I wonder why it takes six lines of text just to say "NO"?
link
Pivitol Date Stuff
by IP_SEC 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Leolaia
It is my own summation of all the biblical and historical evidence based on the 'seventy years' texts <snip> WT chronology alone harmonizes all the available data into a holistic account of events for that critical period.
Really? How does WT chronology succeed in harmonizing the known length of the Neo-Babylonian period (independently attested through different sources) with its interpretation of the 'seventy years'? For instance, how is it consistent with the records of the Egibi and Sons banking firm? (From the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar a person named Sula was the head of the Egibi firm. He continued for 20 years up to the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he died and was succeeded by his son, Nabu-ahi-idina. Nabu-ahi-idina ran the firm for 38 years, until the 12th year of Nabonidus, when he was succeeded by his son Itti-Marduk-Balatu. Itti-Marduk-Balatu in his turn remained head of the firm for 23 years, until the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis.) Or all the other pieces of evidence that independently point to the same length? I thought no attempt was made at actually harmonizing the data ... rather, it is just asserted that the Bible is infallible and thus trumps any extrabiblical evidence which might conflict with it (or rather, their interpretation of it).
-
aniron
This Scholar (surely not!) person certainly shows his lack of REAL biblical knowledge, compared with Watchtower knowledge.
I read the posts of Alanf and City Fan filled with reference and detailed explainations and reasoning and logic. This "Scholar" offers nothing but a few lines, no references, weak argument, unreasoned thinking and he thinks he is the Einstein of the Bible. Plus the usual arrogant self-righteous attitude of a JW, which they seem to think is the answer to all questions.
He signs himself "BA MA Religious studies" what university gave him them?? I didn't know kindergarten gave out degrees! Or did he just fill in a coupon on the back of a cereal packet.
Strange that he relies on worldly qualifications to impress when the WT probably consider his BA MA as useless.
-
stevenyc
Hello all,
I?m new here, and have been reading this thread with interest.
This subject was one of the subjects that I stumbled on and left in JW organization over. I had to give a talk ?you know one ? explaining bible prophecy from 607 to 1914, as proof of the last days and justification of the FDS. So, I decided that I would collate all the WTS information and correlate it with known and excepted historical data. Knowing that the Organization is True, I?d love showing absolute truth in prophecy (the Daniel prophesies were always a favorite of mine. You know, seeing it in writing, there in your hands, filled you with Holy Spirit.
My research was by no means frivolous, and included discussions with the British Library, British Museum, and the British Astronomical Association.
With my research I could not correlate the WTS teaching with any hard evidence outside.
The time for delivering my talk was rapidly diminishing, so, I approached an Elder within the congregation who was known not only for his frankness but also his love for the organization and his methodical research when preparing for talks.
I showed him my findings, both of WTS and outside information and asked why they didn?t match, I knew I must have missed something, and how should I approach this in my talk.
He told me that he had been through a similar dilemma years before. He showed me that the important thing to remember is that 1914 is absolutely that date of Jesus? return as clearly seen through the signs of the last days and WWI. Therefore if we retrace the total days for years we will end up at 607 BCE. There is a difference of around twenty years between what is currently available to us and to what the bible says. The bible?s word is always greater than any secular thought, so, 607 is the date to use, and I should feel confidant to use such a date.
I gave my talk with the WTS thinking of dates and prophesies, however, I felt pretty bad in the stomach while delivering it. It still didn?t feel right, and, I still feel bad about not delivering a talk to my fellow brothers explaining the difference and that we should rely on Jehovah to give us the appropriate reason of the lost twenty years in the future.
Well, that?s my story on this subject.
I see that the person by the name of scholar has the answer to the lost twenty years shown through secular and historical proof. If so then this is not a challenge to show it but an honest request from someone who would like to clear their conscience over delivering incomplete truths to their brothers.
Steve.
-
AlanF
Unscholar wrote:
: 1. Apostates and critics have various interpretations of the seventy years and are hopelessly confused on this matter.
Not really. What they are is honest. The available data, from the Bible itself, is inconclusive. It is only dishonest and doctrinaire religionists like JW apologists who refuse to acknowledge this.
: For example, the Jonsson hypothesis
Your usual straw man. Jonsson simply presents, in one place, the best of modern secular research. The fact that you continue to use this straw man even after being castigated for such lies dozens of times simply proves your gross dishonesty and putrid scholarship. But you've learned from a good teacher, your Mommy.
