607 B.C.E.

[JW Insider]

On 4/25/2016 at 8:07 PM, Allen Smith said:

Hey! You caught me O'Maly. I meant to say wannabe historian.

 

Allen,

The 7th Day Adventist Pastor, Larry E Ford, wrote the book you are quoting from. As a Seventh Day Adventist he continues to believe a lot of the ideas that we have dropped and rejected. We also still have many ideas in common. His reason for bringing up Rand, from 1946, is to provide a kind of scattershot bunch of ideas that he can then reject where he wants and accept where he wants. They provide some hints that he, Ford, has some backing, although he is rejecting more of Rand than he accepts.

 

Anyone who wants to see the book you are quoting from can find it on Google Books at

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1512714143

 

Understanding the "Beasts" of Revelation 13

By Larry E. Ford

 

Here are some highlights quoted from the book:

 

Some say that the Bible is 25% prophecy; some say 33%; and some say 80%. I would say that, from Genesis to Revelation, it is all prophetic. It is not prophetic just because Scripture is filled with symbols and types. . . All of the past historical events were written as warning messages to "us" —that is, to the ones who are alive during the generation in which it is all to be fulfilled.

Just recently, the Watchtower dropped this similar view that every parable and narrative could somehow be turned into a prophecy about 1918, 1919, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1935, etc., based on the idea that this generation starting in 1914 was so important to Bible prophecy that "everything" must somehow refer to "us." (Elijah's experiences, Naboth's Vineyard, Prodigal Son, etc.) So we have a new rule that only when the Bible explicitly presents it as a type, only then do we have a right to declare the anti-type.

We continue to keep a few exceptions around, such as the "faithful and discreet slave" (GB) "Nethinim" (GB helpers) "Jehonadab (great crowd) and Nebuchadnezzar's 7 years of madness (=2,520 years of Messianic rulership "madness" until Nebuchadnezzar, representing Jesus' rulership, returns to the throne).

 

But there is one other exception that we rarely refer to any more, but when we do mention it, it is often in support of a bit of our chronology. It's the "sabbath." Seventh Day Adventists, who focus on the meaning of the sabbath a lot, have the same teaching:

 

This witness and warning are embedded in the meaning of all of God's Holy Days, including the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (compare Lev. 23 to Heb. 4). They are all prophetic insights into God's plan of salvation.

 

Rand was one of those who expounded on the idea that if Peter said "a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years" then the first 6 days of the week represented man's attempts to rule himself for 6,000 years, and the final day refers to the 1,000 year millennium of Christ. This should sound familiar since we believe the same.

 

The problem is that Rand -- like many others -- thought that it would be so much more understandable if Adam was created around 4000 BC, Jesus born around 0 BC, and Judgement Day at about 2000 CE. See how much simpler that is? (Therefore, others even placed the Flood at 2000 BC, David at 1000 BC.) This idea tickles the ears, because the schema is so easy.

 

But he also managed to come up with a schema that allowed for other periods of time that Adventists still hold dear: the "Time of the End" [Last Days] a time for "signs" to be seen, for the "good news" to be preached, etc. Rand did this by referring to the 1,000 years in our common calendar as "solar" time, but claiming that the same years were different in "lunar" time, and then believed that "sacred" time was the mean (average) between the two. Clever, eh?

 

Look what he can do now, and how he can continue to give prophetic significance to those early days of "new light" and "present truth" that began arising in the 18th century with men like Darby (Plymouth Brethren), Second Adventists, etc.

 

Howard B. Rand, in his book Study in Daniel (chapter 24: "End of Days"), gives a lunar, mean, and solar calendrical method for pinpointing the 20th century as the "end time" when Jesus Christ will ultimately intervene to put a halt to the destruction of the planet. He dubs the 180 years between the lunar termination (1821-1822) and the solar termination (2001-2002) cited below as the Time of the End. Take note of his methodology in the following quote from his Destiny Magazine, August 1946:

Now time in the Bible is measured by lunar, mean and solar years, so there will be three terminal dates for the 6,000 years on each of these respective scales. The terminal of 6,000 lunar years from Adam's fall is 1821-2 A.D.; the terminal year on

mean or sacred time is 1911-12; and the solar year terminal is 2001-2.

The present year, 1963 A.D., is 5961-2 years from Adam and 38 years remain in of the full 6000 solar years yet to run, although we are 142 years beyond the terminal of 6000 lunar years and it is 52 years since the expiration of 6000 years on sacred or mean time.

 

Rand also came up with something quite similar to what Brother Albert Schroeder came up with when he thought of changing the beginning of the "generation" to October 4, 1957 -- the launch of Sputnik. Note what Rand said, from your same book, of course:

 

 

Rand uses Daniel 9:27 to make a point about the terminal point of the solar time. The expression "overspreading of abominations" is the focus of the discussion. Note the following citation by Rand:

Rev. [A]lbert Barnes, in his commentary on Daniel written in 1853 A.D., states that the Hebrew word rendered overspreading means properly "a wing," like the wing of a bird, and he shall make desolate actually means "to lay waste, to make desolate." Dr. Barnes was puzzled as to what this "thing with

wings pouring out desolation" could mean.

It was impossible for Dr. Barnes to comprehend its full meaning nearly one hundred years ago. But no man today needs to be in ignorance of what "winged things passing overhead and pouring out desolation on the people below" really means (Ibid; p. 258).

By combining the term overspreading and the phrase "he shall make desolate," Rand concludes that Daniel actually sees the bombing airplane, which has increased man's ability to engage in war and destroy massive territories. To what else can wings refer in the 20th Century except bombing airplanes? It was in that century that the airplane evolved into an effective machine of war.

 

The author, Ford, adds:

 

Rand's commentary was written originally in 1948 and republished in 1963 with numerous amendments to it. This quotation is from the 1963 edition. How did he figure out the point from which "Adam's fall" took place? It presupposes that "Adam's fall" took place in 4000 BC (Ibid; Appendices: "A Chronological Chart of Events"). It appears to support his idea about the 20th Century as stated above. . . . However, it would take him and his 1948 readers 53 years (2001-1948=53) to find out that he was wrong!

 

This next part will sound familiar to most Witnesses:

 

He goes on to conclude that the Soviet Union is Gog and Magog—the Antichrist (Gog) and Beast (Magog). With that in hand, he declares that they will invade Israel sometime before 2001 in fulfillment of Ezekiel 38, 39 (Ibid; pp. 296-312). On p. 310, he specifically says: "At the end of

years Soviet Russia will advance with a great army and numerous cavalry [and] establish themselves in Palestine [that is, Israel]. Rand expected that end of years to have occurred before 2001.

Beyond the fact that Soviet Russia disappeared back in the 1980s…

 

The book you are quoting from makes a case against this idea. Here's another issue that should sound familiar to Witnesses. It's after a quick discussion of Archbishop Ussher's idea that Adam was created in 4004 BCE, and the idea of developing a timeline off the end of 6,000 years of man's existence on earth:

 

Even then, we're left clueless as to how long it took Adam and Eve to sin against God after their creation and, therefore, precisely when the 6,000-year countdown should have begun.

 

I don’t know if you were around in 1975 when this exact topic was brought up regularly at the meetings.

 

Rand also managed to get the 2,520 years, not from Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but from the handwriting on the wall that Belshazzar witnessed:

Look at the words again using that cipher: "A mina, a

mina, a shekel, and half a mina." Now what?

 

There are 50 shekels in a mina. There are 20 gerahs (a word not written on the wall) in a shekel. If you use the weight units based on the words, then the phrase can be interpreted: "1,000 [50 x 20], 1,000 [50 x 20], 20 [the gerah], and 500 [25 x 20]." Added together, they total 2,520 —a number significant to Bible students (for example: Daniel's 70th week 7 days 7 x 360 days in a year 2,520 days long). Now, it is stipulated that you must be aware of even more: (a) There is a short-term understanding, and (b) there is also a long-term understanding. In other words, there was, supposedly, a fulfillment for Belshazzar's time, as well as a fulfillment for a later time—essentially, the last days (Ibid.).

 

The author is not agreeing with Rand, but showing that he is grasping as untenable ideas. Then the author goes on to critique Rand's ideas and then gets to the point where he is discussing

what is wrong with the section you quoted. He finishes up with an interesting idea:

 

Each word had a particular meaning that was executed that very night. To attempt to apply its meaning to some double, long-term application is adding to God's word (see Deu. 4: I, 2; 12:32 and Prov. 30:5, 6). There is no mention of an application to the "end times."

 

If we (Witnesses) applied this same bit of counsel to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 we wouldn't even be having a discussion of 607, etc.

 

Rand grasps at whatever he can find, and doesn't think it through. He quotes from very old sources, and ignored anything that didn't fit with a preconceived idea. I don't think this is the mark of a historian or even a wannabe historian. It's just another person grasping at any idea, crazy or not, who wants his particular interpretation of Bible prophecy to be right.

 

So where does that leave your claim?

 

That's "zero" so far on your ability to point to "some historians" who believed Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 603. Still looking for the "some historians" that you mentioned.

[JW Insider]

On 4/24/2016 at 7:33 PM, Allen Smith said:

Unfortunately, this of course could not possibly be since you keep insisting that the Babylonian Chronicles are not flawed.

Not saying that they can't be flawed, just saying that they happen to fit the evidence from several other independent lines of evidence. So far, there is no evidence that they are flawed. What you brought up was an interesting topic for discussion, and I appreciated it, but it turns out that you are using some speculation that may or may not be true, and then insisting that your speculation is evidence. I'm sure you realize that this is not an honest way to make use of evidence.

 

On 4/24/2016 at 7:33 PM, Allen Smith said:

Have you bothered to read what you wrote? Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t possibly have taken care of Egyptian affairs within the time frame you’re relating to. Carchemish battle (605BC) Nebuchadnezzar returning home (605BC) Taking control of thorn and returning to Hatiland.

When you say "couldn't possibly" you are doing the same thing. You are turning your speculation and conjecture and trying to turn it into facts and evidence. Taking care of the affairs of the enemies does not require travel, only that he "makes arrangements." Remember that he still would have left generals and messengers in place while he rushed home.

 

On 4/24/2016 at 7:33 PM, Allen Smith said:

I’m not suggesting the chronicles are wrong given face value, but flawed with its timing of events. However, historians contradict ancient works due to not understanding the content their reading all the time.

I'm sure that this can and did happen. Just that we don't have real evidence that it happened in this case. Between 609 and 605 Babylon was just beginning to flex its muscles. That doesn't mean that all nations were immediately brought under their control. "Settling the affairs" could even have been terms of peace or truce for some of these nations until he could come back later and finish the job.

 

On 4/24/2016 at 7:33 PM, Allen Smith said:

Did the WTS emphatically state that 607BC was fool proof? No, they have stated it many times, they arrived at that date by back tracking 539BC and giving leeway for the Judeans to return home at 537BC. They never stated it was an infallible date. It is BASED on FAITH.

I have never claimed that 607 is not a viable date. It actually occurred somewhere between 608 and 606. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred during that year, and that there is overwhelming evidence that it did not occur that year. Perhaps something else happened that year which perfectly fits what Jeremiah had in mind about Babylon being given 70 years of rule. Perhaps Jeremiah used the term 70 in a sense similar to the idea in Psalms that man's lifespan is 70 or 80. Just because people lived to be 66 or 75 or 83 years of age doesn't change the idea.

Also, I would have no problem with anyone claiming that the date is not infallible but is based on FAITH. That would clear up everything. It's when the claim is made that it is correct because it was worked backwards from a so-called "absolute" date, that we have a problem defending it to anyone who asks a reason from us.

On 4/24/2016 at 7:33 PM, Allen Smith said:

The other thing you’re not seeing, I’m switching between “standard chronology”, and the “Oslo chronology” which differ by 20 years.

Here's my opinion on this so-called "Oslo Chronology"

There is no such thing as an "Oslo Chronology." As you are aware, a man named Rolf Furuli, a Witness, has come up with the idea of the "Oslo Chronology" I'm guessing because he is from Oslo and really is the kind of egotist that would like to be seen as the man who saved WTS chronology. But from an academic perspective, it was a scholastic fraud. I don't mean that he might not personally believe in it. The way he uses evidence is not up to academic standards. It makes too much use of what is often called "academic dishonesty" in terms of the claims he makes about evidence in order to dismiss it. If you do this once, it can be seen as a mistake, twice, and you just appear sloppy, but if at least 40 such false claims always fit your unique theory, then you lose credibility as any kind of researcher. There is no way these books can be seen as anything but special pleading built on dozens of logical fallacies. You will never be able to find a historian or wannabe historian who could defend these books.

Rolf Furuli is a man with whom I have communicated on several occasions. He proposed a theory that we could take about 10 different lines of evidence that indicated 587 for the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and pretend that 8 of them don't actually matter at all. In fact he makes the false claim that all of them are built on misunderstandings of just one or two lines of evidence, because he obviously doesn't want to admit that the others are truly independent lines of evidence. So he focuses most of his "best evidence" against a single tablet (which he pretends is somehow the only source of identifying the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign). And what does he finally conclude? That it's very likely a fraud. His evidence for it being a fraud is laughable, because he proposes that it was changed by a museum curator, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence against it.

He says that, failing that, you can look at the astronomical sightings on this particular astronomical diary and tie them to a time 20 years off. I even followed a debate where I double-checked every one of Furuli's findings on that tablet, while another person debated an elder from Ohio, and we all discovered that Furuli was either extremely sloppy or dishonest. In fact, even though the the other elder still wanted to believe Furuli, he finally came up with his own alternate scheme about how several of these sightings might have been 20 years off, but he had to stop defending most of his evidence. Furuli's attempt was a complete mess.

Furuli is not a chronologist or historian, and as it turns out, doesn't even have a good understanding of the Bible's chronology. (I pointed out some evidence for this in a previous discussion on jw-archive.) Because he created a couple of books that are "laughed at" by actual historians and archaeologists, I'm afraid he has done a great disservice to the credibility of the WTS. The fact that the WTS used some of his unique ideas in a set of articles a couple years ago, just makes this matter of honesty much more important.

[Guest Allen Smith]

Quote

JWinsider: Furuli is not a chronologist or historian, and as it turns out, doesn't even have a good understanding of the Bible's chronology. (I pointed out some evidence for this in a previous discussion on jw-archive.) Because he created a couple of books that are "laughed at" by actual historians and archaeologists, I'm afraid he has done a great disservice to the credibility of the WTS. The fact that the WTS used some of his unique ideas in a set of articles a couple years ago, just makes this matter of honesty much more important.

I never implied Furuli was anything but a linguist. A linguist has a strong argument in understanding language. In this case, ancient script, and area of expertise chronologist or historians don’t command. You revert back to the Carl Olof Jonsson mentality. No different from O’maly’s failure to see written works that dispute his and your claims.

AS I have insisted for a long time now. Your observations are also speculative, since history RECORDS, abundance of other propositions that you REFUSE to recognize. You’re predicated to ONLY Prove the WTS wrong, and that’s it.

Once again, the only dishonesty comes from those that REJECT historical acclaims from ALL sources. I can say with all honesty, YOU have NOT proven anything beyond the fallacies of conjectural books that are as much laughable and harm credibility to chronology in any subject, something your thoughts don’t command, honest logic.

Quote

JWinsider: Also, I would have no problem with anyone claiming that the date is not infallible but is based on FAITH. That would clear up everything. It's when the claim is made that it is correct because it was worked backwards from a so-called "absolute" date, that we have a problem defending it to anyone who asks a reason from us.

Fortunately, History does prove events going backwards from this so-called “absolute” date, since you keep implying the year 597BC as a viable date, and NOT this childish view of between 598-596. Secular History records that, and yet your contention to repudiate the WTS, dismiss it by your assertion of this so-called “absolute” date. And you’re recanting to acknowledge by your statement 605BC as well. In my book that proves intellectual dishonesty, once Again.

Quote

JWinsider: All I am saying is that there is no evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred during that year

And this is why you need to learn to understand scripture. And if you’re going to argue about chronology, then learn history from all aspects of it.

[Guest Allen Smith]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's "zero" so far on your ability to point to "some historians" who believed Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 603. Still looking for the "some historians" that you mentioned.

Anyone writing about Biblical history or bible chronology is a BIBLICAL HISTORIAN. You asked me to prove, if there are people to write such nonsense, and I did. Now you’re refuting your own question. Just because you didn’t like the answer. That just continues to show your intellectual dishonesty.

But keep searching, you’ll find others that speculate on the accession year to be 603BC, 605BC. Now you’re asking for an answer of a RENOWNED SCHOLAR. I have no faith in academia when it comes to BIBLE UNDERSTANDING. Perhaps you do, and maybe that’s the problem.

[JW Insider]

56 minutes ago, Allen Smith said:

Anyone writing about Biblical history or bible chronology is a BIBLICAL HISTORIAN. You asked me to prove, if there are people to write such nonsense, and I did. Now you’re refuting your own question. Just because you didn’t like the answer. That just continues to show your intellectual dishonesty.

But keep searching, you’ll find others that speculate on the accession year to be 603BC, 605BC. Now you’re asking for an answer of a RENOWNED SCHOLAR. I have no faith in academia when it comes to BIBLE UNDERSTANDING. Perhaps you do, and maybe that’s the problem.

OK. If that's really your position, then what can I do? As it turns out, the case you knew about was almost as germane to the topic, as saying that there really are mathematicians who say that 2+2=5. And that this somehow proves that you shouldn't believe renowned mathematicians. I say that it doesn't have any effect on the evidence of real mathematicians, but you appear to be claiming that anyone who writes any nonsense on a subject can count himself among the others in that field.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Allen Smith said:

AS I have insisted for a long time now. Your observations are also speculative, since history RECORDS, abundance of other propositions that you REFUSE to recognize. You’re predicated to ONLY Prove the WTS wrong, and that’s it.

Once again, the only dishonesty comes from those that REJECT historical acclaims from ALL sources. I can say with all honesty, YOU have NOT proven anything beyond the fallacies of conjectural books that are as much laughable and harm credibility to chronology in any subject, something your thoughts don’t command, honest logic.

Yes you have insisted on the same thing for a long time now. That's fine. I just wish that you were able to understand that you are fighting against an argument you wish that I was making, not the actual argument that I am making.

You might think my goal is proving the WTS wrong, but it's really that we present the evidence honestly, having nothing to be ashamed of. I think that will clear everything up. You say that history records an abundance of other propositions that I refuse to recognize. Although I do recognize that there will always be conjecture and speculation related to this topic, so far, NONE of those propositions provides a basis for 607 as the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. In other words, no matter how often you try to say that there are a lot of problems with the evidence, NONE of it points to 607 and ALL of it points away from it, for the destruction of Jerusalem. If we really believe it's that important, then why not present ALL that evidence?

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

And you’re recanting to acknowledge by your statement 605BC as well. In my book that proves intellectual dishonesty, once Again.

And of course, I don't see how truthfully acknowledging the evidence proves intellectual dishonesty. I didn't recant anything, but even if the evidence had led me to change my mind about 605 (which it didn't) then I don't think you'd be able to explain how that would be intellectual dishonesty, either. You seem to have a habit of finding words like "intellectual dishonesty" and "laughable" in things I've said about someone and you think it's always going to be appropriate to blame-shift as if this kind of insulting tactic works on adults.

Acknowledging the evidence is all I ask of myself, you, the WTS, and anyone else. It's our responsibility as Christians.

• (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/25/2016 at 10:07 PM, Allen Smith said:

Well, the exaggeration is in the hyped up "Babylonian Chronicle"

And now we're back to your mistaken understanding which I already corrected a few posts ago.

On 4/25/2016 at 10:07 PM, Allen Smith said:

And as for historians, look them up, Just as the insinuation implies, too me they are all wannabes, since known of you have learned chronology the right way.

We get it. There are no historians you can name who believe 603 BCE was Neb's accession year after all.

On 4/25/2016 at 0:01 AM, Allen Smith said:

It would be NO different if a historian thought 605BC was Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year. That would make Neb rushing home from Carchemish in 606BC.

I hope that was a typo, otherwise you're having Neb rushing home (not from Carchemish, but from 'the area of Hamath') to claim the crown a year before his accession year!

Your screenshot of 'problems' with Jehoiakim's 3rd year and Daniel's 3 years training have long been resolved.

[Ann O'Maly]

21 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

you’ll find others that speculate on the accession year to be 603BC, 605BC.

There is no speculation about 605 BCE being Neb's accession year. The year is supported by all the available evidence.

[Hugh Baxter]

JW Insider and Ann O'Maly

Thank you both for such clear and concise information. Also your not resorting to insults and verbal diarrhea as done by one other party makes you both stars as far as I am concerned.

I think the case is proven by your irrefutable information and logic. In clear and concise English, YOU WIN!

All the best

Hugh Baxter

[Ann O'Maly]

Thank you, Hugh! 

The medal should really go to JW Insider, though. 

[Hugh Baxter]

On 30/04/2016 at 10:39 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Thank you, Hugh! 

The medal should really go to JW Insider, though. 

Yes JW Insider has the patience of Job. Reminds me of "Wrench" from another forum I visited every now and then. (make that a few Forums)