The dispute over the year 607 BCE or
587/586 BCE is, in my opinion, unnecessary, if(!) this date would be decisive,
to calculate (chronological speculation) 2520 years and determine the beginning
of the reign of Jesus Christ.
The entire theological construction (more
accurately: chronological speculation) concerning the "2520" years is
flawed, or if you will, problematic. Every single point of this calculation is
problematic, and the possible collapse at one single point of the entire
calculation leads to the inevitable collapse of everything else, or the
impossibility of continuing the calculation. With some irony one could say that
you will never even get to the question of 607 BCE or 587/586 BCE, because the
earlier calculation steps already fail and do not allow (non-violently and
rationally!!!) to proceed further...
Single points:
1. Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:7 that
neither χρονους (times) or καιρους (appointed times), nor the day or hour
(Matt. 24:36) of His own coming can be known. If anyone attempts to overcome
this, such as Russell, who claimed that in 1914 faithful Christians would be
raptured to heaven and the reign of Christ would begin, this is a false
prophecy. It does not change the fact that many others tried to do this long
before Russell. As early as the 2nd century, for example, Hippolytus of Rome
was converting 70 weeks to 490 years from the book of Daniel (system: a day per
year) - he began a series of experiments with Bible numerals that successively
alternated: from 666, through 1000, 1260. All of these early medieval attempts
failed, so as time increased, it was necessary to duplicate these numerals or
shift the starting date, etc., etc.
If you take seriously (you don't have to!)
Jesus' own words about the impossibility of knowing the exact time of his
coming and the sign of his coming, and not the attempts of various
"Russells", then even the year 607 BCE or 586 BCE need not trouble
you in this regard...
Let's move on.
2. JWs claim that the Aramaic term
"idan" used in Dan 4:16 (25) (NWT) means year. The seven
"idan" should be "seven years" when the government of
Nebuchadnezzar was taken away. If the writer of the book of Daniel had wanted or
should have used the Aramaic term for a year, then he would have written
"schena" as in Dan 6:1 (62 years of life) or Dan 7:1 (the first year
of the reign), likewise the Aramaic passages in the book of Ezra e.g. Ezra
4:24; 5:11 or 6:3 etc. But the Aramaic term for "year" in Dan 4:16 is
not found. That alone, is enough to seriously doubt the "seven years"
in Dan 4:16.
The mere occurrence of the word
"idan" in the book of Daniel, does not make it possible, to determine
exactly what chronological length the word "idan" expresses. The LXX
Greek version usually translates the term as καιρος (see Acts 1:7 above), which
would correspond to the meaning of "a certain period of time," with
only the context determining the approximate duration.
Thus, for example, in Dan 2:8 (first
occurrence), Nebuchadnezzar threatens his counselors that they want to get
"idan" i.e. "time" (cf. the following verse 9 - and the
synonym "seman") before he, the king, forgets his dream. In any case,
it was so long before the king's work tasks would make it impossible to return
to this riddle. It probably couldn't have been long, and even shorter than
"idan", the king is annoyed. He decides in less time than
"idan", namely, to kill all his advisors. Daniel then in Dan 2:16
begs for "time" i.e. "seman", a time roughly equivalent to
"idan", to explain the dream. According to Dan 2:19, the
"seman" lasted only one night. In one night God reveals the content
of the dream and its interpretation.
Another example: Dan 3:5. Nebuchadnezzar
builds a golden statue and commands that at the time of "idan" when
everyone hears music playing, they must bow down to the statue. Then in Dan 3:7
it is stated that "at the time" when the music began to play, the
writer used for the concept of time, a synonym for "idan" as in Dan
2:9 and in the form of the Aramaic "seman" i.e. time. At the
appointed time of "idan" or "seman" the music plays. Does
"idan"//"seman" refer only to the time when the music is
playing? Probably yes, because the punishment for not fulfilling the
extortionate listening to music was to come, according to Dan 3:6, "at
that time"//"at that hour". And the denunciators, according to
Dan 3:8, came to the king at "seman" (cf. LXX: καιρος) to complain
against the Jews.
Also in the passages of Daniel chapter 4,
we find a similar picture: Dan 4:16 (25) The NWT uses "idan" to
establish the time limit of the seven "idans". Were they weeks,
months, or the risings/setting of a star or constellation? In any case, it was
not one "idan" to grow long hair and fingernails, but seven
"idans", a time limit which according to Dan 4:34 (NWT) is made up
more of "days" ("at the end of those days").
Conclusion: in terms of the meaning of the
Aramaic "idan", it can be seen that it is a temporal concept that
expresses an arbitrarily fixed length of time, usually in (hours) days (for
night prayer or when music is playing and shortly thereafter), weeks (the
king's work tasks) or months (hair and nail growth). Only the context
determines how long the "idan" lasts.
From this perspective, if the
"idan" in Dan 4:16 (25) NWT does not have to be a year long, and
apparently it does not, then the consideration of counting the 2520 years
further is completely unnecessary.
3. JWs (and some others in the present and
past) claim that the 42 months and 1260 days in Rev 11:2-3 must be recalculated
in the "day=year" formula. Nowhere is the necessity for any
recalculation given this text of Rev 11:2-3 stated. And if this calculation
worked in biblical times, it was at God's direct instruction. It is up to the
one making this claim to prove that God told him to do so...
But to judge the accuracy of the
"day=year" conversion in Rev 11:2-3, a simple thing will suffice: if
JWs claim that 1260 days is 1260 years, then they have the following problem:
In the passage regarding the two "witnesses" of Rev 11:3 and the
duration of their prophesying i.e. 1260 days, it is further written (Rev 11:9
(11)) that their dead bodies will lie in the "great city" for
"three and a half days". The JWs in their interpretation of
Revelation claim that these "three and a half days" are "three
and a half years", from 1916 to 1919, and of course refers only to
selected persons among the JWs of the time.
But then, the two witnesses who preach 1260
days according to Rev 11:3 must also preach 1260 years!!! Or do they not? Or do
they? Or how? 😊 The dead will be dead for
3.5 years because day=year and 1260 days is also actually 1260 years, but no,
it's 1260 days, no, it's 1260 years. So how many? 😊 And if we take into account that the apocalyptic locusts that the
JWs identify as their preachers are supposed to do damage for 5 months (Rev
9:5), then they are supposed to do damage for 150 years, right? Or is there no
day=year conversion here? Not to mention that the Beast from the Sea is
supposed to work for 42 months (Rev. 13:5), which, keeping the day=year
conversion, again conflicts with the JWs' interpretation of who this beast is.
The whole "day=year"
recalculation is completely confusing and betrays JWs exegetical arbitrariness.
4. Astrophysical problem. Let us concede,
despite the above arguments, that the 2520 days=year calculation is correct.
Then the astrophysical problem arises. The 2520 "years" is actually
the claim that it is 2520 "rotations of the Earth", around the Sun.
And we come to the problem of determining the year: what type of astronomical
year should be used? A tropical year with a duration about 20 minutes shorter
(365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds) than a sidereal year (365 days, 6
hours, 9 minutes, 9.45 seconds)? Without accounting for the variable length of
each type of astronomical year, that 20 minutes over 2520 years makes a
difference of about 35 days. Ironically, this confirms what Jesus said in Mat
24:36: no one knows about the hour and day.
And the main question: do we even know
which type of year Jesus will follow when He comes? If we include another claim
of the JWs, namely their calculation of the Passover, in addition to their
reasoning about year types, or more accurately, calendarism, then the question
becomes even more complicated. The JWs use a kind of luni-solar calendar, based
on Jewish tradition, to prove that their calculation of Passover, and their
calculation alone, is the accurate one. As a result, they celebrate the original,
annual feast according to the solar calendar twice a year according to the
lunisolar tradition... I'll leave the conversion of 2520 years back according
to the lunisolar calendar to the Gregorian calendar to them.
Result: there's really no need to bother
with 607 BCE. For those who argue that the chronological speculation with the
2520 year year is correct, there are so many obstacles and problems ahead, in
my opinion, that proving 607 BCE may not even happen.
