author concedes that there is controversy disputing 587: RR Newton and scholarly support for his belief that challenges Ptolemy's observation as fabricated. - See Scientific American Oct 1977 issue page 80.

  • wizzstick

    GTR is mostly commentary. However, on page 403 of the latest revision of said book, the author concedes that there is controversy disputing 587: RR Newton and scholarly support for his belief that challenges Ptolemy's observation as fabricated. - See Scientific American Oct 1977 issue page 80.

    Fisherman - if you are reading GTR then you will know that Jonsson presents 17 lines of evidence. The accumulative effect is overwhelming:

    Secular history is right.

    Some additional context.

    The 1914 doctrine is not a JW doctrine. It's not even a Bible Student doctrine. It's an inherited doctrine from Barbour that CT-R adopted. It's so old it pre-dates modern archealogy. But given the JW's have made such a fuss over it they are stuck with it. For now.

    But it won't last indefinetly - as one poster said:

    Fisherman 5 months ago

    October 1 2016 marks 102 years from 1914 and close to 41 years from 1975. There should be something coming down on the horizon either event or teaching, my guess that something must give by 2017 latest. I have posted this before.

    Oh wait...

  • wizzstick

    Hey Fisherman - here is another great post by that poster.

    Time was up in 2016 apparently:


    Fisherman 8 months ago

    Because the anointed are the wt generation, they are supposed to pass away, Prologos

    Given: WT theology

    They do, wt always taught that rapture means passing way in the twinkling of an eye AFTER they see the final part of the sign. But the destruction is not the sign or part of the sign. The destruction is what the sign points to.

    It is the OS, prospective members of the GC, a constantly overlapping generation ,

    The great crowd of other sheep cannot interlap. First of all, they do not pass away, they survive, and second of all, each dude as an individual expects life in his lifespan which means that the oldest gc member should not be destined to die of old age.

    It is all Greek to me sort of speak, but the way I interpret "...generation not passing away until.." simply means that the prophecy in its entirety should fulfill in 70-100 or so years or the maximum lifespan of anyone living at that time. WT overlapping doctrine only adds 20 years. 2016, time is up.............................

Share this