listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem

by M.J. 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Well well well, scholar pretendus! I'm floored that you actually answered a simple question!

  I've already dealt many times with your standard stupid comments, which can be safely ignored.

  I asked: "What are the beginning and ending dates of the 2nd year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon?"

  You said:

  "The 2nd year of Cyrus if you mean his regnal year would run from Nisan 537 until Nisan 536 BCE for your enlightenment and that of MJ."

  Very good!

  Now, you've also claimed that the temple foundations were laid in 536 B.C. In this, you've merely followed Watchtower claims. And as you know very well, this claim is based on two things: the Society's claim that the Jews returned to Judah by Tishri, 537 B.C., and Ezra 3:8, which states that the foundations were laid in the "second month".

  Now, the 7th month Tishri is also the first month of the Jewish secular year. According to Ezra 3:1, when the 7th month arrived, the Jews were already in their cities, which means that this 7th month was the beginning of the 2nd year of their return to Judah. So this 2nd year ran from Tishri, 537 through the last Jewish month of Elul, 536 B.C. Therefore, the 2nd month of of this 2nd year would have been Iyyar (April/May), 536 B.C.

  Are you with me so far?

  Combining this with Ezra 3:8, then, we learn that it was in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return that the temple foundations were laid.

  But this month is actually in Cyrus' 3rd regnal year!

  Therefore, Josephus contradicts the Watchtower's claims, since he put the laying of the temple foundations in Cyrus' 2nd year. This would have been Iyyar of 537 B.C.

  And as I've explained a number of times now, this proves that Josephus' statement means that the Jews must have returned to Judah in 538 B.C.

  DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

  I thought not.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  dozy, you appear to be some sort of Watchtower apologist. I say this because you, in the usual JW apologist manner, fail to deal with what posters actually say.

  : The only certainties for many ex-witnesses is that JWs are pretty much wrong about everything.

  Many do go overboard.

  : A "critique" is published every week on the Watchtower which contains 100% criticism despite the average WT article containing perhaps 80 supporting scriptural references.

  Your phrasing pegs you as a JW apologist.

  Note that the mere inclusion of claimed "supporting scriptural references" says nothing about whether such references actually have anything to do with the topic at hand. The Society began claiming in 1967 that the Scriptures were against organ transplants. The Society abandoned this view a dozen years later. So much for "supporting scriptural references".

  : They will argue strongly about the "wrongness" of 607 , yet they are much hazier on far more important issues of belief , conduct and purpose.

  Think about why: it's easy to deal with historical references that establish a date; it's hard to interpret scriptures that are themselves fuzzy.

  Also realize this: the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that one must view and obey the JW Governing Body as if God himself speaking through them. I.e., that these men are the leaders of "the faithful and discreet slave". A foundation of this doctrine is that Watchtower leaders were appointed to this position in 1919, which date is in turn based on claimed prophetic fulfillments beginning in 1914 (of course, 1914 has much significance in JW doctrine beyond that). If this base date can be shown wrong, then the entire "JW leaders as faithful slave" doctrine is wrong.

  Of course, most readers know that the real basis for the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses has nothing to do with facts, but is based on the emotional need to have a visible Big Daddy telling a JW what to do. Once a JW becomes convinced that Big Daddy lives in Brooklyn, a disproof of the 1914 date does no good for him. But such disproofs are written for the few thinking JWs that exist, as well as to provide a solid, factual cutoff for those ex-JWs who want to understand why the JW organization should not be followed. Many who leave the JWs for emotional reasons are saddled with years of soul-searching: "Did I really do the right thing?" A factual basis for leaving is good for the soul that has been damaged by cultic belief.

  AlanF
• 

  toreador

  Scholar wrote: :Jonsson the pseudo scholar needs to get his facts right and plainly tell his readers how many lines of evidence he has concocted, 17 or 18 plain and simple. What does it matter? Are you a nit picker? Would it matter if he had 999 or 1000? :His hypothesis is not a contribution to scholarship as he has not contributed anything new to scholarship and has not had his work peer reviewed. His presentation of Neo-Babylonian chronology and his interpretation of the 'seventy years' is written up to undermine WT chronology and the pivotal date of 607. If its not a contribution they you admit he has used others works which has been peer reviewed. So whats the problem? :Further, his hypothesis is shonky because it fails to determine the precise year of the Fall whether it was 586 or 587, Celebrated WT scholars using the same biblical evidence have long determined the precise year as 607 BCE. A date that is faithful to the Bible and secular materials as it uses secular materials for the Fall of Babylon in 539 and the Return in 537 BCE. It alone harmonizes all of the principal seventy year texts in total agreement with Josephus. The date 607 is well established in comparison to the shonky and fuzzy Neo-Babylonian chronology which is incomplete and falls short some twenty years. So what is the problem? You are off by twenty and they are may be off by a few months. :Well the seventy years may have no significance for you then how is it the case that you spend so time trying to defend Jonsson's view of the seventy years? Pseudo scholar Jonsson has based his entire hypothesis on the seventy years in order for his Neo-Babylonian chronology particularly his fuzzy understanding of Jeremiah 29:10. Because the whole religion is based on a fauly interpretation and ruins families. Thats why. :The fuzzy date of 609 is of no help because it represents nothing of worth in history. What, so you need to invent something of worth so you can claim that every one who does not listen to you will be destroyed by God? Thats baloney. Tor
• 

  ellderwho

  
  toreador:

  So what is the problem? You are off by twenty and they are may be off by a few months.

  This has been my cry throughout this entire utter nonsense. And Sholar knows this. It is in-escapable. Yeah we have AlanF nailing him to the wall on all the smoke an mirror brought by Sholar.

  However, when cornered about his(Sholar) math on neo-babylonian rules and kings, his is as empty handed as the floundering Towers. Period.

  There is just no where else for him to go. I mean the best he can do is say " well there musta been another king we dont know about" And Ive heard this before from an elder.

  Sholar will continue to ingnore the pink elephant of 20 years missing. Because he knows there is no way around it.

  All the fluff about scholars and chronicals and Jeremiah this and that, really is of no use whatsoever. Sholar and the Towers refuse to do basic math, as my 8yo son seems to have a better handle on.

  Sheese!!!

  EW
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus, I noticed that you've put your foot in it big time with your claim about Jeremiah 25:12, so I decided to disembowel your claims again. You said:

  : Jeremiah 25:12 most emphatically has nothing to say that would date it to 539 for its judgement against Babylon could only commence after the years ended with the Return of the Exiles in 537.

  First, nothing whatsoever in the text says anything about a "Return of the Exiles", much less a return of exiles in a specific year. This is trivial to show, by quoting the passage in question (NASB):

  11 This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 'Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,' declares the LORD, 'for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation.'

  The passage doesn't even speak of the Jews, although previous passages show that the Jews were among "these nations" that verse 11 specifically mentions. Clearly, "these nations" were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and that servitude certainly did not end when the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.

  Your claim is demonstrably false.

  But here is your royal screwup:

  : Your theory here is simply impossible. The text clearly associates the judgement against Babylon with the desolation of Babylon and its land which did not happen in 539 BCE.

  Very good! The judgment is associated with Babylon alright. But a judgment of desolation did not come for more than another 900 years, because the city was inhabited at least through the 4th century A.D. For this reason alone, it's ridiculous to claim that verse 12 applies to a judgment so far in the future that no one would care, some 1000 years in the future with respect to Jeremiah's audience. Obviously then, Jeremiah's prophecy was intended to be fulfilled upon Babylon in a way that no one living at the time could deny.

  The language connecting verses 11 and 12 proves this point. After verse 11 states that "these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years", verse 12 directly connects the end of that servitude with the punishment of the king of Babylon: "THEN it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon." In other words, it was to be right "then", or "at that time", as soon as the 70 years were over, that the king would be punished. And not just the king, of course, but the nation.

  How was the king of Babylon punished? Nabonidus, the primary king, was deposed. Belshazzzar, the second ruler in the kingdom, was killed.

  How was the nation punished? It lost its empire and its primacy in the region and was replaced by the kingdom of the Persians and the Medes.

  To claim that these things were not a punishment is beyond stupid, and a clear case of special pleading.

  It's also easy to see that a complete desolation of Babylon occurring some 900 years after its fall in 539 is consistent with the words of Jeremiah: the fall in 539 began a long, slow decline that ended with complete desolation nearly a millennium later.

  In view of the above, scholar pretendus, it's clear that your claim that my "theory here is simply impossible" is more smoke and mirrors designed to throw yourself off from the simple fact that the McFadzen Hypothesis is completely unbiblical.

  I will also point out that the McFadzen Hypothesis is at odds with that of Mommy Watchtower here, since the latter's only discussion of the matter claimed that the punishment upon the king of Babylon was not the city's desolation a millennium after Jeremiah's prophecy, but the fact that the king of Babylon in 537 B.C., poor old Cyrus, was commissioned by God to allow the Jews to return home. So, scholar pretendus, by publicly advancing a "different doctrine" than Mommy's, you've made yourself an apostate in her eyes.

  A further point: you continue to ignore the absolutely clear words of Jeremiah 27:6, 7. Here God says (NASB):

  6 Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. 7 All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant.

  This is clearly speaking of Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty -- not some minor city officials who presided over Babylon's final abandonment a millennium later. This passage is completely consistent with, and complementary to, Jeremiah 25:11, 12. In fact, it leaves no room at all for the ridiculous special pleadings engaged in by the likes of you, Rolf Furuli and Mommy Watchtower.

  Each bit of verse 7 was completely fulfilled in 539 B.C.: "All the nations" round about Judah served Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty until that dynasty ended in 539; at that time, "the time of his own land" came for it to be judged and punished by its being conquered by a foreign power; at that time, "many nations and great kings" made "him their servant" by subjugating Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty.

  To claim that Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was not thoroughly punished, or called to account, in 539 B.C. is beyond stupid, and a clear case of special pleading.

  To ignore this fact is to engage in gross scholastic dishonesty.

  Jeremiah 27:6, 7, then, clearly proves that Jeremiah 25:12 can refer only to the demise of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty in 539 B.C.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Jeremiah 25:12 is about judgement against Babylon, a oracle for Babylon. The next has nothing to say about the Fall of Babylon which was in 539 BCE but explicitly concerns the destruction of Babylon even the land of Chaldea. What was the nature of that judgement or how was it described by Jeremiah? It was described as a total desolation of the city, its kingship and its territory, being "made a desolate wastes to times indefinite". Clearly, such a destuction did not occur withits Fall in 539 which only saw a change of rulership of Babylonian Power to that of the new Medo-Persian Power. Further, this judgement was timed only to commence after the stated period of 'seventy years' has ended or was fulfilled. The Bible clearly indicates that this period ended with the Return of the Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE so this mean that these words of Jeremiah began to be fulfilled only after that time which in the course of history saw the gradual destruction of Babylon just as Jeremiah forfetold.

  It is not ridiculous as you claim that such a prophecy took some time to be fulfilled because that was the situation with many of the other nations which like Babylon eventually faded into the sands of history.

  Verse 11 and 12 are not joined prophecies but as recognized by scholars and commentators are separate prophecies with verse 11 applicable only to Judah and verse 12 applicable to Babylon with subsequent verses after verse 12 referring to all of the other natiuons which in turn experience identical judgements.

  Verse 12 does not say that Babylon was punished by a loss of its political power but was punished by total desolation of Babylon and its land. You are tryng to force an inferior view of servitude by ignoring the plain words of Jeremiah. You are a very naughty boy! This judgement had also an immediate relevance with the Return of the Exiles in 537 at the end of the seventy years which would properly begin Jehovah's settling of accounts with the Babylonian rulership. So, I am in agreement with the long held view of the celebrated ones on this aspect.

  The words at Jeremiah 27:6,7 is irrelevant here because this simply states a prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzer'.s dynasty ruling over Babylon and that nations would be subject to that rulership which ceased altogether with the overthrow of Nabonidus and Belshazzar at 539 BCE by the Medes and Persians. This passage is consistent with Jeremiah 25:8-11 which explains that a period of seventy years would see Judah experience servitude to Babylon as a exiled nation leaving a depopulated land.

  The exiled Jews served not only the Babylonian kingship during the seventy year period but also served a new king of Babylon, the Medo-Persians for the last two years of the seventy years ending such punishment and banishment with their return in 537BCE.

  The Nebuchadnezzer dynasty was cedrtainly called to account in 539 BCE, a historical fact with no dispute but that is not what Jeremiah describes in 25:12. What he foretells could only commence after 537 BCE marking the Return of the Jewish exiles.

  I know these comments will not please you and will cause you some deep distress but if you continue to love the word and read the Bible daily then even you can be spiritually healed.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  toreador

  Me, I am no nit picker but a lover of facts, truth and scholarship none of which is present in the the Jonsson hypothesis but devilish propaganda. It is not a piece of scholarship but a piece of 'cult bashing' or propaganda, his work has not been peer-reviewed by other scholars and its author cannot deal with the primary sources.

  The main problem is that his chronology is in error by twenty years by comparing the data with biblical chronology and the dating of key events is too fuzzy and vaque to have any relevance for the biblical historian.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Jeremiah 25:12 is about judgement against Babylon, a oracle for Babylon. The next has nothing to say about the Fall of Babylon which was in 539 BCE but explicitly concerns the destruction of Babylon even the land of Chaldea. What was the nature of that judgement or how was it described by Jeremiah? It was described as a total desolation of the city, its kingship and its territory, being "made a desolate wastes to times indefinite". Clearly, such a destuction did not occur withits Fall in 539 which only saw a change of rulership of Babylonian Power to that of the new Medo-Persian Power. Further, this judgement was timed only to commence after the stated period of 'seventy years' has ended or was fulfilled. The Bible clearly indicates that this period ended with the Return of the Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE so this mean that these words of Jeremiah began to be fulfilled only after that time which in the course of history saw the gradual destruction of Babylon just as Jeremiah forfetold.
  
  It is not ridiculous as you claim that such a prophecy took some time to be fulfilled because that was the situation with many of the other nations which like Babylon eventually faded into the sands of history.

  An amusing attempt at misdirection. scholar here asserts that the fulfilment of Jeremiah 25:12 could not refer to 539 because Babylon was not completely desolated at the time. Of course, it wasn't completely desolated in 537 either, so the point he is pretending to make is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Babylon began to be judged at that time, and its king was called to account, which was explicitly stated by Jeremiah to occur only once the 70 years had been fulfilled. There is simply no alternative point to apply Jeremiah 25:12 other than the events described by Daniel chapter 5:26-31, and those events are known to have occurred in 539.

  Verse 11 and 12 are not joined prophecies but as recognized by scholars and commentators are separate prophecies with verse 11 applicable only to Judah and verse 12 applicable to Babylon with subsequent verses after verse 12 referring to all of the other natiuons which in turn experience identical judgements.

  It doesn't actually matter whether you want to read the verses together or separately. No matter which way it is read, verse 12 unequivocably disproves the Society.

  Verse 12 does not say that Babylon was punished by a loss of its political power but was punished by total desolation of Babylon and its land. You are tryng to force an inferior view of servitude by ignoring the plain words of Jeremiah. You are a very naughty boy! This judgement had also an immediate relevance with the Return of the Exiles in 537 at the end of the seventy years which would properly begin Jehovah's settling of accounts with the Babylonian rulership. So, I am in agreement with the long held view of the celebrated ones on this aspect.

  There was no Chaldean king after 539. Babylon simply became a subsidiary of the Medo-Persian Empire. The verse states that both the king and nation would be judged. Though Babylon would ultimately see complete destruction in the future, its king was indeed specifically called to account in 539. There simply was no Babylonian rulership to call account with in 537, and Cyrus received no detrimental judgement in their stead.

  The words at Jeremiah 27:6,7 is irrelevant here because this simply states a prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzer'.s dynasty ruling over Babylon and that nations would be subject to that rulership which ceased altogether with the overthrow of Nabonidus and Belshazzar at 539 BCE by the Medes and Persians. This passage is consistent with Jeremiah 25:8-11 which explains that a period of seventy years would see Judah experience servitude to Babylon as a exiled nation leaving a depopulated land.

  To say these verses aren't relevant is just stupid. Even the NWT has a cross-reference to Jeremiah 25:12, and there is no escaping the fact that these events befell Nebuchadnezzar's progeny in 539.

  The exiled Jews served not only the Babylonian kingship during the seventy year period but also served a new king of Babylon, the Medo-Persians for the last two years of the seventy years ending such punishment and banishment with their return in 537BCE.

  You continue to ignore that the Jews were to serve the Babylonians for 70 years. The Medo-Persians were not Babylonians. Since the Jews were back by 538, then you are of course wrong anyway.

  The Nebuchadnezzer dynasty was cedrtainly called to account in 539 BCE, a historical fact with no dispute but that is not what Jeremiah describes in 25:12. What he foretells could only commence after 537 BCE marking the Return of the Jewish exiles.

  On what do you base this rediculous statement that directly contradicts Jeremiah.

  I know these comments will not please you and will cause you some deep distress but if you continue to love the word and read the Bible daily then even you can be spiritually healed.

  Deep distress? Hardly. It is crystal clear that you are wrong. Your arguments are weak and without authority. They contradict the source material and indicate clear bias and an idolatrous attitude of putting the Watchtower Society on a pedestal.
• 

  toreador

  Scholar wrote to Alan:

  Verse 12 does not say that Babylon was punished by a loss of its political power but was punished by total desolation of Babylon and its land. You are tryng to force an inferior view of servitude by ignoring the plain words of Jeremiah. You are a very naughty boy!

  I had to giggle like a school girl when I read that! I am trying to picture Alan being a naughty little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

  Tor
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I would very much like to take this opportunity to thank Celebrated WT Apologist, 'Scholar,' for putting me onto a valuable article that he recommended on Touchstoneforum: http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/47-1/47-1-pp021-038_JETS.pdf
  "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young.

  I was about to give up on learning anything of value from 'Scholar' other than lessons on how to be totally divorced from reality, but credit where credit is due on this occasion. I found Young's logical approach to the 587 vs 586 question refreshing.

  However, it is a crying shame that you, 'Scholar,' didn't appear to glance past the first page, because you used Young's article as an example of where historians are divided on when Jerusalem fell (587 or 586 - one year, big deal! Easier than trying to fill 20!), totally missing the thrust of his arguments and his conclusion, namely, that by deducing from the Biblical clues and the historically affirmed date of 597 for the surrender of Jehoiachin,

  
  
  "(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year." - p.38.

  
  

  Anyhow, despite your remaining incomprehensibly deluded, thanks again, 'Scholar,' for recommending the article.