by objectivetruth 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hi trans' ...you posed a question , the answer is; as far as the lifespan of any individual who wishes to dwell on the subject
And as long as humans exist who give credence to this mumbo jumbo. Its all in the complex reasoning as to why anyone would want to believe it has significance on their lives.
AnnOMaly:
Yes, a link to your discussion on it would be useful to anyone who wants to pursue this further. Hope you find it. :-)
All I can find is this link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/245680/2/what-ever-happened-to-the-king-of-the-north-and-king-of-south#4646961, which only covers up to verse 39.
I have written more covering right up to verse 45 before and with more detail, but I'm pretty sure it was on the short-lived JWS forum (the now-dead links were at: http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158703 and http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158057). (I should have saved a copy locally. )
In brief, the remaining verses (40-45) have Antiochus Epiphanes IV 'disturbed' by 'reports out of the east and out of the north' about Parthians, and went to attack them while he sent others to deal with the Maccabees. But he then dies of a disease, with 'no helper for him'.
transhuman68:
AnnOMaly is correct. Daniel and Revelation are both apocalypses- that is their literary genre. They are open-ended to the future, pointing to an imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better. But that is the problem- how much further in the future did the writers mean?
More accurately, chapter 12 of Daniel presents the 'future' 'imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better'. The entirety of chapter 11 can be correlated with events up to the Maccabean period.
Oh well, I'm just saying... no-one looks in the book of Numbers, or Proverbs, or Nahum for any greater prophetic meaning; but because Daniel & Revelation are written in a different style... lots of people look for some relationship to our modern life in them, as if they are somehow more 'inspired' than other parts of the Bible-when it is really all a lot of old nonsense.
If so Jesus would have said, "and Jerusalem is being trampled on by the nations...", or "and Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations...".
I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive. (Present participle + Future form of to be)
It does carry the thought of a continuence of action that originated in the past
Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη, Jerusalem shall [continue to] be trodden under foot.
Personally, I think the writer was only referring to the Roman occupation, but it is what it is regardless.
http://www.newtestamentgreek.net/future-indicative-periphrastic-form-future.html
TD:
I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive. (Present participle + Future form of to be)
The conclusion that this verse indicates a present continuing action (a misrepresentation of Ernest De Witt Burton, whom the site you provided copied verbatim) seems to have fairly limited support, and seems more like it is being shoehorned into that grammatical construction to suit preconceived doctrines. In fact, searching Google for "periphrastic progressive "luke 21:24" -burton" (i.e. excluding "Burton") only returns eight results, some of which are still in reference to Burton (such as the one at www.dabar.org/burtonmoodstenses/08-future_ind.htm, which also quotes Burton verbatim), and some are on JW forum discussions about the verse.
In fact, the interpolated "[continue to]" isn't even directly relevant to the grammatical form discussed. Burton states that "The force is that of a Progressive Future", indicating that something will happen in the future and it will then keep happening. This is very clearly shown by the other example Burton provides:
James and John were not already 'catching men'. It was a future action that would then continue. It therefore appears that it isn't even Burton's intent to say that this grammatical form is the reason for the insertion of 'continue to', and that it is only there because of an incidental interpretation that the Jews already being under Roman rule was the same as the 'trampling'.
So here's the funny thing about taking the bible out of the hands of the Christians and putting it back into the hands of the Jews. You get a more accurate SENSE of what is going on, although dates are someone likely to change. They don't care... what happened happened. But for JWs, life as they know it is DATE SPECIFIC.
THE FALL:
After the Battle of Carchemish in 605, Nebuchadnezzar set his sights on Jerusalem and started a series of sieges after King Jehoiakim stopped paying tribute on year 4 of Nebuchadnessar. This lead to an attack and the death of Jehoiakim on year 7 or Nebuchadnessar. There was a gradual taking over of the city from 597 all the way until 582. The "fall of Jerusalem" is technically around 586 when after King Jehoiakim is dead and his successors are sent into exile and Solomon's temple is destroyed (the fall of an icon like the temple would be a marking point for future generations).
THE RETURN:
SO... enter Cyrus who takes over Babylon in 539 and sometime within his first year he allows the Jews to return to Jerusalem, so between 539 and 538. Now, if you consider how long it took to get the Jews OUT of Jerusalem, you can imagine that it would take less time to get them back IN their dear city... but still take a couple of years, at least... past 537.
With the granting of occupation at one end, and the completion of occupation at the other end... the space in between would be vast. This is made apparent as they didn't start working on the foundation of the second temple until 520.
Contrary to fundamentalist beliefs, there are no specific dates to any events of this magnitude involving millions of people in the B.C. era. So to calculate ANYTHING off such would be denying the very nature of how people worked, moved, fought wars, and recovered from battles in that period of history.
Also " 537 + 70 = 607" is going BACKWARD in time.
BackseatDevil:
The "fall of Jerusalem" is technically around 586
The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, including his accession year, is quite definitely 587 BCE (unless you also shift the year for the beginning of his reign). This is confirmed by the non-accession reference to his 18th year for the same event. Definitely not 586 BCE.
Now, if you consider how long it took to get the Jews OUT of Jerusalem, you can imagine that it would take less time to get them back IN their dear city... but still take a couple of years, at least... past 537.
There is no reason to conclude that those who were first allowed to leave Babylon would take years to return to Jerusalem. Many Jews remained in Babylon, so it is neither necessary nor valid to try to determine how long it would take all of them to return. Those who left Babylon at the first opportunity after Cyrus' decree (which is misrepresented in the Bible as being specific to Jews) could be back in Jerusalem in as little as four months.
This is made apparent as they didn't start working on the foundation of the second temple until 520.
No. That claim isn't supported by either the Bible or Josephus (Against Apion, Book I and Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI). The foundations were laid in 537, then work was slowed by opposing forces, and then halted by Cambyses II ('Ahasuerus'), and building resumed in 520.
Also " 537 + 70 = 607" is going BACKWARD in time.
I think everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the subject is aware of that basic fact. It's not clear why you think that's a problem. But if you prefer, it could be phrased as -607 + 70 = -537. In either case, the JW doctrine is still completely wrong.
TD:
It does carry the thought of a continuence of action that originated in the past
On further consideration, Burton's interpolation of "[continue to]" doesn't construe what you're saying at all. The conclusion you give has no basis in the grammatical form actually discussed. The presence of 'continue to' is only intended in the sense that the trampling will begin in the future and then continue.
And once you consider the other example about James and John becoming 'fishers of men' when they first became disciples, it is automatically ludicrous to claim this same grammatical structure indicates an action that originated in the past.
There is only one group of people that believe it..... I suggest you read Franz's chapter on looking for 607 evidence.
Also I remember the Brithish Museul had the Babylonian Tablets, one labeled ABC5 had reference to its destruction.
Jeffro
The conclusion that this verse indicates a present continuing action (a misrepresentation of Ernest De Witt Burton, whom the site you provided copied verbatim) seems to have fairly limited support, and seems more like it is being shoehorned into that grammatical construction to suit preconceived doctrines.
I agree that there is not universal support here. For example, my copy of A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer Arndt Gingrich, University Of Chicago Press, Fourth Edition, 1952) under the heading 'eimi' (Section 4,B,gamma on page 223) gives several examples of unaffected use of estai with the present participle and includes Luke 21:24 among them.
But neither have I misrepresented Burton's Syntax Of The Moods And Tenses In New Testament Greek either.
The interpolation is certainly his as you can see from this partial scan of page 36:
I discussed this at some length with Alan F. around 2006 and eventually brought it before my Classical Studies professer. Her opinion was that while there might be some plurality of thought here, Burton was certainly an authoritative source.
