WTBS article prove 587/586 BC fall of Babylon

by crazies 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Your model poorly attempts to reconcile the seventy years with the secular data by claiming that this period was a period of servitude only and not recognizing that it was a period of servitude-exile-desolation in its entirety.

  I will assume that where you typed "poorly", you meant "successfully" because otherwise you are just wrong. My model takes into account the definitions of the relevant words, the clear text of Jeremiah 25:12, the consistent application of the 70 years to Jerusalem and other nations (such as Tyre), and the inclusion for part of that period for paying off Sabbaths. Conversely, the WT model is problematic regarding all of these issues.

  The Bible does not say that 'calling into account the king of Babylon' terminated the seventy years for the only event that terminated the period was the return of the exiles under the new king of Babylon namely Cyrus.

  No, it says "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon". The quite clear reading is that the seventy years would be finished when the king of Babylon was called to account. This is quite clearly confirmed in Daniel chapter 5. Irrespective of over what period for which Babylon's judgement would continue, its starting point cannot validly be moved to some point before the end of the seventy years.

  My comment should have read '"We do not have ...". A typo only.

  It's hard to tell your typos apart from the rest of your incorrect posts.

  The secular data contains no reference to Neb's vacant seven years so their integrity is compromised by this omission whereas the Bible does mention this period so its data is superior to the secular for the purposes of chronology.

  No other king took Nebuchadnezzar's place during such a time, and there is no reason why the Nebuchadnezzar could not still be officially indicated as king during that time even if he wasn't actually present. Your argument is a red herring.
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar,

  I need not reply to any more of your posts. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the facts. You dismiss anything that conflicts with WT interpretations without any valid backing. You dishonestly suggest that you will supply information in return for other information and then renege. Your approach to chronology is biased, erroneous and wilfully ignorant.

  All well-informed people on this forum can see from your own replies that you are wrong without me having to continue replying, and others are welcome to review my replies to your past entries on this site that demonstrate your views to be incorrect.
• 

  crazies

  As far as the 7 years of Neb. go, if you look at what Josephus wrote, that Evil ruled for 16 years, this could actually corroborate with what Jeffro wrote, that Neb was still the "official" king during that time. However since Evil was his son he would have likely been the one ruling in Nebs absence. No doubt his son would have probably tried to hide the fact at the time that his father was not there mentally. Much like today people will quite frequently hide that fact that some politician, BIG business man, or some notable person is ill, dying pretty much anything that would make them look weak or bad from the general public so stocks won't go down or so the President doesn't look week or some other reason.
  
  So if Evil was in effect co-ruler (yet subordinate still to his father, much like Belshazzar and Nabonidus) he could have been described as ruling for 16 years while in fact he was only the "official" king of Babylon for 2 years after his fathers death.
  
  

  I'm not saying this is fact or anything, but it very well could cover the 7 years.
• 

  skyman

  Good idea.

  Scholar thanks for letting me see once again the fertile effort of casing ones tail. I love how many time you went around the issue without ever touching it. Ray Franz said they tried so hard to find proof when there no proof, even Fred Franz know the Society was wrong. You can be like Fred and die knowing the real truth. All of the entire worlds history prove you wrong and yet you chase your tail.
• 

  Spectrum

  Crazies,
  I've just had another thought. Does this date really matter anymore since in 1995 they changed their generation doctrine.
  The 1914 edifice was significant because 'millions living now will never die' was in it's infancy. Since the doctrine has changed and 'millions living now WILL certainly die' there is no significant difference between 1914 and 1894.
  The question is why doesn't the GB drop the 607 date? It won't be the first time the light got brighter.
• 

  a Christian

  Spectrum, You ask: The question is why doesn't the GB drop the 607 date? You seem to forget that if the GB admits that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in either 587 or 586 BC, as all historians assure us that it was, and not in 607 BC as the GB has long erroneously maintained, then the GB will lose its claim to any God-given authority. For the WTB&TS has long maintained that not only did Christ return invisibly in 1914 but that He then conducted a three and a half year long inspection of all then existing Christian religious organizations, and shortly after doing so declared the leaders of the WTB&TS to be His "faithful and discreet slave" and appointed them "over all his belongings" in 1919. They do this based on their interpretation of Daniel 4, which says that 2,520 years ("7 Times") passed from the time of Jerusalem's destruction until Christ's return. Counting 2,520 years from 607 BC brings us to 1914 AD. So, if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BC then Christ did not return in 1914, and if Christ did not return in 1914 then He did not appoint the WTB&TS "over all his belongings" in 1919. And if He did not the WTB&TS has no right to tell anybody how to understand the Bible or how to live their lives. Now I suppose the GB could say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or in 586 and that Christ returned in 1934 or 1935 and then appointed them "over all his belongings" a few years later. Or they could say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or 586 but still count their 2,520 years from 607, claiming 607 to be the date when the reign of Judah's kings ended "in God's eyes" since it was about that time that they fell under the control of Egypt and Babylon. But I think the GB knows that any admission of past error on this topic will cost them much credibility and possibly many supporters, maybe even "Scholar." So I'm quite sure "607" will remain the GB's date for Jerusalem's destruction for as long as the WTB&TS exists. For without it there is no GB.
• 

  Spectrum

  Christian,
  I realise they will lose their cherished 1914 date if they agreed on 586/587 but they can just set a new one of 1934/35. They can say "OK fair dues we weren't chosen in 1914 but 1934". Why is that so calamitous as you suggest?
  I mean it's like, 1914 equals JWs. It's become a symbol to them, in our judgement way beyond it's importance.
• 

  a Christian

  Spectrum,

  You wrote: They can say "OK fair dues we weren't chosen in 1914 but 1934". Why is that so calamitous as you suggest?

  To do so would be admitting that they have been teaching falsely on what has been their primary doctrine for nearly a century. Their only claim to fame all these years was that they were acting as true prophets in the years before 1914 by preaching, "Watch out for 1914!"

  To do so would be admitting that they have misunderstood both Bible history and Bible prophecy for nearly a century. To do so would raise the question, "If we have been wrong all this time about this, what else might we be wrong about?" To do so would raise the question, "Since we might be wrong about anything, is it right to disfellowship people who disagree with us about anything?" To do so would raise the question, "Can we really be trusted now on anything at all?" "What about the blood issue?" "What about celebrating Holidays?" "What about the preaching work?" "Why go door to door telling other people what to believe, when what we tell them might be wrong?"

  To do so would be to admit that the "apostates" - many of whom have been disfellowshipped over this issue - have been right all along.

  No, the GB will never admit that 607 and 1914 are wrong. That's a "can of worms" they will never dare to open.
• 

  scholar

  elderwho

  Who are you kidding! I do not believe that in this short period of time you could have read and digested my posting history on this forum and not learnt a single thing. You have blinmkers on and you are determined to follow the course of delusion and darkness in your ignorant rejection of sacred biblical chronology.

  In my posting history I have not sidestepped a single issue because I have nothing to fear from the Jonsson hypothesis which you support but probably have not read or understood. My reason for posting on this subject is simple to defend WT chronology and is not to convince or dissuade others from their viewpoints.

  You raise the objection about whether matters or points of Wt Chronology have not been noticed or accepted by outsiders and you this as aproof that there must be something wrong with our chronology. This line of reasoning is pataently foolish bedcause WT chronology has been around for well over a hundred years and our chronology has made various contributions in the field of biblical scholarship unknown to you. Even at this time in the last few years there is now a focussed attention into the history and archaeology of Judah during the Captivity and so scholars may yet be forced to conclude that the seventyh years was indded a period of exile-servitude and desolation.

  scholar JW
• 

  Spectrum

  Christian,
  OK thanks I think that was a clear answer of the repercussion and I agree with your conclusions as probably would JWs.