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

[JW Insider]

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.

[Ann O'Maly]

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! 

 

[Foreigner]

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!

[scholar JW]

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

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

So it seems that you too have not been careful enough in referring to those missing pages of GTR for it seems that the only legitimate or authentic copy is that of 390 pages only of the 4th edn. Revised and Expanded, 2004.

scholar JW

[TrueTomHarley]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[scholar JW]

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

[JW Insider]

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!

[JW Insider]

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.

[Foreigner]

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!!!!

[TrueTomHarley]

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!

[Ann O'Maly]

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.