The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  QC

  FTF, I’m secure in my Christian belief. I’m looking forward to your post. JWs taught me an important lesson:

  Don’t waste your life being a lemming; ALWAYS accept the challenge of well

  conceived thoughts. Core beliefs affirmed or cognitive dissonance lessons

  is all good—either way it’s a win-win.

  EVERYONE should want to know under testing as to whether their beliefs are fact or fiction. Spiritual truth and proven science alongside empirical archeology and history data is all compatible.

  What would happen if you grilled your GB, as is your habit, over any of their untenable positions? It is just a matter of time; you WILL drop into your interrogation mode correcting some “truth”, heard by a Praetorian Guard elder, and you’ll be gone (per Franz/Dunlap).

  The JW Rutherford’s model of Christianity is not where you want to be. The Beorean openness suits you more. Christianity’s greatness is due to “faithful” individuals. Earthly organizations have all been failures. Join those of us stamped as “faithful.” We will be appointed over much.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Just posting for good measure

  For Lurkers:

  Don't be confused by the wordiness of FACE THE FACTS. His writings are very similar to Fred Franz' 1975 speech or a current political leader's speech. In the end it goes nowhere and answers nothing.

  Here is the simple truth which you can see for yourself, just by doing a little research and facing the facts. Charles Taze Russel ( not a FDS by current nu-lite ) did NOT come up with 1914 or the 2,520 days on his own or under inspiration from GOD. He was simply caught up in the moment, or carrying the torch that others before him set ablaze. Remember, no man in the scriptures has EVER been authorized to set any kind of date. In fact it is warned against. Any time that any human from any religion has tried to add to the scriptures, they are always proven wrong. For example, when did J.F.Rutherford say the heavenly calling ended? Was he correct? Exactly. The list goes on.

  Did C.T Russel intentionally mislead people? I can't say. I am not the judge of any man. Still, the facts are that C.T.Russel did NOT originate the 1914 date and 2,520 years. The fact is that he did rely on Pyramidology. This is easily proven. Just find an old copy of the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES. Notice how simple my writing style is? It is not necessary to be wordy when the simple truth will do just fine.

  BTW, IF C.T.Russels predecessors were correct, or at least part of the chain eventually leading to Russel's " truth ", who were those men? Nu-lite states that there was no faithful slave " class ". Also, the FDS is only the FDS when specifically coming together for the purpose of feeding the domestics according to nu-lite. So again, If Russel was correct, who was he? Who helped him? Who were they? Here is one JW apologists' view:

  " much of Gods written word was hidden from mankinds eyes for a reason until these last days--so that the fds and no one else could have truths revealed through them exclusively-- otherwise all through mankinds history, man could have studied Gods word and knew those truths, but it is clear at Daniel 12:4--they could not see the truths God hid just by reading the bible. Only through Jesus's appointed teachers would these truths be revealed at the proper time and become abundant in the last days( now). And until it was the proper time errors in teachings would occur thus changes had to be made--so this is fact--in the end whoever made the corrections from errors to truths, will be right in the end. And with the abundance of ridiculing hearts towards religions and teachings--all would see the changes. "

  If C.T. Russel and associates were responsible for dispensing truth as " Jesus' appointed teachers ", especially in regards to the 2,520 days, then the current nu-light cannot be correct. According to the nu-light, C.T.Russel could not be "Jesus' appointed teacher ", therefore Russels teaching could not be true because " the fds and no one else could have truths revealed to them exclusively ". What a tangled web!

  The simple truth is this. C.T. Russel was a man. He stood on the shoulders of other men. The men before him were mistaken, whatever their motive was. C.T. Russel was also mistaken in many areas as the passage of time has proven. He made some statements that he thought were true. Worst case, he embellished other's teachings, not realizing 100 years down the road that he would be gone and the internet would exist making fact checking very easy, in contrast to his day. So, he messed up, but there was a business to run. J.F. Rutherford realized this and took over. Perhaps he also believed the end was near, I can't say for sure. He surely never realized that we could easily check all his " Facts " as well.

  FACE THE FACTS is doing anything but facing the facts. Please don't be confused by his circuitous ramblings and pasting of WT articles. Just calm down, take a deep breath, and check the information out for yourselves. Remember that a legitimate group or organization has absolutely no valid reason for obscuring facts, or attempting to control information.

  In the end, " .. we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth". 2 Cor: 13:8

  Peace,

  DD
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  Hoffnung...

  Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4 clearly demonstrates that Babylon (or Akkad in the Chronicle) took the spoil of a lot of cities in the period between 609 and 605 BCE, and that during the reign of Nabopalassar, prior to battle of Carcemish and Nebuchadnezzar ascension on the throne in 605. It can also be added that Nabopalassar had already made alliances with quite a few other nations to defeat the many Assyrian strongholds, Cyaxares, the Median King, and the Scythians are specifically mentioned. It is beyond any doubt that Babylon was the dominating partner in all these alliances.

  The argument is moot because as I had already explained there is a difference between utterly conquering and defeating a city and thereby spoiling its resources. and paying tribute as a vassal king. During this time period, vassalage consisted of a monetary tribute (i.e. taxation) to the dominant nation, a formal agreement of the vassal king to respect and adhere to the wishes of the King as well as to not seek aid from surrounding nations and in some cases, pay tribute to the sacrificial gods of the dominating nation (cf. Isaiah 7:2-6; 8:12; 2 Kings 16:10-16; 2 Kings 33:23-35). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines a vassal as: " person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty."

  You have only demonstrated for everyone that you lack knowledge as to what a "vassalage" consists of and therefore, your entire argument is precarious and provides no rebuttal to the arguments I presented.

  It is demonstrated by C.O.Jonsson in a long footnote on page 195, that the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective. The context of the quotes FTF uses disprove his very argument. Furthermore, the Insight book concurs with C.O.Jonsson on this point.

  Actually, it isn't. You are not able to produce a single quote, commentary, reference, or anything of the sort that says Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX is defective. As Jonnson noted, many scholars actually prefer the LXX as they believe it is closer to the original and that the Masoretic Text is a later revision and expansion that underwent many years of editing due to Judaic traditions. No evidence was provided other than speculation about why it might be defective, but no evidence was actually provided.

  There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations. The 70 years in Jeremiah 25 specifically refers in the verses to Babylon, and its period as regional superpower, and not to the exact lenght of Judah's servitude. the very Fact this point is brought up, shows FTF does not understand what he reads, or does not want to understand what he reads in Jeremiah 25:11, 12

  Strawman argument here. There is no textual basis to assert that the servitude of these nations excluded Judah. No evidence is provided here, other than Hoffnug's own viewpoint.

  in view of point 2 and 3 above, considering what shady reasonings and faulty translations you are willing to abuse to score a point, to find the exact limits in the verbal conjugaison that Jeremiah might have used in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 is a very weak foundation to build any conclusion upon.

  No evidence provided against my exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11, how it's rendered, and what that signifies here. Just more talking and asserting without any actual proof.
• 

  sd-7

  Is there a specific conclusion you would like to put forth other than 'Carl Jonsson is wrong'?

  --sd-7
• 

  Hoffnung

  FTF, I am not even dreaming of convincing you, that was never my idea. That would be like trying to convince a born-deaf person of the beauty of music.

  However, many honest-hearted others will read this and will draw the same conclusion as I did.

  Hoffnung
• 

  AnnOMaly

  There is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute to the nation of Babylon in 609 B.C., thus Jonnson's hypothesis does not meet the burden of proof.

  As was said before, we have here a strawman ... or red herring ... or else an indication of FTF's ignorance about what 'tribute' is.

  As Hoffnung has posted, the chronicle details how the Babylonians sacked and plundered many Assyrian strongholds. The Assyrians would not submit so Babylon forcibly took. How can tribute be given by a vassal city ruler if the ruler is dead or deposed and the city ruined?

  A tribute (from Latin tributum, contribution) is wealth, often in kind, that one party gives to another as a sign of respect or, as was often the case in historical contexts, of submission or allegiance. Various ancient states exacted tribute from the rulers of land which the state conquered or otherwise threatened to conquer. In case of alliances, lesser parties may pay tribute to more powerful parties as a sign of allegiance and often in order to finance projects that benefited both parties. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute. See also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribute

  Tribute isn't the issue. Servitude is. The Assyrians were in complete servitude to Babylon when they took the last stronghold and the last Assyrian king was removed. Particularly after Carchemish, nations in the Hatti-land didn't want the same slash and burn fate that became many Assyrian cities, so they served Babylon and gave tribute.
• 

  Hoffnung

  Thanks Ann,

  it can be added that Jeremiah's words "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years", leave completely open how the Babylonian kings go about making-the-nations-serve. Sacking the city 1st, together with plundering and taking prisoners as ransom, is defenitely one of the possibilities within the scope of Jeremiah's words. Vassalage was another option, but there is no record of that on Babylonian Chronicle 4. Either way is absolutely acceptable to fulfill the prophecy. Assyria was indeed the 1st to get the full load of the emperialistic style of having to serve Babylon, many others followed soon thereafter, as shown in the Babylonian Chronicle 4.

  Another strawman of FTF debunked.

  FTF, by the way, you are providing a great platform for free publicity for C.O.Jonssons great book:

  The Gentile Times Reconsidered

  Thanks,

  Hoffnung
• 

  atrapado

  FTF you claim that you have looked at varios Biblical commentaries and lexicons can you please tell us what the consensus of the seventy-year period?

  Why are scolars divived on how to interpret "seventy years"? What are the different dates giving by the scholars that support a literal number? What is the basis for a lengthy period of time that is not exaclty 70 years?

  The reason I ask this is because you seem to miss the point of Jonnson Olof, Carl's book. The point is not that the 70 years are between 609-539, but that the fall of Jerusalem is in 587/8 and not 607. His book bottom line proves 607 wrong. And if you still believe in the Bible you might say well then how do you reconcile the 70 years?

  The answer is you can reconcile them in different ways. Jonnson gives one suggestion which might not be correct and it doesn't matter because the book is set to prove 607 as the fall of Jerusalem is wrong not when the 70 year period happend. If you study history and Biblical commentaries you'll find out that the seventy years has attracted considerable interest. Attempts to fit a precise seventy-year period have not been fully successful. From all the dates suggested by all different scholars not one agree with 607-537 but they all agree with 587/588 as the fall of Jerusalem. Only the WT and its apologists backup 607 with 0 facts to support it.
• 

  Crisis of Conscience

  
• 

  Jeffro

  FtF:

  So is Jeffro up to the challenge? Can you provide a single translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations" or not? Just one!

  Strawman argument. See my post 3147 on page 3 and 3153 on page 4.