Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The crux of objection to the Bible Chronolgy as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is a disagreement with the Witness view of the year 1914 CE

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.

Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!

I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  

I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).

So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?

*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 62.2k
  • 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:

You are entitled to be a flat-earther or believe in flying pink unicorns. But it doesn't make your opinions factual. Scrutiny, under the light of objective evidence, will thoroughly debunk those 'entitled' opinions.

LOL! More of the same by this personal, sentiment. xD

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How do Grayson's revisions, the chronicle's lacunae, and brief highlights of each regnal year affect the neo-Babylonian timeline?

Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes? Or is this an attempt to hide the truth? Isaiah 29:15, 2 Corinthians 4:2

 

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The diary has been tested. It was dated to a clearly marked regnal year and had 30 or so celestial observations recorded on it. The astronomical data only matches one year: 568-7 BCE. It can be no other. Even if the scribe had written the wrong regnal year or king (he didn't), the astronomical information would still only fit 568-7 BCE. The sky doesn't lie.

This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity. However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made? How about the Babylonian Chronicle, Tablets. Were they carbon dated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Anna said:

I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most donÂ’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  

Absolutely. This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced. But not necessarily so (Hislop's Two Babylons is a prime example). And it isn't always easy getting hold of reference works - especially in these kinds of niche subjects. Thankfully, we have the internet now!

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what itÂ’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).

So I think 607 will remain WTÂ’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majoritiesÂ’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?

Uh oh, that's how I started with this subject many years ago - lots of questions, mostly a spectator in these mind-bendingly involved discussions, limited time, energy and resources as a wife, mother of young children, multiple other responsibilities, etc., etc., but with a burning interest to get to the bottom of all these niggles, lots of scraps of paper with brick diagrams and notes all over the place ... 

'Wanting to know' will impel you to build up a decent working knowledge little by little. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes?

Do Grayson's revisions impact the NB timeline or not?

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity.

Either the astronomical data on this tablet is consistent with a particular year or it isn't.  

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made?

I am unaware of whether it has been carbon dated, but the astronomical data represent planetary and lunar observations made in 568-7 BCE. The tablet itself is a copy made in the Seleucid period, evidenced by some of the terminology used and a remark indicating the original had been 'broken.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I am unaware of whether it has been carbon dated, but the astronomical data represent planetary and lunar observations made in 568-7 BCE. The tablet itself is a copy made in the Seleucid period, evidenced by some of the terminology used and a remark indicating the original had been 'broken.'

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities. ¬¬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Anna

I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.

I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
20 hours ago, Anna said:

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.

I think these comments show a lot of insight. Out of every 100 scholars who have taken an interest in this time period prior to 1970, 99% of them have problem never heard of 1914, and yet all 100 of those scholars inadvertently discredited our theory about 1914. However, like @Gone Fishing said, I do think that for JWs and exJWs involved in this discussion, 1914 must be at the heart of the matter. How can it not be? The only reason that we, as JWs, take any interest at all in 607 is because of 1914. The only reason we take any interest in the 70 years itself is because of 1914. The only reason we discuss Daniel 4 is 1914. A year has never gone by since the 1900's, when the WTS did not mention 1914 several times.

We already have 68 years of searchable Watchtowers in the WT CD since 1950, and we can easily see the importance. No other "prophetic" date (BCE) is considered even a tenth as important to us as those which are said to support 1914. For example:

  • We date Adam's creation to 4026 B.C.E. and Watchtowers since 1950 have mentioned this date only about 18 times in only 13 different Watchtower magazines. (10 of the 13 were in the period from 1966 to 1975).
  • We date the beginning of the 70 weeks of years to 455 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 45 different Watchtowers since 1950.
  • We date the end of the 70 weeks of years to 36 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 95 different Watchtowers.
  • 1914 of course gets mentioned several times a year, often in most of the Watchtower magazine issues that are published in any particular year: nearly 4,024 mentions since 1950.
  • 607 has been mentioned in at least one Watchtower per year (usually several times a year) in every year since 1950 (except 2010): over 850 times.
  • 539, of course, is mentioned as the "evidence" for 607, but with only about 250 mentions since 1950.

So, you make a good point, Ann, about scholars, but the subtext among JWs and ex-JWs is always going to be related to 1914.

This was pretty obvious when members of the Writing Department and researchers at Bethel quickly realized that if they questioned 607, they would likely be questioned themselves with a view to being disfellowshipped for apostasy. If you questioned 607, it was considered obvious that you must also be questioning 1914. Anyone could connect the dots. In fact, when Carl Jonsson's manuscript arrived at Brooklyn Bethel, two of the writers told me it was called "the hot potato" by several others because no one wanted it to land on their desk. They knew it was a Lose-Lose situation. For months it just remained on a shelf. People made excuses why they didn't have the time to address it.

A lot of people who don't take the time to look into such things don't realize that there is always some "Biblical" method to take prophecy and find a way to interpret it to reach somewhere into every single century, perhaps every single decade. Russell and various adventist-minded predecessors had been able to single out every decade since the 1780's to the 1900's with time-based prophecies. There was so much repetition, intertwining, and "ring of truth" about such dates, under Russell, that they soon became "God's dates." (1874, etc.) After Rutherford dropped almost every one of those old time prophecies, the only ones remaining that could reach into his own century (to 1914) were the 7 times of Leviticus and Daniel. After the 7 times of Leviticus was dropped, Daniel 4 was all the WT had left to reach into the 20th century. But look around the Internet, and you'll see that there is still enough numerology waiting to be extracted from Bible prophecies to reach every decade in the 2000's too. A little bit of 2520 days here, and a little bit of 2300 days there, and I'm sure there would be fodder for the year 2333, 2553, 2370, 2590, if this system could last that long. And if those methods ran out, there's always the potential claim someone could make that it was only unreliable secular chronology that told us Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E., when reliable "Bible chronology" obviously puts his birth closer to 100 C.E., then 200 C.E. etc., etc., as needed. 

This is why, for myself, I'm not so concerned that 586 and 587 are the most reliable dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. It's only because of what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about chronology that I could still not have accepted the entire 1914 theory. I couldn't accept it for scriptural reasons, even if Jerusalem had actually been destroyed on June 28, 607 or July 28, 607 B.C.E. and it was proven to be 2520 years to the day before Archduke Ferdinand was shot or WWI started in 1914.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This is why, for myself, I'm not so concerned that 586 and 587 are the most reliable dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. It's only because of what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about chronology that I could still not have accepted the entire 1914 theory. I couldn't accept it for scriptural reasons, even if Jerusalem had actually been destroyed on June 28, 607 or July 28, 607 B.C.E.

If they had kept their insurance premiums up to date they wouldn't have been destroyed at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If they had kept their insurance premiums up to date they wouldn't have been destroyed at all.

True. One big US insurance company calls itself The Rock. (and some actor does too)

They could have redeemed their policy.

  • (Psalm 78:35) 35 Remembering that God was their Rock And that the Most High God was their Redeemer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced

I don’t want to give the impression that I believe this whole Chronology thing was some kind of setup and a deliberate exercise in deceptiveness right from the get go (although some will dispute that).  What I do believe though is that with the passage of time and new evidence, this particular subject obviously did not receive the same treatment as other beliefs, where with the “light getting brighter” adjustments in understanding were readily made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I grew up deeply concerned about all these sorts of things, and argued  for and against points as I understood them at the time, and it is only recently, in the past ten years, that I realized that the core truths we have are precious and inviolate, but all this calculation and mountains of drivel does nothing but make my soul weary, tired, and discouraged.

A Brother asked me one time what was my favorite scripture, and I immediately replied Ecclesiastes 12:12.

An Elder asked me several weeks ago some question that I have forgotten ... but I answered "I could certainly do without Caleb and Sophia."

They have not been elevated yet to Sainthood, so I guess for now I am safe from a charge of blasphemy.

It has been a refreshing breath of fresh air, liberty and freedom to not care any more about invisible things that may or may not have happened 4000, 2000, or 103 years ago.   I leave that to Brothers far more intelligent and spiritual minded than I am.

My favorite scripture NOW ... is James 1:27: New International Version (NIV)

" Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."     

Sounds real simple to me .........

My wife and I are awaiting our licenses now to adopt orphan children, and hopefully raise them in the Truth.

WITHOUT Caleb and Sophia, and other cartoon theology.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism.

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.

 

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 2,380

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • T.J

      T.J 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ComfortMyPeople

      ComfortMyPeople 544

      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.