When you debate Scholar..You are in a Battle of Wits,with an Unarmed Man..........................Scholar..You have taken a beating....................................LOL!!...OUTLAW
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 959
Anstey wrote a large two volume work on chronology which presented an overview of the science right up to his day however those 'celebrated WT scholars who were associated with the Bible Students were also making major breakthroughs in this fiield becaus eunlike Anstey they paid attention to prophecy. Thus their chronology prove d to be more accurate than others even though in time it needed 'finer tuning'.
The reason why the Society held to the 536 BCE date was the simple fact that it was current opinion and served well for the purpose of determining the Gentile Times which at that time was believed to have begun in 606 BCE. It was not until many decades later that certain methodologies had to be improved along with other technical matters which resulted in the 'fine tuning' of the Bible chronology.
In your dreams because your chronology is full of holes or should I say full of 'gaps'.
scholar JW
-
scholar
doryakii
Post 621
Your post is utter nonsense.Luke 21:24 refers to a 'trampling' that began in the past with both a present and future verbal aspect however Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.
The seven times does not refer to Nebuchadnezzer's seven years of dethronement but rather the period of time whence Go's Jingdom would once again begin to rule over mankind as it had done in the case of literal Jerusalem.
Indeed you can have it both ways because it is the context in this case that sets the parameters of the interpretation and this has been well explained in the WT publications. If you have a better interpretaion of the book of Revelation then let us know.
The 'day' for a 'year' rule has a long tradition and as served biblical hermeneutics very well as a timeless principle so when you have a system of interpretation then you are in a position to be critical of others.
The date of 607 BCE is not determined by counting backwards and this is a rather childish remark. The date is determined by the location of major historical events mentioned in the Bible with accompanying regnal data. It is rather providential that such established chronology fixes the interpretation of prophecy such as the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Jeremiah foretold the seventy years many years prior to Neb coming against Jerusalem and the idea that it refers to the period of 609 BCE until 539 BCE is simply ridiculous and stupid because the land was not desolated nor were all the people exiled at that time You seem to be unsure about the matter because you use the expression 'most likely' which indicates your uncertainty on the matter.
Your historical revisionism does not agree with biblical history and smacks of the higher critic who has no faith or interest in prophecy.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Mary
Post 10697
One classic argument that supports the fact that Daniel 4 is an antitype and is well connected to Luke 21:24 is the simple fact that most scholars deny the fact of Neb's seven year absence from the throne. Further, there is no record of such a literal fulfillment as history in Neo-Babylonian history nor any account of in Neo-Babyloian chronology. So, this means that such literal fulfillment did not occur according to majority opinion so the only other meaning of the story as it appears in Daniel 4 is that it must be allegorical/methaphorical or have a anti-typical fulfillment alone.
scholar JW
-
reniaa
Hi scholar
your information has been very useful for me, I had checked 3w info on it and he made a good point on the 40 years of desolation on egypt that also helped, I couldn't go through all the pages so I don't know if you saw it.
Reniaa
-
AllTimeJeff
Scholar, there you go again....
The date of 607 BCE is not determined by counting backwards and this is a rather childish remark. The date is determined by the location of major historical events mentioned in the Bible with accompanying regnal data.
Regnal years? How do we know it was any year? By the astrological records of the Babylonians, which give us 539 BCE and 587/586 BCE. The date is no where in the bible. And it is done by counting backwards, because if you went by the real date of Jerusalems destruction, then do the good ol Gentile Times of 2520 years, you get 1934. They had to count backwards.
And again, you have not provided any scholarly reference, not even a quote from the very people you say corroborate you. Not even one sentence. Isn't it worth putting out a quote of at least one non JW Scholar to back you up? Unless they don't exist as you have maintained. And you want us to take JW's word for it because of all the prophecies they got right? They have never got one prophecy right.
Indeed you can have it both ways because it is the context in this case that sets the parameters of the interpretation and this has been well explained in the WT publications. If you have a better interpretaion of the book of Revelation then let us know.
Gibberish. No you can't have it both ways. The context supports nothing of the kind. The only word that is truthful in this statement is "interpretation". And no, it isn't well explained. There are a few statements asserting 607 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, but never an explanation as to how they get that date. It is presented as accurate history.
Meanwhile, more history books then can be found have the date as 587/586 BCE as the date of Jerusalems fall, the year off being for those use the zero year or not.
More example of (fake) Scholar's gibberish, and his failure in proving anything other then kicking up smokescreens.
There is no need for any endorsement by scholars or a scholar to support the validity of 607 BCE for it is a fact that scholars have to date no uniform date for the Fall as some say 588, 587 or 586 BCE so there is some fluidity in this matter.
Yes there is. I could just as easily say Jerusalem was destroyed in the 3rd age of the elves for all the evidence you have provided. The fact that some fluidity exists between a year or two is a major difference? ALL SCHOLARS (real ones) are in the 587/586 playing field. Over there, in the 607 playing field, are JW apologists and..... thats it.
What you are really saying here in that there is no need for any endorsement is that there is no serious scholar who could maintain intellectual honesty and promote that date with a straight face.
Again, a smokescreen from an intellectualy dishonest JW.
The counting backwards is a legitimate method of doing chronology which is in harmony with tabulated events and dates after all chronology is a scheme after all so events are placed in the stream of time so as one can in either direction.
Wait, you say it is legit, then say to doryakii
The date of 607 BCE is not determined by counting backwards and this is a rather childish remark.
So its legit, but JW's don't do it. Riiiiight. Out of the mouth of babes.
Josephus sets out the history of matters and this supports the historicity of the Bible in connection with the events of the seventy years between the Fall and the Return so it does provide an independent witness of our interpretation of matters.
More gibberish here. Not one single fact is stated here, other then names corroborating events. Josephus doesn't provide an indepedant witness to JW eschatology. Not that you could prove this anyway.
Chronologists of all persuasions select their own methodology and we have selected ours which provides a chronology consistent with all of the data both secular and biblical.
JW data is not consistent with secular data. In addition, you have yet in this entire thread to provide a single shred of secular data as asked. Just one quote on Jerusalem being destroyed in 607 BCE? Remember? If its so well attested, where is your attestation?
Real scholars even those who rely on the records of Neo-Babylonian chronologies must use Pivotal Dates in order to assign dates to those regnal of king lists. Pivotal or Absolute Dates goes with the terrritory.
I have done research on this since I made my comment, and was surprised to find an utter lack of any importance attached by scholars to pivotal dates. Google "scholarly pivotal dates" and look at the dearth of quotes. In addition, Jerusalem's fall in 587/586 would be considered a pivotal date as much as Babylons destruction of 539 BCE. You see, they are in the very same records, a couple of pages over, which is what makes the Governing Body liars in this matter, for refusing to be honest about where they get their dates, and how they get them.
You can't take one date as "pivotal" such as 539 BCE, and praise the secular sources for them, while then ignoring these same, self praised sources which shows the destruction of Jerusalem as 587/586 BCE, when the GB has so much riding on keeping their flocks blind to their hypocrisy.
You give me a challenge but I offer you one. You prove to me as to what precise year Jerusalem fell.
Oops, the ultimate white flag. I already gave you two sources, you have given me none. I got my education from school, you got your's from a cult. The precise year of Jerusalem destruction is 587/586 BCE, as all history books attest to. You can look it up! You can't find 607 BCE.
This is your attempt to change the subject from the searing white heat of your own BS, and you won't get off the hook. Let me parphrase another scripture for you, as you are so fond of Daniel.
Mene Mene Tekel Parsin. You have been weighed and your arguments (and esp your facts) are found wanting.
-
Leolaia
The seven times does not refer to Nebuchadnezzer's seven years of dethronement but rather the period of time whence Go's Jingdom would once again begin to rule over mankind as it had done in the case of literal Jerusalem.
So for pseudo-scholar, it isn't even a matter of a secondary fulfillment. The Watchtower interpretation overrules the one given by the writer in the text itself:
"This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass over you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes" (Daniel 4:24-25).
And yet in the next sentence, he backtracks and claims: "Indeed you can have it both ways because it is the context in this case that sets the parameters of the interpretation and this has been well explained in the WT publications". So which is it? Do the seven times refer to the period of Nebuchadnezzar's debasement or not?
And what has been explained in WT publications? Pseudo-scholar implies that WT publications address dorayakii's point about Daniel 4:16, which reads: "Let its heart be changed from that of mankind and let the heart of a beast be given to it, and let seven times pass over it". The obvious problem as dorayakii points out is: "Why would God choose a rebellious pagan king to represent his own rule? In what way was God's Kingdom given the heart of a beast?" This echoes my own point on the first page of this thread: "The incapacitation of a Gentile ruler is supposed to symbolize a period of Gentile hegemony over the earthly representative of God's kingdom (the Gentile times), and not just any ruler but the very Gentile ruler (Nebuchadnezzar) who overthrew God's earthly organization (Judah)....The Gentile ruler Nebuchadnezzar symbolizes the very thing he destroyed whereas his own seven-year humiliation is supposed to symbolize Gentile supremacy, starting with his own rule!"
So please show us from those WT publications you refer to how the Society, er, those "celebrated WT scholars", confront this problem? Your response to dorayakii's point is to vacuously refer to WT publications, so please provide us with a quote or two where they explain how the heinous and proud Nebuchadnezzar, forced to submit to depraved humiliation on account of his hubris, whose heart is changed to that of a beast, is supposed to represent God's own rule.
-
PSacramento
Re dates and the bible.
Scripture tends to make note of events, not dates, so when we try to date events we are, at best, interpreting what is written and trying to fnd that interpretation in history, not an easy task to say the least.
I don't have much issues with people trying to make certain dates more important than they should, as long as they are making it clear that these dates are based on interpretation and not on scripture and as such, are not basis for salvation and are simple "denominational doctrines", certainly less important that thecore fundamentals of Christian belief.
-
undercover
Great Caeser's Ghost! scholar's back!
I hadn't looked at this thread before today because, quite frankly, I'm pretty tired of the whole 607 thing. But when it got up to 15 pages I had to wonder what was keeping everyone's interest. Now I know.
Hi scholar...how's it goin? Glad to see you back helping the cause.
(I'm of the opinion that scholar is a clever apostate who plays devil's advocate to get other apostates to discredit the Society's timeline of prophecies - if he's not, well...more's the pity)
-
Mary
Poor pseudo-scholar. His arguments have been exposed as being based on absolutely nothing. He appears to be coming unglued by all the rational questions and answers he's being bombarded with on here. I guess he thought that all his esoterical 'logic' would intimidate everyone. I'm pretty sure he wasn't prepared for his flawed reasoning to be exposed for all to see.