JC,
I'm confused.......If Cyrus conquered the Medes and took the title King of Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus before Babylon was conquered, how did Darius the Mede, become ruler over Babylon when it was first conquered?
The 70 years of devastation--as revealed by the Bible
by AddaGirl 73 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AddaGirl
Another question JC,
Concerning the construction of the temple, Your earlier post said the temple construction took 22 years. If the foundation was laid when the Jews returned from Babylon, and then there was a 16 year period of no construction renewed again in the second year of Darius, and completed in the 6th year, could that account for the 22 year period needed to build the temple? Solomon built the original temple in 7 years.
-
bennyk
It is likely "SCHOLAR" did not intend it so, but it is funny:
bennyk
Post 326
You are very sadly mistaken because you are paying close attention to what the text actually says.
Jeremiah 25:11,12 indicates that Judah and the nations would be in servitude to Babylon for a period of seventy years and that the land of Judah would also be devastated for seventy years. as in verse 11.
I am not mistaken -- sadly, happily, or otherwise. In verse eleven, the adverbial "seventy years" modifies only the phrase regarding the 'servitude'; it does NOT modify the phrase regarding the devastation. We know this because the seventy years of servitude began before the desolation of Jerusalem. Cf. Jer. 27:1,6-8 [note past perfect tense in vs 6] and 28:1,2,11 [where the servitude is already under way]. If the Land were indeed "devastated" for seventy years following the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent Exile, the 'seventy years servitude' would necessarily have ended roughly two decades before the End of the neo-Babylonian Empire: Thus, the Watch Tower Society teaching is refuted by both the Scriptures and secular history.
-
scholar
bennyk
Post
Yes, I made a typo mistake which I noticed after I had hit the post button.
So now you are a linguist in claiming that in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 that the adverbial 'seventy years' modifies only the phrase 'the servitude' and does not modify the phrase' the devastation'. This is simply your opinion and I disagree with this. You cite no scholarly or exegetical support for your opinion so I suggest you demonstrate why your claim is so. I would argue that all of what is said in verse 11 was included in the seventy years which was the land being devastated and servitude to Babylon. That is what the text plainly reads.
-
bennyk
"Scholar" writes:
This is simply your opinion and I disagree with this. You cite no scholarly or exegetical support for your opinion so I suggest you demonstrate why your claim is so. I would argue that all of what is said in verse 11 was included in the seventy years which was the land being devastated and servitude to Babylon. That is what the text plainly reads.
Yes, I had understood that you were (not yet) in agreement. My previous post demonstrated the claim; to wit:
the seventy years of servitude began before the desolation of Jerusalem. Cf. Jer. 27:1,6-8 [note past perfect tense in vs 6] and 28:1,2,11 [where the servitude is already under way]. If the Land were indeed "devastated" for seventy years following the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent Exile, the 'seventy years servitude' would necessarily have ended roughly two decades before the End of the neo-Babylonian Empire.
When read in the context of chapters 27 and 28 the text in Jer. 25:11f reads other than you argue.
-
scholar
bennyk
Post 328
Not so! Judah was in fact in servitude to Babylon long before the seventy years for the last Kings of Judah were in vassal kings first to Egypt and then to Babylon and the prophecy At Jeremiah 27:6-7 was written at the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign which was 628 BCE. During his eleven year reign Jehoiakim became a vassal king to Nebuchadnezzer, King of Babylon thus as prophesied by Jeremiah, the Judean kings would be in servitude to Babylon under the Babylonian dynasty.There is nothing mentioned in this chapter about the seventy years but Jeremiah had also foretold as described in 25:11-12 that Judah would serve Babylon for seventy years in conjunction with the land being desolated. This period of servitude-desolation and exile wwas brought during the 18th On Nebuchadnezzer's reign and the 11 th of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah withthe destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
JCanon
JC,
I'm confused.......If Cyrus conquered the Medes and took the title King of Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus before Babylon was conquered, how did Darius the Mede, become ruler over Babylon when it was first conquered?
Good question. The surmise, based on all the little pieces, is that Cyrus was the nephew-in-law of Darius, the Mede who was the half-brother of Astyages. When the chronology was changed, Cyrus' wife became his mother. Ktesias is the Greek historian who contradicts Herodotus and Xenophon on this point. Darius the Mede had no heirs and neither did Astyages except through his daughter who was married to Cyrus. Therefore, the royal line of the Medes became part of the royal line of the Persians; so it was logical to consolidate the once MEDO-PERSIAN empire into one kingdom, which became the United Persian Empire; no longer the Medo-Persian empire. This reflects on what happened when Cyrus and Darius the Mede, as partners conquered the ancient world. They divided things fairly equally but kept the kingdom's separate. So when Cyrus and Darius the Mede conquered Babylon, the Babylonian region became part of the empire ruled by the Medes. Darius the Mede, who was also a legitimate Babylonian king and heir naturally took over the the throne. This may have been while Nabonidus had not yet been imprisoned and dethroned, as he was away from the throne in Borshippa focussed on attending to his moon god, Sin. So that's more or less how it would have happened. The Bible clearly shows that Darius the Mede ruled over Babylon when it was conquered with the help of Cyrus, but they ruled over separate parts of the dual kingdom until it became one. This is reflected in the Bible prophecy about the Medo-Persian empire about one of the horns that becomes larger than the other and thus dominates it, but that horn became larger after a while...
Daniel 8: 3 "When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward."
The Bible definitely separates the reigns of Cyrus and Darius and places the kingdom of Darius prior to that of Cyrus:
28 And as for this Daniel, he prospered in the kingdom of Da·ri´us and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian.
See. Daniel served under two different kingdoms and it is clear that the kingdom of Darius was first. Again, Zechariah 1 and 7 shows the Jews are still in exile in years 2 and 4 of Darius. I know you think this could be related to the temple, and that's a reasonable application, the temple is important. But at the same time a primary understanding of God showing "mercy to the cities of Judah and Jerusalem" certainly would first suggest that the Jews had not returned yet and the cities were still devastated. This, though, is strengthened by Josephus himself who doesn' begin the 70 years of desolation/servitude until the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore 70 and 72 years after the fall of Jerusalem would still be 2 years away from when those last deported would have served their full 70 years. Based on this, we can assign a full 6-year rule to Darius the Mede before Cyrus became the king over all of Persia and began to rebuild the empire by allowing people to return and rebuild. By the way, there were many "kings" recognized in the kingdom during the Medo-Persian empire, like the kings of Judah, etc. But once Cyrus became king, he became the official and ONLY royal family going by the title of king and so all the other kings, including Zerubabbel had the title of "governor". Thus Darius the Mede is called a "governor" rather than a king in the last 8 years of his rule, where apparently he continued ruler over Babylon. The empire was huge and one seat of government was at Babylon and the other at Susa, though Persepolis served as a spring-summer palace for the Persians. This is rather fascinating history, but the specifics of Darius the Mede are understood by historians, thus, again, you note Sir Isaac Newton claiming that Darius the Mede abdictated the throne to Cyrus, though he says only after two years. Just for some trivia here as far as the royal line of the Medes. The royal sons of the now combine Medo-Persian kings ran out after Kambyses died and his brother was mysteriously murdered and impersonated by an imposter. The next Mede heirs were through Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus who happened to be married to Darius I. Thus the children of Darius I were direct descendants of Cyrus. However, Cyrus was not the ultimate king of Persia when his older sons were born. The united kingdom was not established until later. The first son of Darius and Atossa born under the newly organized Persian empire was none other than Xerxes. It was because he was known always as "Prince Xerxes" and thus the first legal son of the new dynasty that it was surmised he was chosen over his brothers because he was born the same year his father became king. It is this bit of history combined with the Bible's record that Nehemiah, who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and likely about 30 years of age lived into the reign of Darius II, thus outliving his favorite Xerxes. Xerxes, who is also Artaxerxes ruled for 41 years and died at 59, so if Nehemiah was around 30 in the 1st of Cyrus when Xerxes was born, he would have only been 89 when he died, thus could reasonably have lived into the rule of Darius II (well, not easily, but reasonaly). On the other hand, for the current timeline to be true, Nehemiah would have to be over 143 years of age with the extra years added to the Persian Period. But again, when the empire consolidated and a new royal family was established, it was a big deal, and was a factor in why Xerxes was chosen as not only heir but CO-RULER with his father, Darius. You see, Darius was not a Mede and under the arrangement with Cyrus the royal Mede line continued. So making Xerxes co-ruler was extremely important, since after Darius' death the Medo-Persian line would continue. Interestingly, while the co-rulership between a grown Xerxes and his father is more than apparent at the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, historians and archaeologists essentially ignore this. Jehovah's witnesses, though, emphasize this in order to reduce the timeline by 10 years so they can move the 20th of Artaxerxes back from 445 to 455 BCE; so they use the co-rulership eveidence to do that with a presumed 10-year overlap. The evidence is there and substantiated, but the actual co-rulership was only 4 years. So as I said, once one finally gets around to facing the revisionism, the Persian Period implodes on itself almost immediately and the true timeline emerges quite consisently. JC
-
JCanon
Another question JC,
Concerning the construction of the temple, Your earlier post said the temple construction took 22 years. If the foundation was laid when the Jews returned from Babylon, and then there was a 16 year period of no construction renewed again in the second year of Darius, and completed in the 6th year, could that account for the 22 year period needed to build the temple? Solomon built the original temple in 7 years.
The 22-year period fairly standard and part of your own chronology, no? 537-516=21 years. Solomon was quite a wealthy man who had lots of the work done by thousands, supervised by Hirom of Tyre. The Jews who were fewer in number and doing their own building in the face of opposition took a longer time. Besides that they had to be building a new wall around the city as well, so the labor was divided, surely. The wall took 16 years to build. It was at that point when the wall was being completed that the locals urgently contacted the king of Persia to stop construction since obviously a walled city was like a kingdom unto it self. The official work on the temple was completed but the Jews continued to build their private homes which were all located on top of the wall, which was quite common and strategic for protecting the city. Thus there was a 2-year interruption in the work. When it was resumed in the 2nd of Darius it was completed after 4 years in the 6th of Darius, thus the combined time being 21-22 years. The fact that the wall was "finished" (Ezra 4:11) during the reign of Bardiya/Smerdia who is called "Artaxerxes" is another JW detail they like to quickly sweep under the carpet. That's because obviously they want the completion of the wall in the 20th of Artaxerxes to fulfill the 70-weeks prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem, ignoring the new wall was already completed. So they use the power of suggestion and mind-control to make the witnesses think that the wall that Nehemiah built in just 52 days was the one that had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar years and years earlier; and thus that the Jews built a brand new temple and nothing else in a wide open city surrounded by the ruins of the original wall. They even have gone so far as to suggest that one scripture in Ezra that says he came to a "house and a stone wall" in the 7th of Artaxerxes, meaning the temple and the new wall, actually was an allegory for "shelter and protection" and not a literal wall, when it actually says a STONE WALL!
Ezra 9:9 For we are servants; and in our servitude our God has not left us, but he extends toward us loving-kindness before the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving so as to raise up the house of our God and to restore its desolated places and to give us a stone wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.
This was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes: Ezra 7: 8 At length he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, that is, in the seventh year of the king..." So you see, the wall was already there. The WTS has to lie and say this is not a real "stone wall" here, but only "invisible protection", so that they can claim the city proper, Jerusalem, of which they exclude, obviously, the temple (since when was the temple not part of the city?) was not officially rebuilt until the 20th of Artaxerxes when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls. Only it is clear all Nehemiah did in just 52 days was to repair the new wals that had been damaged, at this point, already 32 years old. That's the only way to try and make the 70-weeks prophecy work for 455 BCE as the 20th of Artaxerxes: To specifically exclude the building of the temple as part of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and to ignore the walls had already been built, along with many houses, so that the prophecy comes true that while the temple was rebuilt, the city of Jerusalem was still in ruins and the damge to the walls of Nehemiah day was from Nebuchadnezzar's rule. But THINK. Why would the Jews after building walls around cities all this time not bother building a wall around Jerusalem when they decided to build the temple? It's ridiculous! Even in the context of what Nehemiah did he mentions his own father's house was a CASTLE, which was part of the wall structure. It was already there. Thus, you see, the more you find out, the more lies the WTS tells, and the more you know that some people go along thinking they know what the Bible says but don't. JWs are thus a people who are "always learning, but never coming to an accurate knowledge of the truth" because along with the Watchtower designed articles where they just repeat what the paragraphs say, the Watchtower carefully suggests and steers the minds away from what the Bible actually teaches. Like not exploring that the last deportation included Jeremiah and Baruch or that those remaining from the sword in Egypt returned to Judea for a short while before deported. No, instead they invent some Jews round about. Anywhere but in Egypt or Judea since the land must remain desolate. Likewise, they avoid dealing with the fact that the wall, homes and even a castle were already built in Jerusalem by the 20th of Artaxerxes, so how it is possible that the prophecy about the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" was not already fuilfilled in the 1st of Cyrus? It's baseless!! Yet this huge misapplication of prophecy is seldom noticed. One like after the other after the other, and a whole organization of people who year after year after year never even notice. And if you try to show them something, they have the nerve to argue with you. But if you happen to corner one, who actually does have a lot of knowledge they will still say it is not our business to question or challenge the "Faithful Slave" since Jehovah has provided that slave to guide us and we must not "run ahead" and "Jehovah will correct it in his own time." Meaning when it comes out in the Watchtower rather than when they read it directly in the Bible. So, ultimately, when their sins add up to the heavens, it is clear why Jehovah has thrown them into spiritual darkness now and why they will be destroyed along with Christendom. But you are LEARNING. At least you are asking and trying to understand. I'm all for you making up your own mind and, say, if the temple being desolated for 70 years works for you, I can accept that. But its those who don't even examine the information and evidence before making up their minds that irritate me. They think salvation is the WTS so it doesn't matter what is right or wrong; following closely without asking questions is all they see as Jehovah's requirement. But that's why discussion boards are good, while they last, because you get ALL sides. Even "know-it-all-me" am still learning and refining, and even backing off some of my presumptions. So keep ASKING. JC
-
JCanon
So now you are a linguist in claiming that in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 that the adverbial 'seventy years' modifies only the phrase 'the servitude' and does not modify the phrase' the devastation'. This is simply your opinion and I disagree with this. You cite no scholarly or exegetical support for your opinion so I suggest you demonstrate why your claim is so. I would argue that all of what is said in verse 11 was included in the seventy years which was the land being devastated and servitude to Babylon. That is what the text plainly reads.
This is absolutely an opinion and it is not academically viable when you factor in Josephus who clearly notes that the servitude of the poor ones last deported off the land were the ones who served seventy years. Now ordinarily you could claim that there were several 70-year periods, one for the nations that began at the beginning of the NB empire. But Josephus specifically links the 70 years served by the poor people deported last with Jeremiah's prophecy! That means Jeremiah directly contradicts any opinions regarding the 70-year period of "servitude" by Jeremiah that is not connected with the last deportation.
IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus1 which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity
JC
-
JCanon
COUNTER-INTELLEGENCE PROPAGANDA
Hope you don't mind. Just a little propaganda. In the olden days the Bible was considered true history and thus understanding it correctly as far as historical reference was adequate challenge to any pagan historical records that might contradict it. The 70 years is a special situation since as per Josephus or reading 2 Chronicles, it would introduce a 70-year period occurring between the fall of Jerusalem and the 1st of Cyrus, specifically 70 years beginning with the last deportation. But this directly contradicts the revised and reduced NB Period which was reduced by 26 years by the Persians.
So next to facing a direct contradiction, there are efforts to try to have one's cake and eat it too. That is, somehow invent some means of reinterpreting the 70 years so that it does not contradict the NB chronology. This is even though Josephus clearly dates those 70 years from the last deportation.
Because the bottom line is, if you take 2 Chronicles 36 the way it is read, that 70 years of the land paying back its sabbaths is the same 70 years of "servitude" of those deported in year 23, it is clear that the NB Period records were revised. Once you make that logical presumption and investigate, then you discover indeed the NB was revised and you find out by whom it was revised and when and why. Those who need the current timeline to remain in place don't want you to get that far, so we have lots of theories about how the 70 years apply to other than what we are seeing in the Bible. At the same time it presumes that those who can read 2 Chronicles are being deceived by their own minds in understanding what this is saying.
Trying to introduce confusion over the 70 years and also avoiding any references to Amenhotep III being the pharoah of the Exodus are very important chronological facts that I see completely avoided by Satan's academic world. Unfortunately for them, though, they didn't catch the double dating in the VAT4956 to 511 BCE before it was published. Had they known it never would have seen the light of day, I'm sure.
Josephus' 70-year reference in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, that he applies at the last deportation is perfectly in line with the scriptures. That's my position and interpretation, especially of 2 Chronicles 36.
JC