Posts by Jeffro

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

I've already pointed out that 5:10 and 21:24 are two different lexical contexts and by my own reasoning

You're free to believe whatever you like. But your claim is not supported by the source material. Burton considers both examples to employ the exact same grammatical structure rather than 'two different lexical contexts'. So, claim that Luke 21:24 refers to an existing condition if you like, but don't claim that Burton supports your view. In fact, the only difference between the future 'trampling' and the other future events indicated at Luke 21:24 is that the others refer to a specific future event whereas the trampling would continue.

If anything, I'm claiming that Jerusalem was already under the heel of Rome at the time the words were allegedly spoken

'Already under the heel' is your own commentary, and has no bearing on the intended meaning of the future 'trampling'. As such, the association of the then-present situation under Rome (i.e. your own idiomatic description of the earlier situation under Rome as 'under the heel') with a future 'trampling' is an equivocation fallacy.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

Burton said the periphrastic future can indicate continuance or it can indicate customariness and gives an example of each.

Yes. But in each case, he refers to something that starts in the future and then continues, i.e. something that starts in the future and then becomes customary.

As indicated by Burton's examples, the concept of the Periphrastic Future refers to an action that starts in the future and then continues, as distinct from the standard Progressive Future, which may indicate an event that continues in to the future. (Compare Burton's example of the Progressive Future at Phillipians 1:18, where it indicates an action that is already happening and will continue to happen in the future.)

Are you claiming that Simon, James & John were already 'catching men' before they initially became disciples??

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

The interpolation is certainly his as you can see from this partial scan of page 36:

I'm not saying the interpolation isn't there. I'm saying you are misconstruing it. Look at the other verse (Luke 5:10) as an example. It very clearly does not refer to an action that had already started. See also my response above.

Burton is saying:

'Simon, James and John will become catchers of men and then continue to catch men.'
'Jerusalem will become trampled and then continue to be trampled.'

In neither case is any past action conveyed.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

It does carry the thought of a continuence of action that originated in the past

On further consideration, Burton's interpolation of "[continue to]" doesn't construe what you're saying at all. The conclusion you give has no basis in the grammatical form actually discussed. The presence of 'continue to' is only intended in the sense that the trampling will begin in the future and then continue.

And once you consider the other example about James and John becoming 'fishers of men' when they first became disciples, it is automatically ludicrous to claim this same grammatical structure indicates an action that originated in the past.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

BackseatDevil:

The "fall of Jerusalem" is technically around 586

The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, including his accession year, is quite definitely 587 BCE (unless you also shift the year for the beginning of his reign). This is confirmed by the non-accession reference to his 18th year for the same event. Definitely not 586 BCE.

Now, if you consider how long it took to get the Jews OUT of Jerusalem, you can imagine that it would take less time to get them back IN their dear city... but still take a couple of years, at least... past 537.

There is no reason to conclude that those who were first allowed to leave Babylon would take years to return to Jerusalem. Many Jews remained in Babylon, so it is neither necessary nor valid to try to determine how long it would take all of them to return. Those who left Babylon at the first opportunity after Cyrus' decree (which is misrepresented in the Bible as being specific to Jews) could be back in Jerusalem in as little as four months.

This is made apparent as they didn't start working on the foundation of the second temple until 520.

No. That claim isn't supported by either the Bible or Josephus (Against Apion, Book I and Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI). The foundations were laid in 537, then work was slowed by opposing forces, and then halted by Cambyses II ('Ahasuerus'), and building resumed in 520.

Also " 537 + 70 = 607" is going BACKWARD in time.

I think everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the subject is aware of that basic fact. It's not clear why you think that's a problem. But if you prefer, it could be phrased as -607 + 70 = -537. In either case, the JW doctrine is still completely wrong.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive. (Present participle + Future form of to be)

The conclusion that this verse indicates a present continuing action (a misrepresentation of Ernest De Witt Burton, whom the site you provided copied verbatim) seems to have fairly limited support, and seems more like it is being shoehorned into that grammatical construction to suit preconceived doctrines. In fact, searching Google for "periphrastic progressive "luke 21:24" -burton" (i.e. excluding "Burton") only returns eight results, some of which are still in reference to Burton (such as the one at www.dabar.org/burtonmoodstenses/08-future_ind.htm, which also quotes Burton verbatim), and some are on JW forum discussions about the verse.

In fact, the interpolated "[continue to]" isn't even directly relevant to the grammatical form discussed. Burton states that "The force is that of a Progressive Future", indicating that something will happen in the future and it will then keep happening. This is very clearly shown by the other example Burton provides:

Luke 5:10; ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν, thou shalt catch men, i.e. shalt be a catcher of men.

James and John were not already 'catching men'. It was a future action that would then continue. It therefore appears that it isn't even Burton's intent to say that this grammatical form is the reason for the insertion of 'continue to', and that it is only there because of an incidental interpretation that the Jews already being under Roman rule was the same as the 'trampling'.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Yes, a link to your discussion on it would be useful to anyone who wants to pursue this further. Hope you find it. :-)

All I can find is this link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/245680/2/what-ever-happened-to-the-king-of-the-north-and-king-of-south#4646961, which only covers up to verse 39.

I have written more covering right up to verse 45 before and with more detail, but I'm pretty sure it was on the short-lived JWS forum (the now-dead links were at: http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158703 and http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158057). (I should have saved a copy locally. )

In brief, the remaining verses (40-45) have Antiochus Epiphanes IV 'disturbed' by 'reports out of the east and out of the north' about Parthians, and went to attack them while he sent others to deal with the Maccabees. But he then dies of a disease, with 'no helper for him'.

transhuman68:

AnnOMaly is correct. Daniel and Revelation are both apocalypses- that is their literary genre. They are open-ended to the future, pointing to an imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better. But that is the problem- how much further in the future did the writers mean?

More accurately, chapter 12 of Daniel presents the 'future' 'imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better'. The entirety of chapter 11 can be correlated with events up to the Maccabean period.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

objectivetruth:

rather I'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967

What is your basis for attempting to link any event during the Neo-Babylonian period with any event during the 20th century?

If you're basing it on the '2520 years' - a flawed inconsistent superstitious numerological contrivance - then it's a waste of time.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

For more detail about how 607 is not biblically supported, see my 607 for Beginners page.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Dan. 11:36 onward is understood to refer to the distant future.

Only by irrational people.

Right up to verse 45 is in relation to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

I have posted more detail about this in the past. Once I find it, I'll provide a link. But I fear it was on the defunct JW Support forum.