Most bible translations say "for Babylon" in this verse, many of them are not merely paraphrases. The Hebrew grammar for the verse in question, together with a comparison of the other relevant scriptures, has already been demonstrated in this thread to fully ratify the rendering "for Babylon" as being more consistent than "at Babylon".
Although the Society has mentioned many times the erroneous nature of the King James Version, in the verse in question, the Society chooses to accept its rendering rather than the rendering of almost all bibles that disagree with the rendering "at Babylon".
Posts by Jeffro
-
763Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
The flaw in your chronology is that the seventy years is not considered to be a precise or definite period but is somewhat camouflaged as a period of a airy-fairy servitude.
Both seventy year periods in the chronology I have given are exactly 70 years. Your comment is an outright lie. Working back from the established date of 539 for Babylon's fall, exactly 70 years (Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-31) takes us back to 609, the year that just so happens to be the year that most scholars state that Babylon replaced Assyria as a world power. Similarly, working back from 517, Darius' fourth year, at which Zechariah said that the people had been fasting for exactly 70 years (Zechariah 7:1-5), takes us back to 587, which happens to be the year in which almost all historians agree that Jerusalem was destroyed.
Even if my dates did not co-incide with the secular dates, you yourself state that the bible should be viewed as accurate over and above secular history. My dates are derived entirely from the scriptures, with the exception of the accepted year 539BCE. -
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
My tabulation simply states what the bible says and for that reason, the number of years for the divided kingdom is similar to what the Society says. It should not be seen as an indication that I agree with the Society. But your complement as to my accuracy is appreciated. As for the rest of this post, refer to the PM I sent you.
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
you have reconciled all of the data with the conventional chronology with the exception of the seventy years and this is the big problem.
Please specify in what way have I not reconciled the seventy years with conventional chronology?? The 70 years for Babylon fits perfectly with Jeremiah, Daniel, and establish chronology for Babylon's actual established rule. The 70 years of Zechariah is also completely consistent with the 70 years from Jerusalem's destruction in 587 to Darius' decree to finish the temple in 517 (Zechariah 7:1-5).
Regardless of whether or not my model fits the model of others (though my model is simply what the bible says rather than something I have made up in my head), it certainly does fit the 'conventional chronology'. The secularly establish regnal years of contemporary nations mostly fall into place perfectly when 587 is used without any need of twisting dates or making excuses. Things get very very messy when 607 is used. -
19
whats this lump on my back...
by tsunami_rid3r inits not poppable, its not red, its like a lump, not a wart.
its right above my assbone on the spine.
think its cancer?
-
-
Jeffro
Does it hurt? Does it move under the surface of the skin? It does sound like a cyst.
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
Well if you have a personal compilation of the Divided Monarchy then post it on this board.
What are you talking about?????!!!!!!! There is a link in my previous post to that very file!! According to my web server logs, it has since been accessed from 4 different addresses.
You allege the superiority of the Watchtower model because it relies on regnal periods rather than supposedly dubious dates. My model for the Divided Kingdom relies on regnal periods, directly from the bible as well as the clear evidence of Daniel corroborating Jeremiah that the 70 years ended in 539. It could be argued that my model is better than the 'Society hypothesis' because completely by co-incidence it agrees with secular history remarkably well throughout the period of the Divided Kingdom. In case you will attempt to accuse me of making it fit the secular dates, I will point out that when calculating Israel and Judah's regnal years, I had not yet looked at the regnal years given by secular dating, so there was no means of collusion.you will be asked to explain the differences of which there will be many.
Will there be differences with dates accepted by others? Certainly. I state in the spreadsheet that years have some flexibility, but not on the scale that the Society's model creates. There may even be, dare I say it, errors, but none of such are deliberate, and the details do indeed fit very well with secular history.
And before you do start picking it to pieces, try to keep in mind the attitude the Society has toward what seem to be contradictions in the scriptures, and recognize that something that may seem like a discrepancy is not necessarily. -
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
If you want to debate the chronology of the Divided Monarchy then perhaps you should read Thgiele's book on the subject because the chronology of this period is very complex or perhaps you will take up my challenge to all posters on this boaard to propose a chronology for the Divided Monarchy as WT scholars have done in the Insight and Aid books.
Scholar, you have demonstrated again that you ignore others' posts. I have already done this. I have an Excel file of the entire divided monarchy that I created using only the bible for the divided monarchy.
-
103
Presiding Overseer Says They Will Ask If You Still Want To Be A Jehovah's W
by minimus inthe local needs talk on thursday discussed a few different things, according to my mom.
but the one that stood out most was that he announced that based on the new book, the elders will be checking on those that have not been associating with the congregation for some time.
they will ask, "do you still want to be a jehovah's witness?
-
-
Jeffro
I would need to see a copy of what they plan to announce with full details as to the directions they offer to the congregation as a result of this announcement;
I doubt that would make a difference. I had sent the elders a letter specifically directing that they do not say I have been 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated'. (At the time I didn't realise they'd changed their wording to the vague "[Name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".) I had also stated in my letter that they were to send me a written statement of any announcement that would be made. The only reply I got was a phone call 4 months later stating that they would announce I was no longer a Witness.
The change in the announcement wording such that the congregation is not informed whether it is a case of 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociating' is intentionally vague as people love a scandal, and many congregation members automatically assume the worst possible thing the shunned person may have done, and peddle it off to the rumour mill for rapid circulation.
It wouldn't surprise me if they do start hunting down inactive Witnesses with the intention to have them removed. Too many inactive people means that the average bible studies, book placements, and hours in field service goes down, and that doesn't look so good on paper. A drop in the number of members doesn't look so good either, but they will just say that Jehovah is refining the congregation.
Anyone know of any successful legal action taken against the Watchtower for shunning (particularly in Australia)? -
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
Scholars do not agree as to the precise year that marked the end of the Assyrian World Power and even at best by your recent post well indicates that all that happened in 609 was a mopping up operation after the Fall of Haran in 610 BCE
According to the Society (Insight volume 1 page 205, entry Assyria, subheading The fall of the Empire:
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): "The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)]." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): "In the month Du´uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Actually, Ashur-uballit was trying to reconquer it after having been driven out. This record is in harmony with the account relative to the activity of Pharaoh Nechoh recorded at 2 Kings 23:29, which activity resulted in the death of King Josiah of Judah (c. 629 B.C.E.). This text states that "Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria by the river Euphrates"—evidently to help him. "The king of Assyria" to whom Nechoh came may well have been Ashur-uballit II. Their campaign against Haran did not succeed. The Assyrian Empire had ended.Although the years given in this passage follow the Society's erroneous 607 model, and are therefore out by 20 years, it indicates that the Society agrees with the relative sequence of events for the fall of the Assyrian empire, which culminated at the fall of Harran according to the Society in harmony with secular historians. When the 20-year gap is accounted for, this places the end of the Assyrian empire in 609BC.
-
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep inhello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
-
-
Jeffro
Thus it is the most well attested date in OT history and serves as the only suitable candidate for the purposes of chronology.
LOL
Though the date is not contested, on what basis is your claim that it is "the most well attested date in OT history" and the "only suitable candidate for the purposes of chronology"? And by the way 'OT' is not a valid designation for the Hebrew scriptures, but all good Witnesses know that anyway.The Society does not accept this date for the end of the seventy years as you state but simply marks the end of the Babylonian World Power.
The Society may make whatever claims it wishes regarding the 70 years, however the bible states: "'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 Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." (Jeremiah 25:12) There is no ambiguity or room for various interpretations of this verse as is the case for some of the scriptures that mention the 70 years that have been debated at length on this thread. It is clear that Babylon's king and its status as a nation would be finished after 70 years. Both Daniel and Jeremiah agree that Babylon's days would be numbered (ME'NE) and it would be called to account (TE'KEL).
There are so many lines of reasoning that counter the 607 theory that it would be funny that so many people believe but for the sad fact that people stake their entire lives on it.