If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12

by kepler 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • kepler
    kepler

    About a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what I had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, I received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.

    "This question was on my Theocratic Ministry School Review that will be covered tonight:"

    How does 2 Chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at Jeremiah 25: 8-11?

    ***

    w0611/15p.32DidJudahRemainDesolate?

    ***

    Did

    JudahRemain

    Desolate?

    THE Bible foretold that the land of the kingdom of Judah would be devastated by the Babylonians and would remain desolate until the return of the Jewish exiles. (Jeremiah 25:8-11) The strongest reason to believe that this prophecy came true is the inspired historical account recorded some 75 years after the first group of exiles returned to their homeland. It states that the king of Babylon “carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign.” And regarding the land, it is reported: “All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath.” (2 Chronicles 36:20, 21) Is there any archaeological evidence to support this?

    In the journal BiblicalArchaeologyReview, Ephraim Stern, professor of Palestinian archaeology at Hebrew University, points out: “The Assyrians and Babylonians both ravaged large parts of ancient Israel, yet the archaeological evidence from the aftermath of their respective conquests tells two very different stories.” He explains: “While the Assyrians left a clear imprint of their presence in Palestine, there is a strange gap after the Babylonian destruction. . . . We find no evidence of occupation until the Persian period . . . There is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.”

    ---------------------------

    Citing Ephraim Stern as a reference for 607 BC and 70-year desolation has been discussed before. As far as I can tell, reading his article in the Biblical Archeology Review, its introduction and critique - all parties agreed that Jerusalem had been leveled 20 years later. Only this ministry school excerpt never tells anyone that - and I have never convinced my correspondent to even look it up.

    But let's go to the crucial matter. A number of people have suggested that concentrating on the date of the Temple's destruction is a side issue. It's dealing with the assertions of prophets.

    What does the next line of Jeremiah chapter 25 say?

    In the NWT:

    "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," their error even against the land of the Chaldeans and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." In clearer KJV English: Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, and I will make it a perpetual desolation." ---------------------------------- It never happened. It's not even known whether Nabonidus died in battle outside the city or was appointed a regional governor by Cyrus. The city changed hands with little bloodshed and continued as a principal city and capital of the Persian empire for CENTURIES. Alexander made it his capital in the 4th century and died there. Specifically, Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BCE. The fact is that Jeremiah 25:12 is a FAILED prophecy. And since it is false, why should anyone assume that Jer 25:9-11 overrules existing historical evidence? Jer 25:8-11 does in deed conflict with historical evidence. And the compilers of such documents as the ministry school lesson notes - they know it. Just like they know that Ephraim Stern in no way support their dates or 70-year suppositions.

    In fact, it was even clear to the Jewish community of the 5th and 4th centuries BC that Babylon had not been punished because much of it still remained in Babylon and other Persian ruled cities. Persian rule was the best thing that ever happened to Judea, providing it with centuries of security the Jewish community never had before or after. In the light of history, the four verses look to be propaganda rather than prophecy. Similar destruction notices appear in Isaiah in chapters 13 and 14, but as I said before, 14:22-23 gives that one away too. "I will rise against them, declares Yahweh Sabaoth, and deprive Babylon of name, remnant, offspring and posterity", declares Yahweh. "I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp." And that is in fact what Assyrian King Sennacherib did 100 years before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Sennacherib just as thoroughly destroyed Babylon, flooding it and driving its population off into slavery. Nothing like it happens again. But both the editors of Isaiah and the Watchtower Society (e.g., "What the Bible Really Teaches", distributed for home instruction to people like me) would have you believe that Cyrus was dispatched the city in the same way. It was also Sennacherib that condemned Babylon to 70-years desolation, but his son and successor Esarhaddon gave it a reprieve after 11 years. My conclusion from this is that the 70-year desolation position of the society is not unassailable. Should I say this is an obvious weakness? It took me long enough to notice it. But it is a gaping hole in an argument that is based on, "A prophet prophesies it, and that settles it." When that argument is offered, it helps to read the previous or next verse.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    It's certainly true that Babylon did not experience any 'complete' destruction at the end of the 70 years.

    But you don't have to get that far into verse 12 to disprove the JW interpretation anyway. The first part of the verse--"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"--clearly states that the seventy years ended with the 'calling to account' of Babylon's king, and not another 2 years after that. As already stated, Babylon wasn't destroyed at that time, but it was the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon's dominance in the region. Verse 11 is quite clear that the '70 years' referred to a period during which nations served Babylon, and that is what ended in 539BCE. (The Bible never mentions '70 years of exile', which is a later fabrication.) There is nothing 'prophetic' about this. It's just the Judean presentation of history, with a dash of theological spin.

    It is not at all unlikely that the claim about the region becoming 'desolate to time indefinite' is simply propagandising. However, the term translated, "time indefinite" (Strong's 5769) doesn't mean exactly the same as 'forever' (Strong's 5703) anyway. In any case, whilst the main city of Babylon is unpopulated (largely for reasons relating to heritage preservation rather than some 'curse'), Babylon Province is still inhabited.

    The Watch Tower Society's selective quoting of Stern is particularly dishonest, because Stern specifically states, “I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period.” Further, Stern explicitly states that “the northern part of Judah (the region of Benjamin)” was “spared this fate.”

  • kepler
    kepler

    RE:

    It is not at all unlikely that the claim about the region becoming 'desolate to time indefinite' is simply propagandising. However, the term translated, "time indefinite" (Strong's 5769) doesn't mean exactly the same as 'forever' (Strong's 5703) anyway. In any case, whilst the main city of Babylon is unpopulated (largely for reasons relating to heritage preservation rather than some 'curse'), Babylon Province is still inhabited.

    --

    Jeffro,

    "Time indefinite" does not mean the same as "forever", but the punishment was immediate and compares closely to similar language in Isaiah. Was it Strong 5769 or 5703 in Isaiah. I'll make a mental note to look it up. When will I get back with it? Time indefinite or never? I think I used it in context. When was the last time you used "time indefinite" in a sentence other than quoting NWT? Now is that what the thought that text was to convey? That the Lord was wiping the city clear until he noticed someone was inhabiting it again? Or that he was wiping it off the map in the same manner as in Isaiah?

    Babylon the city was not "unpopulated" by Cyrus. Nor by any of the successive Persian kings. Is it that I am not getting through to anyone about this? No one lives there now, true. But it remained a principal city of the region we call Iraq even after Alexander. The trade routes and the meandering of the rivers eventually killed it. It withered more like Detroit or Timbuktu. Not by some Sodom and Gomorrah retribution.

    What I am saying is that all the claims of Babylon's destruction - It's a HOAX inherent in the scriptural text. These claims are so inaccurate that I had read in one guide to reading the Hebrew scripture the commentary of the translator wondering why Isaiah had made it into the canon in the first place since he was so off-base in his prophecies. The best explanation I can find for myself, is that First Isaiah was amended from a description of Sennacherib trashing Babylon in the 680s to Babylon getting its due in the 6th century before the Judeans exited. It didn't happen.

    If Babylon were destroyed as described, the Watchtower would be quoting Jer 25:12 as well as Jer 25:9-11.

    Where is Diamondiz amid all this? Diamondiz - and I believe others - brought up the issue that focusing on the year of Jerusalem's destruction was missing the target, that it's the matter of 70 years.

    All right. So let's examine some of the cited verses. They're in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Ezekiel makes the same claims about 70 year desolation and then assumes Nebuchadnazzar's siege of Tyre is a sure thing. It wasn't. It was a draw. Is he a prophet from Judea or a mouthpiece for power in Babylon? We've just discussed Jeremiah and the connection is even closer. From one verse to another.

    To me the declarations of death and destruction in the 7th and 6th century BC look very similar to the ones we are talking about today: a definite agenda in behalf of theocrats. The ones from Ezekiel and Jeremiah are derivative of Assyrian cultural conventions and they've been passed on to the Millerite and fundamentalist of our era like an assembly manual with little bother with the minor detail of whether Babylon was eradicated or not.

    It simply came under new management.

    For some odd reason when Seleucid Greeks were having a field day desecrating the Temple in the 2nd century BC, prophets had little or nothing to say about Antiochus acting as an agent of God acting to punish Judea or invoking 70-year desolations. The literary form had changed. Their approach to their contemporary problems had now morphed into Daniel and the Maccabees.

    A lot of the feedback I get on these issues is that it is necessary to study more closely the history of Dispensationalism and the nuances of desolation declarations. That somehow, even though the Watchtower Society has a death grip on this doctrine, it's all a matter of just not getting some of the details right. I'd say that there has been enough and that we are already wading around in a pervasive pathology. Coming in from the outside, having hardly looked at Biblical text prior, I feel like a bank examiner faced with the books of a bank in default - and it is sinking a number of institutions along with it.

    My own prophecy (and I don't have to back-write this from 100 years later): I see my ex now and then her grand-daughter, and her grand-daughter's daughter someday going door to door buoyed by explanations like the one I attached above, telling people about these supposed glad tidings. And everyone they can possibly recruit, all experiencing the many inducements described on this forum. Til time indefinite.

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    It was this verse, which I saw in context, for the first time on this site that really woke me up.

    I showed it to an elder and he was devastated. He has never said much since but it really rattled him.

    George

  • kepler
    kepler

    St. George of England,

    Good to hear from you. Was wondering if I'd gone off on another untenable tangent? Hope not.

    Given that we are talking about the same verses in context,

    it would make no sense to me to keep this under wraps.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    "Time indefinite" does not mean the same as "forever", but the punishment was immediate and compares closely to similar language in Isaiah. Was it Strong 5769 or 5703 in Isaiah. I'll make a mental note to look it up. When will I get back with it? Time indefinite or never? I think I used it in context. When was the last time you used "time indefinite" in a sentence other than quoting NWT? Now is that what the thought that text was to convey? That the Lord was wiping the city clear until he noticed someone was inhabiting it again? Or that he was wiping it off the map in the same manner as in Isaiah?

    The short answer is, I don't care.

    The long answer is, to the extent that the verse can be interpreted as valid, it is fully consistent with the known archaeological evidence, and not compatible with the JW interpretation. If the verse is correct, JWs are wrong. If the verse is incorrect, JWs are wrong.

  • kepler
    kepler

    Jeffro,

    Of course, you are not obliged to care. But you statement of the case is backward. The verse is wrong and JWs sidestep it, claiming that the previous 3 support a dogma with shaky historical evidence at best. In essence, it is ALL wrong and in plain language the vehicle for a hoax.

    The text from the ministry school above is a snow job, saying that because Jeremiah said it, it had to occur. Usual reaction of community that gives a hoot about what Jeremiah says: We are not sure what he is talking about in 25:8-11, but here is our opinion of the best fit. JWs say: No, it's a proclamation from God that lays out the next 2500 years or more - much more - ...Now let us explain. You take heed and obey...

    Then the next line 25:12 is just wishful thinking. Jeremiah has put his foot in his mouth. None of it happened. If it had, the WatchTower would be revelling in that too and would have included it in the ministry school lesson and everywhere else. Your line of argument is akin to saying that there were never any gladiator contests in the Roman Colosseum because there sure aren't any now.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    The verse is wrong and JWs sidestep it, claiming that the previous 3 support a dogma with shaky historical evidence at best. In essence, it is ALL wrong and in plain language the vehicle for a hoax.

    You seem to be saying this as if it is news. There is nothing remarkable in the fact that not everything touted as 'prophecy' actually happened.

    However, within the context of showing JWs that the Bible doesn't support the JW view, there is little point in starting from the historical angle, particularly when they ignore historical sources anyway.

    It is 'plausible' (in JW-land) that some eventual 'fulfilment' might affect a particular area, but it doesn't change the elements of what did happen in regard to the Neo-Babylonian empire at the time. Those elements that did happen are not consistent with JW dogma.

  • mP
    mP

    Given all the day for a year computations, how do we know Jeremiah's 70 years wasnt 70 years of a day for a year, or 70 years where a year is a day ?

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    Thinking back to my dub days, we used to point to the modern desolation of the Babylon site as evidence that God's word against her did come true. It just was a long time coming, though, was it not??

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit