Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Pterist
All these calculations are just to get to the year of the last king of Judah! so the WTS can apply sorry miss-apply Daniels prophesy to the king of Babylon namely, 7 times * 360 = 2520 years...and apply this for the rulership over the earthly nations of him who had the LEGAL RIGHT.
So, they take Zedekiah's fall in 607 (based on all the twisting of calculations to make it happen) 2520-607 = 1913/1914......
However, as shown previously Zedekiah in (Jeremiah 29) was CURSED by Jehovah because he was NOT the rightful king and assumed this position from Babylon. The rightful king was Jechoniah Matthew 1:11-13, he was in the royal line NOT Zedekiah. Subsequently Jechoniah's desendent Zerubbabel Was one of the first back from exile, (no desendent from Zedekiah) to keep the royal line. Matthew 1:11-13......
So, if one want to use the WTS crazy application of 2520 to a LEGITIMATE king it must come from the last LEGITIMATE king that reigned, namely, Jechoniah.
2520 - 617 (based on WTS calculations of Jechoniah exile) brings us to 1903/1904........
What a load of ....should I tell you !
-
Pterist
Londo111 **** Pterist might have to correct me on some of these points. I’m still learning things and piecing them together. Nonetheless, this is a long tangent from 607.****
Thanks for the complimanent brother, however, Im not an expert in this field. However, since I started looking at all the different end time eschatologies if I spelt that correctly, there have been good arguments and issues with all of them.
I loved your artical previously on Partial and Hyper preterism as this seems to answer a lot more questions I had, since I left the WTS failed eschatology around the same time Ray Franz first book came out, and Ed Dunlop was disfellowshipped. I'm sort of at a amillimium/ Partial Preterism eschatology as this makes a lot of sense to me. I regard myself as a constant student, maybe I should change my handle to constant student, LOL.
However, the freedom that whatever eschatology we have, it NOT a condition of salvation or disfellowshiping., or fellowshiping. That's why I don't envy Ethos to prove that WTS is absolutely correct, when conditions of condemnation and final second death judgement is the consequences of not accepting dates, and it's unique claim to authority, also based on dates.
Thanks again for the encouragement and your kind compliments with honest humility. Shalom in Christ
-
Pterist
Thanks Jeffro for more great stuff.
Thanks Ethos for hanging in there.
-
kepler
Greetings.
I have to say that 11 pages thus far is an extremely strong dose of eschatology, some of which has been administered many times.
I have poked my head in every once in a while to see where things were going, but I probably missed some pertinent points. Still, perhaps on reflection, I am puzzled by a couple of things. And then reading over the debate a couple of questions arose in my mind. So here goes:
1. Since the topic is presented as "Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals", how is it that it immediately presents an argument for starting a clock at the year 609? The title is not exactly double negatives, but it is as confusing as the wording on an election proposition vote. I couldn't tell if the topic is a "vote" for or against a 607 fall of Jerusalem. And having the introduction conclude "quid erat citatandum" that things started in 609... What gives?
2. Some time ago, after noting this particular chronological discrepancy along with others vs. secular sources, I did get around to reading Gentile Times Reconsidered and noted as well that Ray Franz had a hard time collecting any evidence for the 607 argument (CoC). So after mulling this around a bit, I used some some astronomical software to re-calculate some lunar eclipses cited in Babylonian records before and after the presumed siege date and attributed to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. What do you know: it worked and it was consistent.
3. I also noticed that the Assyrians had a habit of destroying cities for 70 years. So habitual that they had a due process about it, invoking Marduk and then rescinding the sentence when they decided to rebuild. In this case, Sennacherib destroys Babylon - I mean really destroys it - and then Esarhaddon decides to rebuild it by re-reading the proclamation upside down so that it reads 11 years instead of 70. The point being is that Jeremiah was a bit imitative in invoking 70-year sentences.
4. But Jerusalem and the Temple get re-built. And it is rebuilt with gusto. And another funny thing. Nobody in the OLD TESTAMENT ever mentions anything about the possibility that it will get smashed again. Maccabees certainly give an account of its desecration. And Daniel does the same thing in a veiled sense. But I am not aware of OT prophets warning against it getting pulled down again. And this is a really big deal, right? I mean, ask the writers of the Gospels in the NT.
5. Now speaking of the New Testament. Let's consider what they have to say about the destruction of the OLD TEMPLE and Babylon. I don't think they have much of anything to say about it. Whenever they were writing or getting edited, they were concerned about the NEW TEMPLE getting leveled by Romans. They do speak of Babylon a few times. Mostly in Revelations. And in context it is hard to connect Revelations with the Babylon of the OT, other than as an epithet to hang on Rome or someone else. Babylon is mentioned by Matthew in terms of geneaology. Stephen the martyr in Acts gives a long speech in chapter 7 where he mentions how the people of the covenant were removed to Babylon. 1 Peter claims to be written in Babylon by Peter. ... Now how do you like that? What was he doing over there? Was it Jeremiah that said that it was destroyed forever? Or was that Isaiah? Or was it both of them? Well, maybe he was calling Rome "Babylon" because... Rome was acting like Babylon, because Rome knocked down the Temple just like the NeoBabylonians did. ... But the trouble is, if this was all obvious to Peter's audience, then he must have wrote it after he had passed on himself. Or he had assumed the readers had read Revelations, perhaps. ...Odd.
But on that last point, I'm digressing a little. What this should show is that the New Testament is rather silent about cycles of 2520 years. Instead we have a very massaged Old Testament talking to apocalyptic people in the 19th, 20th and now the 21st century largely bypassing the NT and making Christ's life and passion a brief visit before he really gets down to invisible business after 1914.
If a writer named Ezekiel or Jeremiah says something about cities disappearing for decades or forever and there is alternative evidence, then we are confronted with a dog wagged by its tail. If Ezekiel said Tyre or Egypt fell, then it must be true. And if Babylon was destroyed in similar pronouncement by agency, I presume, of Cyrus, then it must be gone. This is the foundation on which one can base the transpiring of other invisible events. Evidently, all one needs to do is climb to a seat of authority based on invisible event consequences or invisible step two and dare anyone to even think otherwise.
-
Jeffro
Ethos:
the Watchtower's chronological date of 537 B.C.E.
Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE. JW literature claims that it is 'likely' that Cyrus made his decree toward the end of his first regnal year, but this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***
And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.*** si p. 85 par. 3 Bible Book Number 15—Ezra ***
This decree was evidently issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 B.C.E.
[a footnote says to refer to section cited above]Josephus, in Against Apion I quotes from Berossus, which tells us:
Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years [605-562 (years stated include accession period, which Berossus doesn't count)]; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years [562*-560]. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years [560-556]; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine months [556]; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth [556-539] year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army;
*Actually Evil-Merodach's accession period started in March 561, in the 12th month of the year starting from Nisan of 562, Nebuchadnezzar's final year (see also 2 Kings 25:27; this is also the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile, correctly placing his exile in [February/March] of 597BCE).
Berossus states that the Neo-Babylonian rule from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus makes a total of 65 years (604BCE - 539BCE, not counting Nebuchadnezzar's accession year). There is no attempt to hide the intrigues of those people stated, so there is no reason to believe that anyone has been deliberately left out, particularly since the preponderance of other available records confirms the sequence of rulers, including contemporary documents.
Josephus then adds:
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year [19th including accession year] of his reign, laid our temple desolate [circa August 587], and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years [mid 587 - mid 537]; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid [work began circa May 537], and it was finished again in the second year of Darius
There is no reason to doubt that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second regnal year (May 537), and this is consistent with Ezra 3:8. There is also no reason to doubt that the Jews returned in October of the previous year (538), consistent with Ezra 3:1. A decree at the beginning of Cyrus' first regnal year gives 6 full months to make the 4-month trip.
-
Jeffro
I said above:
Berossus states that the Neo-Babylonian rule from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus makes a total of 65 years
Anyone paying attention should realise this is a typo, and it should say 66 years. This is correctly indicated by both the inclusive date range of 604BCE - 539BCE and the basic arithmetic of 43+2+4+0+17.
-
Ethos
Jeffro: Ethos apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "during". Refer to previous 'cold weather' analogy (My post 2929 on page 6).
Here's yet another archetype of Jeffro's selective quotingwhere he purports an argument that has nothingto do with what he is supposed to be refuting. The premise was an elucidation to his previous asseveration that there was absolutely no basis for connecting the 70 years with the Jewish exile or any exile. I then presented a wealth of secular resources (several of which from the very author he fallaciously quotes earlier) that show that the Jews and secular historians of that epoch did indeed synthesize the 70 year servitude with the Jewish exile. His analogy does not fit because he is appealing to the indefinite natureof English verb usage of what can transpire during a fixed time interval instead of discussing the possible hermeneutical conclusions from the Hebrew language. Again, he fails to retract his false statement that show many historians correlated the 70-year exile with the 70-year servitude and that was the entire thrust of my argument. What a red herring!
Jeffro: This tedious argument is actually a circular reference. It is true that some historians have been confused about the application of the 70 years.Ethos ignores the fact that it is the ambiguity of the Bible (when the relevant passages are not viewed together in context) which had led various historians to make mistakes about the application of the 70 years.(However, in his later writings, Josephus gets the details correct.)
