JW apologists rebuttals are usually just based on,,yes sentiment. Apologists.
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Fisherman
then why does the other 70 years have to be a full 70 years? It didn’t make any sense. So I gave up
I am amazed that such a remarkably intelligent man couldn’t understand something so simple.
The decree was 70 years. Zion was the 70 year subject but other nations would also be included coming under subjugation at different points in time of the 70 year desolation of Judah which was God’s target. The premise that everybody had to serve an entire 70 years because Judah had to and because other nations didn’t have to then neither did Judah is false. I know that the respected poster SBJ understands.
-
dozy
For me it was when the Society realised (in 1943) there was no zero year that to keep 1914 they simply changed the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607, with absolutely no evidence to support either year.
-
slimboyfat
Thanks for the response, Fisherman, but I am not sure you have solved the problem so much as simply restated it. I know they think the 70 years at Babylon is a definite 70 years period, but the 70 years for Tyre is a shorter period. I know that’s their take, but what I’m asking for is a justification for that position. The text simply says Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years, not part of 70 years. If that “represents” a shorter period than literal 70 years, then why not the other 70 years too? What’s the justification for saying one must be exactly 70 years, but the other 70 years doesn’t?
Yeah dozy the date change from 606 to 607BCE was so strange and so blatant that, on some level, I didn’t even believe it could be true. But it does seem as simple as that - they moved it back a year to account for the absence of year zero and still keep the 1914 date. The honest thing to do would have been to move 1914 forward one year to 1915 (is that right?) but that would have spoiled the coincidence of World War One beginning on their favoured date. Does scholar have an answer for that one?
Another problem is, if Satan was cast down from heaven in September/October 1914, then how come World War One began in August already?
Plus there was something (I forget the details) about the year 537BCE saying that events were supposed to occur within a year but there is nothing in the Bible that says it was within a year. They just assume it was not longer than a year in order to make the prophecy fit. But why not two, or three, or four years? Other than it spoils the chronology.
Plus they claim that 537BCE is an absolute fixed date and that 70 years must be counted back from then to 607BCE. But there’s no good reason why, if you are adamant about keeping the literal 70 year period, you couldn’t do it the other way round and say that 586BCE is the absolute fixed date and count 70 years forward from that to the other date at 516BCE instead.
Plus as Sanchy said, how do we even know that Daniel 4 is meant to be interpreted as a centuries long chronological prophecy anyway? It is a stretch to say the least.
Plus the fact that 1914 is no longer within anybody’s reasonable conception of a single generation now. It’s ridiculous.
Until the 1990s, I think many JWs had the attitude that the whole 1914 chronology thing seemed like a bit of a leap in terms of proving it from the Bible, but on the other hand Bible Students did identify the year 1914 decades before World War One started that year. Therefore, was the reasoning at the time, Jehovah probably helped the Bible Students reach the 1914 date from the Bible somehow, and events that year proved them correct. But the further back in time 1914 recedes, the less important it seems, and the idea of stretching the “lasts days” from that date becomes increasingly incredible.
-
Vanderhoven7
The more assumptions required to reach a conclusion, the less trustworthy the conclusion. Not sure where I picked this up.
1914 Assumptions
Assumption 1: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from Daniel chapter 4 has a fulfillment beyond his day.
The book of Daniel makes no mention whatsoever of any fulfillment beyond his day. There is no indication that what happened to Nebuchadnezzar is some type of prophetic drama or minor fulfillment to a major future antitype.
Assumption 2: The seven times of the dream are meant to represent 360 day years each.
When this formula applies elsewhere in the Bible, the year-for-a-day ratio is explicitly stated or clearly implied. Here we are assuming that it applies.
Assumption 3: This prophecy applies to the enthronement of Jesus Christ.
The point of this dream and its subsequent fulfillment was to provide an object lesson to the King, and mankind in general, that rulership and the appointment of a ruler is the sole prerogative of Jehovah God. There is nothing to indicate that the enthronement of the Messiah is indicated here. Even if it is, there is nothing to indicate that this is a calculation given to show us when that enthronement takes place.
Assumption 4: This prophecy was given to establish the chronological extent of the appointed times of the nations.
There is only one reference to the appointed times of the nations in the Bible. At Luke 21:24 Jesus made no connection whatsoever between this phrase and anything contained in the book of Daniel.
Assumption 5: The appointed times of the nations began when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were taken into exile in Babylon.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate when the appointed times of the nations began, so this is pure speculation.
Assumption 6: The 70 years refers to 70 years in which Jerusalem would be destroyed.
Based on the wording of the Bible, the 70 years could refer to years in which the Jews were under the rule of Babylon. This would include the servitude when the nobles, including Daniel himself, were taken to Babylon, but the rest were allowed to stay and pay tribute to the King of Babylon. (Jer. 25:11–12)
Assumption 7: 607 B.C.E. is the year Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah’s king slain and the appointed times of the nations began.
Scholars agree on two years: 587 B.C.E. as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, and 539 B.C.E. as the year in which Babylon fell. There is no more reason to accept 539 B.C.E. as valid then there is to accept 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.
Assumption 8: 1914 marks the end of the trampling of Jerusalem and therefore the end of the appointed times of the nations.
There is no evidence that the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations ended in 1914.
Assumption 9: Satan and his demons were cast down in 1914.
Witnesses contend that Satan caused the First World War out of anger for being cast down. However, he was cast down in October of 1914 according to WTS interpretation, and yet the war began in August of that year and preparations for the war had been going on for a considerable time before that, as early as 1911. That would mean he had to get angry before he was cast down and the woe to the earth began before he was cast down.
Assumption 10: The presence of Jesus Christ is invisible and is separate from his coming at Armageddon.
