Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

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

The pdfs from other sites will give you a corrupted copy that has been edited and added to by a person called Tönis Tönisson (look at the copyright page and you'll see his name). He has even dishonestly inserted some comments in the body text that COJ didn't write.

Thanks. That's certainly good to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 64.9k
  • 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
18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You claim that 597 BCE can be a Pivotal date similar to that of 539 BCE but such a claim is nonsense.

It's interesting that 539 BCE can be called a 'pivotal date' when the Bible doesn't provide a year date for Cyrus' conquest of Babylon. Instead, we have to derive the 539 BCE year date from,

  • one of the Babylonian chronicles (which indicates the event happened in Nabonidus' 17th year),
  • Babylonian astronomical tablets year-dated to kings' reigns, providing BCE anchor points,
  • Babylonian king lists which we can use to count forwards or backwards from those astronomically fixed anchor points.

In contrast, we can affirm 597 BCE because,

  • the Bible dates the siege of Jerusalem and its surrender to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (inclusive counting),
  • a Babylonian chronicle dates the same event to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (exclusive counting - cp. Jer. 52:28),
  • some Babylonian astronomical tablets are year-dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, thereby providing BCE anchor points,
  • simple math means we can count Nebuchadnezzar's years forwards or backwards from those anchor points,

but paradoxically, Neil thinks it nonsense for 597 BCE to be termed a 'pivotal date.'

Go figure! :S

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/20/2017 at 3:37 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

A little like the Bible. All the manuscripts are later copies by unknown scribes; there is clear evidence in some places of redaction; there are transcription errors and linguistic ambiguities here and there. Maybe we should weigh the Bible on the same scales of skepticism?

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in GodÂ’s INSPIRED word, scripture. Then we can agree that the Babylonian Chronicles tell a story, just NOT a COMPLETE story. It's all in the interpretation, then! ¬¬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Ann

WT scholars term 539 BCE a 'Pivotal Date'  because such a benchmark or anchor point serves to bring the Biblical Count of Time in years into our modern day calender. Such a date must have a sound basis for acceptance and corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible,  thus from this date one can now figure backwards and forward and assign  calender dates to other Biblical events. The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is a most worthy candidate don't you think?

Yes, as you have explained 539 BCE is a derived/calcuable date as are most other dates in our modern calender, a few are astronomically fixed but still have to be inserted into a Relative scheme of Chronology which requires interpretation and methodology. Whether this now establishes a Absolute Chronology is a matter of debate. but not according to COJ'S thesis.

Your comments regarding 597 BE as a Pivotal Date having in my opinion, equal status with 539 BCE is problematic. Certainly as with all other dates established astronomically throughout the Neo-Babylonian Period could be classed as 'pivotal' because it is assumed that the Chronology of this Period is absolute according to COJ'S thesis. However, I do not know of any Chronologist that uses 597 BCE as a Pivotal Point so if this is the case then Why is it so? .in fact. many leading Chronologists including Edwin Thiele uses as pivotal dates or absolute dates those that belong outside the Neo-Babylonian Period. Why is this so?

 

 

is highly contentious or problematic and this for me is highlighted by COJ'S treatment of this date in his GTR. Similarly, COJ argues strenuously for the candidacy of 587 BCE rather than 539 BCE based mainly upon VAT 4956 but Rolf Furuli's research that this too is a 'can of worms', controversial at least.There are at least 5 good reasons based secular evidence for 539 BCE and only 2 good reasons for 587 /597 BCE  so on the basis of these criteria 539 BCE gets the Prize.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in God’s INSPIRED word, scripture. 

Yes. If you are going to go hogwild over critical thinking, then go all the way. Turn it upon the Bible itself. The reason we can look at the Bible the way we do is because we have 'tasted and seen that Jehovah is good.' It is experience that determines how we look upon things. But if you hail from the world of criticism, you cannot conceive of unity. You have never seen it. Leave these people to their own devices and there is no Bible book written as presented. Every one of them is a hash of conflicting authors with warring agendas. It is the only reality these scholars have ever observed and it colors all of their scholarship.

