607 date of Jerusalems destruction

by benny 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • benny

    I am confused about the time scale regarding the year of the destruction of Jerusalem. In the 1st October 2011 watchtower an argument is presented to back up 607 BC but there are so many conflicting arguments that this happened 20 years later according to secular sources. Your thoughts please.

  • redpilltwice

    Not that I'm not willing to respond, but come on... this question has been asked so many times in the past. There is no short answer, the whole subject will take pages. Archives worldwide must be saturated with tons and tons of stuff by now... have you checked the topic in this forum's search box? Did you visit JWfacts? ad1914.com? If you didn't, please do so. I''m sure that particular WT article (there were two of them) has been adressed in detail there.

    Good luck, see what you can find Benny!

  • benny

    Thank you this is most helpful.

  • DesirousOfChange

    Yes. JWfacts.org has exhaustive info on the subject.

    But to summarize, EVERY authority says Jerusalem’s destruction was in 586/587 BC — EXCEPT Watchtower — who clings to its erroneous 607 date.

    You won’t find any secular authority who has published anything to debunk 607 Why? Because NO ONE (except JWs) question 586/587! It would be like finding professional articles seriously debunking that the moon is made of cheese

    Let’s be reasonable, the former window washer GB Members are obviously much more qualified. Not to mention the fact that Joe Hoover has whispered that date into their ear. So who ya gonna believe?

  • Vanderhoven7

    Only Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters claim 607 as the date for the destruction of the temple.

  • Crazyguy2

    Benny there’s tons of info on this forum and all over the net showing the JWs wrong. One easy way is to count back the Babylonian kings from 539 when Cyrus took Babylon and their ruling years to Nebuchadnezzar and then calculate which year was the year he took over from his father. Let’s just say the evidence is overwhelming.

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    There was a ray Franz story, or one about inside bethel where they were making a timeline and couldn't get it to fit. So they came up with "missing" kings and misstated times in the bible

  • rockemsockem

    No one outside the JWs use 607bce. The lines of evidence are many that it was 586/7 BCE. Its also funny but the JWs use the same lines of evidence to show other dates that they and secular scholars agree on.

  • Beth Sarim
    Beth Sarim

    I own Carl O Johnson's ''The Gentile Times Reconsidered''. Just a remarkable piece of work. It shows a mountain of evidence to support the 587/587 and just blows the 607 date right out of the water.

    ''No one outside the JWs use 607bce''


  • Half banana
    Half banana

    The JW leadership has managed to marry ignorance with arrogance (ignorgance!)

    They use the bullshit technique of making up stories to fit the ideas they hold dear and then ask the flock not to check up on the accuracy of the information. The JW org charges forth on the assumption of having LOYAL followers not truthful information.

    The fact that no historian believes in the 607 BCE date* just shows how out of harmony with the times they are and why from now on they will decline in influence and number, especially in the Western world.

    If they were to come clean and admit all of their failings and date botches and conscious deceptions, the bottom would fall out of JW credibility-- which is at a low ebb already. Either way the Watchtower is last century's religion.

    Today's world demands accurate academic and scientific data on which can be built further technological or other developments, religious puffs of hot air are of no use to anyone apart from cults.

    *I did find myself reading a JW apologist's confirmation of 607 BCE who was an academic but not a historian. The JW principle is always the same; it is deemed to be true if the organisation says so and you are disloyal if you believe otherwise.

Share this