607 Again!

by sammielee24 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I am trying to prove that Jeruselum fell in 586/87 thereby making the Witness date of 607 an error. I sent my JW sister in law the chart of dates that prove chronologically the date of 607 is wrong using the Insight book and the Babylon book. I told her I was 'troubled' by this find and asked her to help me out by showing me where I can find proof in the literature that would line up with these dates. Her response was to instruct me to read the KC book and the Insight book again - the chapter below was her instruction. I'm getting really ticked off right now and really frustrated - anyone have any ideas on how I can respond on this? grrrrrrr.................

    *** kc 188-9 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let the Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E. Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.

    But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:

    Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year. Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.— Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.

    Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years.” ( Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7) He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” ( Against Apion I, 19) This agrees with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 that the foretold 70 years were 70 years of full desolation for the land. Second-century (C.E.) writer Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the 70 years commenced with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years.—See also 2 Kings 24:18–25:21.

    But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claim that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70 years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus’ decree came late in his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537 B.C.E.

    However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year from 538 down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away the problem have in a strained manner claimed that in speaking of “the first year of Cyrus” Ezra and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewish viewpoint that differed from the official count of Cyrus’ reign. But that cannot be sustained, for both a non-Jewish governor and a document from the Persian archives agree that the decree occurred in Cyrus’ first year, even as the Bible writers carefully and specifically reported.—Ezra 5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.

    Jehovah’s “good word” is bound up with the foretold 70-year period, for God said:

    “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’” (Jeremiah 29:10)

    Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) And that proved to be so.

    Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather than by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence, counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in 537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from the throne and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a throne in earthly Jerusalem.—Ezekiel 21:19-27.

  • sunshine2
    sunshine2

    Hi Sammie,

    maybe the book "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" can help you....The Insight Book mentions Josephus (Antiquities X, ix, 7).....there, in the book I mentioned, it says on page 298, that the Watchtower Society conceals the fact that Josephus, in his last reference to the peoriod of Jerusalem's desolation, states that the desolation lasted for fifity years, not seventy. The statement is found in " Against Apion I,21, where Josephus quotes Berossus' statement on the Neo-Babylonian reigns.

    In the book " Upon the chronology of Josephus" the translator of Josephus, William Whiston wrote that Josephus often in the later parts of his works, attempted to corrected earlier figures. For expamle....the length of the period from the Exodus to the building of the temple as 592 years, which he later changed to 612. ......from the building of the temple to its destruction, he first gives 466 years, which he later corrected to 470.

    Maybe you can find these books in a library...if the Society relies on Josephus to proof the 607 theory, than maybe you can use Josephus to disarm that theory.

    Good luck, it's a hard subject to explain....I hate history and dates, but that book was very interesting to read.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    Thanks...I'm exhausted trying to prove a point to a Witness when to my way of thinking, they should be the ones who should prove it to me! Let's face it, if service is showing love and that's the whole focus of their existence - bringing we non believers into their trooth - then they should be able to prove and without a doubt, their doctrines and reasoning. I just get frustrated banging my head up against a cult door but if I don't try, I get just as frustrated because what good is knowledge if you don't use it to expand and enlighten, debate and discuss. I will be going to the library tomorrow to look for the book....

  • Ingenuous
    Ingenuous

    There's a great article here: http://www.disfellowshipped.org/607eng.htm

    It examines the assertions in the 'Kingdom Come' book.

    I found this on beliefnet.com, submitted by member "Falkwing." It uses only WBTS publications:

    http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=28082&discussionID=426084

    Nice, neat, to the point.

    "Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this."

    Since when has the WBTS depended on cuneiform documents to establish doctrine? Why don't they note that there are no cuneiform documents supporting a date of 607 BCE for the destruction of

    "More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year." This is correct, as far as Jeremiah's writings are concerned. What is not mentioned is Daniel 1:1-3, 6. From: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/captivity.html

    "He states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged in the third year of Jehoiakim (father of Jehoiachin), and that he, Daniel, was taken captive at that time (Dan. 1:1-3, 6). This account means that Nebuchadnezzar had taken captives even before he was crowned king. Further, Daniel's account is verified in the history of Nebuchadnezzar by Berossus of Babylon. This Babylonian history, no longer extant, is quoted by Josephus as stating that after Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish in Syria (in the spring of 605 B.C.), he immediately "settled the affairs of Egypt, and the other countries" and sent captives from the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Egyptians to Babylon before he returned there himself (in August) to be crowned king after his father's death."

    Also discussed is the chronology behind the missing two years.

    "Historians accept that Cyrus conquered in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E."

    How come they rely on "historians" to establish these dates for Cyrus, but don't accept "historians" who state was destroyed in 587/6 BCE?

  • ezekiel3
    ezekiel3

    Sammie: Your frustration is coming from the fact that if the WTS has printed anything on a subject (no matter how bogus) that's good enough for your average JW.

    If the publication conflicts with a "worldy" statement, then the worldy statement is wrong.

    If the WTS publication is confusing or circular, then you need to study deeper, or better yet "Wait on Jehovah".

    Try asking specific questions targeted at weak JW reasonings.

    Like, "Does any other organization besides JWs, religious or secular, believe in 607 instead of 587?"

    The answer is no.

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee

    You can even get more simple.

    In the Insight book they spend a lot of time saying how bad astronomical records (Insight Vol. 1 p454), lunar recordsInsight Vol. 1 p 455). They admit the business tablets are complete and synch up with the accepted years of Babylonian rule. (KC Appendix, also Insight Vol 1 pg453 par 5)

    Yet in the same part under chronology (IT Vol 1 p453 par 2) the Society uses (a) an astronomical tablet (Strm.Kambys.400), (b) 2 lunar eclipses, and (c) a business document.

    So their pivotal date for 539 is no more reliable than 586 ...

    -ithinkisee

  • justhuman
    justhuman

    70 YEARS are NOT for Jerusalim but FOR Babylon.There are are many other translations that instead of using the phrase "at" they use "for" Babylon, and the Hebrew text is actually using the word "for". So the 70 years is the time that Babylon will rule as a dominant power..Simple as that...

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" directly deals with that garbage argument in the index. It exhaustively disects the Watchtower's "chronology".

    GBL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit