607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Another quote and discussion of Applegate here (on the relationship between Jeremiah and Ezra): http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2576

  As I must have said dozens of times here, each one of the different OT mentions of "the seventy years" must be assessed in its own context, as the understanding of this "period" obviously varied according to times and circles. The first flaw of the WT is imposing one interpretation of this period (as a literal period of exile-and-desolation, which is probably the view of 2 Chronicles, and may also be discerned in some late redactional strata of the book of Jeremiah) on all OT references -- not to mention the comical next step which consists in forcing this interpretation on history itself.
• 

  Jeffro

  If you do not like or enjoy my posts then don't read them. My posts for the last five years have been most challenging for all of the intellectuals who have and currently post on this board in reponse to my postings.

  Thanks for another laugh, 'scholar'. Your posts have not at all been "most challenging". All that is needed to refute them is honesty and an application of simple logic, which I and others have consistently demonstrated.
• 

  stevenyc

  Scholar,

  I appreciate it must be difficult to keep up with so many questions for you, so I'll re-post my response and question.

  Thanks

  steve

  stevenyc

  Right on. For that reason Jehovah has provided sufficient information in His Word to enable sincere seekers of Truth to know the timing of the Lord's Return and its full significance. Accurate Bible chronology plays an important role in fulfilling this purpose. In this respect there is no need for third party information such as a heavy reliance on secular materials to the exclusion of Bible based evidence.

  scholar JW

  I'll be honest with you scholar, I have never seen the desolation of Jerusalem to 1914 calculated with a purely biblical testimony and NO 3rd party sources. This would definitely be an eye opener for me. Could you show me a bible-only chronology where there is "no need for third party information". Thanks, steve
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus wrote:

  : This paper

  Well, with some pushing you managed to do what you should have done in the first place, you disgusting liar: provide the details of your reference.

  : was either ignored or by its omission from Jonsson's 4th edition of his GTR on the grounds of research incompetence and overides his somewhat dogmatic interpretation of the seventy years.

  By that standard, you've condemned the Watchtower Society.

  : I do not agree with everything the article says

  I dare say that his overall conclusions directly contradict those of Mommy. When I obtain this reference, I suspect you're going to have to eat your words, as usual.

  : but many of Applegate's conclusions concur with that of the celebrated WT scholars and 'scholar' himself.

  Like the ones you claimed above, that I debunked? Again, scholar pretendus, your "scholarship" is a joke.

  You really have a knack for grasping at straws, as again shown here:

  : A remarkable statement which disagrees with the Jonsson hypothesis is the fact that "In Zechariah, Jeremiah is not mentioned, although the book has signs of Jeremianic influence" on page 109 of Applegate's study. Jonsson in his 4th edn GTR, p.227 claims that "the seventy years mentioned in the text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah'.

  Your quotation from Jonsson is in the context of his discussion of Zechariah 1:7-12. The complete paragraph states:

  It seems clear, therefore, that the seventy years mentioned in this text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah, but simply to the time that had elapsed by 519 B.C.E. since the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 589-587 B.C.E.

  In the footnote to this paragraph, Jonsson cites two scholars in support of his statement:

  This is also the conclusion of many modern commentators. J.A. Thompson, for example, says: "In Zech. 1:12 it seems to denote the interval between the destruction of the temple in 587 B.C. and its rebuilding in 520-515 B.C." (The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1980, p. 514.) Dr. Carroll Stuhlmueller observes that, "if we tabulate from the beginning of Babylon's plans for the first siege of Jerusalem (590/589); 2 Kgs. 24:10) to the time of this vision (520), the seventy years show up in a remarkably accurate way!" -- Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope. A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988), p. 64.

  So Jonsson cited two scholars who directly stated that the 70 years mentioned by Zechariah in 7:1-12 were most likely not related to Jeremiah's 70 years. On the other hand, all that the scholar you cited stated was that "the book has signs of Jeremianic influence". Without context, there is no way to tell just what "influence" Applegate was referring to. In the same way, without citing context, I can confidently state that "the Watchtower Society states that evolution is true" and then falsely conclude that the Society actually teaches this.

