Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,
  

  You seem to have lost a grip on reality today.

  You expect Narkissos, Alleymom, AlanF, Leolaia, Jonsson to adhere to disciplines in translation that the NWT itself does not. You celebrate what you *now* note as lack of dogmatism in the theological stance of these people while adhering to a completely dogmatic viewpoint yourself. Have you gone mad?

  In fact they have repeatedly provided you with *overwhelming* evidence that the WTS viewpoint on many matters relating to multiple 70 year periods spoken of in Jeremiah, the use of prepositions in Hebrew translation and numerous other matters is at the very least flawed. Leolaia was even good enough to involve one of the foremost scholars still living on this matter and you dismissed his viewpoint, viewpoint that is contrary to your own and that of the WTS, claiming that Leolaia - one of the boards most intellectually honest poster - influenced Jenni into adopting an anti WTS policy! Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

  You then write to Ginosko :
  

  I did not state or infer that the NWT is inspired and that the NWT Committee were inspired in the production of the NWT.

  Then you wrote this just a few lines below this :
  

  If one believes that Jehovah is the Preserver of his Sacred Word for centuries would it not be reasonable to conclude that at a time when biblical 'graciously oversee' the translation of the NWT.
  

  Have you been too long with the wine?

  HSscholarship is at its peak and amidst a plethora of other translations that Jehovah and His Son would graciously oversee the bringing up of a transaltion that truly honours Him in the light of Daniel 12 :3-4.

  Of course you infer that the NWT translation committee were guided by Jehovah in their work. If you deny this, then how else did your God
• 

  OldSoul

  Scholar: I did not state or infer that the NWT is inspired and that the NWT Committee were inspired in the production of the NWT.

  So, exactly what does "clearly the work of Holy Spirit" mean, if not that the spirit guided the work of translation? And would you mean that it merely did so in general or that it worked specifically on the committee? At whose direction, if not God's?

  Do you know what "theopneustos" means?

  Curiously,
  OldSoul
• 

  AlanF

  Hillary_Step said to scholar pretendus:

  : You seem to have lost a grip on reality today.

  What do you mean, "today"?

  AlanF
• 

  toreador
• 

  hillary_step

  Alanf,

  Hillary_Step said to scholar pretendus:

  : You seem to have lost a grip on reality today.

  What do you mean, "today"?

  lol......If this debate were a dartboard, Scholar generally hits the edge of the board with his dart which then bounces off and spears his foot. In his last few posts above however, it seems as if he has thrown his darts high in the air and is trying to catch them in his eye.

  HS
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Response to post 4068

  At last! You did it, You posted Jonnson's original letter to Jenni. Now that was not to difficult was it? I notice that in Jenni's response that he made reference to Jehovah's Witnesses and their theory. This is somewhat intriquing because Jonsson did not disclose to Jenni that Furuli is a Witness so one wonders Why and How that Jenni could have made such an association which may have affected Jenni's reply. Maybe Furuli's reputation as a scholarly Witness in Europe came to Jenni's attention. Thank you for the post.

  Response to post 4069

  In this post you make the extravagant claim of proving beyond any doubt that Jeremiah's seventy years ended in 539 BCE by means of three 'points'. Perhaps, now that we are all enlightened by the said 'points' you could present them to the scholarly community by means of a journal article for their overdue enlightenment'

  Point 1:

  You claim that 2 Kings 25: 11,12 and Jeremiah 25:11,12 proves that the seventy years ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The crux of your argument that verse 12 clearly shows that when the 70 years were fulfilled, Jehovah would punish the king of Babylon which occurred in 539 BCE. But is this really what the text says? I think not because verse 12 clearly shows that after the completion of the seventy years a period of judgement against Babylon would commence. Certainly, Babylon received a judgement from Jehovah when it was toppled as a World Power by the Persians which happened in 539 with the introduction of a new World Power at Babylon. However, verse 12 is separated from verse 11 as shown by most translations and commentators which recognizes verse 12 as a new oracle delivered not to Jerusalem but Babylon. So, the seventy year period had expired then Babylon would receive successive judgements right through history until thos judgements were completed.Verse 12 and 13 make it quite clear that the land of Chaldea including Babylon wiuld now be subject to desolations which did not occur at 539 which merely saw the overthrow of a city. It was only over time that all of the things spoken against Babylon by Jeremiah could have been fulfilled. The text verse 12 does not explicitly refer to the overthrow of Babylon at the behest of Cyrus. What the text does infer is that the judgement against Babylon could only have begun when the seventy years expired which was a short time later in 537 BCE

  Point 2:your argument here is that according to Jeremiah 27:6,7 which refers to Neb's family could only be the 'king of Babylon' represented by Jeremiah 25:12. This is specious reasoning. how so?

  Not all of the subsequent 'kings of Babylon' were of Neb's family and I respectfully and humbly draw your attention to the comment made on this point in the WBC,1995,27:50 wherein:"The Nebuchadnezzar dynasty outlined in v.7 does not match what is known about Babylon's kings from ancient sources." Further, Lundbom in his commentary ABD,2004,21B:316 " is not to be taken literally, it simply denotes three generations...And the time period is indefinite...until Babylon fell to Cyrus, the Persian and neither was a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzer" So, even Cyrus was properly a 'king of Babylon' as similarly attested by archaeological evidence.

  Point 3.

  2 Chroniicles 36:20 is supposed by you to prove absolutely that Jeremiah's seventy years ended not later than 539 BCE. Honestly, the text does not say this and this is merely your interpretation. The text clearly states the cessation of sevitude to Babylon ended when the royalty of Persia began to reign. It does not say when the royalty of Babylon ceased. The focus of this verse is not on Babylon, the old World Power but a new World Power, Medo-Persia. The text does not immediately give a year for this event but the immediate context certainly does. It shows quite clearly that this event, the royalty of Persia is linked with Cyrus and the issuing of the decree at the ' beginning 'of his reign.So it is that in verse 22 our attention is drawn to the fact that Jeremiah's prophecy is referred to and fulfilled not at the time or year of Babylon''s Fall but that of the first year of Cyrus which began after 539 BCE It was in that very first year that the decree to release the exiles in Babylon and so it was that they returned home bu Tishri in 537BCE fulfilling Jeremiah's seventy years.

  Not one of your three points proves your proposition that the seventy years ended in 539 for if it was the case then I am sure most scholars would be similarly converted to your theory. At best, scholars accept the idea that the seventy years belong to Babylon but they disagree as to its chronology. But all of the Bible writers attest to the fact that the seventy years belong to Judah, Jerusalem, its Temple and its people and is a definite period of desolation-servitude-exile.

  There is no fuzziness in rendering 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon'. To the contrary, in that entire letter, Babylon is associated with various prepositions, many of which give a locative sense. The phrase 'in accord with' properly puts the focus not on Babylon but the fulfillment of that period namely seventy years because it is that entity that Jeremiah earlier referred to in chapter 25 which was marked by desolation and servitude to and in Babylon

  You now raise the matter of a so-called inconsistency as if you have not enough holes to fill in the Jonsson hypothesis as per a definte date for the beginning of the seventy years and a definite year for the Fall of Jerusalem. The Society is quite correct in claiming that the seventy years is a period of desolation and captivity to Babylon, these events are and must be wholly commensurate.which proves the soundness of our exegesis. It is the fact of their consistency and their definition respect to chronology which is the ace in the hole.

  Your reasoning about the time in months of the journey to and from Babylon is spuriuous. The fact of the matter is that from the time of the desolation of the land without an inhabitant until the reoccupation of the exiles was exactly seventy years right to the very month Tishri. Rather than dwelling on such stupidity I suggest that you expend your considerable intellectual ego in trying to solve the problem of 'months' in connection with your proposed Fall of Jerusalem in 586/587, 586, 587?

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  hilary_step

  Have you ever heard of the term 'intellectual freedom'? Wt scholars and the Society have the right to their own interpretations of matters and we always put God's Word to the for rather than the theories and opinions of men. As Paul wrote in Romans 3:3-4 that it is God who is true and that men are liars so we trust in God. WT scholars use and are intersted in the best scholarship available for all of our publications including the sacred NWT but that does not mean that we embrace avery linguistic or chronological theory. The fore-mentioned wiley poztates have simply presented their opinions about matters and that is their right, it is my right to reflect and to be critical of such material when it lacks evidence or proof.

  The simple fact of the matter that in the case of Jeremiah 29:10 that the Jonsson hypothesis asserts a dogmatic view which does accord with all Hebrew scholarship. Le has a wide semantic range and can mean 'at' so it is the discretion of any transaltor to render that preposition accordingly. As my learned friend Mr.Shearman has wisely counselled; It comes down to who you believe,Jenni or Gesenius!

  scholar JW
• 

  OldSoul

  Scholar,

  As a friendly opponent, I sincerely urge you to check whether someone switched your pills. You are saying things you can't possibly mean:

  Scholar: At best, scholars accept the idea that the seventy years belong to Babylon but they disagree as to its chronology. But all of the Bible writers attest to the fact that the seventy years belong to Judah, Jerusalem, its Temple and its people and is a definite period of desolation-servitude-exile.

  Not only at best, it is a fact that scholars accept the seventy years as belonging to Babylon. "All of the Bible writers" definitely do not attest to the "fact" that the seventy years belonged to Judah, Jerusalem, its Temple and its people, or the period of time being one of "desolation-servitude-exile." Please try to avoid absolute inclusive terms.

  Scholar: So, even Cyrus was properly a 'king of Babylon' as similarly attested by archaeological evidence.

  Nowhere is this even hinted at. Cyrus was Persian. Persia conquered Babylon. Was Nebuchadrezzar King of Israel? Then, so was Cyrus, because when the the Babylonian lands became the Persian lands Israel was part of the package. So are you asserting that if 537 is the destruction of Babylon that it did not end the rein of Babylon as a world power? That isn't even close to the view espoused by the WTS. Your reasoning is far-fetched, absurd, and desperate.

  Scholar: It was only over time that all of the things spoken against Babylon by Jeremiah could have been fulfilled. The text verse 12 does not explicitly refer to the overthrow of Babylon at the behest of Cyrus. What the text does infer is that the judgement against Babylon could only have begun when the seventy years expired

  Hey, granted! They started to be fulfilled with the overthrow of Babylon. They were not to be completed at the end of the 70 years, they were to start at that point.

  These were some of many twisting convoluted examples of a drowning man clutching at floating seaweed for support.

  OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  Scholar: The fore-mentioned wiley poztates have simply presented their opinions about matters and that is their right, it is my right to reflect and to be critical of such material when it lacks evidence or proof.

  The difference being, the wiley poztates will speak to you if they see you on the street. But, the organization you advocate for teaches its adherents to cut off all unnecessary contact with those who "reflect and [criticize] ... material when it lacks evidence or proof."

  Yep, that's the intellectual freedom JWs are known for. You must feel proud to be a part of an organization that feels the need to silence all criticism in the interests of maintaining a false illusion of unity. Before you get your knickers in a twist over that statement, observe that your presence and frequent posts here is clear evidence that there is no true unity.

  OldSoul
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar to Narkissos:
  
  The prohet Zechariah wrote concerning the delay in rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonians which event led to the exile and desolation of the Judah. Even though the exiles had now returned home some twenty years, the temple was not yet completed so the angel brought a message of comfort reminding them of the fact that temple and its cities or the land of Judah had been denounced these seventy years. [emphasis added]

  Neil ---

  I hope to get to your other messages tomorrow, but let me address this one now.

  The WTS says that the year 537 marked the end of what they see as the one and only 70-year period. Other Bible scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have understood the Bible to be speaking of different 70 -year periods of "servitude," "captivity," "desolation" ( as shown, for instance, in the charts of the book you recommended a few years ago by Eliezer Shulman.) Some, like Narkissos, would say that the Bible itself shows a change in understanding of what the original 70-year prophecy signified.

  But if you believe, as the WTS does, that there was one and only one 70-year period, which ended in 537, then there is no way at all to fit the passages in Zechariah into your chronological scheme. Because, as you yourself have pointed out in the quote shown in the box above, the exiles had been back home in Jerusalem some twenty years when the events of Zechariah take place.

  Zech 1.12 -- the second year of Darius.
  "O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which Thou hast been indignant THESE seventy years?" [Hebrew has singular "this"]

  Zech 7:5 --- the 4th year of King Darius
  "When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months THESE seventy years" [Heb. has sing. "this"]

  Note that the word is THESE, not THOSE. [Literally, in the Hebrew, THIS, not THAT.]

  "THESE/THIS" indicates that the particular seventy year period being spoken of in Zechariah is an ongoing period. It is NOT a seventy-year period which CEASED some twenty years ago in 537.

  This is the same problem that you had with Jeremiah 29:10, only there you want to say that the seventy-year period which is being spoken of is not going to START until ten years in the FUTURE. Here in Zechariah you want to say that the seventy-year period ENDED some twenty years in the PAST.

  And since the WTS insists that there is one and only one seventy-year period (rather than separate periods of servitude, captivity, desolations) there is absolutely no way you can reconcile this inconsistency.

  Others, who accept that there are different seventy-year periods being spoken of (or who suggest, as Narkissos has done, that the interpretation in the Bible itself changed over time) have no problem at all with Zechariah.

  Page 143 of the book of chronological charts you recommended by Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, shows several different 70-year periods. Shulman shows 70 years from the "Destruction of the Temple" to the "Building of the Temple." He also shows "70 years of the kingdom of Babylon," "70 years of the Babylon exile," and "51 years from the destruction of the Temple until the end of the kingdom of Babylon."

  Biblical scholars who adhere to a conservative view of the Scriptures have no problem with the "THESE 70 years" of Zechariah, because they understand there to have been a 70-year period between the destruction of the temple in 586 and its restoration under Darius in 516.

  This is thoroughly addressed by Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) in two books which I read many years ago: Daniel in the Critics' Den, and The Coming Prince. Note that this conservative Christian was writing long before Carl Olof Jonsson or Dr. Ernst Jenni.

  Marjorie