Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible

scholar

MeanMrMustard
I am glad that you have read both Jonsson and Furuli. Your claim of the commitment of logical fallacies by Furuli and my good self is simply 'hot air' on your part.
Verses 1-9 provide the context for this chapter and it is the context that proves that the 70 years specifically applies to Judah as recent scholarship on the subject shows.
The Bible provides a detailed history of what befell Judah thus a Chronology can then be made but this is not the case with the other nations for which no details are given as to their particulars periods of servitude apply.
No it does matter that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation running from the fall to the Return.
The verse 18 follows on from what is stated in vs. 12 which deals with the nations, first Babylon beginning after the 70 years had elapsed in 537 BCE
Nope the calling into account for Babylon only commenced after the 70 years had finished in 537 and not 539 BCE as shown by recent scholarship.
scholar
Sanchy

Scholar: Exegetically it has two meanings or applications as shown by the WBE referenced for your information
No, it doesn't. This is a blanket statement that fails to support your unsubstantiated claim.
Scholar: it does not mean a 'year'' but 'years' therefor the expression 'seven times' cannot mean seven years literally but seven periods of time.
Wrong! The expression seven times can in fact mean "seven years" as your own religious leaders at Watchtower teach. To claim otherwise would be apostasy from your religion, so tread carefully. Here's a quick quote from jw.borg regarding the "seven times": "He was figuratively ‘chopped down’ when he temporarily lost his sanity and kingship for a period of seven years." The majority of scholars would agree with this
Even so, regardless of how long each "time" period was, there's absolutely no reason to claim that such periods of time were to be applied to anyone other than King Neb himself. You and your Watchtower bosses have created a second application out of thin air, inventing a convoluted formula where the seven times somehow become 2520 years and apply it to Christ's "invisible" return. This is extra-biblical.
Scholar: This chapter further takes the reader beyond the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar by means of God's rulership or Kingdom which is always given a futuristic aspect.
This is your personal opinion and thus an eisegetical interpretation. The dream's fulfillment already glorifies God's eternal rulership. No second "futuristic" interpretation needed
Scholar: Many other scholars agree with scholar and Bobcat as shown by examining many Bible commentaries on Daniel.for such a major fulfilment is based not on any eisegesis but solid exegesis.
....and a greater many other scholars would disagree. This appeal to authority means nothing.
Also, you and Bobcat do not agree at all. Your injected secondary interpretation vary wildly from one another. Go ahead and read his comments on that blog. You've each arrived at your own views via your own opinions (aka eisegesis). Thus the striking difference
MeanMrMustard

I am glad that you have read both Jonsson and Furuli. Your claim of the commitment of logical fallacies by Furuli and my good self is simply 'hot air' on your part.
I disagree. Both you and Furuli take small exceptions and elevate them to the rule. You’ve got all sorts of Bible translations rendering 25:11 as a clear separation of thoughts, and you quote the NEB, a translation known for English fluency over accuracy, and treat is as the baseline. Furuli, in a vain attempt to extend the kings lists by 20 years, finds “anomalous” business document tablets that seem to be dated outside of various kings regnal years here and there. A month here, month there. Most turned out to be collation errors. But instead of considering these anomalies as possible scribal mistakes or collation errors, these tablets were taken as truth and used to argue against the other thousands of documents.
Verses 1-9 provide the context for this chapter and it is the context that proves that the 70 years specifically applies to Judah as recent scholarship on the subject shows.
This is literally ludicrous, scholar. Verse 9 specifically says Babylon will come against Judah and “all these nations round about”. That’s two verses before “these nations” in v11. Its servitude for “these nations”, as recent scholarship on this subject shows.
The Bible provides a detailed history of what befell Judah thus a Chronology can then be made but this is not the case with the other nations for which no details are given as to their particulars periods of servitude apply.
Non sequitur. That is pure logical BS.
No it does matter that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation running from the fall to the Return.
Yes it does matter. Seventy years of servitude for Babylon of “these nations”. What nations? 25:9 - Judah and all the nations round about. It’s seventy years for Babylon - 29:10. It’s plainly stated.
The verse 18 follows on from what is stated in vs. 12 which deals with the nations, first Babylon beginning after the 70 years had elapsed in 537 BCE... Nope the calling into account for Babylon only commenced after the 70 years had finished in 537 and not 539 BCE as shown by recent scholarship.
25:11 specifically says the servitude is under the rule of Babylon.
How can Babylon be called to account after it’s been overthrown? There is no Babylon, as a ruling entity, after 539. There is no meaningful way anyone can serve the king of Babylon after the empire is gone, as recent scholarship has pointed out.
scholar

Sanchy
The tree dream has two applications as shown by the use of the word' times' rather than' years' and the many references in Ch.4 to God's Kingdom;
Seven times does not mean seven years for the word time means an appointed or definite time or period. If literal years are meant then the appropriate word would have been used to say just that meaning. The periods have afar greater application because of the reference to God's kingdom or rulership in connection with the humiliation of Neb.
The dream's application to Neb's humiliation proved God's sovereignty and that all rulers are subject to a rulership greater than theirs thus in context with the book of Daniel showed that God's kingdom would be an indefinite one. We can all appeal to authority and that is what one does when one uses exegesis because must research widely and consider the opinions of others.
In the case of the interpretation of the tree dream, there are a wide range of opinions but I embrace that as such various views allow one to reflect on these views and then form one's own view of matters. In short, one does his or her own exegesis or accept an eisegesis from others if that is the preference.
scholar
Finkelstein

Scholar is just going to reiterate the bullshit interpretation devised by the lying corrupt Watchtower Corporation, why waste your time and effort arguing with this disingenuous crook ?
You have to keep in mind that JWs have to hold up the doctrines created by the leaders of the WTS, if they dont they could be openly ostracized, shunned from friends they have made by other JWS and might even loose their own family.
There is no question or doubt the JWS is highly controlling cult built up endeavoring corruption by a few men running their own unregulated publishing house.
scholar

Mean Mr Mustard
I disagree. Both you and Furuli take small exceptions and elevate them to the rule. You’ve got all sorts of Bible translations rendering 25:11 as a clear separation of thoughts, and you quote the NEB, a translation known for English fluency over accuracy, and treat is as the baseline. Furuli, in a vain attempt to extend the kings lists by 20 years, finds “anomalous” business document tablets that seem to be dated outside of various kings regnal years here and there. A month here, month there. Most turned out to be collation errors. But instead of considering these anomalies as possible scribal mistakes or collation errors, these tablets were taken as truth and used to argue against the other thousands of documents
-----
Scholar is well pleased that you recognize the fluidity in the translation of so this gives one reason to think about the meaning of that verse. Furuli is helpful here because unlike COJ, he is an expert in those ancient languages so his research must be taken seriously.
------
This is literally ludicrous, scholar. Verse 9 specifically says Babylon will come against Judah and “all these nations round about”. That’s two verses before “these nations” in v11. Its servitude for “these nations”, as recent scholarship on this subject show
-----
Verse 9 provides the context for what follows in that Judah was to be made desolate and along with other nations would be in servitude to Babylon. for 70 years.
----
This is literally ludicrous, scholar. Verse 9 specifically says Babylon will come against Judah and “all these nations round about”. That’s two verses before “these nations” in v11. Its servitude for “these nations”, as recent scholarship on this subject show
-----
Non sequitur. That is pure logical BS.
----
You fail to understand the meaning of what I have said so please expalin for in the case of each separate nation when each period of servitude applied?
----
Yes it does matter. Seventy years of servitude for Babylon of “these nations”. What nations? 25:9 - Judah and all the nations round about. It’s seventy years for Babylon - 29:10. It’s plainly stated
--
Indeed it is plainly stated that Judah would be desolate for 70 years, that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years and that the other nations would also serve Babylon for 70 years.
-----
How can Babylon be called to account after it’s been overthrown? There is no Babylon, as a ruling entity, after 539. There is no meaningful way anyone can serve the king of Babylon after the empire is gone, as recent scholarship has pointed out
---
Simple. Babylon remained as a political entity under a new King of Babylon under Persia and after 539 which was only its Fall it would experience a final judgement of being destroyed over time along with its kingship and land.
scholar
Sanchy