  Your complete lack of scholarship is also evident in your ridiculous argument that a quotation from a single scholar proves that opposite conclusions from a majority of other scholars trumps them.

  : With this false conclusion along with others it is easily discerned how Jonsson and his cronies have got the seventy years so wrong.

  LOL! All of your conclusions in this thread have been completely debunked, or are on their way to the trash heap.

  AlanF
• 

  Leolaia

  A remarkable statement which disagrees with the Jonsson hypothesis is the fact that "In Zechariah, Jeremiah is not mentioned, although the book has signs of Jeremianic influence" on page 109 of Applegate's study. Jonsson in his 4th edn GTR, p.227 claims that "the seventy years mentioned in the text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah'.

  (1) There is a difference between saying whether the specific "seventy years" in Zechariah is an allusion to Jeremiah, and whether the book as a whole is influenced by Jeremiah. Treating both of these things as the same thing is like saying "Some Australians like skinny dipping, Neil McFadzen is Australian, therefore Neil McFadzen likes skinny-dipping". (Maybe you do, who knows?). In order to treat the two as equivalent, you should have instead quoted something that states that the "seventy years" of Zechariah is an allusion to Jeremiah, or reinterprets Jeremiah. (2) Second of all, this is an entirely "unremarkable" statement. Are you totally unaware of the critical literature on Zechariah, or is it a brand new idea to you that the author(s) of Zechariah reflect the language and thought of Jeremiah? For instance, in 1897, S. R. Driver (Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, New York: Scribner's Sons) wrote "Hengstenberg, Stade, and others seek to support the same conclusion as to the date of Zech. 9-11, by pointing to passages in which the author is dependent upon earlier prophecies (esp. those of Jer and Ez.).* | *Comp. 9 2b-4 , Ez. 28 3.4.8b .... --10 3 , Jer 23 2b , Ez. 34 17 (the he-goats). --10 5b (riders on horses), Ez. 38 15 . --10 8b , Jer. 23 3b . --10 9a , Jer. 31 27 . ... --11 3a , Jer. 25 36 . -- 11 3b , Jer. 12 5 ("the pride of Jordan"). --11 4b , Jer. 12 3 ("flock ... slaughter"). --11 5a , Jer. 50 7a ." (p. 351). Saying that "the book has signs of Jeremianic influence" is nothing at all new, tho perhaps new to you.

  With this false conclusion along with others it is easily discerned how Jonsson and his cronies have got the seventy years so wrong.

  I notice you're citing the statement from Applegate as a "proof-text". Jonsson says one thing, Applegate says another thing, Jonsson is not a scholar while Applegate is, ergo Jonsson's conclusion is "false". This uncritical use of Applegate, without engaging substantially with the evidence and reasoning that he uses, is quite typical of the way the Society cites scientists and secular writers in the Creation book while avoiding the arguments and evidence in the same sources that do not help their case. Why is it when Applegate seemingly contradicts Jonsson, the "Jonsson hypothesis" (as you so lovingly term it) is proven false, and yet if Applegate says something that supports Jonsson or contradicts your own beliefs, you simply say that you "do not agree with everything the article says". What's good for the goose is good for the gander, if we're playing with proof-texts.

  I do not agree with everything the article says but many of Applegate's conclusions concur with that of the celebrated WT scholars and 'scholar' himself.

  Such as? How about list them for us? Or even better.... is it at all in your ability to summarize the article's arguments and give a fair representation of it (i.e. like an "abstract")?

  This paper was either ignored or by its omission from Jonsson's 4th edition of his GTR on the grounds of research incompetence and overides his somewhat dogmatic interpretation of the seventy years.

  If that is so, then "WT scholars" are many more times remiss for never discussing, or even mentioning, many of the critically important evidences cited by Jonsson and found in standard chronological works. Remember about what's good for the goose is good for the...oh right, you already hold "WT scholars" to a much lower standard. They don't have to mention the Egibi Bros. archive, the astronomical diary B.M. 32312, the Saros cycle tablets, the Hillah Stele, etc., and they don't have to explain the actual evidence itself from Nabon. H 1, B, VAT 4956, business/administrative records, etc. It's not "research incompetence" for the Society to set all of that aside and continue to attack the strawman of "Ptolemy's Canon" as if that were still critical to Neo-Babylonian chronology.

  On page 92 the scholar stated "In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years" followed by the observation on page 96 " 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years". Nowhere in this study is an application of 539 BCE in reference to Jeremiah 25:12 so the interpretation of matters as presented by the celebrated ones and yours truly has at last been vindicated.

  LOL, another uncritical citation of Applegate as a proof-text! Tell me, what exegesis does Applegate give of the 70 years within the context of Jeremiah 25 and the later reference in Jeremiah 29? How about give us a clear picture of what Applegate's analysis is, rather than quote tiny snippits of it. Does the author actually say that the 70 years are construed as still running after 539 BC, or rule out an interpretation that views the events of 539 BC as corresponding to the "punishment"?
• 

  scholar

  Narkissos

  The seventy years as interpreted by the celebrated WT scholars is treated in a singular manner giving a holistic understanding of matters. Scholars and advocates of the Jonsson hypothesis give various interpretations lacking coherence and agreement such views rob the seventy years of any prophetism. However, interpretation is a subjects of choice and the reader must decide for himself which is better and works.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  The seventy years as interpreted by the celebrated WT scholars is treated in a singular manner giving a holistic understanding of matters. Scholars and advocates of the Jonsson hypothesis give various interpretations lacking coherence and agreement such views rob the seventy years of any prophetism. However, interpretation is a subjects of choice and the reader must decide for himself which is better and works.

  There is nothing significant in stating that a particular group's interpretation is coherent with itself, and therefore somehow better than a collection of different groups' interpretations, when that group's interpretation is just another of the various interpretations. Your assertion is empty and meaningless. 'Prophetism' is not a word.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  A singular and coherent interpretation is far superior than conflicting and confusing theories of the seventy years which usually means that most scholars regard the seventy years simply as a round under in order to remove the so called exegetical problem. Celebrated Wt scholars have such an understanding of the seventy years whic harmonizes the biblical and secular evidence as well as having a prophetic outlook.

  By the way, smart alec, 'prophetism' is a word. Look up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary On Historical Principles. You need to do more research and read more widely!

  scholar JW
• 

  Leolaia

  A few days ago pseudo-scholar wrote:

  The period of seventy years represented for Judah was a precise historic period of exile, servitude and desolation but tthe seventy years for the nations was not a precise historic period but represented the period of Babylon's greatest domination when Babylon conquered Jerusalem in 607 BCE - Isaiah 14:13.

  Today he writes:

  A singular and coherent interpretation is far superior than conflicting and confusing theories of the seventy years which usually means that most scholars regard the seventy years simply as a round [number] under in order to remove the so called exegetical problem.

  Sounds like you're treating the "seventy years for the nations" as a round number. And before you say that the "seventy years for the nations" is a completely different duration than the one in Jeremiah 25, please note that the Isaiah book in commenting on Isaiah directly cites Jeremiah 25 and refers to "Tyre" in Isaiah as among these nations assigned seventy years by Jeremiah:

  ***

  ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

  21

  Isaiah goes on to prophesy: "It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king." (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will "be forgotten." True to the prophecy, for the duration of "one king"—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: "These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above "the stars of God." (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times.
• 

  Jeffro

  A singular and coherent interpretation is far superior than conflicting and confusing theories of the seventy years which usually means that most scholars regard the seventy years simply as a round under in order to remove the so called exegetical problem. Celebrated Wt scholars have such an understanding of the seventy years whic harmonizes the biblical and secular evidence as well as having a prophetic outlook.

  Firstly, a thing can be superior to something but not than it.

  There you go again with your flawed logic. At best your interpretation is just another one of the "conflicting and confusing theories", not some special exemption elevated above other interpretations. The WT dogma does not at all harmonize the secular evidence, which has been indicated even by you regarding the 20 years for which the Society cannot account. Having "a prophetic outlook" is meaningless when it ignores the facts, and simply amounts to trite end-time prophecy, typical of apocalyptic groups.

  I have provided an interpretation which is completely compatible with the bible and all secular evidence, making my interpretation infinitely superior to yours even if it turns out to be not entirely correct.