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

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Witness said:

Could John be referencing the future coming of Christ in the flesh? The “many deceivers” were already well aware of Jesus Christ; thus, they knew he had been ‘in the flesh’ as a man; so possibly this refers to his future coming, or his ascension. At any rate, the Bible usage of “coming” defines it as coming and going.

If this was written around 99 C.E. then I think it would just as likely (or more likely) to have referred to the fact that Christianity started among a very small group of actual eye-witnesses of Jesus, but had grown to a "great crowd" in areas far-flung from Galilee/Judea in areas where it would be common among Greek philosophical influence to allegorize the person of Jesus into a "mythological" origin -- perhaps some kind of amalgamation of brilliant rabbi/teacher, healer, wonder-worker, angel, demigod, etc. To me, it makes much more sense that this was a great danger, much more of a dangerous "apostasy" than being concerned with what sort of a body Jesus would have when he would return.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

A far cry from VAT4956, but good for 607.

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

[JW Insider]

35 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Secular chronology cannot use VAT4956 or the Babylonian Chronicles to pinpoint ANYTHING biblical by using their own data.

And that one is 568 B.C.E.

Also, are you really claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not biblical? Does the same thing hold true for the first year of Cyrus?

[scholar JW]

Ann O Maly

My second letter to the Society, Jan. 26, 1998 asked two questions: The first related to Cain offering up 'the firstfruits of the ground' in Gen 4:4 and the second asked for the source of the statement in the Proclaimer's book on p.134 regarding John Aquila Brown. In their reply, April 13, 1998 they admitted an adjustment would be made in future editions of Insight based on the research that I had submitted Regarding the second question, the title of Brown's work was given and reference to pp. 130 and 135. 

Your sarcastic comment about me asking for 'a quotation regarding the seven times' is not what I was seeking but simply the source or as most people would understand that I was seeking the reference which was given in the WT response as dated above. However, during that period I had received from Carl Jonsson by means of a letter dated Jan. 12, 1998, selected copies of Brown's Eventide numbering 43 double-sided pages from both volumes.I then checked the pages 130 and 135 but could not find support for a connection between the 'seven times' of Daniel and the 'Gentile Times' of Luke. This meant another letter to the Society which was that second letter dated Jan, 26, 1998 which only concerned the matter of Brown, and not that regarding Cain which was dated 4 Jan, 1996 but was finally answered by the Society in a letter dated April 13, 1998.which finally addressed the two initial issues together. Rather than rewriting this I hope this clarifies matters somewhat at any rate the Society answered my Jan 26th letter and a following up letter,  January 9, 1999 with a letter dated March 11, 1999 which provided three photocopies including pp, 135 and 208.

It is, in fact, page 208 that finally presents the connection of Luke's 'Gentile Times' and Daniel's 'seven times' as shown by the context on the same page which the reader can judge himself if such is the case.I cannot understand Ann, Why you have not accessed this page and posted it? You say it is not available online now this tells me that in order to settle this controversy first raised by Jonsson not the Society in his GTR, 2nd edn.1986, p.21 and no doubt in his first edn.,1983 one would need to read the entire book of Brown not just selected portions thereof as provided to me by Jonsson and the Society

I am of the view and it is admittedly tentative as I have not read both volumes that Brown connected both times thematic through his thesis for much of it centred upon events of Jerusalem and the four ruling monarchies so theologically his position is well established with the seven times ending in 1917 . I see no reference to any revision  of Brown's thinking on the matter but the problem is due to Jonsson not understanding Brown's thesis properly by looking at minute details rather than seeing the big picture. Raymond Franz initially agreed with the Society on this matter but when the dispute arose side with Jonsson as shown by his emails to me concerning this dispute.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

I'm using your logic, what has changed in your view?

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, allensmith28 said:

No mistake. It's straightforward without having to resort to calendars. But it's common to assume.

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

It is, in fact, page 208 that finally presents the connection of Luke's 'Gentile Times' and Daniel's 'seven times' as shown by the context on the same page which the reader can judge himself if such is the case. ....

Yeah, yeah. Produce it, then.

 

@allensmith28 ...

@JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering.

Common mistake.

 

[JW Insider]

56 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering.

Common mistake.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.

One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."

• If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
• As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."
• Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.

The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!

At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.

------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm

Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:

       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.

37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586

Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

[Witness]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 To me, it makes much more sense that this was a great danger, much more of a dangerous "apostasy" than being concerned with what sort of a body Jesus would have when he would return.

Thank you, I can see that; but also it is good to keep in mind that John mentioned in his previous book,

“Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. By this we know that it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.  1 John 2:18,19

I believe it is possible that those who left were anointed ones, since he speaks to the anointed in the next verse.  1 John 2:20  These are the “false christs” and false prophets that Jesus warned would deceive, and “by their fruits” we would know them.  Matt 24:24; Matt 7:17-19

Teaching that the 144,000 have strictly a “heavenly hope”, and that Jesus would not return to the earth is a great apostasy. The GB is responsible for fostering this lie.  The true meaning of the “new creation” is lost; that of Christ, as well as the priesthood, walking and teaching among all of God’s children in human form on the earth, as well as serving the Father and Christ in heaven as spirit creatures.    Not only are the anointed deprived of truth about themselves, but so are the entire 8 million, and those who have died over the years.  I remember a friend lamenting that she would miss her anointed husband once in the Kingdom, understanding she would never see him again.  The “heavenly” vs. “earthly” class system have left many with a resentful feeling toward anointed ones; especially those leaving the organization. The anointed, as “firstfruits” inherit the earth and share this inheritance with the rest of mankind –the “Bride’s” spiritual children.  Gal 3:29; Rev 21:2; John 1:51; Zech 8:23; Rom 2:28,28; Luke 10:16; John 13:20

How the Wt. teaches Jesus’ return is only part of the tangled ball of yarn. This affects the New Covenant teaching as well.  By the anointed in charge choosing not to reveal truth about how Christ will be on earth with his Bride/priesthood, shows they are…“anti-Christ”.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.

I guessed that was the reason. As you have seen multiple times, my own patience runs out (far more quickly than yours!) with the kinds of people who should know better by now. Patience is reserved for those genuinely trying to learn about and negotiate their way around this involved subject.

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

 

 

*

[TrueTomHarley]

18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

NBC 4897 isn't an astronomical text, you kumquat. 

 

18 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

ad ho·mi·nem But, I'm glad you mentioned it since COJ did think it, instead of just a flawed ledger.

 

17 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

COJ never thought NBC 4897 an astronomical text, you donut.  ('Donut' - you can tell the gloves are coming off now!)

First Responders!!! STAT!!! Food fight in aisle 607!!