Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 150 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
No. It doesn't. Not even slightly. Since it was “only when the 70 years have been fulfilled [that] judgement against Babylon [would] proceed”, then the conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE necessarily follows the end of the 70 years. Which was then followed by the Jews returning to Judea.
--
Yes, it does for Jeremiah does not discuss the judgement against Babylon until 25:12 through to vs 14 and Daniel does not discuss Babylon at all in ch.9 but refers to the judgement not on Babylon but on Jerusalem with its 70 years having to be fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon.
---
586 is the wrong year. Hardly his best work. A notable individual advancing the wrong year only confused the issue, but the correct year is quite definitely 587 BCE.--
According to you but most scholars prefer 586 rather than 587 so you have a BIG POBLEM here
---
You haven't even attempted a valid response with regard to what the passage actually says. Your interpretation requires that the Jews arrive in Judea, the 70 years end, and then attention is given to their return. It is a complete distortion of the passage. I realise it's impossible for you to provide a valid response because your entire position is wrong. But you could at least try.
--
No. Plain common sense reads the verse as a prophecy that with the fulfilment of the 70 years at their Return would be the fulfilment of that original promise of restoration. There can be no other suitable explanation of this verse. My suggestion to you is to consult other translations more particular how this verse is rendered in the NWT-Reference which is more to the point.
scholar JW
. -
Jeffro
scholar:
According to you but most scholars prefer 586 rather than 587 so you have a BIG POBLEM here
It is not the case that a significant majority of scholars prefer 586, but any who do are wrong. No "poblem" for me whatsoever. Even mother Watch Tower disagrees with you.
The Watchtower, 1 October 2011, page 31:
Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
The Watchtower, 1 November 2011, pages 22, 27:
However, most scholars date the destruction of Jerusalem at 587 B.C.E. ... At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
My suggestion to you is to consult other translations more particular how this verse is rendered in the NWT-Reference which is more to the point.
🤣 Most translations of Jeremiah 29:10 properly refer to 70 years for Babylon. Even in the rendering of the few translations that incorrectly allude to 70 years as a period at Babylon, the 70 years doesn't include the journey home, and allows the 70 years to end before attention is given to their return. But the JW interpretation is a distorted mess because they say the 70 years (which supposedly started more than a decade after most of the Jews were already in exile) ended only once they'd arrived in Judea. Worse still, in the JW interpretation, most of the Jews are in exile for over 80 years, some are in exile for less than 70 years and others are in exile for about 65 years.
There is nothing new in any of your other recent responses. Just the same old nonsense based on JW wishful thinking.
-
scholar
Jeffro
It is not the case that most scholars support 586, but any who do are wrong. No "poblem" for me whatsoever.
Says you who is not a scholar and unaware of the controversy within scholarship over this dilemma so it is a big problem not of my making but noting that it does exist.
--
It is not the case that most scholars support 586, but any who do are wrong. No "poblem" for me whatsoever.--
I care little for your opinion as you never contribute anything anew except some pretty charts.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
scholar:
I care little for your opinion as you never contribute anything anew except some pretty charts.
hahaha... poor 'scholar' had to resort to throwing a tantrum. Maybe you should write to Watch Tower to tell them they're wrong that most secular historians say 587 BCE. 🤣
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
No need for most scholars prefer 586 BCE.
Even you can't be this dumb. Your assertion about 586 is why I suggested that you write to Watch Tower about it because they acknowledge that most historians say 587 BCE.
-
scholar
Jeffro
It is not the case that a significant majority of scholars prefer 586, but any who do are wrong. No "poblem" for me whatsoever. Even mother Watch Tower disagrees with you.
The Watchtower, 1 October 2011, page 31:
---
Most scholars prefer 586 not 587 BCe. Keep up reading the WT for you may be converted to 607 BCE
---
Most translations of Jeremiah 29:10 properly refer to 70 years for Babylon. Even in the rendering of the few translations that incorrectly allude to 70 years as a period at Babylon, the 70 years doesn't include the journey home, and allows the 70 years to end before attention is given to their return. But the JW interpretation is a distorted mess because they say the 70 years (which supposedly started more than a decade after most of the Jews were already in exile) ended only once they'd arrived in Judea. Worse still, in the JW interpretation, most of the Jews are in exile for over 80 years, some are in exile for less than 70 years and others are in exile for about 65 years.
--
Traditional renderings favour 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' and the NWT is in very good company in this respect.. The 70 years as explained in our publications is simple and clear as the Return was in 537 BCE, the Jewish Exile lasted 70 years so it must have begun in 607 BCE with the Fall. You talk about a 'distorted mess' then you should look at the journal articles on the subject and you will see a mess indeed just like your pretty chart.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
🤦♂️
-
Vidqun
Scholar, I think I have an answer to this conundrum. With all those resources at your disposal, why don't you write us a book about the pros and cons of the chronology of the final days of Judah. It seems as though you have researched the subject top to bottom. See what argument makes sense and what argument is totally BS. Beware, you are not allowed to plagiarize Furuli's work or the Watchtower articles or books. These have been dealt with and did not make the grade. Jonson made sure of that. It must be in your own work and words. You should include all or most of above resources to state your case. Then you publish your book so that it could be peer reviewed. You never know, if your thesis is convincing, you will become the new kid on the block, revolutionizing research on chronology.