by TheListener 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It gives a redundant 'strawman' refutation for Babylon being destroyed in 519, which is not alleged at all by any source. Beyond listing meaningless dates that this might mean for the Messiah, it indicates a shifting forward of the date for Rome's fall without any scriptural reason at all.
Obviously "Rome's fall" was a typo and should have read "Jerusalem's fall" (by Rome). An error with the site prevented me from correcting the error after the initial post.
Jeffro
post 845
If there is a bias then what about the bias contained in the Jonsson hypothesis published as the Gentile Times Reconsidered?
The Bible cannot always be easily reconciled with secular history so one is faced with a choice as to whether the bible takes precedence over secular history.
Chorbah has several meanings and does mean complete destruction or devastation and did not Jeremiah describe the land as 'being withoy inhabiatant' which indicates complete depopulation.
Daniel's observation in 9:2 clearly indicate the fact that Judah was already lying in a desolated state and would remain so until the ened of the fore-ordained period of seventy years.
The taking of some captives into exile by Nebuchadnezzer including Daniel did not then begin the seventy years but simply meant that a vassalage was in place with Jehoiachin who replaced Jehoiakim. Later, a rebellion brought Nebuchadnezzer against Jerusalem with Zedekiah reigning, the city was destroyed, exiles taken to Babylon commencing the seventy years in 607 BCE.
The timing of matters is correct with Daniel taken captive during the third year of Jehoiakim's vassalage and not his third regnal year as mistaknely viewed by apostates.
Certainly, the invasion of Nebuchadnezzer was a 'calamity for Judah as described in Jeremiah 25 and during this period other foreign nations would also serve the king of Babylon as foretold by the p;rophets.
Jerusalem remained inhabited up until the last and major exile begiining 607 bce and remained depopulated until the Exiles returned to Judah in 537 BCE.
2 Chronicles 36:19 describes the destruction of the Temple followed by the deportation of the land and its subsequent desolation for seventy years.
Daniel 5 describing the imminent Fall of Babylon has no exegetical connection with Jeremiah 25;12 which describes the eventual desolation of Babylon.
The so-called vassallage theory is well grounded in biblical history, Jewish tradition and the use of the Hebrew 'malkut' used in Daniel 1:1.
Jeremiah 28;14 is simply suggestive of a impending disaster which wouls befall Judah at the hands of Nebuchadnezzer, this disaster would be the exile, serving Babylon and the desolating of the land all for seventy years.
The seventy years only commence with the dethronement of the last King of Judah, Zedekiah in 607 BCE
Other commentators agree that in the case of Nebuchadnezzer's second year was of his kingship in relation to his conquest of Judah and not his second regnal year.
The article in now contradicts the specific seventy years for Tyre as compared to Judah;s seventy years as explained in the Isaiah commentary.
It correctly the desolation of Egypt which is ignored by secular history and its omission falsifies all secular chronology.
The seventy years described by Zechariah refer to that past historical period when Judah was in exile to Babylon, serving Babylon whilst the land was desolated thuis ending upon their return in 537 BCE.
The article accepts the establishment of the neutral date of 539BCE from secular evidence but because of a specific methodology uses biblical evidence alone from this point thus arriving at the irrefutable date of 607 BCE.
The dating of 537 is not speculative but in harmony with all biblical and secular evidence as attested by all scholars and is in harmony with Josephus.
Thiele was at least honest about the matter of chronology but was somewhat embarrassed by his public admissions but that does not change his public statements much to his chagrin.
Ezekiel 33 certainly does not indicate that were inhabitants in the land after 607 as within a couple of months after the city was destroyed, the land was empty.
There is no need to offer and alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is in complete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme.
Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of thosed exiles living in Babylon up until their release.
Josephus is quite specific that there was a period of seventy years of exile, desolation and servitude for Judah and Jerusalem from the Fall until the Return under Cyrus.
There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years base d upon the Bible.
The alleged period from 609 to 539 BCE is bunkum and does not accord with secular history as the beginning is too fuzzy.
