Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  539 BCE certainly becomes fuzzy as a end point for your crazy seventy yera hypothesis. This pivotal date is only famous for the end of the Babylonian Monarchy and the Babylonian World Power. When dates are abused and misused as you have done by your distortion of this date then they are robbed of their original and historical significance and sadly become fuzzy.

  Daniel did not assume that the seventy years had ended at all, you need to read Daniel 9:2 and take your fuzzy, 'Elton John' glasses off. Daniel simply discerned from the Jeremiah that the duration of the devastations of Jerusalem would be 'seventy years' and this period was about to be fulfilled. Because of its anticipated fulfillment Daniel was moved to seek Jehovah in prayer that the restoration of all things would take place.

  This agrees with the presentation of matters in Chronicles whereupon immediately after the mention of the seventy years and its significance, Ezra proceeded to describe the Return under the Persian Cyrus with no metion of Babylon ending the seventy years.

  Methodology is the use and implementation of a method or the study of method, it is scholars that use this precise term in the of their research or thesis. Your period from 609 to 539 is fuzzy for several reasons, first of which is that your beginning is not universally accepted either as the beginning for the biblical 'seventy years' and for the end of the Assyrian World Power. Your period of 'seventy years' is simply a chronological accommodation and is not that Jeremiah's seventy years which was a period of exile-servitude-desolation. Your seventy years is elastic made to fit any current whim or fancy, stripped of any biblical significance. In short, your theory does not have a period of seventy years it only exists as number subtracted from two other numbers. A conjurers' trick to deceive the many.

  The seventy years of Jeremiah belong to Judah marked by its servitude to Babylon, its exile in Babylon and its desolated state. Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre was a period of domination by Babylon but in its case its servitude did not amount to an exact period of seventy years as was the case with Judah. Haran does not have any significance as the Fall of Nineveh in 632 BCE marked the end of the Assyrian World Power.

  It seems that you hate prophecy and do not believe in the end times of Daniel or in the words of our Lord in addressing what has become known as the Olivet Discourse. Your attitude is one of disbelief and scepticism and one wonders if you really believe in anything at all except your own theories based upon the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  539 BCE certainly becomes fuzzy as a end point for your crazy seventy yera hypothesis. This pivotal date is only famous for the end of the Babylonian Monarchy and the Babylonian World Power. When dates are abused and misused as you have done by your distortion of this date then they are robbed of their original and historical significance and sadly become fuzzy.

  A date that is certain does not become fuzzy no matter what it is applied to. It is you and your WT cronies that rob 539 of its significance by minimizing the importance of the 'handwriting on the wall', which is a clear application of the judgement of Babylon's king foretold by Jeremiah.

  Daniel did not assume that the seventy years had ended at all, you need to read Daniel 9:2 and take your fuzzy, 'Elton John' glasses off. Daniel simply discerned from the Jeremiah that the duration of the devastations of Jerusalem would be 'seventy years' and this period was about to be fulfilled. Because of its anticipated fulfillment Daniel was moved to seek Jehovah in prayer that the restoration of all things would take place.

  I'm not sure what your 'Elton John' fixation is about, so we'll ignore that. Anyway... Daniel 9:1 sets the timing of this incident in 539 or possibly 538. Daniel "discerned by the books the number of the years" from Jeremiah, who only mentions seventy years in connection with nations serving Babylon. Daniel read that in accord with the end of the 70 years, Jehovah would turn his attention to the Jews, that they would return to their land. It seemed to Daniel that they need not be in Babylon anymore at that time and so he made entreaty to God.

  This agrees with the presentation of matters in Chronicles whereupon immediately after the mention of the seventy years and its significance, Ezra proceeded to describe the Return under the Persian Cyrus with no metion of Babylon ending the seventy years.

  At 2 Chronicles 36:23, Cyrus indicates that God had given him "all the kingdoms of the earth". Previously, those nations were under Babylon's dominion. This is the significance of the 70 years, and in accord with those 70 years being over, the Jews were shortly thereafter allowed to return to their homeland.

  Methodology is the use and implementation of a method or the study of method, it is scholars that use this precise term in the of their research or thesis. Your period from 609 to 539 is fuzzy for several reasons, first of which is that your beginning is not universally accepted either as the beginning for the biblical 'seventy years' and for the end of the Assyrian World Power. Your period of 'seventy years' is simply a chronological accommodation and is not that Jeremiah's seventy years which was a period of exile-servitude-desolation. Your seventy years is elastic made to fit any current whim or fancy, stripped of any biblical significance. In short, your theory does not have a period of seventy years it only exists as number subtracted from two other numbers. A conjurers' trick to deceive the many.

  No, methodology is not 'the use and implementation of a method', it is the set of principles used within a particular field, though it can also refer to the study of method, though that is in a more philosophical sense. You state that my beginning of the period is not universally accepted, yet your beginning of the period is not accepted by anyone at all in the professional field, and only by the old WT guys in the religious field. Saying that my application of the 70 years is a "chronological accomodation" is laughable in view of the fact that your interpretation is simply to bolster 1914 (and a poor effort at that). "number subtracted from two other numbers"? From which two numbers is 70 subtracted? Or perhaps you mean that it is the result of a subtraction of one number from another? It seems that your arithmetical skills are as poor as your linguistic ones.

  The seventy years of Jeremiah belong to Judah marked by its servitude to Babylon, its exile in Babylon and its desolated state. Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre was a period of domination by Babylon but in its case its servitude did not amount to an exact period of seventy years as was the case with Judah. Haran does not have any significance as the Fall of Nineveh in 632 BCE marked the end of the Assyrian World Power.

  Your attempt to apply the one period of 70 years to two different periods of time is ridiculous. The year 632 for Nineveh's fall is fraudulent as it is based on a chronology that has no proof and no support in the professional community, and only serves to demonstrate the Society's problematic 20-year gap.

  It seems that you hate prophecy and do not believe in the end times of Daniel or in the words of our Lord in addressing what has become known as the Olivet Discourse. Your attitude is one of disbelief and scepticism and one wonders if you really believe in anything at all except your own theories based upon the Jonsson hypothesis.

  You assume that because I don't believe you I believe nothing. If that is your view, then you are a bombastic arrogant fool.
• 

  ellderwho

  You assume that because I don't believe you I believe nothing. If that is your view, then you are a bombastic arrogant fool.

  
  You said Bombastic ....LMAO

  Here we go again with the "scho-liar" Come up with that list yet Neil?? edited to add: Neil, Im still searching your posts' to find that list you said you posted.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  A date certainly becomes fuzzy when it is distorted from its original historical significance and this is what you have done when you claim that this date marked the end of the seventy years. It is fuzzy because Your seventy years construct is just a arithmetical device, a numerical convenience having no historic signifiance for biblical history.

  Daniel's context for the discerning of the fulfillment of the seventy years has nothing to do with the nations serving Babylon at all but as he directly states it was only in connection with the 'devastations of Jerusalem'.

  2 Chronicles 36:22 refers to that specific prophecy of Jeremiah which is stated in the preceeding verse 21 which refers not to serving of Babylon but the land repaying off its sabbaths whilst lying desolate for seventy years.

  We care nought for the fact that scholars have not embraced 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem because they have not accepted the fact of the seventy years. But scholars have not accepted any proposed date at all because they do not know the year of the Fall but by means of Jehovah's spirit the 'celebrated' have made it plainly revealed that it be 607.

  The number seventy according to your arithmetical hypothesis is calculated by the subtraction of 539 BCE from 609 BCE = 70 YEARS. It would be more intellectually honest of you to propose the subtraction of 539 from either 587 or 586 = 48 or 47 years respectively of Babylonian domination from the Fall of Jerusalem and thus ajudge the seventy years as a figurative or round number.

  There is not one period of seventy years but two in this instance. One of Isaiah and one of Jeremiah which is the only specific period quoted by Daniel, Zechariah, Ezra and Josephus. Your confusion of the two into one is dishonest and mistaken. The date of 632 for Nineveh highlights the twenty year gap between a chronology based upon Ptolemy and a chronology based upon the Bible. I believe the Bible over the pagan Ptolemy.

  scholar JW
• 

  Alwayshere

  Jeffro, Scholar is a fool alright but they must think we are fool enough to believe everything they put in writting but just to let others [who don't know what is the truth] know they can't trust the WTS when they give four different answers as to "How long did Babylon have world power?" In their Insight book and I also have a Watchtower that says 93 years. Look up Assyria in the Insight book. In their study of the Daniel book somewhere at beginning they say 86 years and on over they show a picture and it says 68 years But in their Isaiah book they say 70 years . 70 years is right as most of us know. Scholar is nothing but an Apostate that is covering for the WTS.
• 

  Jeffro

  A date certainly becomes fuzzy when it is distorted from its original historical significance and this is what you have done when you claim that this date marked the end of the seventy years. It is fuzzy because Your seventy years construct is just a arithmetical device, a numerical convenience having no historic signifiance for biblical history.

  It is not me but the bible that indicates the end of "nations serving Babylon" when Babylon was overthrown in 539.

  Daniel's context for the discerning of the fulfillment of the seventy years has nothing to do with the nations serving Babylon at all but as he directly states it was only in connection with the 'devastations of Jerusalem'.
  
  2 Chronicles 36:22 refers to that specific prophecy of Jeremiah which is stated in the preceeding verse 21 which refers not to serving of Babylon but the land repaying off its sabbaths whilst lying desolate for seventy years.

  As reasonable as this may sound on their own, such an interpretation conflicts with the complete picture, and therefore is wrong.

  We care nought for the fact that scholars have not embraced 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem because they have not accepted the fact of the seventy years. But scholars have not accepted any proposed date at all because they do not know the year of the Fall but by means of Jehovah's spirit the 'celebrated' have made it plainly revealed that it be 607.
  
  The number seventy according to your arithmetical hypothesis is calculated by the subtraction of 539 BCE from 609 BCE = 70 YEARS. It would be more intellectually honest of you to propose the subtraction of 539 from either 587 or 586 = 48 or 47 years respectively of Babylonian domination from the Fall of Jerusalem and thus ajudge the seventy years as a figurative or round number.

  I have a model that fits valid interpretations of all of the relevent scriptures and secular history. You have a flawed model that is required to fit the superstitously derived numerology of the Society for its end-time prophecies and contradicts Jeremiah.

  There is not one period of seventy years but two in this instance. One of Isaiah and one of Jeremiah which is the only specific period quoted by Daniel, Zechariah, Ezra and Josephus. Your confusion of the two into one is dishonest and mistaken. The date of 632 for Nineveh highlights the twenty year gap between a chronology based upon Ptolemy and a chronology based upon the Bible. I believe the Bible over the pagan Ptolemy.

  The Society explicitly states in connection with Tyre, in the Isaiah's Prophecy book, that the 70 years of Jeremiah 25 referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination, so you are wrong. However, yes there are two separate periods of 70 years, though you've gotten them wrong too. The period referred to by Zechariah is not the same period - it refers to the 70 years from the temple's destruction in 587 to its completion in 517. This is confirmed by Zechariah 1:7-15, which states that the seventy years had not yet finished in 519, and at which time the surrounding nations were now "at ease". At this time, the temple was still 'denounced' (Hebrew za'am) because it was not properly repaired.

  You erroneously suggest that it is the bible rather than the Society that creates the 20-year gap. I also have a chronology based strictly on the bible, and my dates match the secular dates for the period. Ptolemy also supports 539, which the Society accepts on the basis of astronomical diaries. You again illustrate that you have no valid basis for accepting 539 because it is arrived at using means that the Society considers unreliable.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The Bible indicates quite decisely that the end of the seventy years was the Return and not the Fall of Babylon as shown by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Josphus. Yes the reasoning is sound but the clincher in respect to Chronicles is the context and the plain fact that the Return is described in some detail, no such mention of the old whore and her Fall.

  Your model is just plain stupid and deceitful, just a compromise made to fit your twisted and convuluted interpretations which are all dead-ends. The seventy years are identical to those of Jeremiah, Ezra, and Daniel, the seventy yeras of Tyre are simply of Babylonian domination.

  It is impossible to have a bible-based chronology that fails to account for the seventy years thus disclosing a twenty year gap or error which is what your method shows. Thiele showed how Ptolemy's Canon should be viewed not for purposes of chronology but for historical purposes alone so any confirmation of 539 from this muted source is solely for the latter's significance.

  scholar JW
• 

  ellderwho

  Your model is just plain stupid and deceitful, just a compromise made to fit your twisted and convuluted interpretations which are all dead-ends.

  He-he. Then show us your model Neil. Oh thats right you cant. That 20 years is a b*t*h huh?
• 

  truth about the last days

  Hi to all! All what people can do weither they are in the faith or not is to look it up. Everyone has a libuary or an encyclopedia at home or in a local shop. The internet is also very helpful. They all say the same thing, 587bc or 586bc.The reason for the two dates is that the have been taken from the busness cuniform tablets of the time. No one can argue with history. And all these publications cant be wrong or apostate. I just visited my mum, who is very knowladgable and in the faith, and when i mentioned to her about the 587-586bc date, she has phoned me and doing her own investgation-which is good. For 1 John 4:1, 5+6 does say not to believe every inspired utterence but to test them out to see if they are from God.All the best to all, Keith
• 

  Jeffro

  The Bible indicates quite decisely that the end of the seventy years was the Return and not the Fall of Babylon as shown by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Josphus. Yes the reasoning is sound but the clincher in respect to Chronicles is the context and the plain fact that the Return is described in some detail, no such mention of the old whore and her Fall.

  "Decisely"? Precisely? Decisively? Anyway... the Jews were allowed to return to their homeland "in accord with" the fulfilling of the seventy years, so it is not surprising that this anticipated event is brought to the fore. However, to say that that was the event that marked the end of the 70 years, is to clearly ignore Jeremiah's clear words in chapter 25.

  Your model is just plain stupid and deceitful, just a compromise made to fit your twisted and convuluted interpretations which are all dead-ends. The seventy years are identical to those of Jeremiah, Ezra, and Daniel, the seventy yeras of Tyre are simply of Babylonian domination.

  Stupid? I have a clear framework, for which I have been congratulated, even by you. Deceitful? If something fits, it fits. If something doesn't fit, it doesn't. There is no deception. Compromise? When I began researching this issue, I began with no preconceptions of wanting to fit anything in any particular place, and the only end result I was looking for was one which makes the biblical accounts internally consistent, which I have achieved. Your alleged compromise only arises when using definitions for Hebrew words applied by the Society rather than the original-language meanings. Dead-end? There are no dead ends. Everything is reconciled with valid interpretations of the scriptures, without the contradictions introduced by the Society.

  The Society explicitly relates the 70 years mentioned at Jeremiah 25:12 to Tyre. Other reasons for why a different period was discussed in Zechariah have been given in previous posts.

  It is impossible to have a bible-based chronology that fails to account for the seventy years thus disclosing a twenty year gap or error which is what your method shows. Thiele showed how Ptolemy's Canon should be viewed not for purposes of chronology but for historical purposes alone so any confirmation of 539 from this muted source is solely for the latter's significance.

  I don't have a 20-year gap. You give me a year, and I'll give you the king who was reigning. While you're looking up the word "methodology", you may also like to look up "gap". It is your flawed interpretation of the 70 years that creates the gap. The bible does say the Jews would return after the seventy years, but it does not say that that event marks the end of the period. The bible says explicitly that Babylon's king would called to account only once the 70 years had ended. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and there is no way to justify the claim that the events of Daniel 5:26-31 did not describe that event.

  It is unclear why you put credence in Thiele, when Thiele indicates that your interpretations are wrong. In any case, by your argumentation, there is also no reason to accept the words of the astronomical diary, Strm.Kambys.440 for the establishment of 539 either.