20571pnt428571
Since you bothered to offer support for the 607 BCE dating for the fall of Jerusalem, allow me to give a summary overview of Jonsson vs. WTS. It is easy to get bogged down in the details.
1. The "70 weeks" prophecy issue: Even Carl Jonsson has admitted that Cyrus should have fulfilled by Cyrus if you go by strict Biblical interpretation (sorry, couldn't find my copy for the direct quote). He notes, of course, that the Bible does note that Cyrus was supposed to rebuild both the temple and the city. This is especially critical since you connect Cyrus with the messiah. Isaiah 44:28
" 28 the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’”
This is a critical reference because this is where the WTS and Jonsson agree but contradict the Bible. That is, that Cyrus did not fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. Thus, typical Freemasonry propaganda routine, one way to distract from the truth is to invent two opposing false ideas as if one or the other has to be correct, while ignoring any other conclusions. But having said that, if Cyrus were to fulfill rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple in connection with the prophecy about the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" then you'd have to conclude as Martin Anstey does in his Romance of Bible Chronology (1913), that the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to c. 455 BCE to begin this prophecy. So one of the first things to consider here, is that the debate between the WTS and Jonsson, which centers on the fall of Jerusalem in either 607 BCE or 587 BCE, is that it is not the only two arguments out there. As noted, both ignore the chronology where Cyrus would fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy thus dating his 1st year in 455 BCE. So this is where I leave the discussion. Once you ignore the Bible's strict chronology here and have Cyrus fulfill this prophecy and you go with secular sources then it really doesn't matter any details about the events pros and cons--it will all be wrong.
Now, it is up to you to decide what you believe, but know that some, like myself, agree with Anstey, that in order for the Bible to be true, the 1st of Cyrus must fall in 455 BCE. So this would be the first criticism of the WTS as a false prophet because they side with secular sources to date the 1st of Cyrus rather than the Bible. That is, they use 539 BCE as a "pivital date" for determining the Neo-Babylonian timeline. They thus get 537 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus, which Jonsson agrees with; except they then add 70 years to 537 BCE to get 607 BCE. Thus they do use the bible to establish a 70-year interval ending in the 1st of Cyrus, whereas Jonsson dismisses the Biblical references relating to the 70 years ending the 1st of Cyhrus in connection with the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, Josephus agrees with the WTS that the 70 years of "exile" end in the 1st of Cyrus, but he begins the 70 years exile when the people are "removed off their land" (Ant. 11.1.1), meaning beginning with the last deportation. Thus the literal 70 years spent for/at Babylon were specifically of the last deportees. Earlier deportees, such as Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, Ezekiel in year 7, Jehoiachin in year 8, and some in years 17 and 19, all spent more than 70 years in exile. Thus the specific 70 years is specific to the last deportation which coincides with the "desolation" of the land to pay back its sabbaths.
So for some, the debate between the WTS and Josson is a coordinated front, typical of Freemasons, that use two false teachings as contradicatory debate points from which onlookers must decide between when other concepts or beliefs that better fit the Bible is ignored. So as I said, some strict Biblicists get off at this point. The debate should begin here. Whether Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE or 537 BCE? In this case, both Jonsson and the WTS agree. But both are wrong.
From this point on, Jonsson simply sides with and amazing documents the secular data in place for dating the NB Period. The WTS, after accepting the secular date for the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, then tries to use Scripture to come up with it's own dates for the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE or even the 20th of Artaxerxes in 455 BCE, both contradicting the current secular data in place.
So again, if you want to truly follow the Bible and you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then you require a different debate reference from Jonsson and the WTS. That's why Jonsson's book is just secular propaganda when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and why JWs would be considered as misinterpreting the "70 weeks" prophecy, a completely different discussion from the outset.
2. The VAT4956. This at one point was a key text for establishing the specific dating for the NB Period, dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568 BCE. However, since the text is admittedly a "copy" from the Seleucid Period, we automatically know it is fraudulent document representing revised dating. In tha case, the WTS backs of from making that direct claim of "fraud" but notes that by this time the "history" from the earlier period might have been distroted and that the VAT4956 thus cannot be used as a true reference of what the NB original timeline was. In this point they are absolutely correct. A post-dated "copy" 200 years after the fact cannot be considered to be reliable, let alone preemptive of what the Bible's chronology presents. So in the case of the VAT4956, the WTS wins that argument. Had the VAT4956 been a contemporary text and not a post-dated "copy" then the discussion would be different.
These are two major holes in the chronology discussion of WTS vs Jonsson vs the Bible, so detail discussions of propaganda on either side isn't really Biblically relevant.
3. Josephus' 70 years. Finally, one last nail in the coffin is the traditional view and interpretation of the 70 years of desolation/exile as provided by Josephus which the WTS and Jonsson both differ from. Here's that reference, at Antiquities 11.1.1.
