70 years = 607? (page 4)

scholar

Leaving WT

I am glad the existence of the 'celebrated' ones makes you happy just think how it affects me

schoilar JW

You write utter nonsense. The Society's use of 607 BCE is based on the Bible and its internal chronology, the date 1914 is derived from chronology and prophecy and history both ancient and modern. There is no need to 'gild the lily' as the facts overwhelmingly support our understanding of matters.

scholar JW

scholar

Leolaia

If you had paid more close attention to this forum you would have noticed my previous posting on this subject but thanks for your sarcastic inquiry about my whereabouts. The only virus I have contacted is the wirus that 'eats up apostates' and elevates WT biblical chronology/

scholar JW

isaacaustin

Post 1620 of 1623
Since 1/7/2001

Barefoot Servant.

No lies arr needed because the Bible is quite definite about the matter. There is compelling evidence both from the Bible and secular history that the Jews returned home in 537 BCE by the seventh month and even the apostae Jonsson has to concede this point even though he promotes 538 BCE with considerable difficulty. The date 537 is in harmony with the best and most recent scholarship.

scholar JW

It has been shown ad nauseum that there is not evidence favoring any particular year in the 536-538 range. Nor does it matter- as the 70 years of Babylonian rule would end in 539...not 537.

diamond diz

You write utter nonsense. The Society's use of 607 BCE is based on the Bible and its internal chronology, the date 1914 is derived from chronology and prophecy and history both ancient and modern. There is no need to 'gild the lily' as the facts overwhelmingly support our understanding of matters.

There is nothing Biblical, archaeological, or historical about 607BCE relative to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply derived as a plug date from the combination of unrelated texts. The WT failed in it prophecy of what would happen in 1914 but chose to say it was fulfilled invisibly. They need the date to hold to their 'captivity period" drivel and the supposedly being chosen to handle the lord's earthly affairs.

You sound pretty self-deluded to think you eat up apostates of the WT (as you get knocked down pretty ridiculously) and elevate Bible chronology, since there is nthing biblical about the WT chronolgy you promulgate.

scholar

isaacaustin

In your dreams. It is simply not the case that it has been shown ad nauseum that there is insufficient evidence to posit a date for the Return.The simple fact is that there is sufficient evidence from secular history and the Bible to prove 537 BCE as the date for the Return and this is supported by current scholarship. In fact, it is only the research done by the 'celebrated WT scholars that sets the matter out in detail as most authorities simply nominate 537 BCE without explanation as with others preferring 538 or 536 BCE.

All dates in the OT are derived and calcuable because that is what chronology is. The date 607 BCE is based upon evidence and that evidence is primarily from the Bible and supported by other secular evidence. The date date 1914 terminates the prophetic period, Gentile Times and is proven by the facts of modern history and the growth of the True Church. It is not I that is delusional but apostates make this an art form by their desperate, mischief making by deceiving people about the True Religion.

scholar JW

BarefootServant

The liar scholar JW said:

No lies arr needed because the Bible is quite definite about the matter. There is compelling evidence both from the Bible and secular history that the Jews returned home in 537 BCE by the seventh month and even the apostae Jonsson has to concede this point even though he promotes 538 BCE with considerable difficulty. The date 537 is in harmony with the best and most recent scholarship. scholar JW

This is why I call you a liar. You are already moving the goalposts by claiming "secular" support and "compelling evidence", when your actual lie was:

"The date 607 BCE is the only possibile date for the Fall of Jerusalem according to the Bible"

I will apologize and retract my statement that you are a liar when you provide the SCRIPTURE that shows that 537 is the ONLY POSSIBLE date for the return of the exiles to Jerusalem.

Deputy Dog

scholar

We're all still waiting for that kings list.

isaacaustin

In your dreams. It is simply not the case that it has been shown ad nauseum that there is insufficient evidence to posit a date for the Return.The simple fact is that there is sufficient evidence from secular history and the Bible to prove 537 BCE as the date for the Return and this is supported by current scholarship.

psedoscholar: please present this evidence (as there is none). Regardless if they retruned in 537 or not though- the 70 years (which were Babulonian domination) ended in 539BCE- while the Jews were in Babylon. This trying to make it seem that they returned in 537BCE is all really irrelevant.

In fact, it is only the research done by the 'celebrated WT scholars that sets the matter out in detail as most authorities simply nominate 537 BCE without explanation as with others preferring 538 or 536 BCE.

Pseudo: Please identify these 'celebrated WT scholars', if they do indeed exist. Otherwise we will simply have to assume that they are, like you, pseudoscholars.

All dates in the OT are derived and calcuable because that is what chronology is. The date 607 BCE is based upon evidence and that evidence is primarily from the Bible and supported by other secular evidence. The date date 1914 terminates the prophetic period, Gentile Times and is proven by the facts of modern history and the growth of the True Church. It is not I that is delusional but apostates make this an art form by their desperate, mischief making by deceiving people about the True Religion.

Pseudo: Sorry, the bible in no way confirms the 607 date. Take the 539 date that all authorities agree on as the date the Babylonian empire crumbled...count back 70 years and you have it. A reading of Jeremiah 25-27 makes it plain this is regarding Babylon ruling the world- not merely the fate of Judah. The rest of the WT fables you are regurgitating regarding 1914 and 7 gentile times are put together thru unrelated texts combined and misinterpreted. Your final sentence is quite delusional- aposates of the WT simply look at fact...while you and others captive of the "True Religion" simply follow and cling to the dictates of the GB...right or wrong. The religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses is anything but the true relgion.

scholar JW

I have yet to see anything scholarly about your posts.

isaacaustin

9/15/65 WT, p 567, “A Pivotal Date in History”

The decree of Cyrus must have been made toward the close of

winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.E.

Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1, p 800, “Ezra, Book of”

Likely (the decree) was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E.

All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial [1990], page 85, “Bible Book Number 15—

Ezra”

This decree was evidently issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in

537 B.C.E.

Insight on the Scriptures, vol. page 458, “Chronology”

It is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of

538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.

A whole bunch of speculatory words such as likely, probably, evidently….

Jer 25:12

“When the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon ”.

First of all, there was no king of Babylon in 537 BCE . Second, when the 70 yrs are ended the King would be punished- not 2 yrs later when there was no king of Babylon . There is no support that Cyrus made his decree immediately as the GB claims to have allowed for the return of the Jews in 537. But then again, this is a moot point anyway as the 70 yrs ended in 539.

Tuesday

Hey there Scholar,

I do really enjoy your posts, which I don't know if everyone here will agree with. I believe we went over this on another board, but could you point to the scripture that correlates that the 70 years of servitude was to start with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem or are you just connecting two dots that there's no guarantee they are supposed to be connected?

If you can point to a scripture that states specifically "You will be in slavery in Babylon for 70 years after the destruction of your temple", hey great I'm with you and most people here would be as well. I feel as well as others that if you're saying "70 years of servitude" and "land will be a place of astonishment and desolate" somehow connect to form 70 years of the city being uninhabited you're reaching a bit beyond what the bible actually says.

Thanks for the posts though,

if anyone would like to read the thread I'm referring to when I say another board, here's the link where AlanF basically oblitherates every argument Scholar puts forth:

http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=541.0

70 years = 607?

Share this