597 bce or 607 bce !

by Dizzy Cat 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jws

  Scholar, what do you have to say about Daniel 9:2 and the verses in Zechariah 1 and 7? Are these the same 70 years? Does the WBTS believe them to be?

  These seventy years are in the time of Darius, as can be seen at the beginning of each chapter. He began ruling about 522 BC. By the time of the 4th year of Darius, it has already been some 20 years since the Jews returned to Jerusalem. When it talks about things like fasting for the past 70 years, what is this referring to? If not 607 BC, then when did these 70 years start?

  And no, the WBTS has not given a good reasoning for 607 and the evidence is far from strong. The provide NO secular evidence. They merely pick a date (arrived at from secular sources), ignore another one, and count backwards. All they say is that it ends when the Jews return to Jerusalem in 537, ignoring Jeremiah 25:12 that says the 70 years is already completed before the king of Babylon is punished in 539. And they arrive at 607. But what is that 70 year period? That is up for debate. To apply it from the time of Jerusalem being destroyed at the end of Zedekiah's reign until the Jews return is clearly one interpretation, not hard evidence. It's only one theory and one that falls apart at that.

  If the WBTS has provided evidence, please show us what it is. None of their stuff I've read goes beyond their "interpretation" - no real support or responses to questions of their interpretation.

  Scholar, the way you dodge giving sources or restating "proofs" makes me wonder whether you're not just pranking us. Do you, in fact, know that there is no support for 607 and you're just here to annoy us? Is this some form of sarcasm to support 607 and say it is so well supported?
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar, I don't need any original thinking on the question of Neo-Babylonian chronology: the basics were largely laid out 200 years ago and have been slightly adjusted by a year or two when new discoveries made it necessary. Your comments are like suggesting that my view that the earth is a sphere is questionable because it isn't my own original idea! LOL!

  The fact is that you have demonstrated time and again your own hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy by failing to comment on scriptural and secular arguments presented here, except comments that -- as you have done again in this post -- merely dismiss them without argument. In short, you're a typically braindead JW who worships the Governing Body instead of God. This is easy to prove: if the GB changed its mind about WTS chronology, you would too, because if you didn't, you'd be disfellowshipped.

  AlanF
• 

  jws

  Now I'm pretty much convinced that "Scholar" is just goofing around by sarcastically saying that 607 is correct.

  Finally, no one can be dogmatic about any date in the biblical history. Chronology is not an exact science but relies on available materials, the interpretations thereof and exegesis of the biblical accounts. 607 in my opinion is rock solid, 587 and 586 are dead end attempts that approximate a reconstruction of the late period of the Judean monarchy.

  No one can be dogmatic, but 607 is "rock solid". That sounds pretty dogmatic. I can see that kind of a twist as subtle humor.

  It is well known Alan F that you do not possess any original thinking regarding chronology. Your hostility to the WT chronology is solely derived by your own admission to the Jonsson hypothesis. Thus you are intellectually bankrupt.

  While "scholar" blasts Alan F for not having original thinking and following Jonsson's chronology, he himself claims to support WT chronology, proving he is not an "original thinker" either. This is also subtle humor. Attacking you for something while doing the same thing.

  I think all of these hypocritical responses from "Scholar" are merely his sense of humor.

  And what's more, when his subtle humor can no longer be effectively interjected for humor's sake and he is pressed for answers to questions, he disappears. He probably cannot defend these points or answer questions, because he himself does not believe in 607. He's just goofing around with us. Trying to show us an unreasonable and hypocritical JW viewpoint.

  Am I right, Scholar? Have we caught on now? Welcome to our ranks. How long have you been an "apostate"?

  Edited by - jws on 6 November 2002 13:16:0
• 

  scholar

  jw and Alan Fraud

  No Ii am not pranking you around. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for discarding 607 for the speculative dates of 586/567. My reason for preferring 607 is not due to some blind allegiance to the Society's teaching on this matter because I have been interested in the Jonsson hypothesis and SDA scholarship for several decades

  I believe that a major weakness in the Jonsson hypothesis is the exegesis of the seventy years. A good example of the many difficulties is the most difficult passage in Jeremiah 25;10--12. Scholars debate whether the seventy years in verse 11 is identical to that in verse 12. Some scholars argue that the former is literal whereas the latter is symbolic. However this section of scripture poses many difficult problems for the advocate of secular chronology, contrariwise for those supporters of the traditional chronology for 607 there remain fewer problems. Jonsson's exegesis of this passage is markedly flawed.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion University of Sydney, Australia