Your threads are like smelling salts for the Watchtower apologists.It's like watching the resurrection Live and in living color.
You guys are too funny.
The "Seventy Years" explained
by Doug Mason 72 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
erandir
-
scholar
Hellrider
Post 2100
Mason's 'seventy years' now by his own admission corrected to a full 66 years is very much relevant in the pursuit of integrity and honesty to the Bible record. The Bible plainly states that the numeral is 70 and not some other or any such 'round number' hypothesis. Your specious pleading for a 'rounded' seventy years is forced upon you because you have no definitive beginning for this period. All that you propose is a mamby-pamby beginning of uncertain events surrounding 605 or 609 BCE, events that proceeded Jeremiah's prophesying the seventy years. Jeremiah spoke of those seventy years l after the end of Assyria and at the time of Nebuchadnezzer's assumption to the throne. This means that the seventy years had not then commenced even though there was at the latter time Jewish exiles were in Babylon and serving for Babylon. The seventy years could only commence whence the whole land was desolated and depopulated causing a complete exile in Babylon and servitude to or for Babylon.
Thus we have scholar's seventy year formula, to wit: DESOLATION + EXILE +SERVITUDE = 70 years from the FALL in 607 BCE until the RETURN in 537 BCE. Don't you like my formula? Boy, I do!
Jeremiah's seventy years has a partial or elemental reference to the domination of Babylon, it is not wholly Babylon's domination because Jeremiah addresses Jehovah's judgement against Judah by means of a forced period of seventy years of punishment. Babylon along with the other Nations were also to have judgement against them. So, the seventy years are for Judah and Judah alone, the surrounding nations during that period would also along with Judah be brought under servitude to Babylon.
Your argument or model which is the Jonsson hypothesis or apostate model is based upon a preposition in Jeremiah 29 :10 which semantically has many meanings such as 'at'. 'to' 'for' etc. It is sheer stupidity to base an entire argument on a speculative 'for Babylon'. Celebrated WT scholars are not troubled by the rendering of this phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at Babylon' because either meaning shows on the one hand 'servitude' to Babylon or on the other hand, an 'exile' in Babylon. I am more than happy to work with 'for' or 'at' because both meanings fal within the above formula.
Your explanation of matters is meaningless and rather repetitious for it violates 'common sense' which is typical of apostate propaganda
scholar JW
-
stillajwexelder
What do you think of the Celebrated WT Scholars changing teh 1935 chronolgy?
-
scholar
jwfacts
Post 3275
The matter of the zero year adjustment is simply 'fine tuning' which is common to all good scholarship. Knowledge of any subject is never static unlike the apostate worldview, knowledge grows and progresses as new research comes to light. Simple as that for all scholars in Christendom fell into that same error but were enlightened by the research of the celebrated WT scholars in this matter of chronology. All credit must go to Holy Spirit and Jehovah's marvellous Organization or Church.
scholar JW
-
stillajwexelder
were enlightened by the research of the celebrated WT scholars in this matter of chronology. All credit must go to Holy Spirit and Jehovah's marvellous Organization or Church.
Jesus F*****g C####t scholar - even the WTS admits in The Proclaimers book that some credit goes to Adventist - do you want me to provide you the reference and scholastically wipe your ass for you - do your research properly man
-
Chameleon
who the hell are these "celebrated wt scholars"?
Makes me feel like I'm reading a damn Watchtower.
"Many people," "A source," "An article," etc.
-
Doug Mason
Scholar:
Many thanks for promising to look at the explanation of the “Seventy Years”.