The highlighted statements are all strawmen, conjured speculation, and/or patently false since A): The argument was not about who was necessarily correct in their interpretation in their 70 years; B) The sources did provide a basis for the 70 year interpretation, meanwhile Jeffro like AnnoMaly tries to discredit the writings instead of addressing the significance of their existence (irregardless of their veracity)
Here Jeffro continues to lead the witness (or in this case the reader) with the use of a multiple leading statements.First, he arbitrarily contends that secular historians are confused about the application of the 70 years when in fact there was nothing in the quoted statements that could be used as substantiated premises to arrive at this conclusion. Then he conjectures and attributes the unsubstantiated 'confusion' to the secular historians' "failure" to note the 'relevant' passages together in context', which is an absolutely arbitrary and unsubstantiated conclusion with no premises that can be adduced from the references I provided. Then continuing with his fallacious reasoning, repeats that the secular historians 'make mistakes about the application of the 70 years' and that Josephus later 'gets the details correct' again more leading statements that cannot be adduced from the context or the secular writings. His entire elucidation was simply a cluster of a a priori assumptions where he assumes that hisinterpretation must be the correct one and that everyone else who interprets it differently is wrong and confused. Shockingly terrible argumentation.
Jeffro: Aside from the fact that he appeals to translations that make no sense when the passage is viewed in context, the great majority of translations do not support his favoured translation. The following translations say "for Babylon" except as otherwise stated. This is not an exhaustive list.
The highlighted statements are again strawmen and a priori assumptions. Jeffro repeatedly intimated that the NWT's translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is 'selective' and 'the vast majority of Bible translations' do not support the NWT's 'selective translation and interpretation'. Whether or not he believes the translations 'make sense' or notis immaterial to the argument at hand. I showed a total of nine major translationsthat translate it 'at Babylon' and several of which articulated that the Jews would be in Babylonfor the duration of the seventy years which dismantled his argument that the NWT was biased and inaccurate. He then lists a total of 17 translations (almost half of which he admitted do not actually say "for Babylon") as if this somehow gave credence to his earlier statement. I gave you nine major translationswho exhibit absolutely no doctrinaire bias towards the 607 date (to which he attributes the NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10) which debunked his earlier premise. He even goes into anargument from consensuswhich does not hold up when the translations were actually assayed.
Jeffro: Except it doesn't. All elements of the supposed 'sign' of Matthew 24 (which refers to events in the first century anyway) have been shown time and time again to have happened before and after 1914. Special pleading at its finest - except the even more elastic claims about the 'prophetic timeline' in Revelation, the interpretation of which hasn't even remained constant in JW land. Still denying that JWs must link all these various scriptures to try to 'paint their picture' of 1914, he still claims that each can point to 1914 seperately. This remains to be demonstrated in any objective fashion. What is established is that the 'selection' of 'God's people' in 'the time of the end' requires circular reasoning to support itself. The sad fact is that 607 is based on nothing but 1914. When they realised there was no year 0, the Watch Tower Society didn't move events attributed to 1914, they changed their date for the return of the Jews from 536 (wrong) to 537 (also wrong).
More strawmen and refutation of information immaterial to the question at hand. TD asked: "How is 1914 arrived at without 607" and I briefly elucidated how. A lot of these things I don't personally believe so here again he exhibits the hasty generalization and slippery slope fallacies (as if 1914 is based only on 607 and by showing past inaccuracy regarding 537 the argument crumbles).
Jeffro: He continues to ignore that actual context of Jeremiah 29. Refer to previous 'visitor' analogy (my post 2801 on page 4).
There has been no overlooking or neglect on my behalf of the 'actual context' of Jeremiah 29. In fact, on page 10, post #3, I wrote a detailed biblical exegesis on the literary, social, and situational context which demonstrated the objective of that chapter and how the 607 interpretation is not enervated in the least.
Now we're resorting to argument from silence... ho-hum... There could be any number of reasons why the starting point wasn't mentioned. The most likely is that because Jeremiah referred to the period in "the fourth year of Jehoiakim" (605BCE) (Jeremiah counts accession years), he didn't need to state the starting point because his audience already knew when the period had started. It would have been common knowledge (to his audience, i.e. the king and other officials) when Babylon had conquered Assyria's final capital city and become the dominant world power (609BCE), which was the same year king Josiah was killed.
Also, I quite clearly stated that the Bible does not mention Nabonidus at all, and that the Bible instead calls Belshazzar "king" while he was really only a prince. According to Ethos and JWs in general, this is apparently okay and not at all the same as referring to Nebuchadnezzar as "king" while he was really only a prince.
