did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
garyneal
Post 485
The king list is inaccurate so the data is compromised so whatever list you use is useless. Nebuchadnezzer did not begin his reign in 605 BCE but rather according to Bible chronology and history he began to reign in 624 as his first accession year with the months of January-February. This means that the maths do add uo with his taking of Jerusalem in his 19th year as 607 BCE.
scholar JW
did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
garyneal
Post 484
You are sadly misinformed if you think that the validity of 607 BCE is based on what WT publications say. The fact of the matter is that the celebrated WT scholars have used numerous secular sources, both ancient and modern and past and recent scholarship in support of 607 BCE all in combination of the clear testimonny of God's Word. It does not get any better than that. The date 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is rock solid whichj cannot be said for the slippery dates of 687 or 586 BCE.
The only confusion about this matter rests with apostates and higher critics who have all stumbled over 607 BCE.The very fact that 607 BCE is championed by JW'S alone should give our critics pause to think that Jehovah God is truly confounding the wisdom of the world.
The accuracy of 607 BCE points to the accuracy of 1914 CE and modern history vindicates the factual fulfilment of prophecy but there is nothing out there that can be used to support 686/587 BCE for these are 'dead end' dates.
Your so-called two answers to the seventy year prophecy are bogus and find no scriptural support for these are two hopeless theories simply leading to 'dead-ends'.
scholar JW
did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
OUTLAW
Post 14431
The date 607 BCE is not proved by WT publications alone but is proved by what the Bible states as fact which is then expressed in those faithful WT publications.
scholar JW
i have a new take on the 587/586 "controversy".
this is of course, speaking for me over 3 years after i left.
i realize that if you are first leaving, this is a big deal.
AllTimeJeff
Post 4270
You addressing the wrong crowd with your concerns with dates for it is the apostates that make a big deal over dating or certain dates. The WTS and its 'ce;ebrated' WT scholars have simply provided for the faithful and the public what the Bible really teaches on matters of history, prophecy and chronology. This now accurate informatioin loyally upholds the Bible as God's inspired Word rather than the lying prpaganda, demonic attacks on the Bible by higher critics and other opposers which has as its sole objective to destroy the faith, missiion, love and unity of the Lord's people and His Organization.
scholar JW
did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
garyneal
Post 483
Your two questions simply of biblical data essential in the construction of biblical chronology which in turn proves the validity of 607 BCE. These two biblical facts however are a big problem for those wordly scholars and apostates who try to prove 587 or 596 BCE.
scholar JW
did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
garyneal
Post 474
For starters it is the 'seventy year' prophecy of Jeremiah which must be factored into any biblical chronology and is not treated seriously by wordly scholars and apostates.
scholar JW
did you use wt dates as well as things found from a secular perspective?
if a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong?
or does the wtbs *make* the dates add up...?
AwSnap
Post 418
I have been researching WT chronology for the last forty years by means of the WT publications and have found that 607 BCE is correct further I have thoroughly examined the date in the light of all available secular evidence and NB chronology and found that there is sufficient support for 607 BCE despite the twenty year gap and the failure to acccommodate the biblical seventy years.
scholar JW
sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.
daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.
paul.
Ann OMaly
Post 1192
You are right, my wife thinks that I too am slow and a bit thick.
Scholar has no interest in responding to Lar's nonsense.
scholar JW
sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.
daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.
paul.
Alwayshere
Post 726
Your facts are all over the place and shows that you do not understand chronology nor what the WTS has written on the subject. The comment in the Isaiah commentary, Vol.1, p.253 refers to Tyre's period of domination by Babyllon for a period of seventy years. This has no direct bearing on the interpretation of Jeremiah's seventy years prophecy directed to Judah. The only direct implication is one of context wherein Judah along with other nations were to serve Babylon for seventy years and in respect of Judah this was a period of servitude-exile-desolation from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return.
The respective reganal years of Nebuchadnezzer is simply explained by the simple fact that Nebuchadnezzer had an accession year followed by his regnal year which accommodates the reference to his 18th and 19th year. This means that there is no problem with his first year or acc. year being counted from 624 BCE and his 18th regnal year ending in 607 BCE. Please consult Insight On the Scriptures, Vol.2. p.481 for a more detailed explanation of the matter.
Your use of 609 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years is bogus for the simple reason that nothing of historic significance happened in that year that would serve as a time marker for the beginning of that most momentous event in Jewish history, the seventy years.
scholar JW
sorry to rehash an old topic.. in the first year of his reign, i, daniel, understood from the scriptures, according to the word of the lord given to jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of jerusalem would last seventy years.
daniel is clearly speaking of jeremiah 25, but here he speaks of the desolation of jerusalem, rather than a babylonian dominance of jeremiah.. so how does daniel fit in with a 587/6 date for the destruction of jerusalem and the dominance of the babylonian empire refered to in jeremiah?.
paul.
digderrido
Post 1552
Paul
Like Daniel who wrote that famous reference in Daniel 9:2 to Jeremiah's prophecies concerning the devastation of Jerusalem and Judah for seventy years in Jeremiah 25: 9-11 and 29:10 you have truly used discernment. Apostates such as Alan Fuerbacher and Carl Jonsson have not shown that same discernment but have peddled the false notion that Daniel's reference only applied to Jeremiah 29:10 where it is further claimed that Daniel was simply referring to the desolations of Jerusalem would only end when the seventy years for Babylon has ceased. Such a mistaken view is simply promoted to support the false dates of 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem according to Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Therefore on the basis of Daniel 9:2 which provides an additional proof of the fact that the seventy years was a period not of Babylonian domination but rather of a fixed historic period of desolation-servitude-exile provides clear and overwhelming evidence in support of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. A clear and accurate understanding of the seventy years is the only reliable method of calculating the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah and not the listing of regnal years for the Neo-Babylonian period which clearly presents a twenty years gap between secular and biblical chronology.
scholar JW
