Well Ethos you could have used that last post of yours to answer mine and SD-7's question couldn't you? It's not off topic and I think it's very relevant.
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Pterist
Good summery .....
Era:
Babylon and PersiaDates:
3616 - 3894 AM [Chart]
608 - 330 BC [Chart]
[Table][Index]Maps:
Assyrian Empire
Babylonian Empire
ProphetsBiblical References:
2 Chronicles 36
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Jeremiah
Ezekial
Daniel
Haggai
ZechariahComments:
This era sees the end of Judah as an independent nation. Prior to the Babylonian era, the dominant force in the surrounding region was the Assyrians. Their empire extended from the Persian gulf to the Mediterranean east coast, and totally surrounded the kingdom of Judah. During this period, Judah was a tributary to Assyria.The Assyrian empire lost strength towards the end of the 7th century BC, and under the reign of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father) Babylon extended its power. During this time, Nebuchadnezzar served as a general in his father's army.
In 608 BC Josiah, king of Judah, fought in battle against Pharaoh Neco of Egypt, who was assisting the Assyrians. They met at Megiddo, and Josiah was killed. His body was brought back to Jerusalem and buried.
The people of Judah made Jehoahaz (Josiah's son) king of Judah. However, three months later Neco came and carried him off in chains. He then made Jehoiakim (also Josiah's son) king in his place, and imposed a heavy tax on Judah.
Three years later, in 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar (known to the Babylonians as Nebuchadrezzar II) invaded Judah. He took some captives from Jerusalem (including Daniel) and Jehoiakim changed his allegiance from Egypt to Babylon.
Jehoiakim paid his tribute for three years, but then he rebelled and stopped paying. Some 6 years later, in 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar came and laid siege to Jerusalem and conquered it. He again took captives with him back to Babylon - this was the second incident where captives were taken. Depending which narrative your read - Kings or Chronicles - Jehoiakim either died in Jerusalem or was taken to Babylon.
Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, succeeded him as king, but he only lasted 3 months before Nebuchadnezzar had him brought to Babylon, along with some articles from the temple. Zedekiah (brother to Jehoiakim, and son of Josiah) was appointed king by Nebuchadnezzar.
According to the biblical narrative, Zedekiah also rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. As a result, Nebuchadnezzar came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. At the end of the three years, in 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, sacked it and razed it to the ground - including the temple. Most of the inhabitants were taken into captivity in Babylon - only the poorest remained.
Babylon was conquered by Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II) in 539 BC, after 70 years of Imperial rule. In 538 he issued a decree allowing all inhabitants of Judah in exile in Babylon to return to Judah. Some of the exiles returned at this time. Other exiles (or rather, their descendants) returned as a result of various decrees as recorded in the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah. A number of these decrees were issued during the reign of Artaxerxes I, at which time Ezra and Nehemiah themselves returned to Judah.
The Persian Empire came to an end in 330 BC when Darius III was defeated by Alexander the Great (Alexander III).
-
Ethos
First I'd like to address Jeffro's argument about 538 BCE. In short he claims the Jews returned in 538 BCE instead of the Watchtower's chronological date of 537 B.C.E. Here are his arguments quoted (which are really just a rehash of Carl Jonnson and AlanF yet again):
Strawman argument. No one says the Jews left Babylon in 539BCE. Many of the Jews didn't leave Babylon at all. Those who left following Cyrus' decree returned in 538BCE, not 537. Comparison of Ezra 3:1,8 with Josephus' Against Apion confirms that the Jews were in their cities by Tishri (October) of 538BCE and that temple construction began in Iyyar (May) of Cyrus' second year. Ethos has already confirmed for us that Cyrus' first regnal year began in 538. October of Cyrus' first regnal year is still 538. Even if the comparison of Josephus with Ezra could not be used for confirming the correct year, there would still be no reason for dogmatically asserting that Cyrus' decree 'must' have been at the end of his first regnal year, or that the Jews 'must' have returned in 537.
Ethos continues his strawman argument. However, Cyrus' first regnal year began in Nisan (April) 538BCE, giving ample time for the Jews to return to Jerusalem by October of the same year. (JW apologists argue this isn't enough time, despite the fact that a) Ezra 7:9 says the journey takes 4 months and b) in their chronology, the Jews take about the same amount of time to return but in a different year)
The entire thrush of Jeffro's argument for a 538 BCE-return is based on an appeal to authority fallacy. He endeavors to synthesize the chronology of Ezra 3 with that of Against Apion. He unwittingly references Josephus (really his only leg to stand on) as a reliable dictum on the matter when in fact the very authority he appeals to can be used to invalidate his 538 and his 609 chronology. Indeed, here's that contextomy fallacy rearing it's ugly head yet again. In Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19 §132 Josephus states: " [The Babylonians] set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia." He selectively quotes Josephus regarding the restoration of the temple when and only when it fits with his chronology. This makes his premises faulty, lacking serious stanchion, and his conclusion regarding 538 BC purely speculative just as he deems the Watchtower's conclusion of 537 BCE 'speculative' and 'dogmatic assertion'. How can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when the very authority you fallaciously reference can be used to dismantle your own premises and thereby your 538 BCE conclusion?
The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.
He continues to asseverate this inherently casuistical statement as if it were indeed fact. If we disregard the Biblical arguments for just a moment, there are secular historians (who have no doctrinaire bias for proving 607) that corroborate that the 70-year servitude applied to Jewish exile. Take a look at the following statements by Josephus in his book "Antiquities of the Jews" (the very author Jeffro previously fallaciously appealed to):
Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: " But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "
Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: " All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "
Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: " 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."
Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.
Hippolytus of Rome said: "When the whole people, then, was transported, and the city made desolate, and the sanctuary destroyed, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which He spake by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, " The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years. "—On Daniel, Chapter I.
As you see there is sufficient secular evidence and thus the claim that 'there is no basis to connect the servitude with the Jewish exile' is inherently false as many historians who have absolutely no preconceived bias towards 587 or any particular date show this. I thus echo the earlier sentiments of Londo when he said: " At what point does the secular evidence stack up so firmly that one has to admit that one’s Interpretation has been at fault?" 609 peddlers have tried to make it seem as if there is no basis for attributing the 70 years to exile when in fact numerous historians did so. Alas, this is not the last of Jeffro's ludicrosy, as I will continue to show.
-
Witness My Fury
...as we will continue to show.
Who is the we here? Dont you mean just you as in, 'I will continue to show'?
Why do you repeatedly waste a precious post just to complain about the lack of posts available to you, yet that is somehow an excuse for not answering the questions you so obviously choose to ignore? We know why, ...but maybe you dont.
It seems you are here to preach rather than discuss. If you feel you have something that has been overlooked or misunderstood just say so, there's no need to get all high and mighty over it and try to impress others by your imagined knowledge.
The way you get treated here is often a reflection of the manner of your delivery. Poor delivery = poor reception and you can expect to be taken to task over it.
-
Ethos
SD-7 said: "There's an interesting example of where 607 becomes a problem. Jeremiah 29:1 shows that the statement about 70 years at/for/whatever Babylon was addressed to Jews already in exile in Babylon, exiled a full 10 or 11 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. By Watchtower chronology, the prophecy would've had to be given in the year, what, 617/618 BC? To tell the exiles to wait 10 years for their exile to begin? That I find confusing.
Either way, I think the question is, why does matter what year Jerusalem was destroyed? What exactly does it prove? That a prophecy about 70 years of servitude is correct, or that the 7 Gentile Times prophecy is correct, or both, or none? There's no reason to debate 607 if this is just about a 70 year prophecy that would in our time just be a historical curiosity or maybe even spiritually uplifting at best.
By debating this issue, you're inviting the inevitable question of whether the motive is to prove 607, or simply to prove 1914." (END OF QUOTE)
This is the same argument also put forth previously by Jeffro and those who maintain 609. However, this argument also lacks stanchion when we assay the historical and situational context of Jeremiah 29. It is allocated directly after the false prophecy of Hannaniah recorded in Jeremiah 28 which occurred early in Zedekiah's reign, his fourth year (V.1). He prophesies that the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar will be broken and that the exiled Jews will return in just two more years.’” (V. 3-4) Jeremiah mentions that Hannaniah prophesied this in the "house of Jehovah" and "before the eyes of all the people" (cf. 28:1); he says "in the ears of all the people" (cf. 28:7); again he says "before the eyes of all the people" (cf. 28:11). Undoubtedly such a prophecy of restoration would indubitably spread like wildfire and the word would get back to the Jews in exile fairly quickly. Now taking this context into account Jehovah sends Jeremiah to the exiled people with a message of restoration but the rumored restoration of just two years is dispelled when Jehovah tells them that only at the conclusion of the seventy years would the Jews be restored to their homeland (cf. 29:10) This is indeed a prophecy of clarification, reiteration, and is served to dispel recent prophetic speculation regarding the return of the exiled Jews. This makes even more sense when we look at the words that precede verse 10: "For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Let not YOUR prophets who are in among YOU and YOUR practicers of divination deceive YOU, and do not YOU listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. For ‘it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to YOU in my name. I have not sent them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.”’”
It is in this context that the scripture reads: "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place." A literal word-for-word translation reads: For thus (koh) says ('amar) Yahweh (Yehovah) when (kiy) seventy (shib`iym) years (shaneh) have been (male') for/at Babylon (Babel) I will visit (paqad) you and fulfill (quwm) my good (towb) word (dabar) to you to bring (shuwb shuwb) to this (zeh) place (maqown). So the scripture is literally saying: at the end of the seventy years the people will be brought back to Judah.
Examining the scripture in context makes the 609 interpretation that this is saying the Jews would be in servitude to the Babylonian world power even more farcical. As the scripture literally reads, at the end of the 70 years (539) the Jews were not brought back to Judah. According to Jeffro the Jews returned more than a year later. However, the 607 chronology synchronizes perfectly. Those in exile (by descendance as well) would return with all the exiled Jews at the end of the 70 years. This is exactly what many scholars have discerned from the context and thus translated Jeremiah 29:10 accordingly:
"This is what the LORD says: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again. - New Living Translation
"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you." - DR Bible
"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years shall be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you" - Webster's
"The truth is this: You will be in Babylon for a lifetime. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and bring you home again." - The Living Bible
"quia haec dicit Dominus cum coeperint impleri in Babylone septuaginta anni visitabo vos et suscitabo super vos verbum meum bonum ut reducam vos ad locum istum."—Latin Vulgate (c. 405).
"But thus saith the Lord, That after seuentie yeres be accomplished at Babél, I wil visit you, and performe my good promes toward you, and cause you to returne to this place."—The Geneva Bible (1560).
"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you: and I will perform my good word in your favour, to bring you again to this place."—Douay Version (1609).
"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place."—Authorized King James Version (1611, 1769).
"For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place."—New King James Version (1984; based on the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica).
Isn't it interesting when people allude to scriptural arguments that refute their own premises? Amazing. Also I'm debating 607 because I believe it's unjustly perpetrated as an impossible and fictional date for Jerusalem's destruction, when it is the only one I've ever seen that allows for a seventy year desolation. I don't require Jerusalem's destruction to prove 1914. This slippery slope fallacy continues to be asseverated repeatedly as if I've declared that this is how I arrive at the conclusion of 1914.
Indeed here is another farcical statement for Jeffro to retract: "Because when it's convenient, it's 'majority rules'. The fact that the vast majority of Bible translations do not support the JWs' selective translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is also conveniently ignored.
-
Pterist
Once again Ethos there are at least 3 Jewish exiles by Babylon..
1. David and his group ...606- This is when Daniel and other members of Judah's elite were taken into captivity (see Daniel 1:1 & 2 Kings 24
2. Jehocian and his group.. 597 BC - Jehoiakim was taken into captivity (see 2 Chron 36:5,6). Three months and ten days later Jehoiachin, along with other members of the royal family, were taken into captivity (see 2 Chron 36:9,10 & 2 Kings 24:15-17).
3. Zedekiah and his group ... 586 BC - After a 3 year siege, Jerusalem was conquered and destroyed, and most of the remaining people were taken (see 2 Kings 25).
You keep refering to ONE SINGULAR EXILE...and showing scripture that ONLY addresses the FiRST 2 GROUPS NOT THE THIRD.
Please give ONE scripture that points to Zedekiah group being brought back after 70 years !!!
Jeremiah 25:9-12 (NIV)
"I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the Lord, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years . "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever."
Jeremiah 29:10 (NIV) this letter is addressed to those first 2 groups that were already in exile...Zedekiah was still ruling in Jerusalem.
This is what the Lord says: " When seventy years are completed for Babylon , I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."
It seems clear from the context in these two segments that the seventy years applies to Babylon itself, not to the period of time that the people of Judah are to spend in Babylon. In chapter 25 it says that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. Again in chapter 29, Jeremiah makes the connection to Babylon by saying that 70 years are "for Babylon".
So the 70 years refers to the period of Babylonian Empire. When did this start and finish? As alluded to earlier, Babylon was conquered by Cyrus II of Persia in 539 BC. So this is the finish. When was the start? For our purposes, the start would have to be when the other "nations will serve the king of Babylon" (see excerpt from Jeremiah 25 above). The major world power prior to Babylon was Assyria.
This is what refers to Zedekiah's group Jeremiah 24-NO RESTORATION.
But thus says the Lord : Like the bad figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten, so will I treat Zedekiah the king of Judah, his officials, the remnant of Jerusalem who remain in this land, and those who dwell in the land of Egypt. 9 I will make them a horror [a] to all the kingdoms of the earth, to bea reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places where I shall drive them. 10 And I will send sword, famine, and pestilence upon them, until they shall be utterly destroyed from the land that I gave to them and their fathers.”
So refering to 70 years of exile for Zedekiah's group is nonsense, there were exiled FOREVER !!!
-
Ethos
TD said: You would need a nominative statement, erroneous either on its own (lack of) merit or because it does not follow from the premises used to support it before an assertion like the one captioned above is justified. . .To that end, I've simply asked you some polite questions and have drawn no conclusion from them that would qualify as a strawman fallacy.
Okay let me elaborate on where the strawman fallacy is asseverated and then explain why I identified it as such. You stated the following:
Humor a non-JW here. Jumping back and forth between Daniel and Revelation to establish the length of seven 'prophetic' times (Without which this discussion would probably be unnecessary..) has always struck me as dubious. These two books are certainly of different literary genres, languages, historical periods and origins.
Without going off on a tangent, if a valid case can be made that esoteric concepts do in fact span those type of barriers, then I would question the strength of your objection above. ---END OF QUOTE
And Jeffro also stated: " Well, no it can't. And it's hilarious. Apparently Ethos is happy to give it an exemption - he's probably not even aware of the gaping contradiction. It is not clear why it is 'acceptable' to "flip back and forth between" not two but several "books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods" of entirely unrelated scriptures together in order to reach 1914. But 'apparently' it is a 'ridiculous' notion to associate events spoken of by Jeremiah and Daniel (whom JWs believe to becontemporaries - or at the very least, the same 'generation') in describing the same period." (END OF QUOTE)
As I stated on several occasions the biblical exegesis of deciphering The Gentile Times is not something I wholeheartedly agree with in the least. That is why I stated that it is the absolute last thing I teach, since I don't believe it necessary to establish 1914 as the commencement of Christ's parousia. You and Jeffro both made the hasty generalization that because I am a JW, that I hang on the Governing Body's scriptural elucidations for every doctrine, when that is simply not the case. Then you both proceeded to point out obviously questionable fallacies in my statement (if I indeed agreed with the Gentile Times doctrine), as a way (not necessarily you but Jeffro) to show a short of doctrinal hypocrisy on my behalf. All of the responses to my quoted statement were then appropriatedly cognominated "strawmen" as they were attempts to deprecate my previous statement regarding proper Biblical exegesis.
TD: " How is 1914 established without 607?"
Empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation. Other scriptural passages that refer to the refinement of God's people during the time of the end (Daniel 12 to mention just one) as well. All establish 1914 separately.
-
Pterist
Ethos ..**** You and Jeffro both made the hasty generalization that because I am a JW, *****
Ethos Greetings! From an Existent JW! posted 15 days ago (11/7/2012)
Post 1 of 79
Since 11/6/2012I'd like extend a greeting to all members of JWN. I've been a lurking by-stander of this forum for approximately 6 months. I think this forum's best moments can be attributed to the involvement of actual JW's in doctrinaire discussions and to heated (though not always dialectic) debates. With the obvious want of participating, existent, actual JW's, I felt it necessary to become a member as that intellectual stimulation for which I so yearned had thus dissipated almost completely (from a lurking perspective). So my intention for joining this forum is to revivify, by participation, such discussions (i.e. JW and ex-JWs) and perhaps contribute growth or understanding (by virtue of my perspective and yours), since we can never cease to know more about ourselves and the world around us. So thanks to the moderators and participants for this opportunity. I can't wait to engage in discussion! -
Pterist
So now your not, being a JW your either in 100% or out.....not accepting 607-1914 is grounds for disfellowshiping, I know too well !
Shalom
-
Londo111
Going back to Jeremiah 25:12, "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 Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite."
What was the error of Cyrus? How was Cyrus punished? Is it just a coincidence that Babylon fell after 70 years of defeating Assyria?
It is quite clear the King of Babylon in this context is the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that ended with Nabonidus and his son. History shows the Neo-Babylonian dynasty were the dominant power whom the nations roundabout served for 70 years. The plain reading of this passage is to be preferred to a reading that involves mental gymnastics.
I will concede the point that the book of Jeremiah must stand on its own to establish the meanings within, without going to Daniel. Of course, I will point out, the Society in its publications, does throw isolated verses from different books of the Bible to support its viewpoint. Often, the verses cited do not support points in the paragraph and haphazard hermeneutics without proper exegesis and considering audience relevance abounds.
I do wonder that your teaching of the Gentile Times varies from how the Society presents the manner as prescribed in the publications. That would almost indicate that, subconsciously at least, you do not view them as giving the proper food at the proper time. Of course, the Society also says, “Don’t argue with Apostates. Do not post comments on their forums.” That would almost indicate as well that you do not view this admonition as food at the proper time. If they aren’t giving the right food at the right time, and the course they’ve outlined is not truly the most faithful and wise one, then how can they be the Slave?
