Need help disproving 607BCE

by 2pink 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • scholar
    scholar

    isaacaustin

    Post 4220

    Your claim that the Gentile Times is bogus and that Dan 4 was only fulfilled in Neb is blatantly false. The evidence that Dan 4 has a major fulfillment is proved by the simple fact that the entire chapter is about God's Sovereignty and His Kingdom clearly something that lay beyond a mere human ruler. Further, Jesus clearly linked the tree dream with Jeusalem in his prophecy and the perspective of history in Luke 21:24.

    Your opinion that the seventy years pertained to Babylon's dominion from 609 BCE until 539 BCE implies that the seventy years was Babylon's and not that of Judah. But such an interpretation shifts Judah's punishment of seventy years as stated by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Zecharian to that of Babylon but this is clearly impossible for Jeremiah clearly addressed Babylons's punishment along with the other foreign nations later in his prophecy.

    The simple fact is that the seventy years applied to Judah alone and not to Babylon. Nowhere does the Bible state that Babylon was punished for seventy years but what it does state that Judah was to serve Babylon for seventy years thus Babylon's dominion over Judah was for that period of seventy years. All that can be said is the seventy years connected Judah and Babylon because Babylon was the instrument of punishment over Judah which lasted for seventy years.

    I cannot answer your final question but I have received much postive feedback.

    scholar JW

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    To keep this simple, is there anyone (besides the WT) that places Nebuchadnezzar II lifespan outside the dates 605-562 BC ?

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    Pseudoscholar said:

    Your claim that the Gentile Times is bogus and that Dan 4 was only fulfilled in Neb is blatantly false. The evidence that Dan 4 has a major fulfillment is proved by the simple fact that the entire chapter is about God's Sovereignty and His Kingdom clearly something that lay beyond a mere human ruler. Further, Jesus clearly linked the tree dream with Jeusalem in his prophecy and the perspective of history in Luke 21:24.

    My reply: Wrong like usual pseudo. The theme is about Neb being in the hands of God, existing only because he is allowed to, and being transient as compared to God whose rulership is supreme. Your assertion that Jesus clearly linked the tree dream with Jerusalem is false. Prove that is should be linked to Luke. You can't, except by assertion, baseless assertion at that.

    Read all of Jeremiah 25. It clearly speaks of Babylon's dominace and names the lands they would dominate. THESE nations must serve the king of Babylon 70 yrs. And after the 70 years are complete Babylon would be called to account.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Doug Mason

    Post 734

    In a sense you are right. That is why celebrated WT scholars prefer the term 'pivotal date' as applying to 539 BCE rather than an 'absolute date' which is technically more correct. However, I prefer to use the term 'Absolute Date' in reference to 539 BCE for two reasons: 1. scholar is a sentimental person and loves tradition whiich accompanies WT chronology over many decades. 2. The term is useful as a rehetorical device .

    Scholars use several notable eclipses to establish chronology for the Ancient Near East but the Celebrated WT scholars prefer 539 BCE as a pivotal date because it is grounded in both the Bible and secular history as an event and is datable astronomically.

    Regards

    scholar JW

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    I now issue the following challenge to our resident JW defenders, thirdwitness and 'scholar':If you disagree with any of the above facts, prove your case by making point-by-point refutations of my arguments. To prove that you know what you're talking about, provide your own detailed chronological tabulation like I have done above. AlanF

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/118291/1/Fact-Jews-Returned-In-538-BC-Kills-Off-Watchtower-Chronology

    You did not even try to make a point by point refutation of this three year old post by Alan.

    I think you have had enough time. Stop your blustering and refute it.

    Cheers

    Chris

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    scholar 1813: "It all boils down to Methodology."

    Nonsense. It all boils down to Pyramidology!

    scholar 1818: "scholar is a sentimental person and loves tradition whiich accompanies WT chronology over many decades."

    Ah yes, scholar is a mental person who loves those loveable, decades old WT chronology traditions such as Pyramidology!

  • Alwayshere
    Alwayshere

    SCHOLAR, HOW CAN DANIEL BE TAKEN IN 618 and 617?

  • Doug Mason
  • Alwayshere
    Alwayshere

    SCHOLAR, Isaiah's Prophecy vol. 1 page 253 "These Nations will have to serve the King of Babylon seventy years, the 70 years represents the period of Babylon's greatest domination." "At the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble." If you disagree, you are an APOSTATE.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    SCHOLAR: "539 BCE as a pivotal date because it is grounded in both the Bible and secular history as an event and is datable astronomically."

    DOUG: Therefore, the date for the Destruction of Jerusalem must be accepted on this very same basis, since "it is grounded in both the Bible and secular history as an event and [it] IS datable astronomically".

    What astronomical data fixes 539 BCE apart from the Absolute Dates and chronology that the WTS does not accept?

    It is not correct to say that 539 BCE is an Absolute Date "in a sense". It either is an Absolute Date or it is a calculated date. There is no middle ground.

    Sentimentality (as when SI of 1963 said that 539 was an Absolute Date) is a feeble foundation for one's faith.

    What foundation does a "Pivotal" date provide? Where does that term come from? Why is it preferable to eclipse dates, particularly when the dates of eclipses are used in the calculation of 539?

    Regarding "Bible history", I am certain you have read and understood the article dealing with this subject, including historiography, at: "Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books", pages 418-425, Arnold and Williamson.

    Scholar, I really don't understand how the term "Absolute Date" can be used rhetorically.

    Doug

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit