Making 607 crumble

by ellderwho 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  simwitness

  scholar posted:

  Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607, 586 or 586. Such evidence can only relate to what these dates signify and that is to events namely the Fall of Jerusalem wherein much secular evidence abounds.

  huh?? must be some kind of high scholar secret code or something....

  At this stage no single artifact has been found that written in Hebrew has the dates of either 607, 586 or 587. Niether has any artifacts been found that deal directly with the reigns of the kings involved at the time of Jesrusalems Fall No doubt these comments will come as a great surprise but as 607 is an historical date as it is anchored in biblical history and is not a mythical as some would suggest

  I haven't heard anyone call 607 "mythical"... obvioulsy the date is real... it was a realy year in history... unfortunately for you, you cannot provide any secular evidence that the event "The fall of Jerusalem" occured in that year. While plenty of secular (and biblical for that matter) evidence has been provided that show that the event did occur in 586/587...

  And, from my understanding no "artifacts" will be found with the dates "607, 586,587" since that is not the way records were kept during that period... this is a smokescreen scholar, and you know it, because again you have been pushed into a corner with your own comments and can see no "scholarly" way out.

  "Anchored" in biblical history"... cite me chapter and verse, scholar, where this specific date is "anchored"...

  it desrves as much consideration as the alternative dates.

  But while you admit that it (607) has no more evidence then the other alternative dates, you yourself give no consideration to those alternative dates (586/587)...

  Have a pleasant day....
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607, 586 or 586. Such evidence can only relate to what these dates signify and that is to events namely the Fall of Jerusalem wherein much secular evidence abounds. At this stage no single artifact has been found that written in Hebrew has the dates of either 607, 586 or 587. Niether has any artifacts been found that deal directly with the reigns of the kings involved at the time of Jesrusalems Fall

  No doubt these comments will come as a great surprise but as 607 is an historical date as it is anchored in biblical history and is not a mythical as some would suggest it desrves as much consideration as the alternative dates

  The winds of change blew through through his life like an Ancients breath, chilling his limbs to stiffness and lifting high his billowing Kilt which now exposed his sacred Tabernacle.

  HS
• 

  Gamaliel

  elderwho,

  Glad to hear it. I think that 607 is one of the best ways to get a lot of JWs to realize they are not what they think they are. Some JWs are willing to discuss it because they don't realize, all at once, just how devastating 607 is to most of the JWs unique doctrines. Without 607 they lose not just 1914, but 1918, 1919, the "first" resurrection, the authority of the faithful and discreet slave, the myopic and self-congratulatory prophetic fulfillments, the other sheep/great crowd time split, the special kingdom message, etc. Sure, they get to keep Arius, George Storrs (no hellfire) and Pacificism, but this is not likely enough to look down on all other religions as worthy of slaughter by their almighty god of war.

  When you see how much the JWs really have to lose without 607, you see why scared Society's sycophants like scholar resort to plain old-fashioned dishonesty, every single time.

  Gamaliel
• 

  ellderwho

  Gamaliel,

  Thanks! I have my weekly study on Monday nights. I just got home. He stewed all week over 607 an AK Graysons vol 4 comentary on Neo-Bab. rulerships. But he threw me a curveball that I wasnt expecting it was the " 20th year of Artaxerxes" and the "70 weeks" of Daniel.

  I researched this subject briefly but not enough to tangle with him.( he's no light weight) which is a good thing, challenge wise. The only rebuttal I gave on this subject was the fact that the Society changes yet another date to line up the 70 weeks to eventually arrive at 29AD.

  Carl Jonsson did a great peice on this back in ' 89. However I was unable to recall some of the strong points other than the 10 years.

  E
• 

  heathen

  What scares me is that the WTBTS is so fanatical about it's chronology that to even discuss the issue as we do on the board could be grounds for a judicial hearing and all the heretic treatment that comes with it . I don't think that this is something that is deamed to be of mortal imperative . Noone can even prove that jesus and the 12 apostles were actual people much less prove that these dates are significant . What we really have is emperor constantines estimation as to the birth of christ and a calander year based on those assumptions anyway . Daniel -4 does not make reference to that appointed times of the nations and just because WW 1 happened in 1914 does not mean that it was the sign of christs presence as we know WW 2 also happened and based on the dates being thrown around could be equally as crucial to the time line .
• 

  JCanon

  You ask for ONE piece of secular evidence to support 607. No problem. The calculation begins with the pivotal date of 539 which is accepted by scholarship to mark the conquest of Babylon. proof of this is established by the Nabonidus Chronicle now located in the British Museum.This clay tablet is a well dated record of the Fall of Babylon which yields the date as October 5 Gregorian or October 11, Julian.

  Hi Scholar, any witness knows this is dismissible if they read the "Insight Book" which will tell you the Babylonian chronicles are "copies". One reference in the chronicle actually states "copied in year 22 of Darius" so it is a Persian-period "copy". Of course, one of the MAIN reasons for "copying" old chronology records is to change them. So you still lack critical documentation of a "contemporary" non-revised nature from Babylon.

  The closest we come to an HONEST record is the anti-conspiratorial document astrotext, VAT4956, which was created to hide the secret original chronology of the NB period. It has TWO DATES for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, 511BCE and 568BCE. The suppressed date would be the original chronology date, of course, which would be 511BCE.

  At this point, knowing the NB chrnology was revised (the Babylonian Chronicle being part of that revision) is to see how 511BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar fares Biblical wise. When you do you realize it's the same dating. 455BCE was the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy which is easily fulfilled by Cyrus. In that case 70 years of desolation beginning in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar dates that event in 525BCE, which means year 37 falls in 511BCE, the same dating in the text.

  But are JWs, modern-day anti-Biblical archaeologists and others really smart enough or honest enough to realize this and accept the Biblical chronology? No.

  607 BCE FAILS FOR TWO REASONS:

  1. It dates the fall of Jerusalem 70 years from the return, year 18. The 70 years, per Josephus (Ant. 11.1.1) and the Bible didn't begin until the last Jews had been deported. That was not until year 23!!

  2. It fails because the original NB chronology and Persian Period were revised, quite masterfully and thus does not represent the true timeline or the Biblical timeline, except in secretive records such as the VAT4956 which does, furtunately, confirm that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar originally fell in 511BCE which would coordinate with the Biblical chronology when you date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. There is no problem working out the timeline from that point down or from that point up all the way back to creation.

  So yes 607BCE is out for the fall of Jerusalem but so is 568BCE now that we know there is a confirmed second chronology via the VAT4956 astrotext. Turns out the correct Bible chronology was true after all, but you must interpret the 70 weeks prophecy correctly. Cyrus fulfills it in his 1st year not Artaxerxes in his 20th.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  AFTER (remember, K.I.S.S.) the 70 years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon. The king of Babylon was killed in 539, the same night as the writing on the wall. So, keeping it simple, 70 years did not begin in 607, they began in 609. What does history say happened in 609? Oh, Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar freed Babylon from the Syrians and began conquering the surrounding lands. Hmm, "these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for 70 years". How simple and fitting is that?

  This is wrong but I can understand why it's confusing!! The Bible says that "Darius the Mede" began to rule immediately after the fall of Babylon. But it is known that Darius the Mede was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and thus the legitimate heir to the Babylonian throne and thus a Babylonian king. Thus only after Darius abdicated to his nephew-in-law, Cyrus, did the Jews get released in the 1st of Cyrus after a 6-year rule by Darius, the Mede according to the Bible.

  This is why Darius the Mede is called the "MEDE" in the first place and likewise, Cyrus THE PERSIAN, since according to 2 Chronicles 36, it is when the "ROYALTY of the PERSIANS" (i.e. not the Medes) began to rule that the Jews are released. You can consider the 6-year rule of Darius either a Babylonian continuation or a rule by Medes, either way only when a Persian king takes over Babylon was the Jews to be released.

  The punishment of the "king of Babylon" and thus the official end of that rule did not occur until Cyrus came to the throne. Also keep in mind, even though Darius the Mede was a Babylonian king as well, that at large was Nabonidus, the #1 king of Babylon, until Cyrus put him in prison (under house arrest) when he took over. So indeed, while the fall of Babyloni to the Medes and Persians didn't officially end the Babylonian empire because of Darius the Mede, it did end when Cyrus became king. The Bible says the 70 years included serving Nebuchadnezzar and "his sons"; that would thus include Darius THE MEDE.

  JC
• 

  scholar

  simwitness

  I challenge you to provide secular and biblical evidence for 586 or 587 and I do not want round about computation but direct evidence for either of those years marking in your opinion the Fall of Jerusalem.

  With amusement

  scholar
• 

  Euphemism

  Can we please put scholar and JCanon in a cage and make them fight it out? Please?
• 

  Faraon

  Gamaliel,

  When you see how much the JWs really have to lose without 607, you see why scared Society's sycophants like scholar resort to plain old-fashioned dishonest, every single time.

  A horrible thought just entered my mind.

  What if the WT humbly apologizes, and then claims that indeed 587 is the real date. This would push 1914 to 1934. They could say that this was the reason why the annointed class was sealed in 1935,

  1934 would give them another 20 years to declare the end of the world.

  Then again, they could calculate the years to be 365.25 days long instead of their 360. That would still buy them more time etc.

  No wonder why religion is such a racket.

  Faraon