Check out this argument.....

by Generic Man 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Generic Man

  Hello everyone,

  I was wondering if this line of reasoning against the society's claim that 607 was the destruction of Jerusalem. I discovered it some time ago on the this board, but I was wandering if anyone can verify this for me. According to Zechariah 7:1-12, Darius I was in his fourth year of rulership and the Hebrews have been mourning for 70 years since the destruction of Jerusalem. According to secular sources, Darius ascended the throne in 521 (the Society is also committed to this date; see Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, pp.52), that means the fourth year of Darius' rule was 517. If 517 is the end of the 70 years, then 587 is the beginning of those years (a date that is accepted by historians). So if this argument is sound, a Witness would have to choose between rejecting 521 as the date for the ascension of Darius I, rejecting Zechariah 7:1-5 (or at least reinterpreting it), or, of course, abandon 607.

  So, is this a good argument? I know this topic has been done to death, but I want to make sure this info is correct.

  -Gman
• 

  Narkissos

  Yes.

  This is a round figure of course, since you also have a similar reference to "70 years" in the 2nd year of Darius = 519 BC (Zechariah 1:7,12). And the oracle of chapter 7 would be in November, 518 (7:1).
• 

  greendawn

  The JWs are desperately holding on to a wrong date that they got from the adventists and not surprisingly like all other adventist end of the world dates it came to nothing. If they hadn't based on it some very crucial ideas they would have rejected it long ago.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi GenericMan

  So if this argument is sound, a Witness would have to choose between rejecting 521 as the date for the ascension of Darius I, rejecting Zechariah 7:1-5 (or at least reinterpreting it), or, of course, abandon 607.

  
  And the WTS choose to reinterpret it.
  Paradise Restored (1972) chap. 14 p. 237

  "9 When the exiled Jews fasted during the seventy years of desolation of the land of Judah* and also during all these years since the remnant of them returned to their homeland, were they really fasting to Jehovah?

  Footnote * The "seventy years" of observing fasts could not have begun after the first deportation of the Jews by the Babylonians in the year 617 B.C.E., for that would have been about nine years before King Nebuchadnezzar began the final siege of Jerusalem and also about eleven years before the breaching of the walls of the city (on Tammuz 9) and the destruction of the city (on Ab 10) and the assassination of Governor Gedaliah in the seventh month (Tishri), these mournful events being observed by the fast periods. Hence the "seventy years" of fasting began after these last three mournful calamities had taken place, in the year 607 B.C.E. This proves that the desolation of the land lasted for seventy years and that these "seventy years" began in 607 B.C.E. and ended in 537 B.C.E.—See Flavius Josephus’ book "Antiquities of the Jews," Book 10, chapter 9, paragraph 7."
• 

  Generic Man

  Hi Ann,
  
  

  Thanks for the response. I'm not sure of how to respond to this dense passage yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they misquoted Josephus. I'll have to read it over and then figure how to counter that reasoning. However, this is not so devastating, since no Witness reads the Paradise Restored book anymore. Probably most of them haven't even heard of it and would assume that any book from the 70's is old light. So, I still think that the argument can still be useful.

  Anyway, thanks for you're input and keep it coming.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi GM

  You're welcome. They haven't misquoted Josephus at all, only cited him in support of some historical facts. What is interesting about the Josephus reference is that Josephus does say "all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years" and that is partly why it is used. But what isn't mentioned is that Josephus later says the desolation was 50 years (Against Apion, book 1, chapter 21).

  Yes I think your argument is still useful. But you'll be met with a 'does not compute' blank stare and change of subject
• 

  Generic Man

  Thanks Ann. I'm affraid that you're right about the blank stare. At least that is better than screaming.