Need Help: My Correspondence with the Headquarters

by Lobsto 154 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  johnamos

  quote - It cannot be a period of Babylonian domination because we cannot determine a precise year as a beginning of that Period. - end quote

  First, Who do you mean when you say "we cannot determine", who is WE?

  [Isaiah’s Prophecy 1 p. 253-254 par. 21 – He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.]

  Without trying to evade answering directly, please answer the following:

  Is the WTS there citing verse 11 and claiming that those 70 years "represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination"?

  Is the WTS there stating that at the END of those 70 years that that domination comes to its end (will crumble)?

  Did the WTS there point out that Babylon came to an END (fell/crumbled) in 539?

  If that domination came to an end in 539 and that was the end of the 70 years, then what precise year did the 70 years begin?

  I know you will not answer these questions precisely and I know your brain can't fathom that this one WTS excerpt actually shows the correct view of those 70 years (FOR Babylon/NATIONS to serve) and when they are (609-539). It agrees with history and totally contradicts the WTS's spin on their false view of when those 70 years are (607-537).

  Let me ask you this though about the other end of this whole argument which is 1914. Do you believe that the 7th trumpet blew in 1914? (Rev 11:15)
  
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Has anyone mentioned 606 BCE? The WT taught that was the date until they realized no zero year between 1 BCE and 1CE.

  When they realized that, and if they had the date of 606 BCE right as the destruction then the prophecy works out to 1915.

  YET they chose to change something set in history by changing 606 to 607 rather than the end date of a prophecy unseen by its results.

  Imagine I said I was 30 years old and my wife said I was 31 and I changed, not my professed age, but the year I was born to suit me being 30 years old is that trustworthy?

  There is zero proof that 607 BCE was the destruction and is only selected to suit their man-made prophecy which co-incidentally leads to 1918/1919 and their only scriptural point of authority.

  The fact they altered a date set in history to suit their prophecy tells you something.
  
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar,

  "Jer. 25: demands careful exegesis which I have done "
  So how did your careful exegesis lead you to equate the destruction of the first temple with the start of 70 years? You seemed to skip over that part of my question which you quoted in the reply above.

  "It cannot be a period of Babylonian domination because we cannot determine a precise year as a beginning of that Period."
  How does our inability to determine the exact start date the writer of Jeremiah had in mind preclude the idea he was talking about a period of Babylonian domination? This looks like a non sequitur.
  Besides, didn't you tell me the precise time was when Babylon conquered Jerusalem making it a global power?

  "even COJ is confused about the matter shown by comparing his discussion of both dates in his 3rd and 4 the edn of his GTR."
  Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?

  "Criticism is fine and has its place but . . . you must argue your case or thesis in order to be credible"
  Jeremiah doesn't tell us a start date. Doug has pointed that out.
  "The Bible does not state ―this is when the Seventy Years‖ started, showing that those people were not concerned with identifying a specific moment or incident"
  Page 14
  https://jwstudies.com/Critique_of_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
  That is the case he's arguing. Like most others who've spent mch time on this, he seems to have concluded that there are a few possible options which could mark the start of the seventy years. He also spends some time trying to differentiate between the seventy year period of servitude and the idea that the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple which would only happen later if Judah didn't mend its ways. That makes it clear that in his view, the destruction of the temple could not mark the start of seventy years.
  As far as I can see he has backed a horse. The horse is uncertainty in the scriptures.

  Doug, if you'd like to respond to that please correct me if needed. I don't want to misrepresent your position.
• 

  scholar

  johnamos

  Is the WTS there citing verse 11 and claiming that those 70 years "represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination"?

  Is the WTS there stating that at the END of those 70 years that that domination comes to its end (will crumble)?

  Did the WTS there point out that Babylon came to an END (fell/crumbled) in 539?

  If that domination came to an end in 539 and that was the end of the 70 years, then what precise year did the 70 years begin?

  You ask of the said scholar, 4 questions which are addressed as follows:

  1. No, the 70 years pertaining to apply Jer.25:11 apply to the desolation of Judah in combination with other nations other nation made to serve the Kingship of Babylon.

  2. At the end of those 70 years the desolation of Judah ceased, their Exile came to end with their Return in 537 BCE and their servitude to Babylon ceased also in 537 BCE.tHE domination of Babylon over Judah and her peoples had then come to an end.

  3. Babylon fell in 539 BCE which opened the way or the three vents to occur in 537BCE as mentioned in my above answer.

  4. 539 BCE did not represent the end of the 70 years for Judah and possibly for the other nations but history is silent about these nations and their fate. Therefore this means that in the case of Judah the 70 years could only have begun in 607 BCE as all of the evidence proves.

  Well, it is like this, for something certainly blew in 1914 with the casting out of Satan and his cronies from Heaven to the Earth.

  scholar

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  scholar

  LeeT

  So how did your careful exegesis lead you to equate the destruction of the first temple with the start of 70 years? You seemed to skip over that part of my question which you quoted in the reply above

  My careful exegesis which plainly you have not done proves that Jer. 25:11, 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Dan. 9:2 all discuss and link the beginning of the seventy years with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of Judah, the commencement of the Exile and the nation of Judah under servitude to Babylon all for the period of 70 years.

  How does our inability to determine the exact start date the writer of Jeremiah had in mind preclude the idea he was talking about a period of Babylonian domination? This looks like a non sequitur.
  Besides, didn't you tell me the precise time was when Babylon conquered Jerusalem making it a global power?

  Jeremiah was not confused as you are because he foretold specific consequences in a judgement message addressed to Judah warning them what would happen and his description although poetic was quite specific that the Land would be desolated, the people exiled and made to serve Babylon for 70 years.

  Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?
  

  COJ is not known for his humility in relation to his criticism of 607 BCE.

  "The Bible does not state ―this is when the Seventy Years‖ started, showing that those people were not concerned with identifying a specific moment or incident"

  Utter nonsense-Jeremiah knew what he was talking about as his prophecies on the 70 years was quite descriptive and specific and could only have begun with the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land in Neb;s 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 the regnal year.

  That is the case he's arguing. Like most others who've spent mch time on this, he seems to have concluded that there are a few possible options which could mark the start of the seventy years. He also spends some time trying to differentiate between the seventy year period of servitude and the idea that the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple which would only happen later if Judah didn't mend its ways. That makes it clear that in his view, the destruction of the temple could not mark the start of seventy years.

  Certainly, Doug has a criticism but merely reflects or maps the research of COJ so there is nothing new in this thesis. It further lacks scholarship showing no great effort to exegete the relevant texts involved and does not address all of the issues raised in bible Commentaries on those texts and the academic literature.

  scholar
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
• 

  LeeT

  Scholar
  "My careful exegesis which plainly you have not done proves that Jer. 25:11, 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Dan. 9:2 all discuss and link the beginning of the seventy years with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of Judah, the commencement of the Exile and the nation of Judah under servitude to Babylon all for the period of 70 years."
  None of which refer to the destruction of the temple which is what I was asking about. I'll try a third time. Why do you associate the beginning of the period of Babylonian dominance when nations came to serve Babylon, including Judah, with the same date as the destruction of the first temple?

  "Jeremiah was not confused as you are because he foretold specific consequences in a judgement message"
  But not specific in setting any date which we can discern now, 2,600 years later. That was my point.

  "COJ is not known for his humility in relation to his criticism of 607 BCE."
  Isn't an answer to the question I asked. I'll try again.
  "Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?"

  "Jeremiah . . . the 70 years was quite descriptive and specific and could only have begun with the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land in Neb;s 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 the regnal year."
  How do you reach that conclusion from Jeremiah?

  When do you think Daniel went into captivity? Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

  You criticized Doug for not proposing an alternative thesis. What is your alternative thesis to explain the body of the secular record? By your own standards, you cannot criticize it without one. Are you proposing a massive conspiracy to replace all the original records with ones portraying a fabricated history or do you have another idea?
• 

  scholar

  LeeT

  None of which refer to the destruction of the temple which is what I was asking about. I'll try a third time. Why do you associate the beginning of the period of Babylonian dominance when nations came to serve Babylon, including Judah, with the same date as the destruction of the first temple?

  Because of the simple fact is that the beginning of Babylon's dominance over Judah in connection with the 70 years is linked to the time of the desolation of the land of Judah as proved by Jer. 25:11.

  But not specific in setting any date which we can discern now, 2,600 years later. That was my point.'

  Jeremiah did not date the beginning of the 70 years but simply equated that with an event and that was the time when the land became desolate captives led off to Exile thus in servitude to Babylon.

  "Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?

  COJ does not admit to any uncertainty for that is my reading of his discussion in both editions of his GTR. Also, 607 BCE cannot be considered an implausible date but 605 and 609 BCE are both implausible dates for the beginning of the 70 years.

  How do you reach that conclusion from Jeremiah?

  By reading and studying Jeremiah, something you should try!!!

  When do you think Daniel went into captivity? Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

  617 BCE I would like to see you give a plain and literal reading of Dan.1:1 Be careful!

  My alternative thesis is well presented in that initial reply to Lobsto from the Society

  scholar

  scholar
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  It should be obvious to anyone reading " Crooked " Scholar's comments that he's about as corrupt and dishonest as the WTS's own doctrines. He's dismissive to facts, dismissive to archeological evidence, dismissive to certain Scripture that doesn't hold up or support his self interpretations, even dismissive to the words spoken by Jesus and most likely will pay for his dishonesty lies and deceit.

  When your talking to this fellow its like talking to a brick wall that says " Watchtower Corporation "

  ......and who knows maybe he has some money $$$ connected to the WTS
  
• 

  Sanchy

  Scholar: Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?

  
  

  .....Now do Daniel Chapter 4
  
• 

  johnamos

  Ditto to what Finkelstein said. I knew after a few replies that it would be pointless to reason with him but I figured I would continue to respond for the JW lurkers here that I am sure view this site.