Ann - Thanks I appreciate someone rationally quoting sources even if it shows I made a mistake. Did I misunderstand something else? Does Scholar believe the Jews returned to Jerusalem in Cyrus' first year? I thought he had specifically said it couldn't have been Cyrus' first year, that was the point of my last post, but maybe I'm mistaken. Thanks.
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Leolaia
I see that allelsefails posted 15 minutes ago but I cannot see the last five posts on this page (p. 12), and a while ago I saw that Ann O Maly posted but again there is no post....This problem has come up quite a bit in the forum lately. Now I see why I thought that our friend from Sydney hadn't posted on the first page of the thread even though he had.
-
Leolaia
It still hasn't turned over to p. 13 yet and I can't see my last post....let me see if this does it.
-
scholar
allelsefails
Post 81
This Bible nor secular history gives the precise calender year for the Return only the year of Cyrus' Decree for the release of the Jews and that was the 1st year of Cyrus which its modern reckoning is Nisan of 538 BCE to Nisan 537 BCE. The Jews according to Ezra had returned home by the seventh month which means that this was in Cyrus' second year, 537 BCE according to Nisan reckoning.
scholar JW
-
allelsefails
So the point I was trying to make. (Even though I messed up my quote) was that Russell counted from Cyrus' first year to get 606 and therefore 1914. His entire prophecy to get the 1914 date was flawed. It used flawed archaeological info, flawed math (zero year), and it used Cyrus' first year not second as the Jews return. But witnesses used his calculations until the fifties. Then when new finds showed Babylon's destuction was in 539 suddenly they dropped Russell's flawed arguments and made the new facts fit the 1914 date. There is still no scriptural tie between Dan. 4 and the Messianic Kingdom. It is about God's sovereignty. period. You can believe what you want but the bible means what it says and says what it means. Any who add to it are subject to God's displeasure.
-
scholar
allelsefails
Post 83
Not necessarily, Russell and his contemporaries used the scholarship available at that time and at such time that information was accurate enough to develop an accurate Bible Chronology. You must remember that same chronology has produced dates for biblibal events that even up to our present day are still accurate such as dates ascribed to the Life and Death of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. In connection with the Return their calculation was sufficiently correct to enable them to determine the beginning, duration and end of the Gehtile Times in 1914 CE.
There is a scriptural tie between Daniel 4 and the Messianic Kingdom and indeeed Luke 21:24 and that is the Messianic prophecy in the latter part of Daniel 4:17.
The reason why the Witnesses have seen a need to revise older chronologies is because from the forties onward the celebrated WT scholars became abreast of developments in scholarship, archaeology etc. which enable a'fine tuning' of the existing chronology which has lead to the sixties whereupon a accurate scheme of Bible chronology is now availabel for all honest hearted and dear sheep-like people. Are you one of these?
scholar JW
-
Mary
scholar said: Are the apostates getting worried or scrared Mary?
Yes of course we are. That's usually what happens to the winning side.
All that I have done is to provide another view or opinion and proving that the Society's interpretation of matters is in harmony with the Bible in a calm, rational way.
Typical double-speak from a fanatic. On one hand, you're claiming that what's you've presented is only "another view" or "opinion" and then you immediately assert that you have "proved" that the Society's interpretation is the correct one. If something has been 'proven', then it's not just an 'opinion'----it becomes a fact. And facts are exactly what your 'opinion' is sorely lacking. You have not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever about either 607 BCE or even that Daniel chaper 4 has a second meaning. Your 'opinion' that it does, is not 'proof' of anything. It's simply an opinion. Now I know that in Dub-dumb Land, whenever the GB members offer their 'opinion', it's to be taken as gospel truth. That doesn't work here, no matter how many times you try to pawn it off as 'truth'.
The evidence for the ending and the beginning of the Gentile Times in 1914 CE and 607 BCE is quite defensible and is in harmony with all the available evidence from the Bible, ancient/modern history, theology with recent studies on Luke and histiorography.
More bullshit from a bullshit artist. You have been unable to defend the chronology of 1914 and have had your ass handed to you repeatedly on this forum on this topic. You have been unable to provide any evidence either from the Bible, ancient/modern history, theology or archeology. You have been unable to provide any proof from any reliable scholar that would support your claim. And please don't bother with your crap about "celebrated WT scholars" because there aren't any outside the vague recesses of the fantasyland you live in.
Scholar speaks in the third person to befuddle and confuse the apostate ramblings and to provide some comedy during this lengthy and heavy discussion.
I doubt it. People who continuously speak in the third person as you do have got some serious emotional problems and that's one way of dealing with it. They certainly don't do it to "befuddle" or "confuse" people. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
It is not matter for any outside scholar of having to twist anything because most scholars do not appreciate Daniel for its prophecy.
Once again, you make an assertion without having any evidence or facts to back it up: What evidence or proof do you have that "most scholars" do not have an appreciation for the book of Daniel and its prophecies?
Our faith does not depend on the viability of a date or dates nor does it depend on a body of interpretation
Yet another lie! Your faith absolutely depends on a date---that of 1914. This is why you go to such lengths to try and defend it. And as we were all JWs at one time, we all know (only too well) that not believing in the GB's interpretations gets you branded as an "apostate" and kicked out. What planet are you on??
It all boils down to one word really and that is faith and that is something apostaes do not possess.
And here's the biggest lie of them all........Many on this board still have faith in God, in Jesus and the bible. Just because we found out that the WTB&TS is not the "faithful & discreet slave" does not mean everyone's lost faith. Once again, your assertions are based on absolutely nothing but your very vivid imagination scholar.......kinda like 1914.
-
AnnOMaly
Did I misunderstand something else? Does Scholar believe the Jews returned to Jerusalem in Cyrus' first year? I thought he had specifically said it couldn't have been Cyrus' first year, that was the point of my last post, but maybe I'm mistaken.
Oh no - you're on the nail with that.
Skol-drinker said:
(#1676) "Celebrated WT scholars in dealing with the chronology of this period have determined from the Bible record that the Temple foundation was laid in the second month in the year after the Jews returned which would be 536 BCE."
So,
Cyrus 0 = 539-8 (Babylon's overthrow)
Cyrus 1 = 538-7 (the edict)
Cyrus 2 = 537-6 (the return and building of the altar by month VII)
Cyrus 3 = 536-5 (the laying of the foundations in month II)
However, with the earlier scheme, it appears that:
Darius the Mede 0 = 538-7 (Babylon's overthrow)
Darius the Mede 1 / Cyrus 0 = 537-6 (Daniel only mentions one regnal year for Darius)
Cyrus 1 = 536-5 (the edict, the restoration of Jews to Israel and the end of the 70 year desolation of the land)
-
AnnOMaly
"scholar"
Not necessarily, Russell and his contemporaries used the scholarship available at that time and at such time that information was accurate enough to develop an accurate Bible Chronology.
While it may be true that Russell and his contemporaries used the scholarship available at the time, when it was shown that the scholarship was outdated (due to the wealth of archaelogical discoveries in the 1870s), they preferred to stick with the old.
-
scholar
Mary
Post 10893
As I thought the apostates even though on the winning side are scared.
In the broad stream of discussion interpretation is opinion, we say that our interpretation is based on certain facts and on Scripture thus the matter is 'proved' for all intents and purposes. Scholar has ably demonstrated the 'proof' of 607 BCE and shown in a rational way theat Neb's dream vision of Dan.4 has a minor and major fulfillment as shown by the context and the frequent use of the word 'Kingdom' which is eschatological. It is all there in the mix.
I agree my opinion by itself counts for nothing and neither does yours or anyone elses for that matter, What does matter is what God's Word states and our teachings/interpretations are soundly based on that firm foundation as you well know. You keep asserting that scholar has provided no proof but how do you explain the fact that scholar is actively present in defending, answering questions, explaining and refuting points that are raised on this subject for the last eight years? Scholar has been very busy indeed as he does not deal with fluff, fantasy but substance.
The fact is that many scholars today perhaps the majority regard Daniel as being fulfilled during the Maccabean period thus being unable to appreciate its value as prophecy. That is a simple fact as shown by consulting reference works and commentaries. This is something you should look into for yourself.
Our faith does not depend on any date how can it be the case when that numerical figure does not appear in the Bible! The date 1914 is calculated from an interpretation of a prophecy which is Biblical and that is the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 and the tree dream of Daniel 4. Thus, our faith is based on an interpretation of biblical prophecy part of God's Word and that is how things should and must be.
Many on this board are without faith and I can see this from past and experience, one prominent example of this is Alan F who long contended with me on chronology and admitted on this very forum his atheism/agnosticism. The very fact that there are those who oppose divine and godly teaching as proclaimed by His Witnesses is proof of the fact that those who have left the Truth are indeed without faith. Further, such 'bedarkened' one have no unified teaching, broitherhood or ministry is proof of the matter.
scholar JW