There is strong evidence in the Bible that the presence of Christ and his arrival at Armageddon are one and the same. There is no hard evidence to indicate that Jesus would rule from heaven invisibly for over 100 plus years before manifesting himself visibly prior to the destruction of this old system of things.
Assumption 11: The injunction against Jesus’ followers getting knowledge of his installation as king as stated at Acts 1:6, 7 was lifted for Christians in our day.
This statement of Jesus would mean that the apostles of his day had no right to know when he would be enthroned as king of Israel–spiritual or otherwise. The meaning of Daniel’s prophecy of the 7 times was supposedly hidden from them. Yet, the significance of the 2,520 years was revealed to William Miller, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists in the early part of the 19th Century? That would mean the injunction was lifted for Christians in our day. Where in the Bible does it indicate that Jehovah has changed on this position and granted us foreknowledge of such times and seasons?
In Summation
To base the interpretation of a prophetic fulfillment on even one assumption opens the door for disappointment. If that one assumption is wrong, then the interpretation must fall by the wayside. Here we have 11 assumptions! What are the odds that all 11 are true?
-
scholar
slimboyfat
ust out of curiosity scholar, have you got an apologetic answer for that one? Why should we take the 70 years literally in one case but not the other? Here is the relevant quote from the Isaiah book:
--
No problem. The simple answer is that in the case of the 70 years of Tyre it is that this period represents a period of Babylon's domination in which Tyre would be in servitude to Babylon which owing to lack of precise historic details must be viewed as a round number. In the case of Judah whose 70 years was also a period of servitude to Babylon, a period of Exile with a devasted or empty land is a precise historic period because the Biblical record presents a complete history with a definite beginning and end of that period.. Simple really!!
scholar JW
-
Sanchy
which owing to lack of precise historic details must be viewed as a round number
Sorry. Nothing of what you said here proves that it "must" be viewed that way.
-
scholar
slimboyfat
hanks for the response, Fisherman, but I am not sure you have solved the problem so much as simply restated it. I know they think the 70 years at Babylon is a definite 70 years period, but the 70 years for Tyre is a shorter period. I know that’s their take, but what I’m asking for is a justification for that position. The text simply says Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years, not part of 70 years. If that “represents” a shorter period than literal 70 years, then why not the other 70 years too? What’s the justification for saying one must be exactly 70 years, but the other 70 years doesn’t?
---
Context and a careful reading of the text explain the difference between Jeremiah's 70 years and Isaiah's 70 years- different periods both occurring in the Babylonian period during Neb's reign with different implications as foretold by the prophets with different consequences.
--
Yeah dozy the date change from 606 to 607BCE was so strange and so blatant that, on some level, I didn’t even believe it could be true. But it does seem as simple as that - they moved it back a year to account for the absence of year zero and still keep the 1914 date. The honest thing to do would have been to move 1914 forward one year to 1915 (is that right?) but that would have spoiled the coincidence of World War One beginning on their favoured date. Does scholar have an answer for that one.
---
Yes, I do. It is called just doing Chronology which requires a methodology along with an interpretation of the data and the related history finally all scholarship evolves over time so when a chronologist sees the need to change or adjust then the chronology is fine-tuned.
--
Another problem is, if Satan was cast down from heaven in September/October 1914, then how come World War One began in August already?
---
The answer is right there. The book of Revelation does not give a precise chronology for the ousting of Satan from heaven but only for the end of the Gentile Times which event marked the beginning of God's kingdom confirmed by the outbreak of the Great War which was consistent with Satan being cast to the earth but as the Great War has no precise marker as it evolved during the first few months so all events fit well together.
---
Plus there was something (I forget the details) about the year 537BCE saying that events were supposed to occur within a year but there is nothing in the Bible that says it was within a year. They just assume it was not longer than a year in order to make the prophecy fit. But why not two, or three, or four years? Other than it spoils the chronology.
Plus they claim that 537BCE is an absolute fixed date and that 70 years must be counted back from then to 607BCE. But there’s no good reason why, if you are adamant about keeping the literal 70 year period, you couldn’t do it the other way round and say that 586BCE is the absolute fixed date and count 70 years forward from that to the other date at 516BCE instead
---
WT scholars have never regarded 537 BCE as an absolute date for it is calculated to fit the historical facts at the time of Cyrus' Decree in his first year and is widely accepted by scholars providing a good anchor for forming a chronology for that period.
---
Plus as Sanchy said, how do we even know that Daniel 4 is meant to be interpreted as a centuries long chronological prophecy anyway? It is a stretch to say the least.
--
No stretch but an interpretation based on what Daniel 4 says, the lexical meaning of times, the theme of God's Kingdom and Biblical Theology.
---
Plus the fact that 1914 is no longer within anybody’s reasonable conception of a single generation now. It’s ridiculous.
Until the 1990s, I think many JWs had the attitude that the whole 1914 chronology thing seemed like a bit of a leap in terms of proving it from the Bible, but on the other hand Bible Students did identify the year 1914 decades before World War One started that year. Therefore, was the reasoning at the time, Jehovah probably helped the Bible Students reach the 1914 date from the Bible somehow, and events that year proved them correct. But the further back in time 1914 recedes, the less important it seems, and the idea of stretching the “lasts days” from that date becomes increasingly incredible.
--
Utter nonsense. the date 1914 in terms of Eschatology has been well vindicated by the facts of modern history, biblical theology etc for such a chronology has breathed life into Eschatology and due credit for this belongs to those early Bible Students and their antecedents.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Vanderhoven 7
Your 11 assumptions are no problem for the said scholar but you should make each of hese assumptions a Study Project?
The said scholar can assist you.
scholar JW
-