Bethel will never let go of 607, I don't think, because it enabled them to hit the nail on the head. The entire world only goes to war for the first time ever once in all millenia and they hit the year. Other years are known for various world leaders losing their library cards. Nothing packs the punch of 1914. If the entire world going to war concurrently for the first time ever isn't peace being taken from the world, what is? 

Even if the overlapping generations threaten to separate - and I wouldn't hold my breath on that - they could simply say that a generation is a loose term of a certain time period - say, like the 'industrial age.' In 1974 a brief snippet in the Watchtower quoted some source with that outlook, and I recall thinking that that view might surface again some day. @JW Insider can find it, no doubt. It was in the Watchtower's equivalent of 'watching the world' - a series that ran for awhile of 3 items to a page.

A few weeks ago there appeared in the meeting the Kingdom Rules book on Isaiah 11.  Discussing the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile and how they would be encouraged by Isaiah's prophesy about the animals, it said: "The lion would eat straw in the sense that it would not devour the Jews' cattle." They didn't have to do it. They could have said "God will supply them with bales of hay in order to feed the lions." Okay? They are not hung up on whether words are literal or figurative. 'Generation' will go more unconventional yet if it has to.

I am handicapped in the 607 discussion by not knowing anything about it. But it is less of a handicap then one might think. @Ann O'Maly trots out the 100 year old quote that profane history cannot be trusted because it is written by men of conflicting motives in a Satan-controlled world. She hopes anyone reading the quote with think the GB stupid. The quote differs hardly at all with 'history is written by the victors,' which she probably quotes with an air of superiority in other discussions. @Arauna pointed out before what anyone with discernment knows already - that the land of scholarship is one of big egos (she was speaking Egyptology, I think, but it is across the board) where the 'victors' to all they can do discredit whoever they have temporarily out-argued - defunding them, even banning them from access to materials. 

You don't go slobbering over critical thinking as the be-all and end-all. It is too easily outmaneuvered by other interests. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

COJ most certainly advocates that the whole Neo-Babylonian Period is one of an Absolute Chronology discussing 17 lines of evidence in support of his thesis. His treatment of 597 BCE does not instil any confidence that this date should be treated as a pivotal date in comparison to that of 539 BCE. In the General Index under the heading 'Dates, specific'597BCE he simply states:'deportation of Jehoiachin, 293,294'. Now, when one reads these two pages have little comment on 597 BCE simply stating another's opinion that this date was one of the very few secure dates. the footnote 15 on p. 293 refers the reader elsewhere in GTR to Appendix 5, pp.335-49.

It is in this section that complexity reigns regarding 597 BCE.regarding the synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles at this point: In particular Jonsson only introduces BM 21946 which pertain to Neb's 'seventh year during the reign of Jehoiachin' on page 342 and attempts to reconcile this Dan 1:1 with the 'third year of Jehoiakim'  based on his own interpretation of Jehoiakim's vassalage as discussed in par.3, p.343. By introducing Dan 1;1 Into the mix raises much complexity concerning the reign of Jehoiakim and his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar thus making 597BCE as a pivotal date ridiculous and unwise.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in God’s INSPIRED word, scripture. Then we can agree that the Babylonian Chronicles tell a story, just NOT a COMPLETE story. It's all in the interpretation, then!

Don't know if this was intentionally offered as support for what I have been saying in recent posts, but I thank you for it anyway. Currently, our faith in the correctness of the year 539 (from which we derive 607) is based on faith in the Babylonian Chronicles and their secular equivalents. 539 and 607 are secular dates, of course, and the weight of evidence is more in the theories of men than what is actually written in God's inspired word, scripture. I agree 100% that the Babylonian Chronicles tell an incomplete story, that has been interpreted. Our faith should be in the Bible without so much reliance on interpretations that are based on theories of men.

Well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
45 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Bethel will never let go of 607, I don't think, because it enabled them to hit the nail on the head.

That's what a lot of people at Bethel must still think. Can't blame them, I guess. But this bit of history is rarely described as it actually happened. But even if it had been predicted, it wouldn't make the theory true. The biggest problem is that 1914 was to usher in an era of peace. Initially 1914 was predicted as a time when there would NOT be war. Here is the prediction as it stood just 20 years prior to 1914, in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p.226:

  • But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.

How many times have you read that in the publications describing what was supposedly predicted "decades in advance"? Instead, because chronology usually accompanies dishonesty, unfortunately, we had this to say at a time when the Society was trying to bolster belief and speculation in 1975: (from the Awake! January 22, 1973, p.8

  • "Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things."

One of the very reasons that Adventism became so popular in the early 1800's is that a Bible prophecy that had been predicted through chronology in the late 1600's had actually come true near the end of the 1700's. Russell was a strong believer that this prediction had come true, and was therefore also a believer in some of the same predicted prophetic phenomenon that was seen in the early decades of the 1800's. I've described this before, so perhaps I'll find a link to the post rather than describing it again here. It was that amazingly accurate prediction, however, that got so many religions caught up in this search for more dates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

However, secular chronology has been inconsistent with its history. The mere fact, that people put more weight in modern chronology doesn’t “explain* why previous scholars and archeologist made their conclusions based on their “own” firsthand accounts of what they were dealing with.

While our faith is based on GOD’s word? Secular chronology doesn’t impede our faith in what is written in scripture. Scripture relates to a story without years. However, when contrasting scripture to secular history, we can add or dismiss certain dates. The old standard of the WT chronology was based on a difficult scheme that included Ptolemy's canon. Going up from 520BC to 539BC then down to 537BC, given the likelihood things were not hastened as some commentaries wish for it to be. While 539BC can be a “fixed” dated? It by no means completes a historical fact. While 587BC might seem like a *fixed* date, it does not tell a factual story of “the destruction of Jerusalem” as certain scholars claim. At best, any honest scholar would venture to say, Jerusalem was *Besieged* in 589BC, with the END RESULT being the tearing down of the outer wall and burning of God’s Temple, and surrounding homes. Jeremiah chapters 21-39. A far cry from (DESTROY)-(DEVASTATION)-(DESOLATION) that doesn’t agree with what God describes as the destruction, devastation, and desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, earlier by the mercenaries God sent to DESTROY Judah, which Jerusalem was part of because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done. (i.e. not submit to God’s YOKE) by aligning themselves with Eygpt. 2 Kings 24:1-4.  So, those 70 years everyone is debating are included. The only thing left to ask, why 607BC instead of 605BC. The answer is there for those that wish to obtain, it. Some, Facts and with faith, the answer is there. The Watchtower’s opinion in this Chronology has it right!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's what a lot of people at Bethel must still think. Can't blame them, I guess. But this bit of history is rarely described as it actually happened

Ah well. The smoking gun began smoking two or three concurrent generations before my time. Should I make it into the new system, then I will be living forever and if they try it again I will catch them in the act!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On ?21?/?12?/?2017 at 9:29 PM, Foreigner said:

Perhaps. The last time I looked, it has been scrutinized by skeptics since writing became a form of communication. However, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that our *faith* in GOD should be equal to the “faith” in the Babylonian Chronicles. Then, the weight of evidence becomes more in the theories of men than that what is actually written in GodÂ’s INSPIRED word, scripture. Then we can agree that the Babylonian Chronicles tell a story, just NOT a COMPLETE story. It's all in the interpretation, then! ¬¬

 

The Babylonian Chronicles do not tell the whole story - that is true. But we were talking about an astronomical diary, weren't we? You seem to have confused two categories of texts. You were casting doubt on the diary's trustworthiness because "no one was there to authentic[ate] what was 'copied'" and because of some errors and "linguistic incompatibilities" (whatever that means). The same criticisms could be (and are) levelled at Bible texts. But surely, ancient writings should be taken on their merits and cross-checked with other contemporary writings. The fact remains that the astronomical data on VAT 4956 are representative of celestial observations made in 568-7 BCE. This isn't about subjective theological interpretation; nor is it about incomplete historical narratives or how a nation's history is spun; this is data that can be scientifically verified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • try the: Bánh bèo Bánh ít ram
    • Definitely should try the Bond roll here when you get a chance: this is a mom and pop place that does a great job  
    • An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
       
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 2 replies
    • SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      160k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,695
    • Most Online
      1,797

    Newest Member
    santijwtj
    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.