No, there was no argument from silence. It is not fallacious to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected by several OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.
It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocationsB): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar
Compare Daniel 2:37.
Immaterial reference. Daniel 2:37 merely reiterates what is stated in Jeremiah 27:7. The 609 interpretation claims the 70 years begins with Babylon's dominance as a world power but the Bible says Jehovah gives Nebuchadnezzar these lands. Nebuchadnezzar would've been king of the world irregardless of what the Bible says Jehovah gives him. Here again the 609 interpretation begins to crumble.
-
Ethos
Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE. JW literature claims that it is 'likely' that Cyrus made his decree toward the end of his first regnal year, but this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.
Sigh. HOW MANY TIMES do I have to explain to you that referencing Josephus when his own writings in that very book contradict your conclusion based on the premises arrived at from his writings is extremely fallacious, employs selective quoting (contextomy), and is misleading. JW's only contend that it is 'likely' or 'probable' that they returned in 537 B.C.E, not that it dogmatically occurred. I don't have to prove that it definitely happened, I just merely have to prove that it is possible. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies and especially 'the burden of proof'.
Jeffro: Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE....this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.
In the spring of 537 B.C. Cyrus proclaimed the famous decree which allowed the Jews to return to their country from their exile. In the autumn of the year 537 B.C. the Israelites were back on their own sacred soil. 1 -- ABC Christianity
That prophecy was fulfilled in 537 BC, and the Jews were allowed by King Cyrus to return to Israel and begin rebuilding the city and Temple. 2 -- Got Questions Ministries
After Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon,he allowed the exiles to return in 537 B.C.E 3 ---- New World Encyclopedia
After the Persians conquered Babylonia, Cyrus granted the Jews permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple in 537 B.C.E. 4 --- Jews and Joes (A Secular Jewish History Website)
In 537 Sassabasar, appointed Governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, King of Persia, and Zorobabel, a descendant of King Joachim, returned from captivity with a vast number of Jewsand armed with authority to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. 5 ---The Catholic Encyclopedia
Maybe it's time for you to start retracting your ludicrous and inherently false statements.
Reference 1: http://www.abc-of-christianity.com/info/exiles-return.asp
Reference 2: http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html
Reference 3: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Babylonian_Exile
Reference 4: http://jewsandjoes.com/history-and-timeline-of-israel-and-judah.html
Reference 5: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm
-
AnnOMaly
JW's are well aware that there were people exiled longer than 70 years since there were exiles prior to Jerusalem's destruction. Nothing of substance here.
You're still not getting it. Why did God tell the '617 BCE' exiles (by far the largest deportation) they would be there "at Babylon" for 70 years when they would, in fact, be there 80 years? If the WT time-line and rendering "at Babylon" are correct, it suggests that God (or Jeremiah) was also deceiving those exiles in saying they would be home sooner than they should be.
When context is properly taken into consideration, you actually find God saying to them, 'Look, ignore the false prophets who are telling you you're all coming home soon. Settle down, marry, have kids, live peaceably in this foreign land because you're stuck there until Babylon's 70 years are up. Then I'll bring you home." When the emphasis is on the duration of Babylon's domination over Judah rather than on the duration of Judah's exile, it makes contextual sense.
[From later in the post] Either way, the seventy years being FOR the Babylonian exile, the servitude to Babylon, it makes no difference in the interpretation whatsoever
You still make the mistake of attaching the 70 years to the duration of exile. Again, this interpretation ignores the problem of the vast majority of captives ending up being exiled 80 years, not the stated 70.
This could be used for every prophecy of destruction and punishment in the Bible. The ten-tribe kingdom could have repented. The Egyptians could have repented. All the nations would be subservient to the world power of the time anyway. What is so special about that event that Jehovah has to use prophets over and over again to tell them that the nations will have to serve the world power at the time. Nothing of substance here.
You're not getting it. Why would Jehovah tell the exiles already in Babylon about a 70 year period that hadn't started yet and may never start Jerusalem's destruction was not a foregone conclusion or God wouldn't have bothered pleading with Zedekiah to remain under the Babylonian yoke to avoid disaster (Jer. 27). If your (the WT) understanding is correct, of what relevance to the exiles already stuck there, was a 70 year period that did not apply to them personally but to another future (and possibly non-existent) group? How would knowing this neutralize the false expectations being touted around or help them endure their present ordeal?
I have no objection towards the term "for Babylon". I only showed the translations of "at Babylon" to dispel another untrue statement Jeffro made that the vast majority of Bible translations used it as such.
Well, you've failed in dispelling Jeffro's statement. His list trumps yours :-)