Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Marjorie,

    If someone tells me that his religious organization is the only true Christian body on earth today, and that I am not a true Christian because I have not accepted that Jesus returned in 1914 (and I have therefore not associated myself with the WTS), all I need to show is that 607 is wrong (and I have done so on many occasions).

    ....And that is the crux of the matter. Scholar has openly admitted to Marjorie that he does not view her as a true Christian because she is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is of course part of a cultist theology that depends on isolating its adherents and making them feel 'special' and superior to those around them.

    Nothing needs to be proved regarding the 586/587BCE dating of the first fall of Jerusalem, all that needs to be proved is that 607BCE is the incorrect date. Scholar begrudingly admits that secular chronology does not support this date, that all Biblical scholars who operate outside of an adventist agenda adhere to the the correct 586/587 date, and that the only group who believe that 607BCE is the correct date is the WTS. Few Jehovah's Witnesses even understand this chronology, let be able to defend it Biblically.

    Scholar has also admitted, very courageously I might add given its implications, that the WTS has stepped beyond its authority by shunning those who question the 607BCE date.

    Really, we should now rest the case because it is quite obvious to all readers that at this stage we are not debating information, we are debating an agenda, and arguing with an agenda is futile.

    I don't need to show whether 586 or 587 is right, and I would not presume to tell someone else that they must accept one of those dates over the other. It is of no consequence whatsoever to the life of faith, imo.

    Again Marjorie, you have struck at the crux of the matter. The WTS claims that true faith does not exist outside its own doctrines. It is a simple as that. Prove that its major doctrines are flawed and its claims to exclusive truth become completely worthless.

    Scholar is living in a thick jungle of cognitive dissonance, one from which all of us who have been Jehovah's Witnesses once lived, and from which many of us painfully hacked our way out into the daylight. Some of us found life outside the jungle hard to bear after believing for many years that we owned the world, only to emerge from that world and discover that we were not special at all, and that we were just another person among billions, struggling to find some sort of meaning in our rapid journey from the womb to the tomb.

    The disappointment and bitterness is evident on this Board among many of its posters as we rail at the WTS and bicker with each other, but this is not suprising given what we have come from. Many of us expected to be living on 'Paradise earth' by now, but find ourselves weary, broken and defeated by the shattered fairy tale that we once lived in.

    It takes real courage to face a life without certainty, but it is a life that should be lived with a sense of honesty for it to have any meaning. Perhaps one day Neil will take the first courageous steps out of the jungle and learn to stand on his own intellectual feet without the aid of a self-serving agenda manufactured by a group of less well informed men, a hundred and fifty years ago.

    Best regards - HS

  • toreador
    toreador

    Well said Hillary and Marjorie!!

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    scholar pretendus, along with other JW apologists, claims that it's not possible for any of the 70-year time periods mentioned in Jeremiah or Zechariah to be round numbers. They claim, in fact, that these must all be the same 70-year period. But the Watchtower Society does not agree that all 70-year periods mentioned in the Bible in connection with prophecy are exact. The Society now admits that for some individual nations, such as Tyre, such 70-year periods were less than 70 years.

    Below I'm including a letter that Carl Jonsson wrote to a JW who had contacted the branch office in England about the 70 years in June, 2000. This happened at the time the first volume of the Society's Isaiah commentary was published in the summer that year, and their answer was evidently based on that book.

    *======*======*======*======*======*======*======*

    THE 70 YEARS FOR TYRE (ISAIAH 23:15)

    (August 17, 2000)

    It's interesting that in this latest response from the London branch office (June 29, 2000), the Society refers you to Isaiah's prophecy about the 70 years for Tyre! As you know, they believe this 70-year period is the same as that in Jer. 25:11-12 and 29:10. Yet, as you may already have noticed, in their recent commentary on ISAIAH'S PROPHECY released this summer (2000) they explain the period in a very different and interesting way. Quoting Isa. 23:15 about the 70 years for Tyre, they go on to say on p. 253:

    "True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia's greatest domination -- when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above 'the stars of God.' (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble."

    Their letter to you reflects to some extent these remarkable statements, which seem clearly to involve several important admissions:

    * The 70 years referred to the period of "Babylonia's greatest domination", i.e., they meant "seventy years for Babylon" (Jer. 29:10)!

    * This 70-year period of domination ended at the fall of the Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E. ("At the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.")!

    * When applied to the servitude of individual nations, the 70 years must be understood as a "round" number, because, "Different nations come under that domination at different times."

    All of this is exactly what I argued in my book and which they until now have emphatically denied!

    It will be interesting to see if these admissions represent a cautious beginning of a rethinking about their chronology, or if it is the author(s) only who have subtly tried to insert their own understanding into the book.

    Anyway, I guess that they will soon get in trouble with the new statements on the 70 years, as Witnesses undoubtedly will begin to write to them and ask why the 70 years are applied so differently in the case of Tyre! Personally, I feel strongly that the 70 years for Tyre do not refer to the same period as the 70 years "for Babylon".

    As I suggested in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, I tend to agree with those who apply the period to c. 700-630 BCE. (GTR-3, p. 195, note 7) Sennacherib conquered Phoenicia, including Tyre as the capital of the area, in 701 BCE and turned Phoenicia into an Assyrian vassal province. The king of Tyre had to flee to Cyprus, where he died in 694 BCE.

    After Sennacherib?s conquest, Tyre ceased to be the center of the Tyrian commercial empire, which until then had embraced the coastal regions of the Mediterranean. This role was from then on gradually taken over by Carthage. Only toward the end of the long reign of Ashurbanipal (669-627 BCE) was Tyre able to regain its former strength and gradually reestablish itself as the leading city on the Phoenician coast. Thus, in the period c. 700-630 BCE, Tyre was truly "forgotten seventy years", after which period it once again turned "to her hire" and again began to "commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth," exactly as Isaiah had predicted. (Isa. 23:15-18)

    The standard work on the history of Tyre is H. Jacob Katzenstein, The History of Tyre (Jerusalem, 1973. A new revised edition was published in 1997). It is a very thorough and informative work, and his information on this period and his comments on Isaiah 23 agree very well with the application of the 70 years to c. 700-630 BC.

    Carl Olof Jonsson

    *======*======*======*======*======*======*======*

    AlanF

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    So there, scholar pretendus. When are you going to apologize for lying about Carl Jonsson's "association" with "that whacky catastrophism journal"?

    When are you going to acknowledge that the Watchtower Society itself is whacky because it explicitly supports the whacky views of Immanuel Velikovsky? You should know that I'm going to hit you with this, your deliberate lying, every day from here on in.

    AlanF

  • MidwichCuckoo
    MidwichCuckoo

    Had a quick look at the timeline site-

    http://www.jwtruth.com/timeline.asp

    and around 1978, the Watchtower began a ''campaign of innuendo against Carl Olaf Jonsson'' - is this reflected in the Society's literature of that time, as I can't find it.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There's been some talk of the Swedish (and Danish?) NWT versions rendering the equivalent of "for Babylon" in Jeremiah 29:10. Is this also an indicator of institutional change on this matter, or merely changes made at a few localities?

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Leolaia said:

    : There's been some talk of the Swedish (and Danish?) NWT versions rendering the equivalent of "for Babylon" in Jeremiah 29:10. Is this also an indicator of institutional change on this matter, or merely changes made at a few localities?

    I think only time will tell. But it certainly indicates that honest JWs can see the truth, even if Mommy doesn't like the truth.

    AlanF

  • scholar
    scholar

    Leolaia

    Nope. all foreign language translations are based on the English NWT so it would logically follow that according to lother languages or dialects there would be a different prepositional meaning.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Alan F

    Reposne to post 4100

    As I have instructed you before that the Jonsson hypothesis and most scholars simply take the easy and coward's way out and admit that the seventy years is too difficult, it is too hard. So, they opt for the easy option, that the seventy years is not in fact a definite period of seventy but is a round number. The next thing to do which is what Jonsson will do in his 5th edn GTR, is to exise the seventy years alltogether which is demonstrated by the minimalist attention it receives in the scholarly literature.

    scholar JW

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    all foreign language translations are based on the English NWT so it would logically follow that according to lother languages or dialects there would be a different prepositional meaning.

    Neil --

    I don't understand what you are saying. Can you clarify this for me? Do you mean that all the foreign language translations of the NWT are translations from the English NWT into the receptor language rather than from Hebrew and Greek into the receptor language?

    If so, these are NOT real translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

    Good grief! I am horrified.

    Marjorie

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit