607 date of Jerusalems destruction

by benny 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • notsurewheretogo
    The simple fact is that there is secular evidence that supports 607 BCE

    Eh? You need to do research mate, zero secular evidence.

  • Rattigan350

    Scholars like Brown and EB Elliott back in the 1820s held that it was Nebuchadnezzar's ascension year that started the seven times. They thought it was 604-1917 or 606-1914, but it was not based on Jerusalem's destruction as that was 587.

    Back then they looked to the 6000 years as ending in the 1870s. Nelson Barbour felt that the current belief that it was 587BC meant that the desolation was 50 years from 537 to 587. In March 1874, in the Midnight Cry, Barbour combined the two periods of captivity and desolation into one. He changed Jerusalem's destruction to 607 and Russell followed that. When Russell split from him, he should have examined his chronology too.

    I adhere to what Elliott taught, that the seven times ran from around 606/604 to 1914/1917 and was not connected to the destruction of Jerusalem.

    So blame it on Nelson Barbour who changed history and Russell and his followers for adhering to it.

  • Rattigan350

    "Carl Johnson's book is exhaustive on this topic"

    Carl J's book is about as bad and the GB's thinking. They can't see the forest through the trees. They are focusing too much on the destruction of Jerusalem as the start of the 7 times. The destruction is not the start of the 7 times because that is not what the prophesy was about. Nathan told David that his offspring would sit on Jehovah's throne to time indefinite. That happened until Jehoiakim became vassal king to Nebuchadnezzer. Jehovah is sovereign, so no king on Jehovah's throne can be a vassal to someone else. The 7 times made that possible by pausing that line of kings for 2520 years when Jesus took the throne. That is all Biblical. Any criticism of that is outside the Bible.

  • TD

    The difference between 587 and 586 bce...

    The exact same uncertainty (The Bible does not reference a specific method of counting) applies to the dates taught by JW's as well and they have acknowledged in print from time to time.

    (As NM is well aware)

  • lastmanstanding

    It’s painfully obvious that rat350 hasn’t read Carl’s book

  • The Fall Guy
    The Fall Guy

    Jesus Christ is described as being in the manner of Melchizedek, (meaning - king of righteousness) namely, as a priest and king.

    However, according to JW teachings, when Jesus ascended to heaven he only received 50% of his Melchizedek status, because he had to wait for more than 1800 years (until 1914) before he qualified for the full title.

    (Hebrews 3:1) Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus.

    (Hebrews 4:14) Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God..

    (Hebrews 5:6) “You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.”

  • scholar


    The matter of the 586/587 BCE is crucial if one wishes to establish an accurate Bible Chronology and especially for those WT critics who are dogmatic in their criticism of 607 BCE. WT scholars use the same regnal data and in this case, we have the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar which would be the acc or regnal years for the breaching of the city's wall synchronized to the 11 th year of Zedekiah. So, the difference is based on the fact of a different calendrical system as most scholars prefer but at what year of the monarch from to count or fix that event in history. In view of the KISS principle, it would be far more simple to adopt the viewpoint of the WT scholars rather than trying to interpret or create a chronology through the prism of different calenders used at that time which makes the matter extremely complicated.

    There is much scholarly literature published on this problem as to what calenders were used at that time as to whether one should count from the Spring or the Autumn which creates a difference of 6 months. In short, this means that because of a different methodology scholars are unable to assign a precise date for the destruction of Jerusalem whereas WT scholars have used a different methodology have been able to assign a definite year namely 607 BCE for that event.


  • scholar


    For this reason in order to construct a scheme of Chronology one needs to adopt a METHODOLOGY along with an INTERPRETATION of all of the data, historical and theological background.


  • cofty

    No one doesn't need to do any of that.

    One only needs to accept the overwhelming academic consensus.

    607 is based on theological dogma not evidence. What the bible has to say about ANE history is as insignificant as what the Book of Mormon has to say about the history of North America.

  • Rattigan350

    Lastmanstanding. I just looked through Carl's book and when he mentions Elliott he just compares his writing of the Ascension year start in 605 to Barbour/Russell's destruction start in 606. And he refers to the day for a year principle. He fails to acknowledge what actually signals the start of the 7 times from the scriptures. If he did comment on that, what page? It appears that he does not know what the gentile times is all about or its purpose. All he does is argue with the Watchtower, which itself has it wrong. So one wrong person is arguing with followers of another wrong person Barbour/Russell.

Share this