You wrote:
“So your petty theory is bankrupt and needs a shakeup which is what scholar will do and he will tear your theory to shreds.”My comment:
You do yourself a disservice with your frequent use of emotive and provocative language. Not only is it uncalled for, but it demeans the discussion. Use of such words gives me the impression that your argument is so weak that you have to hide behind words that will cause a distraction.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“From the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which is in fact a precise historic period of 70 years. Voila! This understanding of matters is exactly how Josephus viewed the matter and is based upon the testimony of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah.”My comment:
The expression “precise historic period” is meaningless. Have you read Josephus at “Against Apion” 1, 20-21? And the expression “is based upon the testimony of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah” is a bold and as yet unproven assertion.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“The seventy years could only commence whence the whole land was desolated and depopulated causing a complete exile in Babylon and servitude to or for Babylon.”My comment:
Garbage. Utter garbage. Where did you get that idea? Not from the Bible, that’s for sure.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“Thus we have scholar's seventy year formula, to wit: DESOLATION + EXILE + SERVITUDE = 70 years from the FALL in 607 BCE until the RETURN in 537 BCE. Don't you like my formula? Boy, I do!”My comment:
Sad, very sad. It might be “Scholar’s formula” but it is not Jeremiah’s. In my explanation, I studied the texts in their contexts to enable me to arrive at a conclusion, whatever it was going to be. You have a prejudged formula that forces you to bend and squeeze things to try and get them to fit. In my explanation, I present the Biblical texts and explained them. I want you to consider each of my pages and describe those Bible passages as fully as I have. Do not start with the conclusion you want but come as an honest learner.You have no right to cite 537 BCE. In our previous discourse, neither you nor I could PROVE whether the Jews returned in 538, 537, 536, or 535. And those clueless WTS writers, suffering from foot-in-mouth disease, provide scenarios that make it impossible for the Jews to return in 537. Besides, 537 to 607 is 71 years, by the inclusive reckoning method used by the Jews. Or don’t you like that formula because it provides the “wrong” answer?
And so you get to 607. So what? What does that prove happened 70 years previously? The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple were not required events. Indeed, Jeremiah pleaded for the city to be spared, while he consistently held that the servitude would see its completion.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“Jeremiah's seventy years has a partial or elemental reference to the domination of Babylon, it is not wholly Babylon's domination.”My comment:
You obviously don’t believe the Bible when it disagrees with your prejudices.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“Jeremiah addresses Jehovah's judgement against Judah by means of a forced period of seventy years of punishment.”My comment:
Correct, but that 70 years could have come to pass without any need for Judah or any of its neighbours to have their capital and temple destroyed.
--------------------------
You wrote:
“The seventy years are for Judah and Judah alone”My comment:
Read the Bible. You are in for a big surprise!
--------------------------
I suggest you move away from your hangup that I am trying to support Carl Jonsson. While I have the greatest respect for his work, my research was carried out while he was still a faithful Witness. If you look through Bruce Price’s magazines during the mid-1970s, you will see original articles by Max Hatton and I on this subject (as well as by Edwin Thiele).When Newton brought out his book on Ptolemy, it was I who revealed (in Bruce’s magazine) that Philip Couture was a long-standing JW. I still have the original of Couture’s letter.
It is significant that people separated by half a world (in the days before computers or the www) came independently to the same conclusions.
When you respond to my explanation of the “70 years” I want you to explain the Bible passages just as I have – in their immediate and direct context. Show me how I have misapplied the Word. I do not want to see another diatribe peppered with emotive words. I want facts. I want true exegesis. Do not start with the conclusion you want to arrive at, but come to God’s word as a learner.
On what day of which month did your “70 years” end?
On what day of which month did your “70 years” start?
On what day of which month did the WTS’s “2520 years” end?
On what day of which month did the Great War start?Doug
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 237
Your hypothesis on the seventy years is not new to me as it is simply replication of Jonsson's view of matters and I have critically examined this matter over the last few years hence my emotive language due to my passion for this subject.
The expression 'precise historic period' is my phrase but nicely represents current scholarship and the manner in which Josephus treats the subject in his Antiquities. The collective 'seventy year' texts in the Bible prove this as I will demonstsrate. Your thesis is that the 'seventy years' pertains to servitude to Babylon and are Babylon's alone which is plainly impossible as Jeremiah shows. You must read the entire book of Jeremiah and also you need to ezegete Jeremiah 25:11 carefully and not distort that text. The comment by Josephus in Against Apion wherein he refers to a 'fifty year' period simply refers to the state of the Temple iwithin the overall context of the alreadycommencement of the destruction of Temple, City and Land of Judah.
You say garbage to the my statement that the seventy years could only have began at the time from or at which the land was devastated and depopulated but that is how Ezra presents the matter along with Jeremiah and Daniel. You defy common sense by trying to superimpose a mythical beginning for the seventy years by means of some abstract beginning. This is your biggest dilemna in trying to find the beginning point of that period: Was it the Fall of ASSYRIA in 609 BCE or Neb's reign from 605 BCE? Jonsson continues to grapple with this with no solution thus far.
My formula is akin to that of the 'celebrated ones' excepting my simple presentation of it. It alone is faithful to all thos Bible writers who wrote of the seventy years and is defensible, your model is simply impossible for it is based upon a single preposition which has many meanings. That is no place you want to be/ You say you have studied and explained the relevants texts, I say baloney to that, your research is biased, the exegesis is forced to a pre-conceived notion, shows no evidenc eof familiarity of commentaries or past and current scholarship even of Adventist scholars.
I am more than happy to walk through your thesis page by page offering my criticism/commendation as we walk through together hand in hand in the pursuit of truth.
I have every right to cite 537 BCE for the Return because in my view it is clearly established beyond all reasonable doubt. Granted I will be researching this matter more deeply and widely but I am confident that the date will remai unchanged.
My simply formula involves servitude to Babylon but foolishly does not ignore the other exile and desolation which Jeremiah and others clearly link with that period. The facts palinly state the matter.
Your comment that the 70 years could have passed without the destruction of the land and Temple is simply rubbish and is disproven by the Bible and Josephus. The seventy years was for Judah and Judah alone but nations round about were also servitude to Babylon but their judgements are not as specifically defined historically as was the cased were Judah. So, the consequence for Judah spilled over to those surrounding nations.
I am well aware of your interest in relation to Jonsson but your views are identical and Jonsson has researched the subject more deeply and widely than you or Hatton and has the greater influence outside Australia. So he is the major guru of chronology as far as apostates are concerned.
I am happy to discuss the principal texts of the seventy years and to supply the calendation of the period but I would ask you those same four questions/
scholar JW
-
Hellrider
Was it the Fall of ASSYRIA in 609 BCE or Neb's reign from 605 BCE? Jonsson continues to grapple with this with no solution thus far.
...or was it simply the beginning of the era that would leave Judah desolate?! If so, the prophecy of the "70 years" is not difficult to understand. Whether it began in (roughly) 609, 607 or 605 doesn`t matter! It ended some time between 537 and 539 (you have still not replied to Jeffros point on 538, of course). In biblical prophetic terms, we are talking about 70 years none the less, whether its 68, 70 or 72. The writers of the Bible liked round figures! You know, 40 years, 400 years, 1000, 12000, 144000, They look good in the Biblical context! The Bible is not a math puzzle! It never was, isn`t and never will be! Fortunately, noone takes you seriously here, Scholar. The newbies might, but the oldtimers have followed the 30-pages long threads in which Jeffro and AlanF has been kicking your but till the lake of fire and back, defeating you on every little detail. Now, even they look to have gotten tired of it. You`re just getting old and booooooring.
-
jwfacts
The Watchtower Society itself explains that 70 years are not literal in Bible Prophecy (when it suits them)
Isaiah’s Prophecy- Light For All Mankind 1 p. 253
“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) … 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.”Scholar, please explain why this same reasoning could not be applied to Jerusalem, apart from the fact that it would undermine the doctrine of 1914 and hence the authority of the Watchtower Society?