Alwayshere and all,
I found this site which you might find an interesting read. I don't know how good a scholar he is but he seems to know his subject though that doesn't really in of itself mean much. He is not JW or ex, he might be Jewish.
http://members.aol.com/gparrishjr/home.html
Desolation of Jerusalem
by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Spectrum
-
Honesty
Can someone explain me the repercussions if ever the GB admit that they are wrong or if a tablet is found dating conclusively that desolation of Jerusalem occurred on 586/7.
The entire Faithful Discreet Slave doctrine rests on 607 B.C. according to Watchtower numerology.It goes something like this:
607 B.C.E. --- Jerusalem is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II
According to measurements made by C.T. Russell of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, 2,520 years after 607 B.C.E. Jesus returns but no one can see him except the followers of C.T. Russell, founder of the International Bible Students Association
607 B.C.E. plus 2,520 years brings us to 1914
According to the Watchtower Society, sometime around 1919 Jesus inspected the spiritual temple and selected C.T. Russell's group as his Faithful Discreet Slave and has been using them since to convey his thoughts and directives to humankind.
Let's see.... they were celebrating Christmas, used the Cross, had no problems with blood transfusions or donations, a few other little items that would get any one of them disfellowshipped nowadays.
It all makes perfect sense when you read the box entitled "1914 Foreseen" on page 105 of the Watchtower publication "Revelation Its Grand Climax At Hand!"
The following are direct quotes from that box on page 105:
"It was in B.C. 606, that God's kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles, 2520 years will end in A.D. 1914"* ---- The Three Worlds, published in 1877, page 83.
* Providentially, those Bible students had not realised that there is no zero year between "B.C' and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914." --- See "The Truth Shall Make You Free", published by the Watchtower Society in 1943, page 239 (italics mine)
The Watchtower admits research made it necessary to change their date of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the first temple from 606 to 606.
The question remains as to why they changed their date from 606 to 607. 1914 has to fit in with 607 B.C.E. for the Watchtower's doctrine to seem valid in the eyes of its followers.
Besides, what further evidence do they have for changing their date other than the fact that C.T. Russelll and the Watchtower Society couldn't add things up right then just like they can't do it now?
Since the Faithful Discreet Slave doctrine is built upon the date of 607 B.C.E. it has to be upheld at all costs. Otherwise the Watchtower's claim to be the voice of God is proven false.
Scholar has never addressed this issue because the Watchtower Society has given no evidence or reason for changing the date from 606 B.C. to 607 B.C.
-
Jeffro
I am not denying that Babylon did not receive judgement as foretold imminently by Daniel and foretold by Jeremiah. It is a indisputable fact that 539 meant the Fall of Babylon both as a city and World Power. But we are talking about something different and that is the seventy years and its context which was clearly described in Jeremiah 25. From verses 12 onwards Jeemiah foretold the destruction of Babylon. a similar fate to that of Judah which also be experienced by all the nations including Babylon. This specific oracle of devastation only began after the seventy years were fulfilled which was 537 and in the straits of the times all of those nations, their cities all dissappeared into the sands of history and that is what Jeremiah foretold.
The truly sad thing about this is that 'scholar' seems to be actually convinced that he is right. The reality is that the bible says at Jeremiah 25:12, point blank, that when the seventy years have been fulfilled, the king of Babylon will be called to account. The bible describes an event, point blank, at Daniel 5:26-31 that involves the king of Babylon being called to account. Regardless of the applicaiton of the seventy years, there is no way that its ending can be any time after Babylon had no king to be called to account. How long it took for the rest of Babylon's judgement to take place is irrelevant. 'Scholar' claims that he does not deny Babylon's judgement and its connection to Jeremiah 25:12, but he can do nothing but deny it, because to say the seventy years ended in 537 is to flatly deny what is stated in the book of Jeremiah.
-
Spectrum
Honesty,
thanks for that basically without 1914 they are finished.
Is the use of the pyramid biblical or freemasonry stuff? And do JWs accept that Russel used the pyramid for his calculations? -
Jeffro
The clay tablet that is used to calculate the Fall of Jerusalem is called VAT 4956 and is simply an astronomical diary, a copy made during the Seleucied Era of the third century BCE. It purports to have observations made during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer datable to 568 BCE. From this it is assumed that Nebuchadnezzer's 18th year which was the year of his conquest of Jerusalem must have been 586/587 BCE.
'Scholar', the clay tablet from which it is derived that Babylon fell in 539 is also "simply an astronomical diary" catalogued as Strm.Kambys.400 (though the Insight book carefully omits that fact). Of course, in the matter of accepting 539 but denying 587, the Society is comparing 'apples with apples' and deciding that one must be an orange. If the Society were honest, it would in fact have no reason to accept 539 on the basis that the only evidence for it is the same kind of evidence used to support 587.
The information in this tablet require interpretation and there is much disagreement about its intrinsic value for the purposes of chronology buy regardless of its value or otherwise the data as currentlu understood or presented conflicts with a direct reading of Scripture which affirms the seventy year period and its relationship to Nebuchadnezzer which places that jhistoric event some twenty years earlier in 607 BCE.
When you say that there is much disagreement about its intrinsic value, you of course mean the Society doesn't like it. There is no conflict between this date and "a direct reading of Scripture". The only conflict is with the Society's interpretations, which are readily shown to be false.
-
scholar
Jeffro
Reply to post 706
Yes, I am absolutely convinced that I am right because unlike you I have read widely including the Jonsson hypothesis with its exegesis of the seventy years and I have read every journal article written on the seventy years by all the leading scholars in Christendom. Further, I have read all of the material that celebrated WT scholars have published in the Society's publications concerning the seventy years. In short, I am on top of this debate and know what I am talking about.
Jeremiah 25: 12 certainly states that at the fulfillment of the seventy years the king of Babylon would be brought to account and this is further described in the rest of that verse and the immediate context that Babylon and its land would be desolated and that clearly did not happen in 539 BCE. Jeremiah does not describe how the king of Babylon would be called to account but simply states it as a fact and certainly with the release of the exiles in 537 by a new king of Babylon was a vindication of God's word that Babylon with its rulers no longer held power over God's people.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Yes, I am absolutely convinced that I am right because unlike you I have read widely including the Jonsson hypothesis with its exegesis of the seventy years and I have read every journal article written on the seventy years by all the leading scholars in Christendom. Further, I have read all of the material that celebrated WT scholars have published in the Society's publications concerning the seventy years. In short, I am on top of this debate and know what I am talking about.
'Scholar', your posts do make me laugh. You presume to think that you are better read on the subject than anyone else, though the fact is that even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter because most of what you have read, you simply deny because it does not fit in with your flawed interpretations. "Celebrated WT scholars" refers to fictional entities, as there are not WT scholars who are celebrated, even if there are indeed any genuine WT scholars at all. You are not at the top of the debate because you provided no basis for proving that the WT interpretations are correct. You just restate it over and over again, but you never actually provide any proof to ratify your statements.
Jeremiah 25: 12 certainly states that at the fulfillment of the seventy years the king of Babylon would be brought to account and this is further described in the rest of that verse and the immediate context that Babylon and its land would be desolated and that clearly did not happen in 539 BCE. Jeremiah does not describe how the king of Babylon would be called to account but simply states it as a fact and certainly with the release of the exiles in 537 by a new king of Babylon was a vindication of God's word that Babylon with its rulers no longer held power over God's people.
Babylon began to be judged in 539. There is simply no denying that. It matters naught how long the eventual complete desolation of the land took after that. Furthermore, 539 is specifically when Babylon's king was called to account, and that event could not have happened at any time thereafter. Regardless of whether Jeremiah describes how the king of Babylon is called to account, the simple fact is that it happened in 539. There is no valid way to suggest that a Medo-Persian king was somehow called to account in 537 for actions taken by the Babylon world power. You are just plain wrong.
-
Alwayshere
Well said Jeffro. Jeremiah 25: 11-12 makes it clear that Babylon is called to account AFTER all the nations SERVE Nebuchadrezzar 70 years. Scholar is not allowed to believe that tho. He would be labeled an Apostate like us for believing the truth.
-
scholar
Jeffro
Reply to post 708
Well you want some proof do you and you make the false claim that I simply restate WT arguments repeatedly, that I add nothing new to this debate on chronology. You claim that I deny things because these do not fit into my flawed interpreatations. All that you have said in respect to the seventy years and chronology is simply borrowed from Jonsson's GTR, the only original point you have contributed is a spreadsheet chart of the regnal data which is hardly 'original'.
Let us then turn our attention to Jeremiah 25:12 which you interpret the phrase "I shall to account against the king of Babylon" as only applying to the Fall or conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE. You admit to no other view or interpretation. Did you check or research the commentaries on this verse to examine what scholars say about this verse? For starters this statement does not give an event in an immediate sense but provides the only time element that this would only commence after the seventy years are fulfilled. Was the seventy years fulfilled in 539? You would say that it was but you offer no proof for this fact because the Jews right up until 539 were still exiled in Babylon, they were still in servitude and the land rermained desolated all necessary conditions of Jeremiah's prophecy. If the seventy years ended in 539 then when did they commence? Was it 609 if we understand that seventy years was an exact number, but that could not be the case because the Judah was not serving Babylon and therefore the seventy years had not then commenced. So your 539 theory simply fails.
Verse 12 states that calling to account was not an immediate event but a gradual proces that involved not just a king but Babylon and the land and that altogether Babylon would become a desolation which clearly did not occur in 539. So, this verse as recognized by leading scholars and commentators including the 'celebrated' is a prophecy of the future whence Babylon as with the other foreign nations would cease to exist which began as a processional event after the release of the captives which ended the seventy years in 537.
Further, Jeremiah uses this phrase similarly as an expression of eventual and progressive judgement not immediate judgement in Jeremiah 36:31. this expression can have an immediate beginning but its focus is over a longer period of time.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Alwayshere
Jeffro' interpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 is ridiculous because of the simple fact that at the time of Babylon's Fall in 539 the Jes were still in exile, serving that king and the land of Judah remained a desolation. It was not until the Return, two years after the fact that in 537 that seventy years ended as confirmed by Ezra and Josephus.
scholar JW