Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    hillary_step wrote:

    : Of course it has to be said that he is one person trying to deal with numerous posts fired at him from every angle, so we can forgive the siege mentality that shows up in some of his posts.

    I disagree. Any apologist with an ounce of sense or integrity would take his time, make sure he got all his facts straight, be sure to read everything his critics posted, and not leave out 95% of the relevant details. If this takes several days, so be it. No one is forcing this asshole to defend his bullshit.

    Jeffro:

    The fact that there are two separate 70-year periods mentioned by Zechariah is clearly evident:

    (1) A period of denunciation ending in Darius' 2nd year (Zech. 1:1, 12).

    (2) A period of observing fastings ending in Darius' 4th year (Zech. 7:1-5).

    Your point about Daniel 5 (mene, mene, tekel and parsin, etc.) is excellent, and absolutely conclusive that Jer. 25:11, 12 is specifically talking about the end of the Babylonian kingdom in 539 B.C.

    It's entertaining, but sad, watching this moron reject the very Bible he claims to hold so dear. But we know who he really puts above the Bible: the Watchtower Society and Fred Franz. Scholar pretendus is a poster boy for how a destructive cult can destroy a person's mind.

    AlanF

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    hillary-step

    I suspect that many who were once sympathetic to his arguments have now firmly planted their flags in new territory.

    I have followed this thread with interest but with growing disappointment at the arrogance and dishonesty of one who claims to be a christian and brother of men for whom I have great respect. I remember a time when "scholar" provided secular references in support of his arguments and I looked forward to his contributions. No longer. Indeed, I am coming to the conclusion that the only argument in favour of 607 is divine revelation. In that case the date may well be correct and the missing twenty years may yet be found. But then the WTS is just one of many who expect credulity instead of faith and what sort of yardstick is that ?

    Earnest

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Earnest,

    No longer. Indeed, I am coming to the conclusion that the only argument in favour of 607 is divine revelation. In that case the date may well be correct and the missing twenty years may yet be found. But then the WTS is just one of many who expect credulity instead of faith and what sort of yardstick is that ?

    Yes, and 'divine revelation' is actually a rather meaningless vehicle to assess any issue at all. In fact I would go as far as to say that is actually a serious danger to the measurement of any subject at all.

    There is no doubt at all that Scholar and subsequently the WTS theology and chronology regarding the dating of the first fall of Jerusalem has been proved on this thread to be invalid and insupportable.

    Alan,

    : Of course it has to be said that he is one person trying to deal with numerous posts fired at him from every angle, so we can forgive the siege mentality that shows up in some of his posts.

    I disagree. Any apologist with an ounce of sense or integrity would take his time, make sure he got all his facts straight, be sure to read everything his critics posted, and not leave out 95% of the relevant details. If this takes several days, so be it. No one is forcing this asshole to defend his bullshit.

    You are a very, very wicked and merciless man.

    Best regards - HS

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    hillary_step wrote:

    : You are a very, very wicked and merciless man.

    No doubt about it!

    AlanF

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Alan...

    The fact that there are two separate 70-year periods mentioned by Zechariah is clearly evident:
    (1) A period of denunciation ending in Darius' 2nd year (Zech. 1:1, 12).
    (2) A period of observing fastings ending in Darius' 4th year (Zech. 7:1-5).

    You may well be right that two periods are discussed, however it is also possible that both sections of Zechariah refer to the one period.
    It is not stated that the 70 years had ended in chapter 1. It is reasonable to believe that the angel could have known the length of a period that had not yet ended. This would not be the only occurrence in the bible where a question was asked concerning frustration or impatience regarding the length of a known period of time (Compare Amos 8:5). It is also possible that the angel stated 70 years as a round number.
    In any case, Zechariah chapter 7 places the end of its 70 years in Darius' 4th year and does not allow for it ending 20 years prior, so whether chapters 1 and 7 refer to one or two periods is not relevant to the discussion of 607.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    the only argument in favour of 607 is divine revelation. In that case the date may well be correct and the missing twenty years may yet be found.