: claims that are twi sevety year periods at least: a period of Babylonian supremacy of servitude ending with 539
At least three, actually. But your reading comprehension is so poor that you simply don't understand what you read, as I show below.
: but no substantive beginning.
On the contrary. See below, if you can manage to comprehend simple English.
: Jonsson struggles with two candidates such as 605 or 609?
No struggle at all. This is yet another dishonest comment from you.
Jonsson presents these two dates as possibilities, without being dogmatic, because the Bible itself sets no specific starting date. Jonsson, as do most other commentators, also points out that these seventy years might be a round number.
: and the seventy years of Zechariah from a hopless 589-587? until 520-515? Talk about hopeless confusion.
It's your reading comprehension that's hopeless. Jonsson actually shows that two different seventy-year periods are mentioned in Zechariah. One is based on Zechariah 1:7-12, and the other on Zechariah 7:1-5, as I commented upon in my above post, and which you failed completely to deal with, in your typical dishonest way.
Speaking of the denunciation or indignation shown by Jehovah to the Jews for the previous seventy years, as mentioned in Zech 1:12, Jonsson writes (pp. 225-6):
But the "indignation" or "wrath" clearly refers to the devastated state of the cities of Judah, including Jerusalem and its temple, which began after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E...
Counted from 587 B.C.E. the indignation had now, in 519, lasted for nearly seventy years, or sixty-eight years to be exact. And if counted from the beginning of the siege on January 27, 589 B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1; Ezekiel 24:1-2; Jeremiah 52:4), the indignation had lasted for almost exactly seventy years on February 15, 519. But just two months earlier the work on the foundation of the temple had been finished. (Haggai 2:18) From that time onward Jehovah began to remove his indignation: "From this day I shall bestow blessing." -- Haggai 2:19, NW.
It seems clear, therefore, that the seventy years mentioned in this text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah, but simply to the time that had elapsed by 519 B.C.E. since the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 589-587 B.C.E.
Since the text of Zechariah clearly indicates when the seventy-period had ended, but not when it began, Jonsson's figures are entirely reasonable.
The second seventy-year period in Zechariah that Jonsson speaks of is based on Zechariah 7:1-5. This passage speaks of fasting and wailing done by the Jews in the fifth and seventh months to commemorate the burning of Jerusalem and its temple, and the assassination of Gedaliah. Concerning this passage, Jonsson writes (pp. 226-8):
Again, the event recorded in this passage is exactly dated... This date corresponds to December 7, 518 B.C.E. (Julian calendar)...
For how long had the Jews been fasting in these months in memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the assassination of Gedaliah? For "seventy years," according to Zechariah 7:5. The year 518/17 was the seventieth year since 587 B.C.E.!
Clearly, then, Jonsson expounds on the two seventy-year periods mentioned in Zechariah. Therefore, unscholar, your statement that "Jonsson struggles with . . . the seventy years of Zechariah" -- as if Jonsson speaks of only one -- proves that it is you who are hopelessly confused.
: This range of Zechariah is plainly stupid because it shows that his interpretation of the seventy years as present and unfulfilled disallows a seventy years calculation.
Translation: "I want to believe that the Bible speaks of one and only one seventy-year period, and because Jonsson's arguments prove that Jeremiah speaks of one, and Zechariah speaks of two others, I think his arguments are stupid." What is stupid, unscholar, is your complete lack of actual argumentation.
: These proposed dates of four in number offer numerous time periods or permutations and becomes a statistical nightmare.
Not at all. Jonsson, and many other scholars, have shown that it's quite easy to understand. You merely claim that these things are difficult to understand because in your tiny little JW mind, you think that claiming that they're complicated is a good argument.
: Thiese facts are from GTR, 1998, 3rd edn, pp228-9.
The fact that you actually referenced this, but failed to understand what you read, once again shows the incredible lack of reading skill you have.
: 2.In Zechariah 1:12 the text clearly states"whom you have denounced these seventy years" which is a clear past time event or period which had already been fulfilled .
Obviously any past time period of any length is already complete. If I say, "I have lived in Colorado for four years", those four years are in the past, and they're complete. And their completion date is the date that I'm speaking. If they weren't complete, my statement would be a lie. Furthermore, those years are part of an ongoing period, because I am still living in Colorado. However, if I say, "I had lived in Colorado for four years", then the time period would still be complete, but it's not clear when I had completed my four-year stay. What would be clear is that the period would not be ongoing; otherwise I would be using improper English. And that's the point here with Zech. 1:12: the context clearly indicates that the seventy-year period was an ongoing one, not one that had been completed 20 years previous. The text says nothing whatsoever to indicate that the period was anything but ongoing, and so your claim, and that of the Watchtower Society, that the period had ended 20 years earlier, is obviously only made to shore up a bogus chronology, and has no support at all in the Scriptures.
: The only period that would be known to these returnees would be the previous exile by Babylon which began when the temple was destroyed and the land desolated.
Nonsense. The Jews knew of any number of periods. They knew of any number of seventy-year periods. Indeed, any arbitrary set of years seventy years long would be known to them as a seventy-year period.
It's obvious that I have to break things down to the level of five-year-old for you to understand. But I think you still won't.
: This proven by the fact that this period cannot be determined as shown by Jonsson and those who argue that this event is somehow still ongoing.
Since the Bible itself does not specify the beginning of this particular seventy-year period, good scholars will not be dogmatic about its beginning. The text is only clear about the end. The most important point is that a very reasonable argument can be made that the period probably ran from 589 to 519 (or about 587 to 519) B.C.E.
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society constantly fail to acknowlege that ambiguous data is contained in the Bible, and that no amount of posturing on their part is going to resolve the ambiguities. They fail to understand that merely invoking the self-proclaimed authority of the Governing Body might stop reasoned discussion among braindead JWs, but certainly not among anyone else.
: if it is argued that the seventy years is ongoing how can it be seventy years
Just like the four years I've lived in Colorado is ongoing. Four years have elapsed, and there will be a few more of them. How can you be so stupid?
: and what year did it precisely end and begin?
For Zech. 1:7-12: 589/7 to 519 B.C. This could be a nearly exact, or a round number.
For Zech 7:1-5: 587 to 518/7 B.C. This would be counting inclusively.
: Also, the context clearly shows that the denunciation referred not just to Jerusalem but also to the cities of Judah which only happened in that period of servitude, exile and desolation.
And?
: 3. In Zechariah 7:5 there is another past time reference introduced into a present time discourse. The fastings referred to were carried on by the Jews after the loss of the Temple and memorialized right up to the reign of Darius.
Apparently you don't believe what the Society itself has written about the time of the ending of this seventy-year period. Jonsson pointed this out quite clearly on page 228 of GTR-3. Here is what the Society wrote in the 1972 book Paradise Restored to Mankind -- by Theocracy!, p. 235:
Bethel was one of the towns that had been reestablished in the land of Israel by the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon. (Ezra 2:28; 3:1) When Sharezer and Regem-melech from there asked: "Shall I weep?" it meant every inhabitant of Bethel individually. For "O how many years" now the Bethelites had been celebrating a fast, an abstinence from food, in the fifth lunar month of each year. It was observed evidently on the tenth day of that month (Ab), in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar?s bodyguard, after two days of inspection, burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple. (Jeremiah 52:12, 13; 2 Kings 25:8, 9) But now that the faithful remnant of Jews were rebuilding the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem and were about half through, should the Bethelites continue to hold such a fast?
Note that the author clearly states, should the Jews "continue to hold such a fast". Not, should the Jews "resume holding such a fast". So the Society agrees that the seventy-year period ended in 518/7 B.C.E. And if it ended then, it must have begun about 587 B.C.E.
Now, unscholar, before you holler foul and start claiming that this is "old light", let me remind you that the fact that this 1972 book is included on the 2003 edition of Watchtower Library on CDROM proves that the Watchtower Society itself views the above quotation as "present truth". So you have a choice: accept what Mommy has told you and reject your own arguments, or reject what Mommy has told you and quit being a braindead JW. It'll be interesting watching you try to squirm out this dilemma.
: The verses immediately following verse five are a sarcastic reminder of Jehovah's denunciation and judgement of his formerly disobedient people which finally concludes in verses 13 and 14 of the desolation of the land.
True, but irrelevant to our discussion.
: In short, advocates of a present time hypothesis such as Jonsson cannot propose a definite beginning or ending of this seventy years.
I've briefly shown above that they can, and do, do exactly that. What they don't do, is be dogmatic when the data doesn't justify it. This dogmatism in the face of ambiguous data, though, is necessarily shown by religious leaders who claim "divine direction", since they can't appear to their followers not to know all the answers.
: Those who support a past time hypothesis are able to point to the definite period of seventy years of servitude, exile and desolation which had already expired and was imbedded into the Jewish psyche so as to be memorialized by annular fastings.
Such pointing is mere posturing, and without substance, as I have shown above.
You said to City Fan:
: It is my own summation of all the biblical and historical evidence based on the 'seventy years' texts and those biblical books that deal with prophecy, history and theology of this unique period of Jewish history.
This is abject nonsense. You know perfectly well that no historical data exists to support your claims. The fact that you know it is proved by the fact that you've failed 100% of the time to provide historical support, when asked by any number of posters, for the 607 date. You, unscholar, are a pathological liar.
Furthermore, the discussions that various posters have had with you, such as in this thread, prove unequivocally that, far from dealing with all of the biblical evidence, you pick and choose only what you think you can distort into seeming to support your claims. For example, you failed to deal with a single argument that I made in my post above. Again, you are thoroughly dishonest, and a disgrace to the scholars you would claim as equals.
: To conclude otherwise would require this period to be understood euther as a round number
Which, as any number of scholars have shown, is reasonable for all three seventy-year periods we've discussed in this thread.
: or to have the seventy yeras asigned to different historical periods which is nonsensical.
It's perfectly sensible. I've lived in Colorado for four years. I might also have lived in Massachusetts and New York and Oregon for four years. Just because people, even biblical authors, mention a specific figure in connection with various events does not mean that the events are the same event.
: WT chronology alone harmonizes all the available data into a holistic account of events for that critical period.
No, WTS chronology merely pretends to harmonize the data. WTS writers simply fail to deal in print with the data they know they can't harmonize. Alley Mom's posts have shown this particularly well. This is perfectly reasonable for them, given that they must support the illusion that JW leaders are divinely directed, and so must be seen not to waver, even when they know they're dead wrong.
AlanF
-
OldSoul
scalar: I simply explain that there are no biblical problems with the WT interpretation of the seventy years because it is directly based on Jeremiah, Chronicles, Daniel and Zechariah. These texts plainly state that the seventy years are of servitude, exile and desolation. Such events could only have been concurrent with an invasion of a foreign World Power namely Babylon under Neb and a succeeding Power under Cyrus with Jerusalem destroyed by Neb and things restored by Cyrus. Many give a number of interpretations which try to support secular chronology but fail miserably but a plain and direct reading of those texts sys otherwise.
First, to directly address your claim that there are no biblical problems with the WT view: I agree. Strictly speaking there are no direct biblical problems with their teaching on that point at all. There are, however, glaring historical problems of a temporal nature. For instance, people whose lives - using WT chronology - couldn't have overlapped having conversations and what-not.
Secondly, where are your secular sources? Please tell me you aren't simply trying to use Bible chronology without pinning down fixed contemporary points to work from.
Thirdly, your quote above is hilarious and I hope you will indulge me in a bit of critical analysis: Jeremiah, Chronicles, Daniel, and Zechariah plainly state that the seventy years are of servitude, exile, and desolation? Now, is it that each of them says the identical thing or are you just taught to use them to support each other, and so it seems that way to you? Isn't it true that only when read together along with external prompting about what it means that they seem to support the WT viewpoint? Would you have come to the same understanding without the aid of the Faithful and Discreet Slave?
Fair warning: Careful how you answer that last one, it's a doozy. You could be publicly reproved for saying you wouldn't need their help to figure that out.
Secular timing does not conflict with Bible timing at all. WT chronology regarding 607 was invented to support a previously held doctrine. WT chronology does not support the facts, but Bible chronology does. Therefore, WT chronology doesn't agree with Bible chronology in that only one of the two matches secular facts.
Peace,
OldSoul -
scholar
Old Soul
Thank you for your three questions:
1. I am glad that you agree that there are no biblical problems with WT chronology because it is Bible based and not compromised by higher critics.
2.Your second comment is rather odd because it seems to me that you have a poor understanding of WT chronology because it has always used a pivotal or Absolute Date which are derived from secular sources This method is well explained in older and mor recent WT publications. In recent times we have chosed 539 as a pivotal date for the fall of Bablon. This date is determined from secular sources.
3.I am well pleased that you find my recent comments hilarious, perhaps your hilarity is similar to mine when I read Alan F's desperate attempts to silence me by insults. I enjoy very much such nonsense particularly when he is an avowed sceptic and expects his exegesis to be taken seriously. No, this observation is purely my own and shows that I am capable of original thought. WT chronology has a;ways placed an emhasis on the seventy years as desolation of the land which by definition implies exile and servitude. From a critical study of those relevant texts and the scholarly literature on the subject, I believe that these three elements of the seventy years should be promoted. There is no one text that says these three things but when all of those texts are taken together and in combination with the whole book of Jeremiah, the above conclusion is logical and sound.
I owe my understanding of the Bible to the FDS but over many years one can deepen and sharpen one's spiritual understanding and comprehension. My interest in chronology was sharpened by defending our beliefs with the SDA's some thirty years ago and with the recent appeareance of the Jonsson nonsense. In fact I have found no better champion of WT chronology than the criticism of it by Jonsson. His discussion of the seventy years is fuzzy, complex and unbelievable because he proposes that there are two or three seventy year periods which is crazy.
Your last comment about the invention of 607 to uphold some doctrine is malicious, I put it to you that 606/607 were dates calculated from the biblical and secular evidence nourished by an interest in prophecy and the Lord's Advent. In other words theology that utilized such chronology was a part of Christian Tradition and was later acquired and developed by Russell in more recent times.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
City Fan
Scholar,
Here again is what you said to me in a previous thread when I discussed Zechariah 1 and 7:
You interpretation is preposterous and is not supported by Bible commentators. Did you bother to check what commentaries have to say on this subject of Zechariah 7:5 and 1:12
I have since given you 2 sources that support my view of the 70 years of Zechariah. There are plenty of others. When asked several times to provide just one commentary outside of the WTS or Furuli to support your view you simply cannot. So I could ask you, did you bother to check what commentaries have to say on this subject of Zechariah 7:5 and 1:12 ?
It's as simple as this. All secular evidence supports 586/587 as the fall of Jerusalem. There is much more evidence for this date than for the pivotal date of 539BC. Zechariah chapters 1 and 7 also support the date 586/587. "They were to ask this question of the prophets and of the priests at the Temple of the LORD Almighty: "Should we continue to mourn and fast each summer on the anniversary of the Temple's destruction, as we have done for so many years?" Zech 7:3 (NLT).
So in 517BC the question was asked 'should we continue to mourn and fast?', not should we resume! The Watchtower's interpretation would only work if the fasts had been going on for 90 years, not 70.
I don't think you have the necessary reasoning abilities to understand the arguments AlanF has explained to you. For example, do you have a response to this?
Note that the author clearly states, should the Jews "continue to hold such a fast". Not, should the Jews "resume holding such a fast". So the Society agrees that the seventy-year period ended in 518/7 B.C.E. And if it ended then, it must have begun about 587 B.C.E.
Again you write:
From a critical study of those relevant texts and the scholarly literature on the subject
Why do you never quote from any of this 'scholarly literature', if it backs up your arguments? You need to start quoting some of these references, as any proper scholar would, otherwise you are simply repeating yourself ad nauseum.
CF.
-
undercover
...In recent times we have chosed 539 as a pivotal date for the fall of Bablon. This date is determined from secular sources.
...I put it to you that 606/607 were dates calculated from the biblical and secular evidence nourished by an interest in prophecy and the Lord's Advent. In other words theology that utilized such chronology was a part of Christian Tradition and was later acquired and developed by Russell in more recent times.
Who's "we"?
Can you name some of the secular sources for 539?
Can you name some of the secular sources for 607?
If you trust the secular sources that name 539 would you trust those same sources if they arrived at 586 instead of 607? Why or why not?
Also, I have noticed over the many threads and posts on this subject that you like to make a point of how people waffle on the secular date of Jerusalem's destruction. Is it 586 or 587? I have the same critisizm for "you" as in your organization; which is it; 606 or 607? If the date of 606 was correct as Russell projected then when the "zero" year mistake was corrected then the Gentile Times would have ended in 1915. But, instead of correcting the answer of the equation, the given at the beginning of the equation was changed so as to keep the answer of 1914. So, which is correct, 606 or 607? Who is wrong, Russell, the orignal FD&S or the modern FD&S?
-
mkr32208
Scholar- Is there anything that anyone in the WORLD could show you that would convince you that the 607/606 is wrong? I'm sure the answer to that question is no... So why argue about it? Your arguments are so UNscholarly as to work in the exact oppisite of your desired intent! You are actually convincing people that the date is wrong by trying to show them that it's right! So why don't you just STOP it's ridiculous!
Everyone else- Why are you arguing with this fruitcake? Why not argue with brownhole or better yet that oak tree in your yard...