Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Foreigner

The facts are that Raymond Franz had already carried out research in WT Chronology and this published in the Aid book 1969, 1971, later Carl Jonsson in Sweden conducted his own independent research and submitted his treatise to Brooklyn in 1977. Long before this,  Max Hatton in Australia conducted his own research during the sixties and was probably influenced by the research of a G. Rogerson in Australia who produced a treatise on the subject of some 60 pages. It would seem that the  first or earliest criticisms of WT Chronology originated in Australia influenced by at that time scholarly research beginning in the forties carried out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.scholars.in the USA.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 62.3k
  • Replies 774
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hmmmm......I beg to differ. How about we both ask a number of friends a simple question at the KH this Sunday or in a field service group: "do you know how to explain why we believe 1914 and 607?"

This is where Freedom and sanity, and peace come from .... when you disregard people who have proved they have no credibility whatsoever ... and STOP BEING AFRAID OF DYING.  Every living thing th

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.

? O.o

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You mean, BEFORE Josiah died? O.o

Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was

This would be a matter of interpretation just like the first part. However, my statement included the phrase “I don’t doubt” which can lead to scrutiny.

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The facts are that Raymond Franz had already carried out research in WT Chronology and this published in the Aid book 1969, 1971, later Carl Jonsson in Sweden conducted his own independent research and submitted his treatise to Brooklyn in 1977. Long before this,  Max Hatton in Australia conducted his own research during the sixties and was probably influenced by the research of a G. Rogerson in Australia who produced a treatise on the subject of some 60 pages. It would seem that the  first or earliest criticisms of WT Chronology originated in Australia influenced by at that time scholarly research beginning in the forties carried out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.scholars.in the USA.

Scholar JW

Rightfully so. However, I find it, coincidental that none of the previously published treatises would, not have been available or known to others. Especially, when that research is part of a subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

J W Insider

Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of  the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important..

The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of  domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23.

Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. 

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

This statement ...

23 hours ago, Foreigner said:

2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

... is considerably different to ...

21 hours ago, Foreigner said:

King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian.

So we agree now that Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).

13 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:

               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."

Therefore, you must be arguing that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim ascended the throne before their father died. Or do you have a different scenario?

On what basis do you 'not doubt' that R. Franz and Jonsson were directly influenced by Hatton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Foreigner

Yes the distribution of those earlier treatises was restricted or limited to a few as this was pre-Internet. However, during those decades a Pastor Bruce Price again in Australia and a SDA waged a war if you like against WT Chronology and circulated the magazine Witness which was for SDA scholars, pastors and ministers again a limited distribution. Further, he published a fictional account centred in a rural setting which narrated the conversion of a Witness couple to Adventism through the prism of Chronology.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE

You are, then, embarrassed about the Bible's testimony, since as you very well know, the difference in date derives from the Bible dating Jerusalem's destruction to both the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

 For readers that are unaware, cp. 2 Ki. 25:8-10 and Jer. 52:12-14 (a repeat of the 2 Kings passage) with Jer. 52:29.

Cue Rodger Young's research (yes, yes, Neil, I got that tip from you - let's get that out of the way to avoid one of your boast-fests).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
40 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:

               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE

42 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

On what basis do you

Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.

SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942

CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956

For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75

Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Hi Ann

I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.

This is quite a surprising claim. I have looked through your comments on JWD and see that you have fared no better there than you have here. Also, what do you mean by saying that the studies of Rodger Young's "followed from observations" made by you? Not only does he not mention you, he completely disagrees with you about the date for Jerusalem's destruction. (For what it's worth, it turns out he agrees with me and thousands of others who have looked into the evidence.)

The remainder of this post is from the conclusion from his article "When Did Jerusalem Fall" (published 2004) as found here http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf

vi. conclusion

This study has examined all texts in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings that bear on the question, “When did Jerusalem fall?” Many side issues needed to be addressed to answer the question satisfactorily. A technique called Decision Analysis was used to ensure that all combinations of hypotheses were considered and that any hidden assumptions were brought out into the open. The analysis allowed us to rule out many presuppositions that were accepted in former studies and to replace them with presuppositions that do not contradict the data (the received text). The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.

(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.

(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 bc. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.

(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.

(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the fifty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions fit the data.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young . . .

You have created an almost comical juxtaposition when you mention the idea that "WT scholars have not been troubled" along with the methodology of Rodger Young. The following is from the same source quoted above, p.38 of Young's article where he gives an almost perfect description of the problematic methodology of the Watchtower's hypothesis about 607.

  • (6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conflicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conflict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conflict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conflicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation.

He here shows how his methodology contrasts with the flawed and embarrassing "methodology" of the WTS which simply declares that all the data must be declared to be in error if it doesn't fit 607. More correctly, all the data must be declared to be in error if it does not fit 1914, because the WTS has even changed the date of the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607 when they discovered that it didn't help them reach 1914 correctly. They changed the supposed "absolute" date for the first year of Cyrus from 536 to 538. Therefore, for the Watchtower, the only real "absolute date" is 1914, and all data must be declared in error if it conflicts with 1914.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.