The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade 382 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • zoiks
    zoiks

    ...and here's a link to Farkel's thread that only uses WTS literature and a scripture or two to demonstrate the 586/7 date:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/74549/1/587-BC-for-Total-Dunderheads

    This subject has been considered over and over and over again. Alice/Spade, I would encourage you to use the search function on this forum before starting a new thread on this subject, but it's good for any newbies or lurkers to see that the WTS' position has been shown to be wrong many, many times over.

    Have a nice day.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    Jehovah's Witnesses base theirs on a Biblically-foretold seventy-year period of servitude to Babylon for Judah.

    Which wasn't "Biblically-foretold" at all. The 70 year prophecy is not about Judah or destruction of the temple or Jerusalem. It is about Babylon and its domination of the region. The words mean what they say, not what some publishing cult tries to say they mean. That's the end of the story. Also, there is no modern day fulfillment expressed or implied.

  • wobble
    wobble

    So, are you telling me this whole thread is a waste of time M.S ?

    Good, coz I saw the name Spade and came straight to your comment, kinda thought it would save me time.

    When will JW's and some ex-Jw's get it ? 2500 years is NOT IN THE BIBLE !!!!!!

    587 is established, it doesn't matter though, 2500 years is NITB !!!!!!

    There is no later fulfillment of a prophecy about the King of Babylon.

    Leave it, move along please, nothing to see here.

  • miseryloveselders
    miseryloveselders

    Quick question if anyone knows. Whatever happened to Carl Jonnson? He still alive?

  • TD
    TD
    He'll probably mention something in the Insight on the Scriptures book where Herodotus conflicts with Bible chronology.

    Not at all.

    I was curious if you had cut and pasted your material or if you had spent a few months and done some real research. Obviously it would be futile to discuss the subject with someone who's not done the research.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    I noticed this post by Spade, and didn't see a response. Although I tend to agree with everyone else that this topic has been beaten to death, and it is absolutely baffling how the WTB&TS can continue to assert the 607 date with any sort of seriousness. Nevertheless, Spade happened to pull out the Rolf Furili card. Spade, are you aware that COJ has indeed responded to Rolf's work? I want to point any new JW lurkers to the appropriate material to fully refute Rolf.

    Carl O. Jonsson claims one line of evidence is business records.

    He does so rightly.

    http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm Rolf Furuli - Chronology and Babylonian Exile The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539, and the Persian Empire ended in 331 B.C.E., after the five-year reign of Darius III. For the first time, this chronology has been challenged in a scholarly study. The tablets to which P&D refer have been studied afresh, and for the first time an attempt has been made to make a synthesis of all the tablets that contradict the traditional chronology and give a new interpretation to some of the old material. The book is based on a study of the data from several thousand cuneiform tablets, including dated contracts and other business documents, and astronomical tablets giving the positions of the heavenly bodies in relation the each other and to the Zodiac in particular years. A careful analysis of relevant texts in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Elephantine Papyri) has been performed as well, and 400 modern sources have been used. Some sources have been challenged, but no one has challenged the dated contracts and other business documents exhibited by Rolf Furuli.

    When Rolf Furuili published his work, COJ had a response in short order. This is COJ's site link: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/epage.htm

    Feel free to read the plethora of reviews of Rolf Furuli's work, including his work on the dated contracts/business documents.

    Rolf suggests that he's found 90 "anomoulous tablets" - that is, 90 tablets that do not fit into the accepted chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era. Here is a snip from COJ's review: As mentioned earlier, Rolf Furuli has repeatedly claimed, both in this book (pp. 65, 86) and elsewhere, that there are about 90 “anomalous tablets” that contradict the traditional Neo-Babylonian chronology and therefore requires an extension of this chronology. On page 86 he states that these 90 tablets are “mentioned in chapter 3.” About a dozen of such claimed anomalous tablets have already been discussed above, nine of which were presented in Furuli’s Table 3.3 on page 59. Fresh collations by competent scholars showed that most of them did not have any “anomalous dates” at all. The longest table with such claimed “anomalous dates” however, is Table 3.4 on pages 60-62. It starts in the first two columns with 17 tablets, continuously dated in each of the months II, III, IV and V of the 2nd and last year of Evil-Merodach, the last of the tablets being dated to V/17/02 (month 5, day 17, year 2). These dates are then followed in the next two columns by 37 tablets, continuously dated in each of the months V, VI, VII, VIII and IX of the accession year of Neriglissar, the first tablet being dated to V/21/acc. or just four days after the last tablet from the reign of Evil-Merodach. This strongly indicates that the transition from Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar took place in the latter part of month V of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd year. However, Furuli also lists nine other tablets that do not seem to fit into this pattern. The first two are dated in the first and early second months of Neriglissar’s accession year, i.e., before the 17 tablets dated to months II-V of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd and last year, seemingly creating an overlap of about four months between the two reigns. Normally, the two early dates would be viewed as anomalous. But Furuli evidently presupposes that the two dates are correct and counts the 17 following tablets as anomalous!

    That would be like asking: "What number in the following list is out of order - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8?" Normally, someone would say the "9" is out of order, but using Rolf's logic, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 are out of order... Its a sneaky trick to claim that he's found more anomalous tablets than he really has. COJ goes through the rest of the tablets one at a time and shows how translation errors, scribal errors, or logic errors cause Rolf to arrive at incorrect conclusions. The 20 missing years can't be found in the business documents.

    A person can go round and round analyzing archeology for details that conflict with 607 B.C.E. for the date of Jerusalem's destruction but enough evidence has been presented to solidify the timetables. It's also beneficial to step back and look at the big picture to understand where we are in the stream of time.

    There is no such evidence for 607 BC as the date for the fall of Jerusalem. Period. None. Not from history, and not even from the Bible.

    MeanMrMustard

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @miseryloveselders:

    Quick question if anyone knows. Whatever happened to Carl Jonnson? He still alive?

    He is. Although I don't know what he is up to, the last correspondence I got from him was after the new Jeremiah book came out (so fairly recently) - which, BTW admits 70 years of servitude for "nations" (plural). The writers must actually read Jeremiah lol... but they must not have realized they were helping COJ's argument.

    MeanMrMustard

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Overview of the Controversy

    http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html#C

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses' task of proving that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. and not 587/6 B.C.E. is no easy feat in light of strong archeological, historical and scriptural evidence to the contrary. Notwithstanding this uphill battle, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone to elaborate lengths to rationalize their position, regrettably causing a dizzying smoke-screen of complexity when the answers and issues, as will be detailed below, are relatively simple and straightforward as the Almighty intended them to be - in order to reach as many people as possible.

    At the heart of the controversy is a seventy-year prophetic period of time. The Jehovah’s Witnesses simply count backward seventy years from the fall of 537 B.C.E., the year Jews returned to Judah after being exiled to Babylon, to arrive at 607 B.C.E. Therefore, they reason, Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

    The problem is that they have completely misinterpreted and misapplied the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 and accompanying verses because they desperately need 607 B.C.E. in order to arrive at 1914. An abbreviated form of this seventy-year prophecy, unfortunately taken out of context, and reproduced in the article Setting the Record Straight - a fierce and very comprehensive defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses' pro-607 stance - provides:

    The word that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . 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. —Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11.

    According to Setting the Record Straight this prophecy has two parts equal in length, both parts beginning and ending at exactly the same time:

    A) The land of Judah, and Jerusalem, would be devastated and remain so without a single inhabitant exactly seventy years commencing with Jerusalem’s destruction and not before, and this period of devastation ended seventy years later only when the exiled Jews physically returned to their homeland Judah from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. The opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and the period of complete devastation lasted only 48 - 50 years.

    B) All exiled Jews that fell within the scope of the prophecy were removed at Jerusalem’s destruction, and not before, and remained as exiles serving Babylon a full seventy years until their actual return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. Again, the opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and those exiles removed at that time to Babylon served only 48 - 50 years in captivity.

    It should be pointed out that should either prong of this composite two-prong approach fail, the entire prophecy, or their version of it, fails.

    As such, we are essentially dealing with two primary areas of interest related to a) when Judah’s devastation began and ended, and the extent of that devastation, and b) when servitude to the king of Babylon began and ended, what servitude meant, and to whom it applied. Saving the Record Straight frames the Jehovah’s Witnesses' position as follows:

    While some critics argue that Jeremiah 25:11 only refers to seventy years of servitude, Daniel 9:2 confirms that the prophecy also entailed seventy years of devastation for the land of Judah. Second Chronicles 36:20, 21 further shows that it was the composite effect of exiling the remaining ones who “came to be servants to [Nebuchadnezzar]” and the resulting devastation and desolation of the land of Judah that began to fulfill the prophecy concerning the seventy years.

    The Watchtower Society in its publication Let Your Kingdom Come and elsewhere confirms that the seventy-year period ended only upon the Jews’ return to Judah, and not before.

    The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (Chronicles 36:17 - 23)

    The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem's destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus' decree," - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 463.

    This paper begins with an analysis of the underlying issues presented by the phrase a) “and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (servitude), followed by a discussion of issues pertaining to the phrase b) "all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment” (devastation).

    http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/607_bce_586_587_destruction_fall_desolation_jerusalem.html

  • miseryloveselders
    miseryloveselders

    Thanks Mr.Mustard!! Glad he's alive and kicking. Gentile Times Reconsidered is a heluva book.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @miseryloveselders:

    It is! And its peer reviewed! A review of it was in an archeological journal about a year ago (I think...). It is a very good book.

    Thanks,

    MeanMrMustard

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit