70 years = 607?

by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

scholar

Doug Mason
Post 568
Email me your home phone number and I will ring you/
scholar JW
scholar

Leolaia
Post 13204
I was a question and I supplied some names of supporters of 607 BCE and I am not responsible for their allegiances. You request a name of a contemporary scholar who supports the WT interpretation of Daniel 4 linked with Luke 21:24. One such person comes to mind and that is C.I. Scofield. His Study Bible was so famous that it was listed as one of the 100 Christian Books that changed the Century.
scholar JW
scholar

AllTimeJeff
Post 1664
A quote from Wiki is the extent of your research which is fair enough but you need to change the dates in the quote. Your use of sources is bunkum as you not posted anything of worth so get your head down and consult real scholars and do real research.
scholar JW
scholar

Doug Mason
Post 569
I cannot agree with your historical interpretation of Late Judean history. There is no evidence that after the destruction of Jerusalem there remained people in the land because Jeremiah had prophesied repeatedly that the land would be desolate without an inhabitant.
The book of Jeremiah gives a detailed description of the last days of Judah and her fate under Babyloian domination and is the major contemporary source for those events which is consistent with oher OT writings. Those Jewish writers particularly Ezra knew that the seventy year whilst occurring during Babylon's domination was aprecise period of servitude-exile-desolation. Your political conspiracy theory between the priests and the people may have some merit but the entire population from the top down was corrupt with its priesthood being particularly reprehensible.
scholar JW
AnnOMaly

Skol-drinker #1710
No desperation was needed because those Bible Students were people of faith and had faith in Bible prophecy and the Lord's Return. Do you share such a faith in God's Promises? Their predictions and prophesying about 1914 were vindicated by the facts of modern and eschatological history. For many decades 606 BCE served its purpose and with Providence certain adjustments have been made much to the celebration of our now wondrous Bible chronology, a Jewel in the Crown so to speascholar.
That comment bears no resemblence to reality; you have been shown countless times why.
Skol-drinker El-Shaddai #1711
Robert Young's article only established what he believed the year to be according to his own selected methodology but 586 BCE still remains the preferred choice of serious scholars.
Get his name right - RODGER Young. And he did an excellent job, using data from the Bible, of establishing the correct year for Jerusalem's fall.
Do not forget from where it was that you first learnt of that seminal article and it was from your mighty scholar.
And do not forget where you first learnt of the article and it was from your MIGHTIER arch-enemy Carl Jonsson!
Hobo Ken

Scholar
Jeremiah 25:11,12 clearly states:" And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’ “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, . . .

This Scripture passage clearly shows the supposed "70 years" prophecy was fulfilled when Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus. Everyone, even the Watchtower Society agrees that this occurred in 539 B.C.E.. Again this would mean that Counting backwards would take one to 609 B.C.E.and then applying the 2520 days "formula" and counting forward would take one to 1912. Again this date is no use to the WTS so 1914 is retained although it does not fit any of the facts or the Bible itself.

I wonder if you can call this an honest position to adopt?
The reason 1914 is so important is that the whole belief system of Jehovah's Witnesses is built on it. If it were to be discredited then what are JW's left with? The critical date of 1919 is derived from this same very shaky "chronology" and this is when it's claimed Jesus appointed the WTS and it's Governing Body (which didn't exist in 1919) with the authority they hold today.

Please do yourself a favour ScholarJw and find just one modern scholar or historian who is not connected to the Watchtower Society to verify that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. I challenge you to not click on the WT cd rom and go to any book shop or museum or Jewish or Babylonian historical source and check when Jerusalem was destroyed. They all attest to 586/587 B.C.E.
Hobo.
dorayakii

1. The matter of the zero year was simply a matter of methodology and when it was realized that there was an error then an adjustment was made. This is no big deal because chronology is a science that has always been in a state of flux. Suh fine tuning did not impact on the validity of the 1914 CE date for the end of the Gentile Times, thanks be to Providence.
The methodology was to count back 2520 years from 1914 and choose whicheverdate it hit as the "point of origin". The absence of year zero was the only thing that changed the "point of origin" from 606 to 607, there wasn't any fundamental difference in the way the dates were calculated. This type of chronology is simple, it involves simple addition and subtraction.
It is blatently obvious that if year zero were not the issue, then 1914 would have been modified to 1913. It is so very simple that only someone who is metaphorically blindfolded can fail to notice it.
2. Accoding to accurate Bible chronology Josiah died in 629 BCE so you are twenty years wide off the mark.
Your opinion of "accurate bible chronology" disagrees with every piece of archaeological evidence from multiple sources. Even if you thought the Babylonian sources were somehow tainted, incorrect or outright fabrications, the corroborating evidence from Babylon's biggest enemies Egypt, Assyria and Persia should have convinced you. It is only your stubborn, one-sided attitude that prevents you from admitting it. I guess your blind faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is the barrier to your seeing the logic and mountains of evidence that prove the "exile" was not 70 years.
3. Biblical evidence begins Neb's reign in 624 BCE so once again you are twenty years off the mark.
See above.
4. 537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.
What is the secular (or for that matter biblical) evidence that the rebuilding took place in 537? (This question is important, please don't ignore it).
Nobody can give a solid date for the rebuilding because there is no evidence for any of the dates. It is far more honest to say "I don't know" than to invent a date based on an assumption and then blindly believe it.
5. To say that 607 BCE has no support is simply stupid because there is clear evidence both from the Bible, Josephus and NB chronology to support such a determination. With the latter its records brings us within a twenty years striking distance and when the seventy years is factored into that chronology then Bingo you have a rock solid, irrefutable 607 BCE.
Show me such evidence then. Where in Josephus' works is 607 supported? 537 and 607 are both pure speculation and guesswork. 539 is the only supported date in that period and the chronology works perfectly until you try to squeeze 607 into it. You get a "phantom" 20 years poppng up that throws out all the calculations of the dates for the famous battles between the major powers in that region. Every thng fits into place until you try to say Jerusalem was pillaged in 607 because we know exactly where all the main protagonists were and what they were doing in that year. It just doesn't work.
Even the Watchtower's own literature doesn't support 607 as being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. If the Watchtower itself doesn't support itself how on earth can you have a "rock solid, irrefutable 607"?
6. Apostates have a hang-up over the zero year problem but fine tuning and correct methoidology proved the validity of 1914 CE.
Year zero is more than just a matter of fine-tuning. You act as if archaeologists and historians didn't know there was no year zero. These historians had more or less worked out Babylonian chronology long before the JWs stuck their oar in. The fine-tuning was already done, the JWs just bent the evidence to fit their own beliefs, simple.
dorayakii

As well as my question about the secular or biblical evidence that the rebuilding took place in 537, another very important point was overlooked. I'd like to repost it here:
"Scholar" said: 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.
Please tell me how "estai patoumenh", ("will-be being-trodden", the Greek passive future continuous) can be interpreted as having a "past and future verbal aspect" (sic).
You sound like you're talking about the aorist aspect, which because of its literal meaning of "unbounded" or "without horizon" has often been misunderstood as a tense describing a continuous action from the past to the future. Can you explain to me again "scholar" what exactly you mean by this Greek verb having a "past and future verbal aspect"?
Doug Mason

dorayakii,
Regarding the effect of a "zero year" on the derivation of 1914, I have started a separate post on that subject. CTR was aware of the issue with the zero year but he was adamant that Jerusalem fell in 606 BC, and he said that if there was to be a change it would be to the terminus date, and he would amend it from October 1914 to October 1915. He was immovable about the start date but was equivocal about 1914. He had seen so many of his dates come and go, unfulfilled (such as 1910).
WW1 began in August, which completely confused them, especially as they were looking for peace to be ushered in through the Zionist movement (hence the use of the word "Zion" in the name of their Watchtower magazine).
Their key dates, of course, lay in the 1870s and Rutherford still taught the 1874 parousia into the 1930s. None of them had any spritual insight as to what had occurred in 1914, 1918 or 1919 (as if time in any other part of this or other universe can be synchronised with the rotation of our earth around our sun), while 1925 was an utter debacle for them.
Doug
Leolaia

I was a question and I supplied some names of supporters of 607 BCE and I am not responsible for their allegiances.
The question posed to you asked for independent verification and you totally failed to provide this.
While AllTimeJeff is waiting for (fake) Scholar to concede the point, AllTimeJeff would like to bring something to (fake) Scholar's attention: It's called indepenent verification. At Gilead, they made a big point of talking up the "J" references regarding the insertion of Jehovah in the New Testament. While these 15th century sources had purely political reasons for inserting "Jehovah" in there, they were thrilled that they had a non JW source for there spurious insertion. In your case, JW's have zero independent verification.
You listed only writers who were affiliated with groups that originated with Charles T. Russell and his Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. You think they are "independent" because, as apostates, they are not JWs per se, overlooking the fact that they are indebted to Russell and his chronology, even quoting from the Watch Tower. That is NOT independent verification.
I also find your duplicity regarding "wiley apostates" amusing. In this case, you could care less that the organization regards the people you cited as members of the "evil slave class". Despite your incessant polemic against those you call apostate, all of a sudden you don't care about their "allegiances" because their apostate status allows you to mention them as "independent" scholars, forgetting the fact that as apostates they are faithful to Russell's views.
You request a name of a contemporary scholar who supports the WT interpretation of Daniel 4 linked with Luke 21:24. One such person comes to mind and that is C.I. Scofield. His Study Bible was so famous that it was listed as one of the 100 Christian Books that changed the Century.
Another fail. I asked for a contemporary scholar who links the "appointed times of the nations" in Luke 21:24 with the "seven times" of Daniel 4. Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921) is NOT a contemporary scholar. Nor did he equate the "seven times" with the "appointed times of the nations". He instead links the latter with the references to the "kingdom of men" in Daniel 4, as he regards Nebuchadnezzar as the first among the "kingdom of men" whose rule was among the dispensation of the "Gentile times" (cf. the comment at Luke 21:24 which states that "the 'times of the Gentiles' began with the captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar, since which time Jerusalem has been under Gentile overlordship," technically untrue since Scofield omits the century of Jewish Hasmonean rule).
Scofield does not interpret the "seven times" from Nebuchadnezzar's dream as representing the period of "Gentile overlordship" of Jerusalem. Nor does he use the length of "seven times" to interpret the chronological length of the "Gentile times". Instead he claims that the "times of the Gentiles" are "brought to an end by the destruction of the Gentile worldpower by the 'stone cut out without hands' (Dan. 2:34, 23, 44), i.e. the coming of the Lord in glory (Rev. 19:11, 21)" (p. 1345). This does NOT support the Watchtower interpretation of Daniel 4. The Watchtower claims that the smashing of the statue by the stone in Daniel 2 pertains to Armageddon, when "every vestige or trace of the political world powers of human history" are "cleared off the earth" (Man's Salvation, 1975, p. 312). They similarly interpret Revelation 19 as pertaining to Armageddon (Revelation Climax, 1988, pp. 280-285). Neither are connected with the end of the "times of the Gentiles" in 1914.

70 years = 607?

Share this