607 date (page 4)

googlemagoogle

it's probably on page 105, but i'm not sure, don't have an english version. it's a grey box with a foto of charlie. i think they explained it by some miraculous error, that made the calculation right, although it was wrong... gee.

that other calculation is about the 69 yearweeks i think... starting with the rebuilt temple to the appearaance of the christ. that's also fun stuff. mostly because noone knows when jesus was born (if at all, that is). and iirc their pivotal date is another false one. never been into that one (except the birth of jesus), so i can't give you more info on that.

M.J.

This morning I questioned the 607 date and was told that it is BIBLICAL whereas the 587 date was only History - I presented the length of the rule of Kings etc to arrive at 587, but, was told, this was recorded inaccurately by Historians (time being measured in differnet ways and so not reliable).

You must have forgotten King Nevawuzza. I have the comic book to prove the existance of King Nevawuzza.

Seriously, that is a total cop-out made from ignorance. Time was consistantly measured according to the year of such-and-such king, just as we measure it in reference to a particular King of kings. That's why King Lists were made. It was reliable enough to use in all matters of business transactions, astronomical dating, historical accounts, official records, etc. The only difficulties arrise when you have to compare the dating between one kingdom and another kingdom, as the starting point for year 1 of a king sometimes differed.

Googlemagoogle, that is the most consise, yet thorough bashing of the "gentile times" apart from the whole kinglist thing that I've read. Thanks!

MidwichCuckoo

googlemagoogle - I have the Revelation 1988 ed on disc - the page you mentioned says -

4
From the mid-1870?s, Jehovah?s people had been anticipating that catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times. This is the period of "seven times" (2,520 years) running from the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. to Jesus? enthronement in heavenly Jerusalem in 1914 C.E.?Daniel 4:24, 25; Luke 21:24, King James Version.
5
Thus, when C. T. Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Society, appeared for morning worship with the Brooklyn, New York, Bethel family on the morning of October 2, 1914, he made the dramatic announcement: "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day." Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching that many long-standing monarchies disappeared

I can't see any reference to 606/607 - is 1988 a revised edition?

I have the ''keep it simple'' list supplied by Alleymom ( ta - useful), but JW visitor said that 607 is BIBLICAL and 587 is a date worked out by Historians who have assumed wrongly about time measurement. <sigh>

Has anyone got any information on this 455BCE - WHICH I was told was agreed by both JW and Historians (the latter obviously just GUESSING, lol)

joelbear

what makes the 607 thing so important besides the 1914 tie in, is that dates are facts. they are part of recorded history.

all the other doctrines can be argued into eternity, they are all interpretation, perception and belief.

dates are facts that are either right or wrong. no other source other than watchtower pubs give the date of the fall of Jerusalem as 607 BC.

its a false statement, not a fact.

M.J.

JW visitor said that 607 is BIBLICAL and 587 is a date worked out by Historians who have assumed wrongly about time measurement. <sigh>

If you simply throw out the "faulty assumptions" of historians about time measurement as not being reliable, then there is no way of knowing that 607 is reliable either! That is because the WTS selectively HAS to rely on such "faulty assumptions" to arrive at 607. So if you can simply dismiss them as "faulty" then that that means there is no basis for claiming 1914 is reliable!

MidwichCuckoo

joelbear - agree - and when I asked WHERE in the Bible 607 originated, I received, what I can only describe as, utter confusion....

455 is the pivotal date where 607 is calculated from - FIRSTLY (and you'll like this!), I was told that 607 is arrived at by adding 70 years (Cyrus, Nehemiah etc) to 455! Hmmmm (that didn't work) - so THEN it's calculated from Ezra 1v1,2..., I really WILL do my homework regarding 455 as it was stressed SOOOO much!

joelbear

the reality is that no matter how much hogwash a witness spews about 607 and how it was determined. in actuality. 1914 was deemed to be the beginning of the end because of WWI and they then backdated 2520 years to get to 607 BC

Robert_V_Frazier

JW visitor said that 607 is BIBLICAL and 587 is a date worked out by Historians who have assumed wrongly.

It's very important to always remember there are no absolute dates anywhere in the Bible. They didn't have a standard calendar that deals in years with a fixed reference point, as we do with B.C./A.D. All dates are given as relative to important events -- the 3rd year of this king, the year that king died, the year the emperor took a census for taxation purposes, etc. All actual dates in terms of B.C./A.D. in reference to the Bible are all dates established by secular chronology -- there is no biblical chronology. We can and do link Bible relative dates to the secular chronology, which can be and is linked to our system of B.C./A.D. A huge help in this is the detailed chronology of the neo-babylonian empire, with its detailed king lists, which can be dated with great precision because, unlike the Bible writers, the neo-babylonians were obsessed with the "importance" of solar and lunar eclipses. They made very precise observations of them, and dated them by the reigns of their kings, just as the Bible writers date events by the Israelite kings and certain Roman emperors. The timing of solar and lunar eclipses is a matter of simple mathematics for astronomers, so we know exactly when the neo-babylonian kings ruled. And the Bible tells us which Israelite kings were ruling at the same time as which neo-babylonian kings, so from that, we can work out when the kings in the Bible ruled.

The 607 date is fantasy, based on insanity. The 587-586 (end of 587, beginning of 586 -- the date is exact within a month, but not to the day) date is an unarguable FACT, based on science, history, and the Bible. Only a brainwashed JW could examine the evidence and reach any other conclusion. Most JW's accept the Society's lie about 607 on blind faith in the Society, not on any examination of the facts. Hardly the fault of the majority of JW's; the evidence is more than a little hard to follow (if you even know where to look, and not many do), and the Society never gives any reason for the 607 date. They just dump it on the unsuspecting JW's and tell them to believe it, or else.

Robert V Frazier

IP_SEC

If the case is one of intelectual honesty, ok, let the argument rage on but to me, from a purely spiritual point of view, 607 is of null import. The date for JeruSalems destruction cannot be calculated without the help of archeology and secular history. Period.

Do you really expect me to believe that god would utter a prophecy and then leave the only way to interpret it to depend on the proper archaeological discoveries being made? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I mean think about it. To become an archaeologist takes a college education which for many years god was vehemently against. Hah.

And these folk that hang on to 607... ok so what? Say the JWs are right about that. So freaking what? That'd be the only thing. Why do you argue this subject but nary a peep from you on the others? False prophecy, Sex Abuse, Hypocritical Doctrine, a Pharisaic Governing Body? Can you deny these things? No! Or at least you don't try. Arguing for 607 is straining the gnat to gulp the camel.

undercover

This morning I questioned the 607 date and was told that it is BIBLICAL whereas the 587 date was only History - I presented the length of the rule of Kings etc to arrive at 587, but, was told, this was recorded inaccurately by Historians (time being measured in differnet ways and so not reliable).

And recorded inaccurately by the WTS.

That's why it's important to use the WTS literature when showing someone those lengths and dates...you cannnot reconcile the date of 607 with the lengths of the rules of the kings as listed by the WTS. One or the other is in error.

607 date

Share this