607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I will try that. Thanks.

@Ann O'Maly tried clearing the cache, and cookies and rebooting. Still the same. This is the only website that's giving me trouble @The Librarian. with  firefox. Started a couple of days ago...

Just tried this website in chrome, and there's no problem. I was able to type this on my lap top right now..

[AlanF]

10 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

That’s acceptable. But, when the “definitions” remain the SAME? Then, the NWT is comparable to any bible that reflects the original author’s context and intent.

Right. I consider the original NWT  among the most literally accurate of translations I've used. That's why I've quoted from it a lot on this board. Not that it's free of problems.

AlanF

[AlanF]

3 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

But, back to topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported? Yes!! It has been proven by secular chronology it’s a justifiable means to the symbolic time of the Gentiles.

Wrong. There is no proof in secular chronology for 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's fall. Virually all of secular chronology puts that date at 587/586 BCE.

Quote

COJ’s treatise was flawed from the get-go. James Penton fared no better.

Really. In what way were their writings flawed?

Don't tell us: "because they contradict Watch Tower Tradition".

AlanF

[AlanF]

23 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

I have read COJ’s Book, James, Penton book, my good old friend Raymond Franz book until he decided to pay attention to a book that was in generally flawed in every respect. So, I don’t need to define which part was good and which parts were bad. His general theory of the Gentile Times is flawed.

As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

allensmith28

Alan F's hypothesis concerning 538 BCE for the date of the Return needs to be tested and examined carefully. There are three questions one should ask:

1. Has it been peer reviewed?

2. Has it been endorsed by Carl Jonsson?

3. Why has not Alan F published this thesis in a respected scholarly journal because the subject of this date would be of great interest to scholars and historians.

Further, one could also ask is his scheme simply a 'contrivance' based upon problematics associated with the calenders used at that time. Also, how does it differ from WT methodology on this subject, the similarities between the two and the assumptions used.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

allensmith28

The Watch Tower Society's hypotheses concerning 537 BCE for the date of the Return and 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem need to be tested and examined carefully. There are three questions one should ask:

1. Have they been peer reviewed?

Answer: No. The Watch Tower Society considers itself without peers, and never submits anything for normal peer review.

2. Have they been endorsed by Carl Jonsson?

Answer: No. In fact, Jonsson is a critic of Watch Tower Chronology as a whole and has published extensive debunkings of it.

3. Why has not The Watch Tower Society published these theses in a respected scholarly journal because the subject of this date would be of minor interest to scholars and historians?

Answer: Because the matter has long been settled by secular historians and by most religious historian, and the Society knows full well that none of its chronological theses concerning 607 BCE would get past a normal peer review process.

Further, one could also ask whether the Watch Tower Society's schemes are simply 'contrivances' based upon problematics associated with the speculations of quacks like Nelson Barbour that were used to originate traditions that have all failed historical tests. Also, how do they differ from secular methodology on this subject, the similarities between the two and the assumptions used?

AlanF

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

 [pp.404-408]    This is the crust of John Aquila Brown’s observation. Did it have a direct impact on Russell’s chronology? NO! Russell might have considered number 7, but JQB’s agenda was to prove 1844. Something Russell REJECTED!!!!

Didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle.

Early in the morning yesterday, I mentioned the book from which you just quoted those several pages [pp.404-408]

On 1/7/2018 at 9:24 AM, JW Insider said:

I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective.

Of course, it is quite supportive of the historical Seventh Day Adventist (and Second Adventist) emphasis on their own chronology, but is well researched. I think we can find a better place to discuss just how, why or why not this might have influenced Russell, but I would agree with you, @allensmith28, that there was no direct impact on Russell. However, it looks like Froom, the author, was not trying to make the same point about JQB's agenda. Froom is saying that although JQB recognized 1844 very early on, that his specific scheme continued on into the future beyond 1844 without giving enough focus on the importance of 1844, and as he says, undermining it.

Also, it might be useful to notice that there were MANY points of convergence between Russell's chronology interests and J.Q.Brown's. Including Russell's acceptance of 1844 as a prophetic date, and even Russell's concern about the Mohammedan problem.

[AlanF]

allensmith28 wrote:

:: Correct. This is the argument I've been presenting.

:: Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.

Quote

That’s conceivable if it weren’t, for the many things, secular history has to offer.

That statement is meaningless. The Jewish and Babylonian calendar systems are solidly established. If you disagree, you must provide evidence along with references, if you have any.

Quote

I do agree, with certain months, however, I disagree with the implementation of, certain month.

Another meaningless statement. It's meaningless because it's not supported by any evidence.

Quote

I argued the same thing with O’Maly, and ended with a 5-6 month difference.

A difference between what and what?

Quote

Nisan 538BC would also be a focal point for the Jews since the last Babylonian King denied the Jews that celebration.

What on earth are you talking about, and what evidence do you have?

Quote

I see Cyrus giving them their PASSOVER as a sign of mending fences, and complying with God’s wishes through the Prophets.

Based on what evidence?

Quote

However, I believe getting in the last wheat harvest while preparing must be noted.

Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?

Quote

We can’t automatically assume all the people didn’t have to wait before the barley and wheat harvest, were in, before they made that journey, with enough food.

Evidence, evidence, evidence!

Quote

So, my calculations extend, about a minimum of 5-6 months to the month of Cheshvan 538BC

Present your calculations, along with all supporting evidence, and especially references to scholarly sources.

Quote

thus making the arrival time of the Jews in the Month of Nisan 537BC.

Which basically contradicts Ezra 3:1-7, because that passage implies that the Jews' arrival in "their cities" was shortly before the 7th month Tishri.

Quote

A time for jubilation with the PASSOVER and UNLEAVENED BREAD,

Pure speculation.

Quote

and 7 months later in the month of Tishri 537BC, the month of the TABERNACLES, ATONEMENT, would be more conceivable to rebuild the temple.

Again contradicting Ezra. Ezra 3:8-10 clearly states that the work on the Temple was begun in the 2nd month (Iyyar) of the 2nd year of the Jews' return.

Quote

Since a lot of emphases is placed on the Babylonian Chronicles as a failsafe. I would also remind everyone, those chronicles are of military campaigns. So, it is rather easy to compare, that chronology with Military History.

Which has what to do with pegging the date of the Jews' return to Judah?

Quote

Now, for a long time, it was said, JOSEPHUS was out of sync by at least 1-2 years.

By who?

Quote

Now, the 1-2 years has developed a different meaning.

Like what?

Quote

I will continue with my personal assessment on this one until something more concrete turns up. Meanwhile, the History of Josephus could be compiled to coincide with 537BC.

More meaningless statements.

Quote

 

History shows, Cyrus had plenty of things to do, after his conquest; it might be conceivable, everything happened in 538BC, however, the probability is remote!!!

Take the example of Donald Trump. His first year has passed and yet he still doesn’t have a FULL cabinet to run the nation properly. Then ask, why, should it be any different, even though it DID take a lot longer to do things back then, because of communication and distance.

So, one can conclude, IF the Watchtower erred? It would be defined by MONTHS not YEARS. The later part of 538BC. The other thing would be the New Year festivals by which calendar, Babylonian, Hebrew, and Persian.

 

This is approaching complete gobble-de-goop.

Quote

So, the probability of the Gentile Time still stands since that started with King Jehoiakim.

Pure speculation, based on a long chain of extremely questionable reasoning.

Quote

Therefore, even if the Watchtower is off, for 538BC, then it still holds TRUE for the Gentile Times.

What holds true? Based on what evidence?

Quote

So, it would be rounded to 67 years instead of 70 years.

Except that the Watch Tower Society has declared such a claim "apostate reasoning".

Quote

The earliest known argument has been about three years, by Secular Chronology.

References, please.

Quote

If 537BC can be explained, then 607BC can be explained by secular history.

Wrong. Even if 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Judah, 607 rests on the biblically falsified claim that Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years earlier. 2 Chron. 36:20 clearly states that the 70 years ended when the Persian empire came to power, which was in 539 BCE. And Jer. 25, 27 and 29 together show that the 70 years ended when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended -- in 539 BCE.

:: Really. In what way were their writings flawed?

Quote

His aim was to discredit the "Gentile Times". That's what, this book is about.

Wrong. You've given no evidence for anything.

Quote

He didn't prove, there's NO such thing as the time of the Gentiles, Ergo, flawed by his own reasoning.

Wrong. Jonsson's thesis is not that there is no such thing as the "Gentile times" -- after all, Luke 21:24 mentions it -- but that the Watch Tower Society's application of Luke 21:24, and lot of other stuff besides, is wrong.

If you disagree, then quote the parts of Jonsson's writings that you think prove your claim.

:: As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote

Many people that I know of, contacted many scholars through various means. I found the majority of those contacts used leading questions to mislead the scholars, about what the Watchtower had actually quoted. To have an honest assessment, contact any scholar with the right mindset about their works, will grant you an honest opinion.

More meaningless generalities. Try being specific.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

allensmith28

Alan F first raised his hypothesis on the JWD forum about August 2006 presented with a tabulation of events from Tishri, 539 BCE to Iyyar, 536 BCE. This tabulation would cover those events around the return of the Jews. He states the following:

1. Cyrus issued his Decree in his 1st year, Nisan 538 BCE counting from Month 1

2. The Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6 in Cyrus' 1st year, Elul, 538 BCE

3. The Jews are settled in their cities in Month 7, in Cyrus', Tishri, 538 BCE

What this shows that within a period of 6 full months all of the events as described in Ezra 1:1-3:1 which of course is plain and utter nonsense. Alan F has already admitted that the journey would have taken at a minimum, 4 months so one can that this is simply a 'contrivance' designed to mislead the reader.

Now, COJ is no fool and he has had plenty of time to deal with this issue and even now he could easily post an ADDENDUM in support of Alan F's hypothesis but to date Jonsson has simply confined this issue to a footnote with two scholarly references and does not share Alan's dogmatism that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return or wording thus similar.

scholar JW emeritus

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

AS28

Free AS28! Free AS28! Free AS28!

He has done his time. He is repentant. And he manfully fights a disability. @The Librarian- The Americans With Disabilities Act compels you to act.

Come now - he is flawed, but the Assyrian is at the gates, taunting (boy, does he ever!) godly interests. The forces of theocracy needs him! - I am too dumb to weigh in. Few Witnesses are up on this stuff.

At least give him time for his glorious 'stache to grow back, then set him between the very pillars of peer-reviewed excellence, so he can bring down their house upon them.

[scholar JW]

allensmith28

Further, what must be born in mind that Chronology is not just a set of numbers on paper that can be made to fit any argument according to one's bias or opinion and this why biblical chronology varies so much between scholars. Chronology simply charters history so must be built on a solid historical base and history is about people and their lives so one must not only look at a pretty colourful chart but see beyond the page and comprehend whether such a scheme can relate to human experience. In this case, a period of six months based on two calenders that already have a floating six month difference can be very problematic.

Also, one should further consider that within scholarship there are numerous scholarly papers in reputable journals that try to resolve the Nisan-Tishri problem and that is a very complex field of study for we simply do not know with certainty what Calender, Ezra used in dating the first year of Cyrus.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

I understand, O'Maly tried to sell me that bill of goods. Written History, just doesn't see it that way. Therefore, I don't see it that way. Just reading the chronicles gives us an in-depth view of what Cyrus had to contend with. O'Maly *LINKED* our debate. I don't need to explain myself again.

The silliest claim from him is that people were city dwellers. So, what! where does anyone living in a city get their food from? the CITY? Sure in modern times. You get them from a grocery store. How about back them. Didn't it have to be carted from the fields? to be sold in the city?  So, City dwellers had to wait until someone brought food in. No one needs a scholarly reference for that, just logic. 

As for COJ. You give him to much credit. He can make amendments to his book. But if he did, it would nullify most of what he originally rejected. So, plan to never see that happening.

So, NO! it would be too farfetched for the Jews to have done everything, starting from OCT-539BC

Still no evidence presented. Just bald assertions.

And of course, no one presented even one iotum of argumentation against what I posted above.

You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.

AlanF