Here we go again! Will scholar get it this time, or will he persist in missing the point in my posts entirely?
It was you who introduced the seventy years with the temple hypothesis as post 3670.
Is that so? Well, here is post #3670 in its entirety. Please point out where I gave the 70 years an application different than your own:
schooler...You have no comment on my question to you on the other thread of how 539 BC is supposed to be an absolute date? Why do you persist in calling this an absolute date when it is derived -- your own "Watchtower scholars" show how they derive it from 523 BC, an actual absolute date. By the same token, 587 BC should be considered an absolute date for the destruction of Jerusalem, for it is very simply derived from another absolute date -- 568 BC as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer. I also pointed out that there is no inherent conflict between your favored interpretation of the 70 years and 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall. I could start with 568 BC as my absolute date, which gives me 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall and 517 BC as the end of the exile. Yes, that messes up the Persian chronology as you might point out. But who cares! As you always say, the Bible trumps any secular evidence and we should stick with a full 70 years following the fall of Jerusalem irregardless of what overwhelming secular evidence there may be.
As if that wasn't clear enough, in subsequent posts I tried to make it more and more explicit so it can get through your thick head:
Not only that, but you also indulge in circular reasoning in referring to 539's "relevance to OT chronology". It only has that relevance after you have already chosen another date, 523 BC, as date to fix your chronology, to derive 539 BC as the date to fix the terminus of the 70 years two years later. If we choose a different absolute date to fix your chronology, 568 BC, and apply the very same interpretation of the 70 years to get to the last year of Zedekiah (i.e. the Watchtower Society's interpretation), we are now talking about 519 as the fall of Babylon and 517 BC as the terminus of the 70 years. With 568 BC as the anchor date (and with the Watchtower interpretation of the 70 years), 539 BC is meaningless.
But logically, one could start of with 568 BC just as you start off with 523 BC, and derive 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall and a terminus of the 70 years just as you derive 537 BC as a terminus of the 70 years on the basis of 523 BC (which is the basis for both 539 BC and 537 BC), and come up with a chronology that has both (1) 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall and (2) the interpretation of the 70 years which you so love and prefer.... It doesn't matter at all how overwhelming the evidence is otherwise that Babylon fell in 539 BC, because at least we can maintain the 70 years as running from the date of Jerusalem's fall to the end of the captivity.
And to make my point a third time, by all means go ahead and assume 70 years of captivity ending with the fall of Babylon (or rather, two years later). This would make the end of the 70 years in 517 BC, two years after Babylon's fall. That would be a chronology just as consistent with your interpretation of the "70 years" as the one you currently endorse. Yes, of course, it screws up the Persian chronology. So what. You have repeatedly said that the Bible trumps all secular evidence no matter how overwhelming it may seem. No matter how overwhelming the evidence seems for 539 BC as the fall of Babylon, 70 years of captivity leaves us no choice but to posit 519 BC as the real date for Babylon's fall. That's essentially your same argument for the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BC.
scholar is so stupid that he thinks that just because I'm talking about 517 BC as a hypothetical end of the 70 years, automatically I must be interpreting the 70 years as ending with the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel over 20 years after the Fall of Babylon -- despite my repeated clear statements that I'm talking about the "Watchtower interpretation of the 70 years," "your favored interpretation", "70 years of captivity ending with the fall of Babylon (or rather, two years later)", "the end of the 70 years in 517 BC, two years after Babylon's fall", blah blah blah ad nauseum. Of course, as long as schooler persists in misrepresenting my argument, the longer he can avoid the very simple logical conundrum it poses. Sometimes being ditsy has its merits, I guess.
You believe in different date such as 597, 586, 605 which are derived from other absolute dates. Do not worry if you are happy with these derived dates and your respective Absolute dates then I am happy for you. I am convinced about other dates which too are derived dates from other absolute dates and I am happy with this.
Right, so it doesn't matter which absolute date you start with, huh? Your interpretation of the 70 years forces you to accept one absolute date and reject others. Why start with 523 BC as your absolute date (the basis of 539 as a pivotal date), when you can start with 568 BC, 651 BC, or a host of others? Because, apparently, that is the date that in combination with your interpretation of the 70 years yields your holy date of 607 BC. Other absolute dates do not lead to 607 with the Watchtower's interpretation of the 70 years. So what makes 523 so special? Let me put it another way -- You say it is apostate thinking to reject what you feel to be is the correct biblical understanding of the 70 years in favor of 587/6. I'm saying that both are easily in harmony -- it is only by arbitrarily selecting one of the many absolute dates that the two come into conflict. Of course, I feel that all the absolute dates are in harmony with 587 because I think the Watchtower's interpretation of the 70 years is bunk. But that's not my point. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying, absolutely, let's stick with the 70 years as concurrent years of desolation and captivity, ending two years after the Fall of Babylon and beginning at the Fall of Jerusalem. That's what you believe isn't it? That ain't no "temple hypothesis" isn't it? Well, I'm behind you all the way....definitely let's go with that interpretation. And guess what? There is no inherent conflict with this understanding of the 70 years and 586/7 BC!!
I believe that my chronology is better than yours and is more faithful to God's Word and to its prophetic message
How? I just showed how one can devise a chronology that is based on absolute dates and that fully respects your favored interpretation of the 70 years, yet has 586/7 BC for the Fall of Jerusalem. Sure, it screws up the Persian chronology by 20 years. But so what! We must respect the Bible's 70 years, as you say, and the Bible does not indicate the true length of the Persian period. Secular sources are inferior to God's Word. Right? But you mention "its prophetic message". Ahh, that's it, isn't it....a chronologist should also be mindful that one's chronology should also get the right date for prophetic fulfillment thousands of years later. 607 BC must be right because of what happened in 1914, right? That is to say, 607 BC as the date of the Fall of Jerusalem should be the basis for 1914 because 1914 is the proof that 607 is the date of the Fall of Jerusalem. I admire the reasoning...
Does such a chronology promote faith? Does it energise you with a sense of God's purpose for people today? Do you use such a chronology inyour ministry?
Right. Thank you for dropping your "scholar" pretensions. This has never been an impartial search for accurate chronology; you admit you are motivated theologically...it is a basis for faith. This isn't an issue of just history, it's an issue of religious doctrine. Now why doesn't anyone else without vested interests argue in favor of 607 BC?