Jeremiah is most emphatic that that land would be without and an inhabitant for seventy years.
As usual apostates cannot refute the overwhelming evidence that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Jeffrfo did provide precise reference for his supposed 'cryitique'.
scholar JW
'scholar', once again you have fallen for the mistaken view that a response means that you have proven your point, but your responses are weak, and do not properly address the actual problems with your flawed interpretation. Your lame counters are empty and baseless.
If there is a bias then what about the bias contained in the Jonsson hypothesis published as the Gentile Times Reconsidered?
Jonsson simply collates existing data published by recognised scholars.
The Bible cannot always be easily reconciled with secular history so one is faced with a choice as to whether the bible takes precedence over secular history.
‘scholar’ simply repeats the lie that the biblical data cannot be reconciled, though I have demonstrated previously that the relevant scriptures can be completely reconciled with secular history.
Chorbah has several meanings and does mean complete destruction or devastation and did not Jeremiah describe the land as 'being withoy inhabiatant' which indicates complete depopulation.
‘scholar’ confirms that ‘chorbah’ does not mean complete destruction, weakening his own view of the 70 years.
Daniel's observation in 9:2 clearly indicate the fact that Judah was already lying in a desolated state and would remain so until the ened of the fore-ordained period of seventy years.
‘scholar’ continues to completely ignore that the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon.
The taking of some captives into exile by Nebuchadnezzer including Daniel did not then begin the seventy years but simply meant that a vassalage was in place with Jehoiachin who replaced Jehoiakim. Later, a rebellion brought Nebuchadnezzer against Jerusalem with Zedekiah reigning, the city was destroyed, exiles taken to Babylon commencing the seventy years in 607 BCE.
‘scholar’ makes an empty assertion, since it is not contended that the taking of captives just prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s accession marked the beginning of Babylon’s 70 years. There is no scriptural basis for the claim of a special reference to ‘vassalage’.
The timing of matters is correct with Daniel taken captive during the third year of Jehoiakim's vassalage and not his third regnal year as mistaknely viewed by apostates.
‘scholar’ gives no basis for the invalid claim of ‘vassalage’, and ignores the simple fact that Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s accounts refer to the same year of Jehoiakim’s reign.
Certainly, the invasion of Nebuchadnezzer was a 'calamity for Judah as described in Jeremiah 25 and during this period other foreign nations would also serve the king of Babylon as foretold by the p;rophets.
‘scholar’ misapplies the context of the ‘calamity’.
Jerusalem remained inhabited up until the last and major exile begiining 607 bce and remained depopulated until the Exiles returned to Judah in 537 BCE.
The scriptures indicate an exile that occurred after the fall of Jerusalem in 587, disproving ‘scholar’s’ claim.
2 Chronicles 36:19 describes the destruction of the Temple followed by the deportation of the land and its subsequent desolation for seventy years.
‘scholar’ ignores the context of the chapter, just as the article did.
Daniel 5 describing the imminent Fall of Babylon has no exegetical connection with Jeremiah 25;12 which describes the eventual desolation of Babylon.
‘scholar’ blindly ignores the clear context of Daniel 5, and the obvious connection with Jeremiah.
The so-called vassallage theory is well grounded in biblical history, Jewish tradition and the use of the Hebrew 'malkut' used in Daniel 1:1.
‘scholar’s’ application of ‘malkut’ has already been demonstrated in previous posts to lend no authority whatsoever to the Society’s invalid ‘vassalage’ argument.
Jeremiah 28;14 is simply suggestive of a impending disaster which wouls befall Judah at the hands of Nebuchadnezzer, this disaster would be the exile, serving Babylon and the desolating of the land all for seventy years.
‘scholar’ ignores the context of Jeremiah 28.
The seventy years only commence with the dethronement of the last King of Judah, Zedekiah in 607 BCE
An unbased statement with no evidence.
Other commentators agree that in the case of Nebuchadnezzer's second year was of his kingship in relation to his conquest of Judah and not his second regnal year.
Those nameless commentators are not in harmony with the scriptures. There is no basis for misapplying ‘malkut’ to anything other than its natural meaning.
The article in now contradicts the specific seventy years for Tyre as compared to Judah;s seventy years as explained in the Isaiah commentary.
‘scholar’ ignores the fact that the article deliberately omits verses of Ezekiel 26 that prove its position to be false.
It correctly the desolation of Egypt which is ignored by secular history and its omission falsifies all secular chronology.
‘scholar’ upholds a theory that has no evidence, baselessly applying a literal 40 years, that is quite impossible in view of the facts, though such literalism is not applied to the 70 years for Tyre.
The seventy years described by Zechariah refer to that past historical period when Judah was in exile to Babylon, serving Babylon whilst the land was desolated thuis ending upon their return in 537 BCE.
‘scholar’ offers no basis for his claim that contradicts the scriptures.
The article accepts the establishment of the neutral date of 539BCE from secular evidence but because of a specific methodology uses biblical evidence alone from this point thus arriving at the irrefutable date of 607 BCE.
Irrespective of its acceptance of 539 (which it does using inconsistent and dishonest methods), the Society has no basis for claiming 537. It therefore also has no basis for 607.
(‘scholar’ makes no reply regarding the article’s strawman argument for pushing forward the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE.)
The dating of 537 is not speculative but in harmony with all biblical and secular evidence as attested by all scholars and is in harmony with Josephus.
No evidence has ever been provided, and ‘scholar’ cannot demonstrate how 537 is consistent with Josephus when confronted with the points of logic involved.
Thiele was at least honest about the matter of chronology but was somewhat embarrassed by his public admissions but that does not change his public statements much to his chagrin.
‘scholar’ cannot uphold the articles dishonest attempt at claiming Thiele contradicts himself, and instead makes a vague claim that he ‘embarrasses’ himself, but offering no example of how.
There is no need to offer and alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is in complete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme.
‘scholar’ admits that he cannot provide any Neo-Babylonian chronology consistent with his interpretation. Instead, he admits wishful thinking that someone might find the fossils that might fill the missing links in his chronology.
Josephus is quite specific that there was a period of seventy years of exile, desolation and servitude for Judah and Jerusalem from the Fall until the Return under Cyrus.
‘scholar’ completely ignores that Josephus explicitly defines the amount of time between the 10-tribe kingdom and Cyrus which is incompatible and irreconcilable with the Society’s chronology.
There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years base d upon the Bible.
I have previously provided a complete model that is completely consistent with the scriptures, proving ‘scholar’ a liar.
Ezekiel 33 certainly does not indicate that were inhabitants in the land after 607 as within a couple of months after the city was destroyed, the land was empty.
‘scholar’ ignores Ezekiel 33, letting his flawed dogma overrule what is stated in the scriptures.
Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of thosed exiles living in Babylon up until their release.
Like Pavlov's dog, ‘scholar’ rushes to defend the NWT translation at the mention of Jeremiah 29:10, but ignores the actual context of the original comment, specifically that it was addressed to Jews in Babylon years before the Jerusalem was destroyed, applying Jeremiah’s 70 years to a period that had definitely started prior to that fall.
The alleged period from 609 to 539 BCE is bunkum and does not accord with secular history as the beginning is too fuzzy.
‘scholar’ claims that 609 to 539 is too fuzzy. This is despite the fact that there is no valid reason for selecting 537 for the end of the period, with no date and no evidence, and therefore no basis for 609.
Jeremiah is most emphatic that that land would be without and an inhabitant for seventy years.
‘scholar’ again lies, as Jeremiah does not at any point say that Jerusalem be uninhabited for the entire 70 years.
As usual apostates cannot refute the overwhelming evidence that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Jeffrfo did provide precise reference for his supposed 'cryitique'.
All of the points herein have been previously indicated on this forum with copious references. Therefore there was no reason to provide those reference in the summary of the badly written article. ‘scholar’ has not successfully refuted any of the claims against the article, and has done nothing in its defence.
the answer is here http://www.jonathan.freehyperspace.com/
