Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Alwayshere

  Listen here bright boy, Jeremiah 25:11 supports the fact that the land was to be desolated for seventy years because this is the subject of that verse and the immediate context.

  .The latter part of the preceeding verse 9 says that the places would be devastated and becoming an object of astonishment. The following verse describes poetically the silence in the land and then in verse 11 there is the land again devastated and secondly an object of astonishment as quoted in verse 9. So, the first part of verse 11 definitely expresses God's judgement against the land which according to the Chronicler and Daniel was in fact seventy years;

  The second part of verse 11 then changes subject and refers to servitude to Babylon which would be and was for seventy years. On this basis the facts show that Jeremiah's prophecy indicates that the seventy yeras would be a period of desolation, servitude and exile.

  You then refer to 2 Chronicles 36: 20-21: Again this historical account agrees with the prophecy of Jeremiah. These two verses refer toa period of servitude or exile and in verse 21 is a complete statement that the land would be desolated for seventy years whilst keeping sabbaths. So, this account is descriptive of the land as desolation.

  In short, both the prophecy of Jeremiah combine these elements of servitude, desolation and exile along with the Chronicler's history combines these same elements of servitude, exile and desolation. Chronicles also shows when the seventy years would end when the royalty of Persia began to reign. So it was under the Persian king Cyrus first regnal year issued that famous decree which freed the exiles allowing them to reoccupy that desolated homeland in 537. These are the biblical facts which remain ignored by apostates and advocates of the Jonsson hypothesis which is in shambles.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  You are very astute, the brightest on this board even exceeding the IQ of Alan F. Yes! YEs! YES! The methodology of WT scholars accepts quite gratefully the secular evidence establishing 539 BCE as a pivotal date- astronomically fixed absolute date of 523 BCE and reganl data for the Persian period but rejects the regnal data for the Neo-Babylonian period because it conflicts with our interpretation of the seventy years creating a twenty year gap.

  You state that we could just as easily select other alternative absolute or pivotal dates to anchor ones chronology and then add seventy years after 587 for the end of the exile two years after Babylon's fall. But this is incorrect. The maths do not add up. If we add the seventy years after 587 then we get 517 which was some twenty years after the exile finished in 537. Therfore your metholology based on whatever pivotal or absolute date leading to 587 is sabotaged by the seventy years. The Society's methodology based upon a superior absolute date namely the fall of Babylon with a seventy year desolation-exile -servitude is far superior.

  The big problem of the 586/587 controversy is one of methodology. WT scholars use the same regnal data mentioned in the Bible as scholars do. Those so called problematic texts which are blamed for this problem are not problematic for WT chronology. It is because your methodology is regnal based and you have to interpret the many technical issues arising out of calendrical chronology that gets you in a mess. A exilic methodol;ogy sweeps over the period like abroad brush covering the historical peaks of biblical history. If one gets down into the valleys then one is dealing with an impossible array of data.WT is a 'birds eye view' of history and thus avoids many difficult problems.

  I do not regard the Bible's presentation of history as intractable because of the 586/87 dilemna. WT chronology based on exilic methodology has created a chronology for the Divided Monarchy which well illustrates that the biblical data is knowable and not impossible. The Jonsson hypothesis and it supporters has not yet providee a coherent chronology for this period despite the preponderance of secular evidence.

  In short, WT chronology is validated by secular evidence, theology, fulfillment of prophecy, history and is complet for the entire OT period which stands it apart from all other proposed chronologies.

  scholar JW
• 

  ellderwho

  WT is a 'birds eye view' of history and thus avoids many difficult problems.

  Hmm?

  624BC-----------------------------------------539BC

  Okay, show me the 'birds eye view' of your kings-list?
• 

  City Fan

  The maths do not add up. If we add the seventy years after 587 then we get 517 which was some twenty years after the exile finished in 537

  Do you really still not get Leolaia's point?????

  The maths do not add up. If we subtract seventy years from 537 then we get 607 which was some twenty years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587.
• 

  IP_SEC

  The maths do not add up. If we subtract seventy years from 537 then we get 607 which was some twenty years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587.

  It really is that simple, even an idiot like me can understand this and I'm not even a BS MS of Religion. Just a Bachlor in Bull $hizzle Fo Rizzle
• 

  Leolaia

  You state that we could just as easily select other alternative absolute or pivotal dates to anchor ones chronology and then add seventy years after 587 for the end of the exile two years after Babylon's fall. But this is incorrect. The maths do not add up. If we add the seventy years after 587 then we get 517 which was some twenty years after the exile finished in 537.

  What? Do you not believe that the 'seventy years' are seventy years of exile and desolation that follows the fall of Jerusalem? Where then does 537 come from???? Since we're starting our chronology with a different anchor date, there is no a priori 539 BC pivotal date for the fall of Babylon. My very point is that we're dispensing with 539 and 537 because we must make room for the full 'seventy years', and thus secular dates for the Persian period are off by 20 years from "Bible chronology" (and secular evidence for 539 for the fall of Babylon, no matter how convincing, must be set aside in favor of respecting the 'seventy years'). I'm facetiously suggesting this as an illustration of what you are doing by starting off with a different anchor date and pushing the 'seventy years' in the other direction, making the Neo-Babylonian, Assyrian, and Judean chronology off by 20 years from "secular" chronology.

  I can't believe you still don't understand this....
• 

  AlanF

  Leolaia said:

  : I can't believe you still don't understand this....

  He does understand it. That's the pity. He's too dishonest to admit it, is the problem.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus said:

  : Our exilic methodology omits no relevant scriptures, as it incorporates all texts containing specific regnal data.

  Nonsense. I have repeatedly brought these up in many, many posts. Even old Rolfie boy attempts to address some of them (by inventing new Hebrew grammar etc.) in his book, but the Society never has.

  : In addition, the principal texts of the 'seventy years' are included for this chronology.

  Not at all. The Society ignores the principle texts and substitutes ambiguous, secondary texts.

  : Yes, our schronology requires interpretation of scripture but so does any other alternative including the Jonsson hypothesis.

  The problem for Watchtower chronology is that it ignores the most important and unambiguous of the so-called "70 year texts", interprets several scriptures in a completely bogus way that no one outside of the Watchtower-based cults accept (and I mean no one), and ignores secular chronology whenever that doesn't jibe with a slightly altered form of the chronology that Russell adopted from Nelson Barbour in 1876.

  The beauty of proper secular chronology, as accepted by scholars like Jack Finegan and, almost 100% by Edwin Thiele, is that it perfectly harmonizes with all of the relevant scriptures and leaves nothing out.

  And of course, readers will note your continued and incredibly stupid labeling of proper secular chronology as "the Jonsson hypothesis" -- as if this transparent ad hominem is anything more than your personal method of dismissing secular chronology.

  : If you believe that some texts are omitted then would you please list these 'missing' texts and I will pass this information information to WT scholars for their edification.

  I've done it plenty of times before, but if I don't do it now, in your usual braindead manner you'll claim that I never did, and so I'll do it for about the 100th time:

  2 Chronicles 26:20: "Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign."

  The passage clearly states that once the royalty of Persia began to reign, the Jews were no longer servants to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings. When did the royalty of Persia begin to reign? In 539 B.C., when Cyrus the Persian ascended the throne of Babylon. Therefore, the servitude of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings ended in 539 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar's grandson Belshazzar was killed.

  This conflicts with the Watchtower's claim that the servitude of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings ended in 537 B.C. when the Jews returned to Judah. By that time, the Jews had not been servants to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings for nearly two years.

  Thus, the Watchtower's claims conflict with the Bible itself.

  You will not find any references whatsoever to this problem in Watchtower literature, since it's obvious that the passage in 2 Chronicles is so definite and unambiguous that it cannot be handled by Watchtower apologists other than by completely ignoring it.

  Jeremiah 27:6, 7: "6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant."

  This passage clearly states that the Jews and the nations of the lands around Judah would serve Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings, including "his son and his grandson", for a period of time. How much time? The passage does not say, but it clearly says that the time would end when "the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant." Clearly, the "time of his own land" refers to the point at which the power of Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings was broken and when "many nations and great kings" would begin to "exploit him as a servant". When did this happen? Obviously, in 539 B.C., when the Persians and Medes under king Cyrus conquered Babylon and began to "exploit him as a servant".

  This again conflicts with the Watchtower's claim that the servitude of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings ended in 537 B.C.

  Thus, the Watchtower's claims again conflict with the Bible itself.

  You will not find any references whatsoever to this problem in Watchtower literature, since it's obvious that the passage in Jeremiah 27:6, 7 is completely clear about what event would end the servitude of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings. The only reference in Watchtower literature that even comes close to commenting about Jer. 27:7 is in the Ocober 15, 1937 Watchtower, pp. 307-8, but it has no bearing on the problem I've described.

  Jeremiah 25:11, 12: "11 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.' "

  The passage, confirmed by the rest of Jeremiah 25, states that "these nations" -- namely, the Jews and the nations nearby -- would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. It does not say that there would be an exile of 70 years, or that Judah would be devastated or desolated for 70 years. The passage clearly states what would occur after the 70 years were up, or "fulfilled": Jehovah would "call to account against the king of Babylon". In view of Jer. 27:6, 7 and 2 Chron. 36:20, this calling to account obviously occurred in 539 B.C., when Cyrus' armies conquered Babylon and killed its king, Belshazzar. Therefore, the 70 years must have ended not later than 539 B.C.

  This conflicts with the Watchtower's claim that the 70 years of Jeremiah ended in 537 B.C., and so for a third time we find the Watchtower Society's teaching going against the Bible itself.

  You will find one and only one attempt in all of Watchtower literature to address this problem, in the September 15, 1979 Watchtower. On pages 23-24 it said:

  The Persian conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus the Great, did not restore the kingdom of the family of David to Jerusalem. It is true that he conquered Gentile Babylon in 539 B.C.E., or about two years before the "seventy years" of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of Babylon" 70 years. First in the 70th year of the desolation of Judah did Cyrus the Great release the exiled Jews from their direct servitude to the king of Babylon and let them return home to rebuild their desolated country and their national capital Jerusalem and its temple. (Ezra 1:1 through 3:2) In this way Jehovah called to the account of the Babylonians "their error" that they had committed against the God of Israel. -- Jer. 25:12.

  It should be obvious to all readers that this is special pleading of the worst sort, and nothing more than a circular argument based on the claim that the 70 years ended in 537, not 539 B.C. It is so obvious that, back in July 1994, the Society's only real scholar of Neo-Babylonian times, one John Albu (now deceased), an "anointed one" and, so far as I can tell, the author the Appendix to chapter 14 in the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", and his friend, another "anointed one" who has contributed written material for the Appendices to the New World Translation Reference Bible, both admitted to me that the "explanation" given in the 15-Sept-1979 Watchtower was "ridiculous". Their advice to me? "Wait on Jehovah" to provide a proper explanation. Well, so far, Jehovah hasn't seen fit to provide one, and so I have no choice but to rely on my own reading of the extremely clear and unambiguous words of Jeremiah 25:11, 12: The 70 years ended in 539 B.C.

  So now, scholar pretendus, you have your work cut out for you. Please note that Rolf Furuli attempted to deal with these passages in his book Persian Chronology by inventing new forms of Hebrew, and interpreting them in absolutely ridiculous ways. He was forced to do so because the Society hadn't given him an explanation. And even Furuli doesn't make the stupid claims of the 15-Sept-1979 Watchtower.

  I guarantee that if you send the above information directly to the Society, they'll brand you an apostate for any number of reasons. I'm sure you know the drill.

  But at this point I will don the mantle of a prophet and prophesy that you'll never "pass this information information to WT scholars for their edification." Taking off the mantle of a prophet, I will venture that you'll ignore 95% of what I've written above, and pretend that I never wrote it -- just as you've done many times before.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Yo have completely misread my last post to you. I was simply following your rathjer silly argument about connecting 587 with the seventy years leading to 517. This is impossible because 517 is a nothing date because it was twenty yeras earlier in 537 that the seventy years finished and the exiles returned home in 537. Such facts prove 607 for the Fall and the beginning of the seventy years.

  I suspect that you have borrowed your 'case analysis' from the Jonsson hypothesis as found in GTR, 3rd edn., 1998. p. 77, par.1. Jonsson does not like 539 as an Absolute Date preferring that WT scholars should use 587/;586 which is plainly stupid reasoning.for the reasons that I have just outlined namely the impossibility of 517.

  If you are so determined for 587 as a absolute date then simply regard the seventy years as a round number with say fifty years of desolation-exile -servitude and end the period with either your 539 as Jonsson prefers or 537, This interpretation will harmonize all of your absolute chronology as based on your regnal methodology.

  WT scholars and I follow the exilic methodology which is based on 539 as a pivotal date derived from astronomicl dates. After Cyrus conquered Babylon , he issued the decree in his first year which allowed the exiles to return home in 537 this ending the foretold exile of seventy years. Hence, their exile must have begun in 607 wuth the destruction of the city and temple with the foretold desolation of the land and captivity in 607. This is the exilic methodology.

  scholarJW
• 

  confusedjw

  Leolaia said:

  : I can't believe you still don't understand this....

  He does understand it. That's the pity. He's too dishonest to admit it, is the problem.

  AlanF

  That is exactly what is going on here. Scholar is just too afraid and dishonest. Sad really. Classic case of an intelligent person who's mind is trapped in a cult thinking.