Was Jerusalem Destroyed in 607 BCE?

1. Was Jerusalem Destroyed in 607 BCE?

Jer. 32:1-3

2. We live in 2014! Is old history like 607 BCE still important?

*** bh p. 215 - 218 1914 ***
1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy … what
evidence points to 1914 as such an important year?
Luke 21:24: „the appointed times of the nations”
…How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin
to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in
607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the
Babylonians… Daniel chapter 4 … “seven times”…

3. Conclusion? 607 BCE still is important in 2014!

*** bh p. 215 - 218 1914 ***
The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when
Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king
was taken off his throne. The period ended in October
1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations”
ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s
heavenly King.

4. How did we get to the year 607 BCE? - Gen. 1:14,15

Since 1582 CE we are acquainted with
the Gregorian calendar (si p. 281).
With this we are able to “count back”
in time!
‘In the neighborhood’ of 607 BCE we
even have a “date that can be used as a
pivotal point … the year 539 BCE”
*** it-1 pp. 458-459 Chronology ***

5. 539 BCE: let’s start here, and go back in time.

6. 539 BCE – The fall of Babylon. - Dan. 5:30

Who was then king?
How did he reign?
Dan. 5:30
Belshazzar was the last king
… and … he reigned together
with his father:
Nabonidus

7. Time for “chronology!”

CHRONOLOGY
*** it-1 blz. 447 ***
The English word “chronology” comes from the
Greek khro·no·lo·gi′a …, that is, “the computation of
time.” Chronology makes possible the placing of
events in their orderly sequence or association and
the assigning of proper dates to particular events.

8. Nabonidus, how long did he reign? - Dan. 5:1 ftnt Rbi8

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
NABONIDUS
(Nab·o·ni′dus) [from Babylonian meaning
“Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted”].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian
Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis
of cuneiform texts he is believed to have
ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He
was given to literature, art, and religion.
Just remember: 539 BCE – 17 years =
556 BCE

9. 539 BCE and before

Nabonidus &
Belshazzar
17 years

10. Who were the kings of the neo-Babylonian empire before Nabonidus?

Who were the kings of the neoBabylonian empire before Nabonidus?
*** it-1 p. 425 *** - CHALDEA
(Chal·de′a), Chaldean (Chal·de′an)
…
“… Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors,
Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar,
Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World
Power, Babylon. … That dynasty came to its end when “Belshazzar
the Chaldean king was killed.” (Da 5:30) Darius the Mede was “made
king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.”
—Da 9:1; see BABYLON No. 2.”

11. What do we know about Labashi-Marduk?

*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
“Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently
the successor of Evil-merodach, and of LabashiMarduk.”
Is this then the end of our “computation of time?”
Not at all!
Thanks to the Watchtower 1965 January 1 p.29
and
*** it-1 p. 452-453 Chronology ***

12. What do we know about Labashi-Marduk?

Watchtower 1965 January 1 p.29
The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived:
“Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by
his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four
years, which time he spent mainly in building operations.
His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious
boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine
months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of and
who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law,
took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until fell in
539 BCE.”

13. What do we know about Labashi-Marduk?

Compare
w65 1/3 blz.157, par.7
with
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labashi-Marduk
“Labashi-Marduk, was king of Babylon (556 BC), and son of Neriglissar.
Labashi-Marduk succeeded his father when still only a boy, after the
latter's four-year reign. Most likely due to his very young age, he was unfit
to rule, and was murdered in a conspiracy only nine months after his
inauguration. Nabonidus was consequently chosen as the new king.”
So, we are on the right track!

14. What do we know about Labashi-Marduk?

*** it-1 blz. 452-453 Chronology ***
“For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his
second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the
successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth
year.”
Not a word about Labashi-Marduk. In the mean time, we know why. So,
let’s hold it on nine months we can almost neglect.

15. Again, time for “chronology!”

We already had:
Nabonidus: 17 years –
556 BCE up to539 BCE
Labashi-Marduk: 0 years –
556 BCE up to 556 BCE
Neriglissar: 4 years –
556 BCE up to 560 BCE
Evil-Merodach: 2 years –
560 BCE up to 562 BCE
Remember: we arrived yet in 562 BCE

16. 539 BCE and before

Evil-Merodach
2 years
Neriglissar
4 years +
Labashi-Marduk
0 years
Nabonidus
&
Belshazzar
17 years

17. And before Evil-Merodach? Nebuchadnezzar - Dan. 1:1

Nebuchadnezzar
[from Akkadian, meaning “O Nebo, Protect the Heir!].
Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of
Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who
succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king
for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.), …
*** it-2 p. 480 ***

18. Nebuchadnezzar …

What did we read now in *** it-2 p. 480 *** ??!
We were properly following all we could find to do the finest
‘computation of time’ and we landed in the year 562 BCE as being
the end of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar and, at the same time,
the start of the reign of king Evil-Merodach.
And right now we read in *** it-2 p. 480 ***
“Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)”
Someone created an “it-hole” from 20 years!
And we barely started with the ‘computation of time’!
Who then ruled from 582 BCE to 562 BCE??

19. 539 BCE and before according to “it-2”

Evil-Merodach
2 years
Nebuchadnezzar II
43 years
“It”-hole
Neriglissar
4 years+
Labashi-Marduk
0 year
Nabonidus
&
Belshazzar
17 years

20. Let’s reconsider things

*** it-2 p. 480 ***
“Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years
(624-582 B.C.E.)”
We believe the Insight-book eyes closed. Don’t we?
At least, NOW the 18th reignal year of
Nebuchadnezzar really IS 607 BCE. It HAS to be. We
SHOULD arrive in 1914 !!
What historical or archeological proof do we have?
Who cares about such? Do you REALLY need such?

21. Be warned!

A Denish brother, Carl Olof Jonsson also examined the
archeologic proof, in order to answer some questions of his
‘bible student’! What he discovered made him write dismayed
to the Governing Body. To cut a long story short: Carl was
shortly after that disfellowshipped for “apostasy.” His reply
was published in his book:
“The Gentile Times Reconsidered”.
www.amazon.com/Carl-Olof-Jonsson/e/B001KMSHX4

22. 539 BCE : what if we close the “it-hole” archeologically ?

Evil-Merodach
2 years
Nebuchadnezzar II
43 years
it-HOLE
Neriglissar
4 years +
Labashi-Marduk
0 year
Nabonidus
&
Belshazzar
17 years

23. If we close “the hole” archeolo-gically, this is what we get.

If we close “the hole” archeologically, this is what we get.
Nabopolassar
21 years
Evil-Merodach
2 years
Nebuchadnezzar II
43 years
Neriglissar
4 years +
Labashi-Marduk
0 year
Nabonidus
&
Belshazzar
17 years

24. We computed time following the “state of the art” – the consequences.

Unless we overlooked something, according to WTpublications and archeology, the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar started in 605 BCE, whatever WT
claims in it-2 blz. 480.
1.
2.
607 BCE is 2 years BEFORE the start of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar! Compare this with Jer. 32:1-3
The 18th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar according
to this computation of time, is not 607 BCE, but (605
BCE minus 18 =) 587 BCE.

25. A reassurance!

Josephus Flavius
Against Appion, Book I, 21
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/8/4/2849/2849.txt
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/apion-1.htm
21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in
them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his
reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of
obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of
Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the
second year of Darius.

26. A reassurance!

Josephus Flavius
Against Appion, Book I, 21
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/8/4/2849/2849.txt
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/apion-1.htm
The Temple was in a state of obscurity for fifty years!
Let’s calculate again: 587 BCE – 50 jaar = 537 BCE
And here we agree again with the it-book: the Jews arrived back in
Jerusalem in 537 BCE.

27. The consequences of 607 BCE

With 607 BCE Watchtower was lying to everybody. They
pre-determined to arrive in the year 1914 CE!
If 607 BCE is NOT correct, but 587 BCE is, then 1914 CE
makes a shift to 1934 CE!!
In 1914 CE: No “Slave” to be found!
Those who claim to be that “Slave” in 1914, can only
questionably be described as genuine!

28. The consequences of 607 BCE

On what base then, now we know Christ didn’t return yet in
1914, was the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” identified??
Is this a scam?

29. Questions?

[email protected]