    607 is clung to simply to prop up the 1914 doctrine. There are several things that show it to be untrue.

  • There is nothing in Daniel chapter 4 requiring a secondary fulfilment
  • The Society does not apply the same rule to the other 'times' mentioned at Daniel 7:25 and 12:7
  • 'Removing the turban' at Ezekiel 21:25-27 is directed to Israel, not Judah
  • World War I started several months before the supposed October fulfilment
  • The original text of Luke 21:24 indicates that the 'appointed times of the nations' is a period that began at or after 70AD
  • Jeremiah said the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon, not specifically exile.
  • Babylon's king could not be called to account 2 years before the 70 years ended
  • The NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is inconsistent with Jeremiah 25:12 and is not recognised as correct by most scholars
  • Daniel 5:26-31 indicates the fulfilment of the 70 years in 539BC
  • Judah still had inhabitants in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year
  • The Society is inconsistent in applying the entire 70 years to Judah but not Tyre
  • It was Persia's beginning to reign, not payment of Sabbaths, that fulfilled the 70 years of Jeremiah
  • The Hebrew words chorbah - 'devastated', shamem - 'desolated', and za'am - 'denounced', do not require complete depopulation
  • The 70 years of Zechariah could not have ended in 537BC
  • Secular records exist for every year of the known Babylonian kings but absolutely no records have been found for the 20-year gap of the Society's interpretation
  • The Society accepts 539BC as a pivotal date using means it rejects as being unreliable
  • No source other than the Society recognizes any significant event regarding Babylon and Jerusalem in 607

    • This is not necessarily an exhaustive list. There is just too much wrong with the 607 model for it to be accurate - unless the contradictory 'divine revelation' is saying that the bible is just plain wrong, in which case the interpretation hangs upon nothing anyway.
  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Jeffro wrote:

    : You may well be right that two periods are discussed, however it is also possible that both sections of Zechariah refer to the one period.

    I think that a plain reading of the texts indicates that there were two periods, as I will discuss below.

    : It is not stated that the 70 years had ended in chapter 1.

    Actually, in neither case is it explicitly stated that the period in question had ended, so this argument applies equally to chapter 7. Therefore it can't be a valid argument. The form of the statements is simply that "something has been happening these past 70 years". Note the texts (NASB):

    Zech 1:1, 12, 16:

    1 In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo . . . 12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?" 16 'Therefore thus says the LORD, "I will return to Jerusalem with compassion . . ."'

    Zech 7:1-5:

    1 In the fourth year of King Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev. 2 Now the town of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regemmelech and their men to seek the favor of the LORD, 3 speaking to the priests who belong to the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, "Shall I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many years?" 4 Then the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying, 5 "Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, 'When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted?

    Note the parallel language:

    Zech 1: "You have been indignant these seventy years"

    Zech 7: "as I have done these many years" . . . "you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years"

    It's pretty obvious, then, that it just happened to be about 70 years from the beginnings of the periods of "indignation" and "fasting" that the word of the LORD came to Zechariah. In both cases, the texts explicitly specify "THESE 70 years", i.e., "the 70 years from the beginning of the activity until today." Since "today" is in one case the 2nd year of Darius, and in the other case the 4th year of Darius, the periods must be different.

    This conclusion is reasonable in light of the actual time periods involved. Assuming Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C., the siege of it began in 589 B.C. From 589 to 520/19 (Darius' 2nd year) is 70 years, counting inclusively. One can validly argue that the "indignation" against Jerusalem began when the siege began, and so we have 70 years of "indignation". Alternatively, we can argue that the "indignation" began at Jerusalem's destruction, and then we have an approximate 70-year period. The "fasting" began when Jerusalem was destroyed, and from 587 to 518/17 (Darius' 4th year) is again 70 years, counting inclusively.

    I think that to argue that the texts mean something different from this plain reading is reading into them what is simply not there.

    : It is reasonable to believe that the angel could have known the length of a period that had not yet ended.

    This ignores the plain statements about "THESE 70 years", which plainly refer to the "today" when the Lord's word occurred to Zechariah. It also assumes a priori that the two periods mentioned are the same, and thus is an after-the-fact rationalization of the assumption.

    : This would not be the only occurrence in the bible where a question was asked concerning frustration or impatience regarding the length of a known period of time (Compare Amos 8:5).

    I may be missing something, but I don't see anything of relevance in that passage.

    Nevertheless, I think this is reading into the text what isn't there.

    : It is also possible that the angel stated 70 years as a round number.

    Granted.

    : In any case, Zechariah chapter 7 places the end of its 70 years in Darius' 4th year and does not allow for it ending 20 years prior, so whether chapters 1 and 7 refer to one or two periods is not relevant to the discussion of 607.

    Well said!

    AlanF

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Actually, in neither case is it explicitly stated that the period in question had ended, so this argument applies equally to chapter 7. Therefore it can't be a valid argument. The form of the statements is simply that "something has been happening these past 70 years".

    Yes, but in chapter 7, it is very strongly implied that the 70 years had finally ended because Sharezer and Regem-melech asked if the weeping and fasting should stop, which was the point that would mark the 'LORD's return to Jerusalem with compassion'. Conversely, there is little point in the question "how long?" in chapter 1 if the period had already ended. Why should the siege in 589 mark the beginning of God's indignation when there had previously been sieges on Jerusalem by Babylon?

    : It is reasonable to believe that the angel could have known the length of a period that had not yet ended.
    This ignores the plain statements about "THESE 70 years", which plainly refer to the "today" when the Lord's word occurred to Zechariah.

    Are you suggesting that it is not reasonable to believe that the angel knew the length of the period? "THESE 70 years" is translated from shib`iym (Strong's 07657), which means "70 years". There is no "THESE" in the original text.

    (Compare Amos 8:5).
    I may be missing something, but I don't see anything of relevance in that passage.

    At Amos 8:5, it asked when the next new moon will be. Times between new moons are a known period, especially by people who use a lunar calendar. The question is asked in frustration, not to receive an enumeration of days. A similar principle may be in involved in Zechariah chapter 1.

    Again, I am not stating that the verses cannot refer to two periods, but the position I have put forward is just as likely.

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom
    "THESE 70 years" is translated from shib`iym (Strong's 07657), which means "70 years". There is no "THESE" in the original text.

    Jeffro --

    Actually, if you look again, you will see that there is indeed a "these"in the Hebrew text --- it's the Hebrew word "zeh". This was discussed upthread in some depth in messages by Narkissos and myself. Zeh is actually singular in both these verses (Zech. 1:12 and 7:5), as is the word for year. It's as if the seventy years is being treated as a collective, thus taking singular agreement.

    Narkissos pointed out that the demonstrative pronoun originally had adverbial force in Hebrew and could equally well be translated "now". His example was: "We've been celebrating the end of World War II for sixty years NOW" = "we've been celebrating the end of World War II THESE sixty years."

    (I am speaking from memory and may not have worded this exactly the way Nark did.)

    I gave a list of all the verses in the Hebrew Bible which had similar constructions. I kept meaning to go back and show how they would read if they were translated with NOW instead of THESE, but I never got around to it.

    I'm busy right now, but I'll see if I can scout up the messages with some links later tonight.

    Also, one minor point/question to consider with regard to when the fasts started. Since they were memorial fasts, they would have started a year later, on the day when the original event occurred, no? How this figures in to the actual calculation isn't something I've thought much about, but you'd also have to take into consideration whether the numbering was inclusive or not.

    Regards,

    Marjorie

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Here's the list of verses with "zeh" + time:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1535638/post.ashx#1535638

    Note that the demonstrative pronoun can be read with NOW instead of THESE, reflecting the adverbial force of "zeh" + unit of time, as Narkissos posted.

    e.g. These twenty years I have been with you = I have been with you twenty years now. Gen.31:38

    Scrolling back quickly, I see one "zeh" message on page 14 of this thread, one on page 16, and a lot of page 17. (There may be more. I didn't scroll through the whole thread.)

    As far as I can tell from my Hebrew concordance, these are all of the verses with zeh + time.

    Marjorie

    • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit