Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  Jeffro! Again Scholar is caught being deceitful and lying. Here is what Scholar is referring to:

  "OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE.
  
  
  He (Nabopollasar) sent his son Nabuchodonosor with a great army against Egypt, and against Judea, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and by that means he subdued them all, and set fire to the temple that was at Jerusalem; and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon, and our city remained in a state of desolation during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. (He then says, that) this Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phœnicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon and Chaldæa.—Joseph. contr. Appion. lib. 1. c. 19."

  This could be interpreted as the Temple was destroyed right away, and this is probably celebrated WT scholars point. However, this is NOT in agreement with the WTS`s claim that the chronology is wrong,and that Nebuchadnezzar would have had to ruled from some 624 bc. Josephus clearly says that Nebs father was king when he sent his son to Judah!!! Also, this quote must be read in the context of Josephus full account of the events, in "Antiquities of the Jews, book X, chapter 8":

  "5. And now it was that the king of Babylon sent Nebuzaradan, the general of his army, to Jerusalem, to pillage the temple, who had it also in command to burn it and the royal palace, and to lay the city even with the ground, and to transplant the people into Babylon. Accordingly, he came to Jerusalem in the eleventh year of king Zedekiah, and pillaged the temple, and carried out the vessels of God, both gold and silver, and particularly that large laver which Solomon dedicated, as also the pillars of brass, and their chapiters, with the golden tables and the candlesticks; and when he had carried these off, he set fire to the temple in the fifth month, the first day of the month, in the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, and in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar: he also burnt the palace, and overthrew the city. "

  So obviously, according to Josephus, Nebuchadnezzar began his attacks on Judah allready before he became king. But the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was in his eighteenth year as KING of Babylon!!, in agreement with the Bible and all secular sources! I wonder, Scholar: Why all these lies? Why so deceitful? Are you one of the "celebrated WT scholars"? I actually hope you are. Your "celebrated scholarship" has been debunked by a bunch of amateurs on an apostate forum. Josephus is clearly in agreement with the "apostates" claims. Why did you try to lie to us, and say that he wasn`t?
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Your theory that the period of temple obscurity ran from 587 to 537 is an interesting one but raises a few technical problems. Firstly, nowhere in the Bible is the this fact mentioned of fifty years in connection with the temple. Secondly, scholars do not agree that 587 is the starting point as the majority view 586 as the date. Thirdly, are you agreeing with celebrated WT scholars that 537 was the date for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus' decree?

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Your theory that the period of temple obscurity ran from 587 to 537 is an interesting one but raises a few technical problems.

  You still have not provided an answer to the "technical problem" of where the fifty years of the temple's obscurity fit into the Society's odd little interpretation.

  Firstly, nowhere in the Bible is the this fact mentioned of fifty years in connection with the temple.

  The 70 years Zechariah spoke of indicates fifty years from 587 to 537 with the additional twenty years to end the period when the final rebuilding of the temple was commissioned.

  Secondly, scholars do not agree that 587 is the starting point as the majority view 586 as the date.

  That more than one scholar agrees on 587 gives it a stronger standing than the Society's model, which is supported by no-one in the professional community whatsoever. Rather than dogmatically suggest dates where there is insufficient evidence, real scholars have some margin of variance for this event, but within definite parameters. However, dates that are definitely known, such as the siege in 597, prove that the Society's model is invalid.

  Thirdly, are you agreeing with celebrated WT scholars that 537 was the date for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus' decree?

  Dates assigned by the salivating WT scholars are not to be relied on and are inconsequential to me. However, the Jews did return some time around there. The precise year is not important to the point being discussed, as the fifty years may simply be a round figure. Plus, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Your theory that the period of temple obscurity ran from 587 to 537 is an interesting one but raises a few technical problems. Firstly, nowhere in the Bible is the this fact mentioned of fifty years in connection with the temple. Secondly, scholars do not agree that 587 is the starting point as the majority view 586 as the date. Thirdly, are you agreeing with celebrated WT scholars that 537 was the date for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus' decree?

  How is your third point a technical difficulty? Your second is funny. You use those other scholars to nitpick one year's difference with Jeffro, but then disregard those very same "spiteful scholars" when talking about a 20 year difference. And as for your second point, you're aware aren't you, that only an altar of hewn stone was set up in Jerusalem around 537? The first stone for the bulding was set shortly thereafter but work was halted and the temple wasn't finished till 516. Who needs the Bible to say 50 years? 70 will do just fine. 516 + 70.
• 

  vitty

  
  

  a-christian it says that you have posted just 3 posts, that why ppl think you are a newbie.

  Why do you all let scholar wind you up, he continually uses the phrase "celebrated WT scholars" to do this he must laugh every time he clicks his key board.
• 

  Jeffro

  Why do you all let scholar wind you up, he continually uses the phrase ;"celebrated WT scholars" ;to do this he must laugh every time he clicks his key board.

  If scholar really is just trying to wind us up and doesn't actually believe the drivel he posts, that really would be pathetic...

  Almost as pathetic as if he is actually serious.
• 

  Hellrider

  Scholar, I am still waiting for you to reply. Why were you dishonest about Josephus?
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar wrote:
  
  Indeed the primary source documents are impressive but such documents are falsified by the twenty year gap when compared to biblical history and also do not account for Neb's seven year absence during his kingship. Therefore, the documents are not infallible history but can merely be used as a guide with historical but limited chronological value. Josephus also had access to such documents

  Neil --

  As I stated in an earlier post, Josephus did not have access to the primary documents, the dated cuneiform tablets. Your statement that he did have such access is just plain silly.

  Josephus was writing more than 650 years after these clay tablets were written. The original tablets were discovered in the cities of the Babylonians. Josephus never saw them. And he couldn't have read the cuneiform signs or understood the Akkadian if he had seen them.

  Josephus relied on the works of other historians. His chronology is tertiary at best.

  Today we have the actual dated cuneiform tablets, which are primary sources. We don't need to rely on the mangled reports of ancient historians.

  Marjorie
• 

  Hellrider

  Alleymom:

  No need to make any axcuse for Josephus, Josephus is in full agreement with modern chronology, and never wrote nor believed that the Temple was destroyed in 607, on the contrary, he believed, and rightly so, that it was destroyed around 587/586. Scholar just invented that crap. See my post above, where I show Josephus` statements on the issue.
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  True, but whatever the case Josephus was a competent historian of the history of Israel and nicley parallels biblical history of Israel. His testimony cannot be ignored because he was sympathetic to his people but if you prefer the testimony of pagan historians then that is your judgement. Celebrated WT scholars take Josephus seriously.

  scholar JW