Research on the validity of 1914

by Bluegrass Tom 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Oroborus21
    Oroborus21

    Greetings!

    Your conclusion is sort of correct but the reasoning is not quite accurate. One person has already pointed out the reference to the s"ervice to Babylon" being 70 years and this can have reference to the Jewish state's subjugation of political and military power to Bablylon which occurred long before 587 BCE, and actually, even before 607 BCE..

    To that person's point, I would point out that the terms that have been translated as "desolated" are more properly understood as the etymology suggests. That is to say that "desolation" means to "de-soul" some place or in other words to remove the people from the place.

    The Babylonian and Jewish histories indicate that about 609-606 BCE, the babylonian armies had already pretty much subdued all of the surrounding countryside, and pretty much had Jerusalem itself bottled up. Persons, especially nobles and members of the upper class, like Daniel were even taken captive and sent to Babylon years before the actual razing of the temple. Thus it could be said that land and even Jerusalem, as it represents the Jewish seat of power, commenced its desolation long before that event.

    (Keep in mind too that the land was NEVER completely desolate in the sense that not a single person was around for the Babylonians left certain vinedressers and even imported a few people that lived on the land), though of course wiht LESS people around, some of the "wildness" and beasts were able to have a little bit more freedom to roam around.

    Finally, a third consideration is that the "70 years" is probably not meant to be taken literally but rather more generally refers to the approximation of a "generation" so that Jeremiah and other prophets who make reference to the babylonian captivity lasting for 70 years really mean that it was to last "for about one generation" of persons. Basically persons going off to Bablylon were told not to plan on coming back themselves but were promised that their children would be restored.

    Of course any or all of these three alternative reasonings BOTH support a prophetic truth viewpoint to the scriptures and at the same time do not conflict with the actual date of the "destruction of Jerusalem" and burning of the Temple which practically every authority, record and scholar, other than JWs, agree occurred in 587 BCE.

    Of course, JWs, for the time being cling to the idea that the 70 years must be literal because the whole Gentile Times (theory) doctrine is based upon similar literal understanding and interpretation.

    -Eduardo

  • Unfettered
    Unfettered

    Don't be too hard on scholar. It's obvious he hasn't yet actually looked at any "secular evidence". I also find it amusing that he calls himself scholar so as to in some way validate his position as being one of authority. Gee, I wonder where he learned to do that? Perhaps the good old governing body tactics of self-appointment and title as the sole channel of god has rubbed off on him?

    I understand the mentality of scholar. I've been there... I believed that what the society has taught was "the truth". So, anything that doesn't agree with it MUST be a lie. Thus, in his mind all the evidence must support his opinion and thus there's no need to actually go out and read any of it. To do even do so would be to admit the possibility that what he has been taught all these years is not the truth. However, a REAL seeker of truth says... "God, show me the truth NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS". You have to admit, even amongst those that have successfully departed the borg, we still have beliefs and misconceptions we do not easily abandon. How many of us could really handle the full TRUTH no matter what it really is? our own beliefs and preconceptions limit us. Scholar is on his own path... perhaps a path some of us have already travelled. He's just at a different point or juncture.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Unfettered

    The truth is that there is much conjecture about the biblical chronology of the Old Testament as shown by numerous dates given for events in biblical history, There is considerable secular evidence available to support WT chronology as shown in the publications for otherwise such a chronology is based on an illusion. I have studied various positions and are familiar with the literature on the subject of the seventy years in particular. The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and has prophetic significance leading to 1914 as shown by the recent disaster in Asia. In short, our chronology works for Bible students and Christians, all other schemes fail.

    scholar

    BA MA Studies in Religion

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother
    The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained

    Not by me it wasn't. I used to dread an assignment that required me to cover that topic. Because deep down I knew that it did not make sense. I remember as a young boy that I asked a public talk speaker (who had just covered this )how we could prove that the seventy years actually had a "Larger fulfilment" He just winked and said that "You just talk quickly through that bit. "

    Bluegrass Toms post was substantially correct. I liked his straightforward explanation If one wants a lot more detail then it is readily available on line, try the links from this board

    It was noteworthy to me that the current reasoning in the "Insight" book is lifted straid from "Aid to Bible Understanding which was compiled by a committee headed by Ray Franz. He admitted in C of C that at the time it did not add up, but he felt he had to write what was expected..

  • City Fan
    City Fan
    I have studied various positions

    Scholar, I've warned you not to keep reading the Kama Sutra.

  • Neo
    Neo

    Neil,

    There you are again! Happy New Year in Australia!!

    City Fan,

    I have studied various positions

    Scholar, I've warned you not to keep reading the Kama Sutra.

    ROFLMAO!!

    Neo

  • Unfettered
    Unfettered

    rolfl.....

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho
    Such an established date provides a sound basis for calculating the prophetic year of 1914.

    Neil, so what does that prove. From Brooklyn publications they in 1914 did not recongnize what 1914 meant.

  • Neo
    Neo

    I still have fun with scholar's posts. He has this great ability of coming up with the same extensive research with complete bibliography, managing in his mind the inconsistency of flattering the FDS for their unique chronology (he himself called it "Watchtower chronology") on one side, and unashamedly disobeying them by posting here on the other side.

    The truth is that there is much conjecture about the biblical chronology of the Old Testament as shown by numerous dates given for events in biblical history

    No one in the world except for the Watchtower supports the 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. All scholarship is unanimous in supporting a date about 20 years earlier.

    I have studied various positions and are familiar with the literature on the subject of the seventy years in particular.

    I are afraid that scholar still can't be honest with himself.

    The great merit of WT chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and has prophetic significance leading to 1914 as shown by the recent disaster in Asia.

    Well, something new in the same old drivel. He is applying "current events" to "Bible prophecy" in his argumentation, keeping up to date with the FDS directions.

    Neo

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    Neo:

    afraid that scholar still can't be honest with himself.

    But he has multiple degrees in religious studies!!!!!!!!!

    Genuflex, my friend, in the face of such overwhelming intellectual capacity, and admit that you are hopelessly helpless against such prowess.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit