607 bce or 587 bce (page 5)

jw

Have you ever watched the history channel or discovery channel ( they found the KING).

Hellrider

Have you ever watched the history channel or discovery channel ( they found the KING).

Discovery and National Geographis is pretty much everything I watch on TV. Which king is it you are talking about? On fact, what on earth are you talking about? (really).

You are talking rubbish.Yes we believe that all of the references to the seventy years explain one historical period od seventy years marked by a period of exie, servitude and desolation from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until 537 BCE The prophecy by Jeremiah was confirmed by the contemporary prophet Daniel and later by the historian Ezra and the angel addressing the prophet Zechariah. Also the historian Josephus supports the biblical interpretation madxe by celebrated WT scholars. Conversely,, the Jonsson hypothesis has a distorted understanding of the seventy years which provides no definite chronology and posits several seventy year periods adding to its confused and untenable position.

Apostates fall back on a unsupported date 609 BCE for the beginning of the seventy years when Jonsson himself admitted the possibility of 605 as a likely candidate. So, apostates do not know what date should commence this vital piece of biblical history.

The end of Babylon in 539 BCE plays a part in the seventy years as it made possible by its Fall to the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE thus ending the seventy years. The pre-exilic accounts and the post-exilic accounts perfectly agree with the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Daniel becuase they all discussed the judgements upon Judah and Babylon. There is perfect harmony with all of those prophecies and the interpretation of the seventy years by the 'celebrated'. This cannot be said for the whacky claims made by the Jonsson hypothesis as it perverts the message of all of those prophetic books.

For simplicity sakes nothing beats our interpretation of matters as the apostates make the whole matter unbelievably complex as is evident by reading the summary of the seventy years presented in the GTR.

scholar JW

scholar

Jeffro

post 932

That material has never been debunked because apostates cannot refute that simple and clear exposition of scripture in relation to 607 BCE. If you read more widely and deeply you would recognize this fact.

scholar JW

jwfacts

Wow, two Watchtower Apologists.

Scholar, you are right, no one knows the exact date, 609, 607, 605 and no one really cares because Daniel 4 was fulfilled 2500 years ago.

Daniel prophecies had only one fulfillment, the 70 weeks, the beastly kingdoms, the statue, the kings of the north and south.

Why do you insist on squeezing some ridiculous secondary fulfillment out of Daniel 4 and not out of these other prophecies?

MidwichCuckoo

Have you ever watched the history channel or discovery channel ( they found the KING).

Lol - Elvis been spotted again?

Hellrider

Also the historian Josephus supports the biblical interpretation made by celebrated WT scholars.

That is a damn lie, and celebrated scholar jw knows it. We`ve been thru that exact point once before, and the "apostates" showed clearly that Josephus had some strange ideas about Babylonian chronology, ideas that supported neither modern historical knowledge about Babylonian chronology (included the parts of it that the WTS agrees with), neither would Josephus ideas support the 607-date. And scholar knows this, hence, he is dishonest.

Apostates fall back on a unsupported date 609 BCE for the beginning of the seventy years when Jonsson himself admitted the possibility of 605 as a likely candidate. So, apostates do not know what date should commence this vital piece of biblical history.

...and of course scholar now tries to just ignore the most embarassing part of his whole "chronology", the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem occured in Nebuchadnezzars 18th year. This is not just a matter of a couple of years between 609, 607 and 605 (which in itself looks harmless), but a matter of 20 missing years, as they want to place the beginning of Nebuchadnezzars reign to 625 bc. Not to mention, of course, that it is completely ridicolous to be attacking the "Johnson hypothesis" for the "uncertainty" of this "hypothesis", as it admits that it is not perfectly clear when Jerusalem was destroyed (587, 586 or thereabout).

Undecided

What's the big deal about 607 or 587? Nothing has happened in 1914 or since to prove it was important in someway. What if Christ came in 1914, nothing has changed. I thought it was to be a big deal when he came back and it would change the world. Everything God does must be invisible, I've never seen anything proven otherwise. I can't wait much longer to see his presence, I'll be dead in a few years or months.

