How does the Society refute the 607/1914 discrepancy?

by ithinkisee 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ithinkisee

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx

  I LOOOOVE this simple 607 BCE explanation by Alleymom. (Thank you if you are reading.)

  She mentioned in it that she would post some of the Society's methods of "dancing around the obvious" in their publications.

  Has anyone made a collection of these attempts by the WTBS?

  Thanks in advance for any help on this. I am getting ready to present this stuff to a trusted friend. He is expecting something tomorrow and I am not gonna have time to find ALL those quotes tonight.

  So any help would be most appreciated.

  Thanks,

  -ithinkisee
• 

  No Apologies

  Short answer: They don't even try anymore...

  This was the topic I started researching when I decided it was time to get off the fence re being a dub. I started by re-reading the appendix to chapter 14 in the Kingdom book, first printed in 1981. A careful reading will reveal that even the Society admits that all the weight of archeology points to 586/7 as the correct date. So they fall back on their misinterpretation of the scripture in Jeremiah about the 70 years and the old "we rely on the Bible over mans dates", evern though nothing in the Bible supports 607.

  Well that book is over 20 years old. Surely if any new archeological evidence has been discovered since then that would support the 607 date, it would be a front-page Awake! article, at least. But there has been very little said on the topic, which leads me to suspect there has been no such find.

  So then I took my questions to an elder, very smart guy, works for IBM, who claimed he had some secular evidence supporting 607. After calling his bluff, I finally pinned him down at the Hall, where he admitted he had no such evidence. As we are standing there after the meeting, people milling around, he very quietly concedes there is no real secular support. But he rationalized to himself that since this system cannot possibly continue much longer(in his mind, anyway), he needs to believe in the Society's promises.

  So that was kinda the end of my 'research' phase...

  No Apologies
• 

  Ticker

  Well heres what I was always told and what I seem to remember reading in one of the orgs books was that they take the biblical evidence as precident over the insurmountable amount of secular evidence available which refutes the 607 date. They say their biblical evidence is the 2520 phophetic days, which adds to 1914 c.e. from their 607 bce start date of Jerusalem's destruction.

  This explanation basicly to me is a strategic smoke screen, first off how can they claim they claim biblical accurasy as precident over secular evidence? Especially when their only biblical evidence is a reference to Christ's invisible rule in 1914, basically a far fetchted grabbing at straws spinnoff of a Revelation phrophecy. The fact is I dont see any proof of 1914 being directly linked with Christ's return as no direct date is given in the bible. It is merely the speculation of the Watchtower's doctrine, a doctrine which was later changed to 1914 to begin with. Such time setting of Christ's return found its origin in the adventist movement in which Russell was one time actively involved with. Their evidence stands precariously on a pivotal date of 1914 that is really not that pivotal in signifigance to any biblical evidence.

  So we see how they weave the web, they assume automatically that the reader is siding with them and will accept their answer of having biblical authority over secular evidence. They offer no direct evidence to the reader though, evidently no doubt because they have no such evidence to present.

  Hope this helps, just what I remember of their explanation off the top of my head.

  Ticker
• 

  peacefulpete

  They often use the standard apologist tactic of impugning the "secular minded scientists" then casting doubt upon the "incomplete" evidence finally offer an alternate spin on a fragment of unrelated data that can be made to work toward their conclusion. The Insight books do just this. They argue that the evidence is incomplete then use imaginary shreds from divergent sources that can be spun without consideration of how these piecs fit the larger picture rather than use the most credible and reliable evidence. Ironically they contradict other sections in the Insight volumes that endorse the very chronolgy they deny to reach this 607 conclusion.
• 

  scholar

  ithinkisee

  The only discrepancy exists between those who advocate the impossible dates of 588, 587 or 586 for the Fall of Jerusalem or Jehovah's Witnesses who advocate the biblically calculated date of 607.

  When you see your friend make sure that you tell him that despite the weight of secular evidence scholars cannot agree on the following:

  1. A precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem

  2. A definite calender year for the beginning and end of the seventy years

  3. The length of the seventy years and whether it is literal or symbolic

  4. The end of the Assyrian World Power

  5. A king list for the Divided Monarchy

  6. The historical value or merit of Ptolemy's Canon

  7. A Absolute Date for securing pivotal dates for the Old Testament

  This confused state of affairs befalls those who prefer the secular evidence over the biblical evidence.

  scholar emeritus

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  City Fan

  It must be my turn to reply to scholar's nonsense!
  

  1. A precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem

  How many times do you have to have it explained to you why it cannot be determined in which calendar year Jerusalem fell? The bible is ambiguous about which calendar to use. Use the Nisan calendar and you get 25 August 587 BC or use the Tishri calendar and get 15 August 586 BC. Compare this to the Babylonian chronicle which pinpoints the first capture of Jerusalem as 15/16 March 597 BC in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year.
  

  2. A definite calender year for the beginning and end of the seventy years

  The bible itself gives the original seventy year prophecy a number of end dates. The Chronicler has it fulfilled in the restoration under Cyrus (Ezra 1:1). Zechariah extends these seventy years to continue up until the reign of Darius I around 519 - 516 BC (strangely enough about seventy years after the real date for the destruction of the temple). In the fictional chronology of Daniel, chap 9 is set before Cyrus. The real author wrote long after the Chronicler and Zechariah and rejects both their interpretations in favour of 'seventy weeks of years'.
  

  3. The length of the seventy years and whether it is literal or symbolic

  I personally think the original prophecy was a symbolic seventy years which was meant to signify a lifetime. (Holladay, Jeremiah I p668-669)
  

  4. The end of the Assyrian World Power

  Ninevah was finally destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians in 612 BC. The last Assyrian king disappeared from history in 609 BC with the destruction of Harran. Unfortunately for so-called Watchtower scholars they have to move these events 20 years back in time. This is impossible as texts such as astronomical diary BM32312 and the Akitu Chronicle BM86379 give the date of the battle of Hirit in Shamash-shamukin's 16th year as the absolute date of 651 BC. Business documents, The Uruk King list and the Akitu chronicle then give the following years for the reigns of these kings at Babylon:

  Shamashshumukin 20 years 667 - 648
  Kandalanu 22 years 647 - 626
  Nabopolassar 21 years 625 - 605

  So the Watchtower has to dismiss the absolute date 651 BC. Not very scholarly is it?
  

  5. A king list for the Divided Monarchy

  I think others on this board have again shown you time and again that the ambiguity in the bible does not allow a definitive king list of the divided monarchy to be made.
  

  6. The historical value or merit of Ptolemy's Canon

  Please re-read AlanF's comments to you about this subject here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/86231/1432161/post.ashx#1432161 and some of his other comments and try to understand. It really isn't that difficult.
  

  7. A Absolute Date for securing pivotal dates for the Old Testament

  I've already mentioned one above which is 651 BC. Vat 4956 gives 568 BC as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, another absolute date. Let's take another astronomical text, LBAT 1420, which reports lunar eclipses for almost every year from the first of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603BC) to his 29th year (576/575BC). Here are a list of eclipse observations from this tablet and their absolute dates:

  Oct 27/28 603 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 2
  Apr 10/11 601 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 4
  Feb 19/20 599 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 5
  May 23/24 594 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 11
  Apr 01/02 592 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 12
  Mar 22 591 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 13
  Jan 19 588 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 16
  Jan 08 587 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 17
  Aug 14/15 580 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 25
  Feb 08 579 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 25
  Jun 14 577 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 28
  Dec 08 577 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 28
  Jun 03 576 BC Nebuchadnezzar year 29

  How many do you want?

  CF.
• 

  ozziepost

  g'day City Fan,

  Don't worry about "scholar in his mind". There's none so blind as those who will not see!

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  garybuss

  There's no proof for 1914 except 607.
  There's no proof for 607 except for 1914.
  
  The Witness people have not even done any casual research.
  Their own literature does a fine job of refuting their own teachings.
  
  
• 

  Liberty II

  Scholar,

  The real important point to be made is not the " how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" details of these dates but rather the plain cold reality that it doesn't matter. 1914 is a useless date. NOTHING HAPPENED. Christ did not return and does not rule "invisibly" for the last 91 years doing nothing. What has he done? Even the WT Society has given up on this date as a marker for the big "A". It is a useless date rendered so by the passage of time and not apostate opinion. Do you understand? It doesn't matter. If Jesus came back 91 years ago what is he waiting for? The Bible didn't say he'd return and then do nothing! Why is this date important to you since your own leadership is trying to put it behind them?
• 

  stevenyc

  scholar emeritus

  so what is it, 1) soon to be retired, or 2) honorary title ?

  steve