by Comatose 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
So, Russell and Barbour were wrong on all three points Ann? There was no 70 years of the land being without inhabitant.
(The Bible does not actually claim this ?).
Cyrus 1st Regnal year was not 536BCE .
And 1799 was not the start of the Last Days.
Have I got that right ?
here's a link you'll find of interest regarding 606 (536+70)
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/177809/1/CTR-and-the-zero-year
Phizzy,
Jeremiah said the land would be 'desolate, without inhabitant' (Jer. 9:11). He NEVER said that it would be that way for 70 years. He specifically attributed the 70 years with the nations' servitude to Babylon. It's primarily the text in 2 Chron. 36:20-21 that prompted Russell's misunderstanding.
(We also know from archaeology and Ezek. 33:21, 23, 27, 28 that there were inhabitants, not only after Jerusalem's destruction, but after Gedaliah's assassination and a bunch of Jews ran off to Egypt.)
Barbour mistakenly believed that 'Ptolemy's Canon' indicated the year 536 BCE for Cyrus' 1st year. It was actually 538/7 BCE.
And as you say, 1799 was NOT the beginning of the 'last days' after all.
So yes, they were wrong on all three points.
Cyrus 1st Regnal year was not 536BCE.
This is true. What is implied is not his reign overall which started much earlier, but his reign over babylon and of Judah which started around 539 BC.
Once the decree was given for the Jews to be allowed to return they did so, over a period of time and i think is what allows to move the date of the end of exile up or down slightly.
Anyway, the whole thing is BS anyway...
This does help me. I too know its crap lol. But, if you don't want to be the mentally diseased apostate you damn well better be able to explain why their most venerated prophecy is total bunk when you talk to a loved one.
For me, it was a mind bender to realize someone OTHER than Russell (several someone's) had come up with the 1914 and 2,520 yrs.
Please keep adding if you have more.
607 BCE most likely came up by taking the prophesied 70 years of desolation literately, well we all know now
though the cessation of kings of Babylon and the knowledge of how Nebuchadnezzar annexed Jerusalem and started
to take slaves toward Babylon as soon as he took to the throne of Babylon from his father 605 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar engaged in several military campaigns designed to increase Babylonian influence in Aramea (modern Syria) and Judah. An attempted invasion of Egypt in 601 BC was met with setbacks, however, leading to numerous rebellions among the Phoenician and Canaanite states of the Levant, including Judah. Nebuchadnezzar soon dealt with these rebellions, capturing Jerusalem in 597 BC and deposing King Jehoiakim,
then in 587 BC due to rebellion, destroying both the city and the temple, and deporting many of the prominent citizens along with a
sizable portion of the Jewish population of Judea to Babylon.
So one can see that the desolation couldn't have been more than 47, 48 years from the final destruction of the city and Temple in
587 BCE up until the release of the Hebrews by Cyrus in 539, 538.
Ask her questions then let her do the research to find the answers.
Read Jeremiah 25:12 and think of what questions you could ask that could make her realise that it contradicts WT chronology and the KJV/NWT versions of 29:10
Ask her to draw up a king list from Nebuchadnessar to Nabonidus showing which king reigned in each year and recording her sources so that it is easy to go back and check for any mistakes.
Good plan Black Sheep. I know I undertook a research project on the kings reigns. Proved to myself it was flawed.
Just a little addition to this is that in the Watchtower Oct 1 2011 and Nov 1 2011 they explain their position on 607. There was something interesting in these articles, they try and devalue the Ptolemy canon as not being a good representation to establish historical facts because it does not support 607. But yet in the Insight to the scriptures under Ptolemy and the cannon they clearly back the canon as being historically sound. So which is it? You cannot condemn it in one place and use it to support you in another.
Aroq - Great point! I love this type of info. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, I'd like to welcome you! Glad To have you.