ANT 11.1.1
1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."
This is a paraphase of 2 Chronicles 36 wherein Josephus interprets the 70 years of "exile" being fulfilled by the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. In this case, Jonsson exploits the ambiguity in the Biblical reference regarding the 70 years relating to Babylon while ignoring this secular historical reference that clearly identifies both the 70 years and their fulfillment of Jeremiah. So Jonsson is dismissed as incompetent to biased at this point for not addressing this. As noted above, the WTS is criticized for not following Josephus specifically. That is, they quote Josephus in regards to this interpretation of a literal 70 years of desolation ending in the 1st of Cyrus, but they do not follow Josephus in beginning that period with the last deportation, year 23. Instead, to keep 1914 working, they begin those 70 years the year Jerusalem falls which they date to year 18.
As a result, you have two Freemasonry based groups aggressively discussing two false, non-Biblcal teachings, fostering the idea for onlookers that one or the other is true and you must choose, when in fact, neither is correct, Biblically or historically.
455 BCE 1st of CYRUS OVERVIEW: Basically, in a nutshell, once you seriously consider dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, you are confronted with an 82-year discrepancy during the Perisan Period, which is what Martin Anstey points out in his "Romance of Bible Chronology." He didn't have the resources we now have to explore the weaknesses of the Persian Period, but a critical study will immediately reveal how to eliminate these extra 82 years. The years were added to accommodate the Persian propaganda that Xerxes had died and his "son", Artaxerxes had now taken over. But, in fact, Xerxes faked his death and used his second throne name, Artaxerxes, to claim he was his own son. This was cold wartime propganda out of Persia to manipulate Greek politics. Over time, the records in Persia, Babylon and Egypt were revised to reflect a longer Persian Period needed for the extra rule of Xerxes and for Darius I to die a generation later so he could be the grandfather to Xerxes vs his father. So the secular and Biblical research is in place now to remove these extra 82 years, something neither Jonsson nor the WTS really want to get into. But there's no choice--the correct fulfillment of the "70 weeks" prophecy requires it, and neither will dismiss the idea that Cyrus should have fulfilled this prophecy.
So ultimately, focussing on Jonsson vs Furuli or Jonsson versus the WTS isn't relevant to strict Biblical chronology and is just a distraction. In the meantime, Martin Anstey and Josephus are more in line with the Bible's strict chronology and timeline which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and the 70 years beginning with the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Now, Jonsson, I don't believe, is concerned about the "7 times" prophecy which dates the 2nd coming, cirtical to why JWs want to date 607 BCE to the fall of Jersusalem. In fact, Jonsson dismisses the "day for a year" theory as applied to the "7 times" which completely ruins his credibility as an unbiased researcher. At any rate, the "7 times" prophecy in the context of dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE gives you the 2nd coming in either 1914 or 1992. 1992 is significant because of the "1335 days"prophecy that dates the second coming 45 years after the "end" of the 1290 days, that is, the end of the gentile times which ended in 1947 and thus dates the second coming in 1992. I'm not promoting that doctrine only showing you how the 455 BCE chronology links to that.
That is, if 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, then 70 years earlier falls in 525 BCE, dating the 23rd of Nebucadnezzar. That means the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 would fall in 529 BCE. Applying the "7 times" prophecy of 2520 years to the 2nd coming gives you 1992 rather than 1914 based on 607 BCE. But, of course, when you end Jewish exile and thus the 1290 days in 1947, you also get 1992 as the year of the second coming to fulfill the 1335 days.
So 1947, 1992, 29 CE, 455 BCE, etc. are all coordinated for the serious Bible student.
Thus, at the end of the day, Jonsson and the WTS fulfill the same Satanic design, which is distracting from Biblical truth and so the details of their discussion are irrelevant to anything truly Biblical.
The mistake Jonsson makes is trusting secular chronology over that of the Bible. The mistake the WTS makes is playing both sides of the fence, using one date from secular history and then distorted Biblical references to establish all other dates; they should have dismissed ALL the secular dates for this period and started from scratch using strict Biblical chronology.
In the meantime, the nature of Jonsson's writing is similar to that of the WTS, suggesting they are both Freemasonry literate. Thus both Jonsson and the WTS are jokes as far as Biblical history goes, and both dishonest and with their own agenda.
So don't be deceived. Just because two groups are in a heated debate doesn't mean either one of them are correct, and in the context of Freemasonry, it's possible the debate is just a planned distraction from any meaningful Biblical history or interpretation.
Even so, "Gentile Times Reconsidered" is a critical and necessary book for any Bible chronology library. It has a lot of valuable general information that you can't find anywhere else.
LS
