OK, I'll check it out, thanks. I ordered The Gentile Times Reconsidered a couple of weeks ago, so it should hopefully arrived this week.
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I asked this earlier, I don't mean to hijack but I'll ask it here too regarding the 70 years...
The age of Daniel. According to WT, he would have been around 100 when he was THROWN into the lion's den, right? If we remove the questionable 20 years, Daniel would have been 80 instead, right? So, wouldn't he have mentioned in his book that he was miraculously old at 100 by this time? 80 would have been old, but 100 would have been super-old, right? I wouldn't have imagined that other satraps would have been jealous and sought to kill a 100 year-old man, his days are numbered anyway. But an 80 year old man, if spry, could be around for another decade or so, and a worthy adversary. Is this addressed anywhere?
Thanks,
B the X
-
Narkissos
@ Mary,
Expanding a little on my previous post:
(Daniel 9:2) in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.
V. 25 suggests that the author is still conscious (approximately) of the actual duration of the exile, since he ascribes the first set of "seven weeks" (7 x 7 = 49 years) to the desolation proper, after which the city is rebuilt. But the devastations in a broader sense do not end at this point -- the reconstruction takes place "in troubled times," Jerusalem is still subject to Gentile yoke until the trouble culminates in the "abomination of desolation," the profanation of the temple under Antiochus IV, hopefully leading to final salvation. So the 70 years are expanded into 70 x 7 years, according to the arithmetic of the Torah curses (Leviticus 26:18 etc.).
(Zechariah 1:12) 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?"
(Zechariah 7:5) "Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When YOU fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did YOU really fast to me, even me?
It is clear from the chronological indications of the context (1:7 = 519 BC, 7:1 = 518 BC) that those "seventy years" have kept on running after the return from exile. If you are quoting from the NWT, notice that the same Hebrew phrase, zeh shiv`im shanah, is inconsistently translated, first as "these seventy years," second as "and this for seventy years," whereas the clear meaning is "for seventy years now" (I can provide a list of formal parallels to that expression if you wish*). So the "seventy years" of Zechariah do start with the fall of Jerusalem but do not end with the return of exile.
* On edit, this is a non-exhaustive list (from P. Joüon's Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique, § 143 I) of this temporal, invariable, adverbial use of the demonstrative zèh (which stays in the singular instead of agreeing with the plural of "seventy years"), meaning that something has been happening for(insert time period, or number of times) now (i.e., when the speaker is speaking):
Genesis 27:36, zèh pa`amayim (dual form), twice now...
Genesis 31:41, zèh-li `èsrim shanah, for twenty years now...
Numbers 14:22, zèh `èsèr pe`amim, ten times now...
Numbers 22:28, zèh shalosh regalim, three times now...
Numbers 24:10, zèh shalosh pe`amim, three times now..
Joshua 14:10, zèh 'arba`im we Hamesh shana me'az, it's been forty-five years now...
Joshua 22:3, zèh yamim rabbim, for many days now... (note the stereotyped redundancy `ad ha-yom ha-zeh, down to this day).
2 Samuel 14:2 zèh yamim rabbim, for many days now... -
digderidoo
Nakissos,
I have read that the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem was completed in 516 BCE. This would fit in with your reasoning, this would also fit in with 70 years from 587/6 to 516. But this would not fit in with Jer 25:11 when it says "these nations will have to serve the King of Babylon seventy years."
I can see your reasoning along the line that it did not end with the return of exile. But for me, the Babylonian defeat of the Assyrians, along with taking captives prior to the fall of Jerusalem is the only way i can see the 70 years prophecy harmonising all these scriptures.
Paul
-
Narkissos
didgeridoo,
But for me, the Babylonian defeat of the Assyrians, along with taking captives prior to the fall of Jerusalem is the only way i can see the 70 years prophecy harmonising all these scriptures.
This explanation would definitely not fit Zechariah, nor 2 Chronicles 36, nor Daniel 9, nor even Jeremiah 25:11a imo.
My point was, precisely, that it is pointless to try "harmonising all those scriptures" since they obviously do not refer to the same period.
-
Mary
OK, thanks Narkissos.......I'm just trying to figure out a way to incorportate this into the section I'm doing on 1914 and am trying to make it as simple as possible, since the average Witness is not well educated.
-
scholar
digderido
Post 841
It is imposible to reconcile 586/587 BCE with the biblical 'seventy years because the only date that works is 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Scholars have for many decades tried to harmonize the data but without any success. Apostates such as Carl Jonsson attempted a similar effort in his Gentile Times Reconsidered but failed misereably. It seems that A@G did not pay attention to this subjects whilst at Gilead because he too has simply repeated old and empty arguments.
Celebrated WT scholars over the last three centuries proved beyond doubt that the seventy years was a period of exile. desolation and serviude running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE as also attested by all of the OT and Josephus. The theory that A@G and Jonsson proposes that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian domination is simply false and cannot be sustained from scripture for no single scripture or those collected texts can in any way support this singular proposal. All of the 'seventy-year' texts agree that that period was of exile-desolation and servitude. The seventy years did not belong to Babylon but to Judah alone with Babylon being simply the means by which matters were fulfilled as Jeremiah prophesied.
scholar JW
-
Awakened07
I don't really understand why the 607 thing is so important to people. I could understand it if it all hinged on this one thing; that everything else was perfect and this was the only discrepancy in JW doctrine, but it's not. JWs (and their still existing forerunners, and perhaps some offshoots) are the only groups even concerned with this; all others accept the 586/7 date.
That could of course be understood to mean that they're the only ones who got it right, but does that fit with reality? 1799 (end times began), 1874 (visible / invisible return), 1914 (GT / Big A.), 1915 (GT / Big A.), 1925 (resurrected ancient worthies), 1914 (invisible return), 1914 (- generation teaching), 1935 (cut-off date of anointed), 1975 (Big A.), 1995 (1914 generation 'confused' and drawn-out), 2007 (1935 anointed cut-off date suspended), 2008 (generation totally changed to: 'anointed').
- Progressive, accurate 'new light' given by God himself, or wild guesses?
In addition to all that you can put in various flip-flops on major and minor doctrines, plus the Malawi- and UN thing etc. etc.
Does 607 really matter in determining if it's Truth?
Personally it's easy enough for me, 'cause when I got rid of superstition, all this other stuff went out with it, but you don't even have to do that to see that something stinks.
Celebrated WT scholars over the last three centuries proved beyond doubt blah blah blah blaaargh...
Oh, BTW - I'm actually a 'celebrated prize fighter'. I celebrated myself just yesterday, in fact, right here in my living room. No one else celebrated me or even knows who I am, but I celebrated myself, and that's what matters after all.
-
digderidoo
I don't really understand why the 607 thing is so important to people. I could understand it if it all hinged on this one thing ; that everything else was perfect and this was the only discrepancy in JW doctrine, but it's not. JWs (and their still existing forerunners, and perhaps some offshoots) are the only groups even concerned with this; all others accept the 586/7 date.
Does 607 really matter in determining if it's Truth?
Awakened 07,
All i can say is that it does for me. When i was a JW i used to love explaining the 1914 prophecy and showing how the maths worked out. It was one of those things i used to use to "prove" to other people that this is the "truth". I was a few years out when i came across this descrepency, for me it was always the one thing that stopped me going to a meeting all those years. I have always been a person that can look at both sides of an argument, unless there is a 100% reasoning leaning on one side.
Because i have always felt this way, although i may not agree with WT explanations of other criticisms, i have always seen their point of view. The 607 v 587/6 debate for me if it can be proved one way or the other IS the defining thing that will either keep me away or make me go to a meeting.
Paul
-
Mr. Majestic
The good thing about Carl O Jonsson’s book is the exposure of the society who try to falsify quotations from experts in the field of the subject matter. What I liked was the fact that Jonsson took the time to write to the experts that the society quoted, and asked them if their quotation in the societies literature was an accurate rendition of the statements that they made. What was interesting was their reply and how indignant they were at being so badly misquoted by the society.
It really is a good example of how desperate the society are and the lengths that the society will go to in order to hold onto 607.
The thing to remember about Jonsson’s work is the fact that these discoveries were made by him while he was a faithful and dedicated JW.
But a very interesting and informative book to read and a great exposure of how the society lie by misquoting the experts they choose to quote….