How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Fisherman

  To DJW

  after the completion of the removal of people into exile took place ...."

  Great research! To quote Bill Shakespear:

  ” Since brevity is the soul of wit, I shall be brief.”
• 

  peacefulpete

  OK, lets take this a step further, the book of Jeremiah reads that he (Jeremiah) was himself interested in returning to Jerusalem to rebuild there and is allowed to go back under Gedaliah. Then after Gedaliah is assassinated ,some years later, Jeremiah is declaring in God's name they should not flee but remain! Anyone who flees will be killed or die horribly by disease. Then he said to have been forcibly dragged to Egypt.

  4So Johanan the son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces, and all the people, did not obey the voice of the LORD to stay in the land of Judah.

  When in Egypt, Jeremiah just like Ezekiel, declares Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Egypt and burn all it's temples.

  8Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying, 9“Take some large stones in your hands and hide them in the mortar in the brick terrace which is at the entrance of Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes, in the sight of some of the Jews; 10and say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Behold, I am going to send and get Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and I am going to set his throne right over these stones that I have hidden; and he will spread his canopy over them. 11“He will also come and strike the land of Egypt; those who are meant for death will be given over to death, and those for captivity to captivity, and those for the sword to the sword. 12“And I shall set fire to the temples of the gods of Egypt, and he will burn them and take them captive. So he will wrap himself with the land of Egypt as a shepherd wraps himself with his garment, and he will depart from there safely. 13“He will also shatter the obelisks of Heliopolis, which is in the land of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he will burn with fire.”’”

  This just like Ezekiel's prophecy never happens.

  A simple observation is that the word ALL gets used a lot in the language of prophets. Maybe it's a translating thing.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Fisherman, I think all of us commenting in this topic thread agree that many people of Judah went into exile after Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon, but not all of us believe that every Jewish survivor of the conquest of Jerusalem and Judah went into exile in Babylon. Furthermore, not all of us believe that all of Judah was totally desolate (with no Jewish population at all) for exactly 70 years.
  
• 

  TD

  I have no iron in this fire and this is not even really "my subject" to be honest. It really doesn't matter to me if the correct date is 587 or 607, but there's things I honestly don't understand on this thread. (Which drives me up the wall...)
  

  On page 8, Rattigan350 said:

  It was Nelson Barbour in 1881 that added the 20 years because he thought 587 would lead to a 50 year desolation.

  In Three Worlds, Barbour starts with 536 BC, which he believed to be the first year of Cyrus, and counts back 70 years to arrive at 606 BC. Barbour was neither the first, nor the last to rely at least partially upon Ussher's Annales Veteris Testamenfi because the cuneiform artifacts which have caused the disagreement discussed on this thread were still being unearthed at the time.

  1881 was a few years after Barbour's separation from Russell, so I am curious about the captioned statement above, and what, if any, connection it has to the JW's. Barbour faded off into obscurity and eventually lost interest in the Adventist approach, from what I understand.
  

  On page 16 of this thread, Fisherman said:

  How does concluding that Judah went captive to Babylon for 70 years and Zion lay desolate for 70 years, The 70 years ended when the king of Babylon saw the handwriting on the wall goes against grammar?

  By my calculation (Again, perhaps wrong) this would have been the 68th year, which does not strike me as a simple, direct and grammatical reading of Jeremiah 25:12

  "But when 70 years have been fulfilled..." NWT

  "και εν τω πληρωθήναι τα εβδομήκοντα έτη..." LXX

  "...וְהָיָה כִמְלֹאות שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה אֶפְקֹד" MT

  All three phrases require posteriority of the condition(s) they reference and it would take a clever explanation indeed to overcome that fact. Even then, it would not be a simple, plain reading.

  I don't want to argue, but I am (understandably) curious.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  but not all of us believe that every Jewish survivor of the conquest of Jerusalem and Judah went into exile in Babylon. Furthermore, not all of us believe that all of Judah was totally desolate (with no Jewish population at all) for exactly 70 years.

  You mean that Moses did not part the red sea—only part of it.
  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Fisherman, what? According to the Bible the events of 2 Kings 25:22-26 took place after the exile mentioned in verse 21. Thus according to the Bible, after the exile (of that mentioned in verse 21) took place there were still Jews in Judah until the event which is described in verse 26. Furthermore, those mentioned in verse 26 did not go to Babylon but instead went to Egypt. Furthermore, the science of archaeology shows that some people remained in Judah while others were in exile in Judah. Also verse 12 mentions those who were not included in the group of exiles mentioned in verses 18-21.

  Even if the ones (mentioned in verse 26) who fled from Judah into Egypt can correctly be said to have gone into exile, they left after other did and thus it can not be said that all of the people of Judah had been in exile for the exact same amount of time, such as 70 years or some other number of years.

  As for Moses I don't believe he (or Yahweh) parted the red sea, however some scientists say the Hebrews might have crossed the "reed sea" (sea of reeds) and they say that a tsunami might have temporarily drained the reed sea. Other scientists say the archaeological evidence is there was no mass exodus of millions of Hebrews from Egypt to the land of Canaan. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed which says the following.

  "The book remarks that, despite modern archaeological investigations and the meticulous ancient Egyptian records from the period of Ramesses II, also known as Ozymandias (13th century B.C.), there is an obvious lack of any archaeological evidence for the migration of a band of semitic people across the Sinai Peninsula,[16] except for the Hyksos.

  ... Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.[19] Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlands;[20] these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.[21] "

  Furthermore, when what I read and from documentaries I saw on television I think that the biblical Moses probably never even existed.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  You mean that Moses did not part the red sea—only part of it.

  How about tomorrow we analyze that story, or should I say stories.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  How about tomorrow we analyze that story, or should I say stories.

  The Bible says he did. The Bible says that Judah went into Babylon exile for 70 years.
  
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @DisillutionedJW:
  
  The first two paragraphs seem like we are in agreement. Let me try to pick out the places of disagreement.
  
  

  As result I began seeing that the idea of Jerusalem and Judah being in servitude for 70 years (or very close to that number of years) ...

  
  From this, I see you are OK with the idea of the seventy years being a round number. Ok, fine. It's definitely not a perapective JWs are fine with. But if you are OK with this, then you can agree that the seventy years of servitude ends in 539 (v12), but begins in 607.
  
  

  ... is consistent with both the Bible and history and science (archaeology) and approximately with the date of 606 BCE, and that stunned me and greatly impressed me. After that, when I read Jamieson's commentary which gave the interpretation of Jerusalem's servitude having begun in 606 BC .. I thought its reasoning made a great deal of sense, and displayed no "tortured logic" in that matter.

  
  Note: the comment about "tortured logic" wasn't directed specifically at you or Jamieson. Rather, the authority of commentaries in general.
  
  

  It also got around the issue of the fact that Jerusalem's destruction happened in the year 587 BCE (plus of minus one year) and revealed that the WT's reasoning about he the year 607 BCE (originally the year 606 BC) had some degree of logic and suitability to it. Regarding the idea of the Bible having prophesied that Judah would be desolate (instead of in servitude) for specifically 70 years, I don't recall any verses saying such, however I have not looked to see if there are any say such verses. In the past I might have read such verses, but I don't remember having read such. I do remember that the WT says that the Bible says that Jerusalem and Judah would be (and/or was) desolate for specifically 70 years, but I am not certain that view of the WT is correct. I am not 'defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude.' I am not defining "desolation" as meaning "servitude"; to me they have very different meanings. I am not equating 70 years of servitude with seventy years of desolation. Likewise I don't see the Jamieson commmentary (which I quoted from) referring to the 70 years as soft desolation or any other desolation. That which I quoted from in it, in regards to the seventy years, is stated by the commentary as referring to the years of servitude and of captivity. I don't see it as saying the desolation as having lasted 70 years. It specifically says "Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem ...."

  
  And here is where we differ. The commentary says the 70 years is defined as "the years of servitude and captivity." Then it proceeds to call it "Jeremiah's years of captivity" - applying it to the the time when the first exile/captivity took place. So, it really sounds like Jamieson is saying (and you are agreeing) the 70 years pertains strictly to Judah's captivity, except he's willing to acknowledge that there were three separate waves of exile.
  
  But Jeremiah says 70 years of servitude of nations, specifically all the nations round about (v9). So why limit this to one nation? What are you reading there that let's your eyes see 'nations' and yet reduce it to one 'nation'?
  
  Then there's this again:
  
  

  The plain sense of Jeremiah 25:29 says the calamity begins (starts) first with Jehovah's city (namely Jerusalem) and Judah and proceeds to gentile nations.

  
  "See, I am beginning to bring disaster..." is not the same as saying Babylon will "start with" Jerusalem.
  
  Seventy years of servitude, vassalage, to Babylon of many nations. One of which was Judah, but the rule of Babylon is the 70 years.
  
  Hence 29:10 - "When seventy years have been completed for Babylon..."
  
  The emphasis of the 70 years is always Babylon. Not just Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon. It's 70 years of Babylonian rule. And 25:12 makes it really clear because when the 70 years is up, Babylon falls ( in that order ).
  
  

  Though Assyria was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon before the year 606 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet king at that time. Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Assyria while Nebuchadnezzar's father was king of Babylon.

  So? I don't see where the 70 years is attributed specifically to Neb. It's "for Babylon".
  
  I think the rest of your posts veered away into different topics. So I'll leave it here.
  
• 

  Hopeless1

  MrMustard,

  Then there's this again:

  The plain sense of Jeremiah 25:29 says the calamity begins (starts) firstwith Jehovah's city (namely Jerusalem) and Judah and proceeds to gentile nations.
  

  "See, I am beginning to bring disaster..." is not the same as saying Babylon will "start with" Jerusalem.

  Seventy years of servitude, vassalage, to Babylon of many nations. One of which was Judah, but the rule of Babylon is the 70 years.

  Hence 29:10 - "When seventy years have been completed for Babylon..."

  The emphasis of the 70 years is always Babylon. Not just Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon. It's 70 years of Babylonian rule. And 25:12 makes it really clear because when the 70 years is up, Babylon falls ( in that order ).

  Though Assyria was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon before the year 606 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet king at that time. Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Assyria while Nebuchadnezzar's father was king of Babylon.
  So? I don't see where the 70 years is attributed specifically to Neb. It's "for Babylon".

  
  

  Thank you very much indeed! 😊

  
  

  All these years I have been reading “70 years for Babylon” and thinking to myself, ‘that verse just doesn’t sound grammatically correct,- if the writer means to imply “at, or in, Babylon” (?!), when referring to the desolation of Jerusalem.

  The penny has dropped at last!

  I struggled for a long time over 607 or 587, and at the end came to the conclusion that 70 years could only apply to the conquest, vassalage of Jerusalem and Judea.