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

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

SPOING !

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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..........

they soon became "God's dates."

Exactly!

This is why I will take my cue from the 2017 convention video and say "I am dedicated to Jehovah, not a date".

[scholar JW]

Anna

You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.. The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate. Thus a different Methodology must be used by the Chronologist. The simple fact is that 539 BCE is universally accepted by scholars for the Fall of Babylon but there is no such consensus for a date for the Fall of Jerusalem so obviously, both events must be treated differently according to all available evidence. Therefore, this means that even 607 BCE cannot be treated as a Pivotal Date for it does not enjoy the same status as 539 BCE. It all comes down to simplicity and honesty and for this reason, 607 BCE is the only accurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

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” didnÂ’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

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?

[Ann O'Maly]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

 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.

When you trace the evolution of the Org's chronological scheme from its inception, you'll find that there were significant adjustments in response to new interpretational light - most of them being settled (from the Org's standpoint) in the Rutherford era.

The historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence for the conventional NB and Persian timeline has been around for well over a century (since the numerous discoveries in the Middle East back in the 19th century). The Org has been alerted to the wider evidence over and over again since Russell's day  - you can read the articles retrenching their position in response, a notable example being a series of WT articles in 1922* which included demonizing the counter-evidence, insulting and shouting down the questioners, and accusing them of disloyalty against God and his chosen representative (believed then to be Russell). Periodically since then, WT books and articles have been published trying to overcome the mountains of evidence against the Org's scheme because this issue just keeps on resurfacing - as it will continue to do until they conform to the facts.

* May 1 and 15, June 1 and 15 editions

[Ann O'Maly]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.

--------------------------------------------------

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate.

But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Sigh ...  I should have taken Polaroids ...

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.

What @scholar JW says is true @Anna, You could say that 539, the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, has the same accuracy as 587, the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But you may still not be clear about whether the Bible means Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, we can know that Jerusalem was destroyed in either the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and this is absolutely as certain as knowing that Babylon fell in the "1st" (accession) year of Cyrus.

I assume you can probably see through the magical sleight of hand that says that since you only know for certain that it was 586 or 587, then you must believe that that the new "wondrous" date is certainly .... wait for it.....607!  Tadaaaaah!

 

[Anna]

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

When you trace the evolution of the Org's chronological scheme from its inception, you'll find that there were significant adjustments in response to new interpretational light - most of them being settled (from the Org's standpoint) in the Rutherford era.

The historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence for the conventional NB and Persian timeline has been around for well over a century (since the numerous discoveries in the Middle East back in the 19th century). The Org has been alerted to the wider evidence over and over again since Russell's day  - you can read the articles retrenching their position in response, a notable example being a series of WT articles in 1922* which included demonizing the counter-evidence, insulting and shouting down the questioners, and accusing them of disloyalty against God and his chosen representative (believed then to be Russell). 

* May 1 and 15, June 1 and 15 editions

Yes, I realize there was an evolution of the scheme, but as you say, it got pretty much fixed with Rutherford. However, I do think that they genuinely believed that secular history was not to be trusted because it was from Satan. Quote from the May 1 WT you cited: "When did this period of the gentile times begin and when is the end thereof? These facts cannot be proven by profane history, because such history is made by men who acted as agents of Satan’s empire and hence were unreliable; for Satan is the father of lies"

But now, surely that is no longer the belief?

[TrueTomHarley]

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

These facts cannot be proven by profane history, because such history is made by men who acted as agents of Satan’s empire and hence were unreliable

This sounds ignorant.

"History is written by the victors." This sounds learned and it is accepted wisdom today.

How are the two statements fundamentally different?

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

It is you who is guilty of 'sleight of hand'. The  acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The issue of the date for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th years come down to the same methodology, one recognizes the acc. year principle and the other, the regnal year principle. WT  Scholars have no problem with applying this principle to the regnal data for Neb's reign so as to fix a precise date as 607 BCE and not 586, 587, 588 etc. Why???

scholar JW 

[scholar JW]

Ann

You claim that 597 BCE can be a Pivotal date similar to that of 539 BCE but such a claim is nonsense. COJ makes scarce mention of it in his GTR even though he quotes from Prof. Campbell on 597 BCE regarded it "as one of the very few secure dates in the whole chronological repertoire". -GTR, 4th edn. p.293. Jonsson gives the following data pertaining to this date as Neb's 7th year with the Second Deportation of the Jews with Jehoiakim to Babylon along with BM 21946 with three biblical references. Thiele omits any reference to it as an Absolute Date and Jonsson fails to discuss BM 21946.

This date 597 BCE is very problematic for a very number of reasons and one only has to survey the numerous technical issues that have arisen over that event for that years would make it impossible for it to be a candidate as a Absolute or Pivotal Date for the purpose of OT Chronology.

scholar JW