Scholar: Seven times does not mean seven years for the word time means an appointed or definite time or period. If literal years are meant then the appropriate word would have been used to say just that meaning.
Wrong again.
A) The "seven times" can in fact refer to years, or are you in disagreement with the "faithful slave"?
B) Regardless of how long each "time" is, it would be extra biblical to claim that it applies to something or someone other than King Neb, as you have done.
Scholar: The tree dream has two applications as shown by the use of the word' times' rather than' years' and the many references in Ch.4 to God's Kingdom;
You keep saying this but it simply not the case. As noted above, the word times applies to King Neb, and God's Rulership is eternal, referring to his sovereignty. None of this, not in the least bit, proves that the dream has two fulfillments.
If the dream had two meanings, God could have easily inspired Daniel to point that fact out. Especially so for such an important prophecy as you claim this to be. The fact that there is absolutely no direct suggestion of a second meaning is clear enough proof that there is none; otherwise, your God would evidently not be very good at dictating his will.
Scholar: In the case of the interpretation of the tree dream, there are a wide range of opinions but I embrace that as such various views allow one to reflect on these views and then form one's own view of matters.
..indeed. It's all eisegetical. Again, this Biblical God with his ambiguity would need to apply some lessons from the Theocratic Ministry school, starting by clarity of ideas.
johnamos

Nope the calling into account for Babylon only commenced after the 70 years had finished in 537 and not 539 BCE as shown by recent scholarship.
[Jeremiah 25:’12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah,]
[8-1-81 WT p. 27-28 - “The idol-worshiping Babylonians now were in line for God’s judgment to be executed upon them. That happened in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians.”]
scholar

johnamos
[Jeremiah 25:’12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah,
Indeed and that calling into account would only occur after the 70 years had expired which was not in 539 BCE when Babylon the city fell but after 537 BCE when in the straits of time the city, its kingship and land became desolated which is what Jeremiah exactly foretold.
---
8-1-81 WT p. 27-28 - “The idol-worshiping Babylonians now were in line for God’s judgment to be executed upon them. That happened in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians.”]
-You will notice that the WT did not cite Jer. 25:12 in connection with this statement.
scholar
scholar

Sanchy
Wrong again.
A) The "seven times" can in fact refer to years, or are you in disagreement with the "faithful slave"?
B) Regardless of how long each "time" is, it would be extra biblical to claim that it applies to something or someone other than King Neb, as you have done
---
Wrong again for the seven times cannot refer to seven times explicitly speaking and only by inference, tradition or interpretation.
An extra biblical claim as you suggest is unnecessary as the text states 'times' and not 'years'.
------
Wrong again.
A) The "seven times" can in fact refer to years, or are you in disagreement with the "faithful slave"?
B) Regardless of how long each "time" is, it would be extra biblical to claim that it applies to something or someone other than King Neb, as you have done
-----
You keep saying this but it simply not the case. As noted above, the word times applies to King Neb, and God's Rulership is eternal, referring to his sovereignty. None of this, not in the least bit, proves that the dream has two fulfillments.
If the dream had two meanings, God could have easily inspired Daniel to point that fact out. Especially so for such an important prophecy as you claim this to be. The fact that there is absolutely no direct suggestion of a second meaning is clear enough proof that there is none; otherwise, your God would evidently not be very good at dictating his will.
------
The word 'times' must necessarily take the reader or exegete beyond Neb's experience for otherwise the Hebrew word for 'years' would have been used in the four occurrences in Daniel 4. God did in fact point out the fact that the dream would serve two fulfilments by the constant reference to His Kingdom or rulership which transcends all other past, present and future Kingdoms.
Further, the use of the word 'times' and frequent references to God's Kingdom proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the tree dream has dual fulfilments.
---
indeed. It's all eisegetical. Again, this Biblical God with his ambiguity would need to apply some lessons from the Theocratic Ministry school, starting by clarity of ideas.
---
Scholar has no need of eisegesis leaving that to amateurs such as yourself but scholar deals with exegesis.
scholar

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

Share this