Even the WT spirit endowed ones have changed their minds about the meaning of 1914 and it's generation thingy. I'd rather be in my backyard swing watching the birds shit on everything in sight than worrying about 607 or 587.

Ken P.

AuldSoul

The prophecy by Jeremiah was confirmed by the contemporary prophet Daniel and later by the historian Ezra and the angel addressing the prophet Zechariah.

I love finding the nuggets of truth in what you write.

(1) Daniel confirmed that there was a prophecy by Jeremiah, and that he was contemplating it when he pleaded with God for the people to be set free. He did not confirm whether the 70 years had passed or whether they were still in the 70 years. In fact, from the tone he took with God in his pleadings it seems very much like Daniel thought they should have already been freed, he thought Jehovah was taking too long to let them go, he knew the 70 years ended the night Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall. (Daniel 5:26 marginal reference — which is still unadressed by you)

(2) Ezra was a copyist, scribe, and scholar (primarily of compilation). He was an historian in the sense that he collected and integrated the writings of others into a (somewhat) cohesive chronology, and listed events occurring and ideas held contemporary to his own lifespan. As a human, he could only hope to record the viewpoint of the 70 years held contemporary to his own lifespan. He did not claim inspiration for anything he wrote.

(3) The angel addressing the prophet Zechariah both confirmed and temporally placed the 70 years of Jeremiah as having passed already by the 24th day of the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius.

Zechariah 1:7-12 — On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, that is, the month She´bat, in the second year of Da·ri´us, the word of Jehovah occurred to Zech·a·ri´ah the son of Ber·e·chi´ah the son of Id´do the prophet, saying: 8 “I saw [in] the night, and, look! a man riding on a red horse, and he was standing still among the myrtle trees that were in the deep place; and behind him there were horses red, bright red, and white.”
9 And so I said: “Who are these, my lord?”
At that the angel who was speaking with me said to me: “I myself shall show you who these very ones are.”
10 Then the man who was standing still among the myrtle trees answered and said: “These are the ones whom Jehovah has sent forth to walk about in the earth.” 11 And they proceeded to answer the angel of Jehovah who was standing among the myrtle trees and to say: “We have walked about in the earth, and, look! the whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.”
12 So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?”

"Have denounced" is past tense, according to my third grade teacher. Apparently, your esteemed WT scholars saw fit to translate this verse in such a way as to make their interpretation of the ending of the 70 years impossible without producing a direct conflict. Care to explain?

In any case, you have not produced a kings list, you have failed to show cohesion among the viewpoints of Zechariah, Daniel, and Ezra regarding Jeremiah's prophecy, you seem to hold in highest esteem the unqualified opinion of one who was not a prophet (Ezra) and discount the implications of the words of two who were prophets, one of which was relating a vision under inspiration when he referred to the 70 years in the past tense, the other of which was basing his clearly dismayed pleadings on his plain understanding that the 70 years had ended already. In addition to all this, you have failed to show why 607 BC should hold any significance whatsoever beyond ancient history even if it was the year for Jerusalem's destruction.

Lastly, and this is my most severe criticism of your voluminous defense of 607 BC, you completely ignore the significance of the Hillah Stele (Nabon. No. 8) as it relates to ANE chronology.

AuldSoul

scholar

Hellrider

No it is not a lie as you stupidly and dogmatically state. The fact is that even the Jonsson hypothesis recognized in a partial way that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation of the land from the Fall of the Temple and Jerusalem until the Return under Cyrus.

Celebrated WT scholars by means of the WT publications have always use the regnal data of not only Nebuchadnezzer but the last king of Judah, Zedekiah. Such regnal data supports the historicity of the biblical chronology determining the precise and unambiguous year for the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. The missing twenty years arises when one bases a chronology upon poor regnal data such as the Neo-Babylonian period and then ends up in the poo.Consequently, a uncertain date of 586, 587, 588 and 589 BCE are the results of this hopeless methodology.

scholar JW

607 bce or 587 bce

Share this