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

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Oh! still trying to justify yourself, by, trying to exploit the word "own". how childish!!!

I think you should read what I said again, unless this just another example of blame-shifting or projection. My point was that you seemed to have been exploiting the word "own." As you appear to now admit. You at least understand that it is possible to "exploit" the word. That was my point.

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, there's truth, and then, there's the truth!!! God has figured it out!!

That's true, and we should be glad of it. But you are also talking about a record of what has been said on the forum(s). Remember "evidence"? This isn't the first time you got an idea that was never true, and then even when you quoted the supposed evidence that you still it thought meant one thing, and it turned out that it meant something else entirely, sometimes the very opposite of what you were claiming.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Not always. Which is why you will often see phrases like "brackets ours" "brackets theirs" "brackets in the original" "brackets not in the original." It is fairly consistent, and I have no problem with the specific use of brackets in a quotation that are added and will assume they were not part of the origina

Many critics of WT publications claim that these publications are scholarly dishonest and such ones as Alan F have gone to great lengths to prove this by claiming misquotes etc. Such critics fail to appreciate the simple fact that as long as you quote or cite the source then if you find a comment that supports your argument even though the author of that reference may have an entirely different viewpoint then it is a legitimate academic practice to use that point accordingly. It is fair game as long as you cite or reference the source or you can state the nature of source's position such as he or she is an atheist, higher critic, evolutionist etc.

Some years ago Edwin Thiele objected to a quotation in the Aid book from his MNHK but the fact was that the quote was entirely appropriate and in context. He later changed the wording but the statement remained unchanged. Sadly, the WTS dropped it from the Insight volume but Thiele's observation remains sound even up today.

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Alan F

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

The 607 date is disproved by copious amounts of evidence. All told, 587 for Jerusalem's destruction stands up to all tests, secular and biblical.

Nonsense. Despite the so-called 17 lines of evidence used by COJ the simple fact remains that scholarship is divided as to whether Jerusalem fell in either 586 or 587 BCE. Scholars cannot offer a precise date for this event and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus wrote:

Quote

 

:: Not always. Which is why you will often see phrases like "brackets ours" "brackets theirs" "brackets in the original" "brackets not in the original." It is fairly consistent, and I have no problem with the specific use of brackets in a quotation that are added and will assume they were not part of the origina

Many critics of WT publications claim that these publications are scholarly dishonest

 

It's more correct to say that WTS publications are often scholastically dishonest.

Quote

and such ones as Alan F have gone to great lengths to prove this by claiming misquotes etc.

Yes indeed! WTS literature provides a rich source for such studies.

Quote

Such critics fail to appreciate the simple fact that as long as you quote or cite the source then if you find a comment that supports your argument even though the author of that reference may have an entirely different viewpoint then it is a legitimate academic practice to use that point accordingly. It is fair game as long as you cite or reference the source or you can state the nature of source's position such as he or she is an atheist, higher critic, evolutionist etc.

Wrong. That practice is known as quote mining. It is a thoroughly dishonest practice of those who have no way of defending their claims aside from dishonesty. It's a practice that young-earth creationists and the Watch Tower Society are especially known for. For example ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining ):

<< Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote. >>

Another example ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context ):

<< Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. . . Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. >>

And a third, which mentions WTS dishonesty: https://jwawaken.com/2016/06/08/what-is-quote-mining/

Quote

Some years ago Edwin Thiele objected to a quotation in the Aid book from his MNHK but the fact was that the quote was entirely appropriate and in context.

Still lying about this, eh? We had extensive debates about this years ago, and various posters fully established that the Aid book was lying -- despite your many attempts at rationalizing its quote mining.

Quote

He later changed the wording but the statement remained unchanged. Sadly, the WTS dropped it from the Insight volume but Thiele's observation remains sound even up today.

The fact that WTS writers dropped it from Insight proves that even they knew the lie was unsustainable.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

WT Publications do not need to engage in the practice of 'Quote Mining' for it is simply the use of another's thoughts, idea or opinion in support of a point that the writer wishes to make. Now some may call this 'quote mining' but for others can read both the context of the Quote and how it is then used. 'Quote mining' is dishonest and has no place in Christian publications so your claim of scholastic dishonesty is bogus and simply your opinion.

The reason why Thiele's quotation was not used in the Insight reference work was because Thiele in an article published in a SDA periodical, February, 1976 objected to that comment in his MNHK but his reason for his objection are unfounded as any reader can see.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus wrote:

Quote

 

:: The 607 date is disproved by copious amounts of evidence. All told, 587 for Jerusalem's destruction stands up to all tests, secular and biblical.

Nonsense. Despite the so-called 17 lines of evidence used by COJ

 

LOL! Seventeen lines of evidence from COJ (and of course, from the dozens of recognized scholars he got it from) against Watch Tower quote mining of the Bible! Amazing anyone but a JW could buy this.

Quote

the simple fact remains that scholarship is divided as to whether Jerusalem fell in either 586 or 587 BCE.

That old fallacy for the thousandth time.

The fact is that the Bible itself provides the grist for that mill, by being quite ambiguous about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Some scholars have decided on 586, others on 587, with modern secular scholarship generally preferring 587.

As you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitmt7qxOrYAhVO1mMKHZ4RAe4QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ) Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587.

Quote

Scholars cannot offer a precise date for this event

Rodger Young did. Carl Olof Jonsson did. Again you lie in God's name.

Quote

and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago.

Totally misleading on all counts. All that happened was that during 1943-1944, Fred Franz decided that 607 should be the date, finally accepting what C. T. Russell and other Bible Students had known as far back as 1912. And of course, the correct dates that Franz used to manufacture 606/607 were well known to proper scholars well back in the 19th century.

Until 1943, the WTS claimed 606 BCE for Jerusalem's fall and the start of the Gentile times. In the middle of the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" the WTS moved the date for the start of the Gentile times back by one year, leaving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE intact throughout the entire book. In a thoroughly dishonest exposition on pages 238-239 the book made this change. The result was that the Gentile times began in October, 607 BCE, while Jerusalem was destroyed ten months later in August, 606 BCE! The date for Jerusalem's fall was changed, in a dishonest footnote, on page 171 of the 1944 book "The Kingdom Is At Hand".

Full details on "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" can be found here:

https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html

When a religious doctrine like "1914" is founded on a false date like 606 BCE, its entire exposition of biblical chronology will be wrong. And when the doctrine becomes fully set, and historical sources demand some revision but the doctrine must remain intact by adjusting the calculations leading to it, you KNOW the whole structure is built on fantasy.

AlanF

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus wrote:

Quote

WT Publications do not need to engage in the practice of 'Quote Mining'

Yes and no. If the writers were honest and interested in telling the truth to their readers, yes, there would be no need. But because a good deal of WTS teaching is built on its own tradition and on many falsehoods, the writers understand that they MUST lie to their readers by quote mining and various other dishonest scholastic practices. Just as you do.

Quote

for it is simply the use of another's thoughts, idea or opinion in support of a point that the writer wishes to make.

You try to make their deliberate lying sound oh, so innocent!

Quote

Now some may call this 'quote mining' but for others can read both the context of the Quote and how it is then used.

In principle they can, but hardly any JW readers do. Rather, they assume -- wrongly -- that WTS writers are giving them fair quotes.

Quote

'Quote mining' is dishonest and has no place in Christian publications so your claim of scholastic dishonesty is bogus and simply your opinion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "By your own mouth you are condemned." What do you think substituting "[1776]" for "1876" is? Honest quoting? Or "[607]" for "587"? Honest quoting?

Some twenty five years ago I carefully analyzed the 1985 "Creation" book. I found upward of 100 instances of quote-mining, flat out lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings of science, and just about every scholastic sin that exists. By 1992 the book was already infamous in scientific Usenet circles as a laughingstock, a standard creationist parody of science. See "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution":

https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-disagreements-about-evolution.html

Quote

The reason why Thiele's quotation was not used in the Insight reference work was because Thiele in an article published in a SDA periodical, February, 1976 objected to that comment in his MNHK but his reason for his objection are unfounded as any reader can see.

So you claim. Obviously, both the WTS Writing and Legal departments disagree.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! Seventeen lines of evidence from COJ (and of course, from the dozens of recognized scholars he got it from) against Watch Tower quote mining of the Bible! Amazing anyone but a JW could buy this

Thus scholars despite this, still are unable to determine a precise date for Jerusalem's Fall. Which is it, 586 or 587 BCE?

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That old fallacy for the thousandth time.

The fact is that the Bible itself provides the grist for that mill, by being quite ambiguous about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Some scholars have decided on 586, others on 587, with modern secular scholarship generally preferring 587.

No fallacy here for one only has to look at the scholarly literature to see that there is this uncertainty, a product of their own making when a failure to listen to God's Word is present.Now you blame the Bible for the ambiguity but how is it that WT scholars are confronted with this alleged 'ambiguity' and yet are able to precisely determine 607 BCE?

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Rodger Young did. Carl Olof Jonsson did. Again you lie in God's name.

If that is true then how is it then that 586 BCE still remains even up today in the scholarly literature?

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Totally misleading on all counts. All that happened was that during 1943-1944, Fred Franz decided that 607 should be the date, finally accepting what C. T. Russell and other Bible Students had known as far back as 1912. And of course, the correct dates that Franz used to manufacture 606/607 were well known to proper scholars well back in the 19th century.

Until 1943, the WTS claimed 606 BCE for Jerusalem's fall and the start of the Gentile times. In the middle of the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" the WTS moved the date for the start of the Gentile times back by one year, leaving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE intact throughout the entire book. In a thoroughly dishonest exposition on pages 238-239 the book made this change. The result was that the Gentile times began in October, 607 BCE, while Jerusalem was destroyed ten months later in August, 606 BCE! The date for Jerusalem's fall was changed, in a dishonest footnote, on page 171 of the 1944 book "The Kingdom Is At Hand".

Sound Methodology and recent scholarship that began in 1942 were the causes for the change and such adjustments were made in 1944 as you correctly state. You seem to be troubled by the progress of scholarship but that is the 'nature of the beast'.

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

When a religious doctrine like "1914" is founded on a false date like 606 BCE, its entire exposition of biblical chronology will be wrong. And when the doctrine becomes fully set, and historical sources demand some revision but the doctrine must remain intact by adjusting the calculations leading to it, you KNOW the whole structure is built on fantasy.

No. Your opinion is delusional it is simply a fantasy that Bible Prophecy could be attached to dead-end dates such as 576 or 587 but rather 607 attached to 1914 breathes life into our modern history because we are still feeling the consequences today from the Great War. A belief in the Holy Bible as God's Inspired Word is not fantasy. Further, WT Chronology has proved itself in so many ways and has pushed Biblical Scholarship to greater heights.

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Alan F

2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Yes and no. If the writers were honest and interested in telling the truth to their readers, yes, there would be no need. But because a good deal of WTS teaching is built on its own tradition and on many falsehoods, the writers understand that they MUST lie to their readers by quote mining and various other dishonest scholastic practices. Just as you do.

In the final analysis it is up to the readers to judge the matter whether scholastic dishonesty is present in WT publications. My experience over many decades in reading and studying such materials finds no evidence at all.

5 minutes ago, AlanF said:

In principle they can, but hardly any JW readers do. Rather, they assume -- wrongly -- that WTS writers are giving them fair quote

I have always found that the quotes are fair and reasonable but if you find such writings abominable then why are you obsessed with WT literature?

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "By your own mouth you are condemned." What do you think substituting "[1776]" for "1876" is? Honest quoting? Or "[607]" for "587"? Honest quoting?

Some twenty five years ago I carefully analyzed the 1985 "Creation" book. I found upward of 100 instances of quote-mining, flat out lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings of science, and just about every scholastic sin that exists. By 1992 the book was already infamous in scientific Usenet circles as a laughingstock, a standard creationist parody of science. See "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution":

Such insertions are simply an insertion- a corrective, in order to explain to the reader the truth of the matter. Yes I am familiar with your bragging about the Creation book but really you obviously writing with a biased mind so you will find problems everywhere. I read the Creation book and had no problems and still use it to this day and by the way even Richard Dawkins found no problem with it even though he disagreed. If this publication was so notorious as you claim then Dawkins would not have cited it. Go figure!

scholar JW emeritus

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I have been trying to watch the little show here without getting involved, as I no longer much care if it doesn't involve "where the rubber meets the road" things that may or may not have happened several millennia ago... but perhaps here is something to think about ....

How did the people count time back then .... from January 1 to January 1 being one year .... or April  22nd to April 22nd being one year?

IF the Egyptians, Syrians, Babylonians, and Jews all had different start and end dates.... you could gain or lose a year right there.

My wife and I constantly have a different view of my age.  

I count my age from nearest birthday to nearest birthday, ... like they do in the life insurance business.  She counts my age by how many "birthdays" I have had.   There is a six month difference right there.

It could be more.

It's like adding and subtracting fractions ... to add 1/4  inch to 3/32 inch, to 26-5/8 inches to 22mm, to 16.234 cm to 3.567 feet ... you have to convert SOMETHING.   In fact, it all must be reduced to a COMMON SYSTEM before you begin.

Because my background of preference is Land Surveying, I convert the whole mess to Feet, and hundred-thousand-ths of a foot. because that is the way I think, and like to do calcs.

I HATE creeping round-off errors.

...and PI at 3.14 is only good for pie .... if you want to keep your aircraft from landing on it's nose in a corn field at high speed (flotation devices are under your seat...) , better have PI to at least eight places.  After calcs are finished, rounding off to six places is often acceptable.

Perhaps the same thing may be true with "587" calculations.

However ... "Stardates" are REALLY cumbersome.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

USA usage rarely uses curly braces/brackets.

... except of course, in San Francisco .....