Jump to content
The World News Media

607 B.C.E - Is there any SECULAR support for the Watch Tower's view?


JW Insider
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.

I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.

The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.1k
  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it wou

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it. Here it is... neobabylonian.mp4

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic clai

Posted Images

  • Member

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king. image.png

The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:

The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.

30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.

Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.

There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:

  • 539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598. 
  • If you accept one, you are accepting them all.

So, 539, the start of CyrusÂ’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:

•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar

•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple

•        537 for Cyrus’ 2nd full year over Babylon

Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to CyrusÂ’ 2nd-3rd year.

Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to the 2nd-3rd year of Cyrus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Member

No, there is no secular support for the Watch Tower's view that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.

There exists some secular information against modern secular historical consensus, as compiled by Watch Tower supporters, but none of this supports the 607 view.

And of course, JW critics have published extensive material, online and in books and articles, that shows why the WTS's criticisms of solid secular history are invalid.

AlanF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
 Share





×
×
  • 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.