Making 607 crumble

by ellderwho 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  undercover

  Apparently there cannot be much secular evidence for the traditional chronology because according to the the site you recommended there is uncertainty between 586 or 587. So much for the abundance of secular evidence.

  Scholar is hung up on the fact that there is no evidence to pin the date exactly to 586 or 587 so therefore it can't be accepted. Most of us are hung up on the fact that there is no evidence to support 607 so therefore it can't be accepted. Okay, none of it can be accepted. I guess we'll have to accept the fact that nobody really knows when Jerusalem was destroyed then.

  If that's the case, no one can determine when Jesus might return if his return is based on the date of the fall of the temple. We're right back where we started. The Society is still wrong. The date is wrong, and their interpratation is just that, interpretation. I can interpret however I want and be just as right as they are.
• 

  simwitness

  There have been several threads on the 607 date recently... in everyone of them scholar has attempted to maintain that 607 is the correct date. To date, he has yet to ever provide any secular evidence to back his claim. His only evidence is that which is provided by the WTBS in the form of the AID or insight books.

  I would suggest that all readers review the earlier threads and discussions... debating with scholar about it is a pointless endeavor... much like fishing in a swimming pool.

  We're still waiting for him to respond to comments on this thread:

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx

  And here is a very K.I.S.S thread about 607 that uses the WTBS's own publications to prove that 607 is the incorrect date:

  586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/807441/post.ashx#807441
• 

  caballoSentado

  "I would suggest that all readers review the earlier threads and discussions... debating with scholar about it is a pointless endeavor... much like fishing in a swimming pool."
  
  we have a saying in spanish for that kind of behaviour, we say "No gastes polvora
  en gallinazos"
  
  Caballo Sentado
• 

  scholar

  undercover

  If one is to accept your proposition that the dates proposed are uncertain then the genuine Christian would assign priority to the biblical chronology and prophecy and in FAITH accept a chronology that is in harmony with the Lord's will.

  scholar
• 

  scholar

  simwitness

  Not one poster on this board has provide a shred of secular evidence that only supports 586 or 587. I have repeatedly asked for one piece of evidence and all I get is smoke and mirrors. I have provided evidence for 507 begiining with Stage One namely the Nabonidus Chronicle will clearly attests to the date for the Fall of Babylon. I will not comment on Stage 2 or 3 until the contrary position is stated.

  scholar
• 

  City Fan

  Simwitness

  I thought the K.I.S.S. thread was excellent as it disproved 607 using the society's own literature.

  Scholar,

  You've been shown time and time again by members of this board why using the "was it 586 or 587" argument does not support your point of view. Why do you insist on repeating this unscholarly reasoning?

  Apparently there cannot be much secular evidence for the traditional chronology because according to the the site you recommended there is uncertainty between 586 or 587. So much for the abundance of secular evidence.

  A true scholar would know that the uncertainty of the date is nothing to do with secular evidence. Once again I'll go through it with you. I'll try to keep it simple:

  The uncertainty arises because the bible is not specific about which calendar to use for the verses in 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52. The Babylonian New Year was in Nisan and the Jewish New Year was Tishri. Which one should be used for these verses?

  The Babylonian Chronicle gives an exact date for the first capture of Jerusalem as 2nd Adar 7th year of Nebuchadrezzar (598-597) which equates to 15/16 March 597BCE. To calculate the final destruction of the temple we have to use the verses above.

  2 Kings 25:3,4 says the temple was destroyed on the 7th of Av/Abu. Using the Babylonian Nisan New Year calendar this would be 25 August 587BCE. Using the Jewish Tishri New Year calendar the month of Av would be the following year 15 August 586BCE. (The 10 day difference is because the Babylonian calendar had alternating months of 30 and 29 days).

  So the only discrepancy is because scholars are unsure which calendar was being used, the Jewish or Babylonian. If you are a 'scholar' I can't believe you don't know this.

  Anyway, what about some of the abundant secular evidence for 607 we've been waiting for?
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  I have provided evidence for 507 begiining with Stage One namely the Nabonidus Chronicle will clearly attests to the date for the Fall of Babylon. I will not comment on Stage 2 or 3 until the contrary position is stated.

  That isn't evidence for 607. It's evidence for the date of the fall of Babylon. Please provide an example of the 'abundant' secular evidence for 607.

  Your previous post suggests that you can't find any.
• 

  undercover

  If one is to accept your proposition that the dates proposed are uncertain then the genuine Christian would assign priority to the biblical chronology and prophecy and in FAITH accept a chronology that is in harmony with the Lord's will.

  Hey if you wanna accept the Society's chronology and prophecy based on faith, more power to you. Now try proving 1914 as Jesus return from the Bible and the Bible alone. Forget secular chronology, forget the Society's literature. I am not a genuine Christian, so forget faith also. Prove it to me.
• 

  BluesBrother

  What gets me about this is the way that the WTS casually refer to their date as if it were an established fact, eg WT Feb 1st 2004 p 19

  "Since Jehovah used King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon to destroy Jerusalem at the beginning of the appointed times in 607 BCE"

  The massess just accept this as a given fact, as if it were part of the Bible. An honest writer would at least acknowledge that the date was disputed

  In other areas they accept that any date of antiquity is open to revision, but not this one!!
• 

  simwitness

  scholar,

  are you serious in your statement here?

  Not one poster on this board has provide a shred of secular evidence that only supports 586 or 587. I have repeatedly asked for one piece of evidence and all I get is smoke and mirrors.

  really, if you are, I suggest you seek proffesional help, as not only this very thread provided a couple of pieces of secular evidence, both threads I linked provided evidence, and countless others have provided evidence. Perhaps you have a memory problem, since you seem to forget these things so quickly.

  Beyond that, what does it matter wether or not we have provided any evidence in support of our date? We have asked you to provide any secular evidence that supports 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. You keep deflecting that back, when you have said that 607 is supported. Please show us that support.

  As to this statement:

  I have provided evidence for 507 begiining with Stage One namely the Nabonidus Chronicle will clearly attests to the date for the Fall of Babylon. I will not comment on Stage 2 or 3 until the contrary position is stated.

  You have not shown any secular evidence as to the destruction of Jerusalem , you have only provided a date for Babylon's destruction, and a biblical interpetation for how that applies to Jerusalem's... that is not "secular evidence for the date of 607".

  Either admit that you have no evidence, as you have never supplied any, or provide some.

  Have a pleasant day.