kepler
JoinedPosts by kepler
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
kepler
"But when the 70 years are over, I shall punish the king of Babylon and that nation, Yahweh declares, for the wrong they have done, that is, the country of the Chaldeans, and make it desolate forever ( or times indefinite)."
It's the GENERATION doctrine at work.
Chaldea as described by Wikipedia as geography:
It is impossible to define narrowly the boundaries of this early land of Chaldea, and one may only locate it generally in the low, marshy, alluvial land about the estuaries of the Tigris and Euphrates, which then discharged their waters through separate mouths into the sea. In a later time, when the Chaldean tribe had burst their narrow bonds and obtained the ascendency over all Babylonia, they gave their name to the whole land of Babylonia, which then was called Chaldea for a short time.
Rulers of Babylon when Cyrus attacked:
The End of the Chaldean Dynasty
Neriglissar succeeded Amel-Marduk. It is unclear as to whether he was in fact a Chaldean or a native Babylonian nobleman, as he was not related by blood to Nabopolassar's descendants. He conducted successful military campaigns against the Hellenic inhabitants of Cilicia, which had threatened Babylonian interests. Neriglissar however reigned for only four years, being succeeded by the youthful Labashi-Marduk in 560 BC. Again it is unclear as to whether he was a Chaldean or a native Babylonian.
Labashi-Marduk reigned only for a matter of months, being deposed by Nabonidus in late 560 BC. Nabonidus, was certainly not a Chaldean, ironically he was an Assyrian from Harran, the last capital of Assyria. Nabonidus proved to be the final native Mesopotamian king of Babylon, he and his son, the regent Belshazzar being deposed by the Persians in 539 BC.
---------------
This is how Sennacherib surveyed the situation, from an on-line book by George Godspeed, drawn from stella translations.
In 2 Kings 20 and Isaiah 38 and 39, the narrative only touches on the beginning of this story with the emissaries to Hezekiah from Merodach-Baladan. As Hezekiah speaks of hopes of peace with Babylon, Isaiah speaks with bitter irony. Perhaps it was 703 BC, but he does not speak of what is about to befall Babylon.
(722 BC – 710 BC, 703 BC – 702 BC) Marduk-apla-iddina II,
(the biblical Merodach-Baladan, also called Marduk-Baladan, Baladan and Berodach-Baladan, lit. Marduk has given me an Heir.) a Chaldean prince who usurped Babylonian throne in 721 BC. Also known as one of the kings who maintained Babylonian independence in the face of Assyrian military supremacy for more than a decade. Sargon of Assyria repressed the his allies in Elam, Aram and Israel and eventually drove (ca. 710 BC) him from Babylon. After the death of Sargon, he briefly recaptured the throne from a native Babylonian nobleman, reigning 9 months (703 BC – 702 BC). He returned from Elam and ignited rebellion in Babylonia. He was able to enter Babylon and be declared king again. Nine months later he was defeated near Kish by the Assyrians, but managed to flee to Elam. He died in exile a couple of years later.
(703-700 BC) Bel-ibni
a Babylonian nobleman who served as King of Babylon for several years as the nominee of the Assyrian king Sennacherib.
Sennacherib, believing that direct Assyrian rule was too costly, appointed Bel-ibni, a young Babylonian nobleman raised at the Assyrian court, King of Babylon in 703 BC. The experiment with a native puppet king was hardly more successful than direct Assyrian control. Soon Bel-ibni was conspiring with the Chaldeans and Elamites against the Assyrians. After defeating the opposing coalition in 700 BC, Sennacherib deposed Bel-ibni and carried him off to Assyrian exile, replacing him with Sennacherib's own son, Ashur-nadin-shumi.
(700-694 BC) Ashur-nadin-shumi
(d.694 BC) was an ancient King of Babylon. The son of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, Ashur-nadin-shumi was installed by his father as King of Babylon in 700 BC. He reigned for six years, until he was murdered by the Elamites following their capture of the city in 694 BC.
(694-693) Nergal-ushezib, originally Shuzub,
a Babylonian nobleman who was installed as King of Babylon by the Elamites in 694 BC, after their capture of Babylon and deposition and murder of the previous king Ashur-nadin-shumi, son of King Sennacherib of Assyria.
Reigned as King for little more than a year. Sennacherib soon made war on Babylon to recover the city and avenge his son's death. Nergal-ushezib was defeated and captured by the Assyrians in battle near Nippur in September 693 BC. His subsequent fate is unknown. He was succeeded by the Chaldean prince Mushezib-Marduk, who continued the resistance against Assyria.
(692 - 689 BC), Mushezib-Marduk
Chaldean prince chosen as King of Babylon after Nergal-ushezib. He led the Babylonian populace in revolt against Assyria and King Sennacherib in 689 BC, with the support of Elam and King Humban-nimena (which was attacked by the Babylonians and the Assyrians only years before), at the Battle of Halule. It's not clear who won this battle, since both sides claimed victory, and all rulers remained on their thrones, but it is generally agreed that the Assyrians suffered the greatest losses.
Mushezib-Marduk lost his ally when the Elamite king Humban-nimena suffered a stroke later that same year, an opportunity King Sennacherib quickly seized by attacking Babylon, and eventually capturing it after a nine-month siege. To avenge the death of his son, whom the Babylonians had effectively killed when they handed him over to the Elamites in 694 BC, Sennacherib pillaged and burned Babylon, tore down its walls, and even diverted the Euphrates into the city. During the Sack of Babylon, Mushezib-Marduk was most likely murdered.
(689-681) Sennacherib…succeeded by Esarhaddon
228. Whatever arrangements Sennacherib had made for the government in Babylon, on the fall of the usurper, were speedily brought to naught by the Babylonians themselves, who made the Kaldean prince Shuzub (sect. 226) their king, under the name of Mushezib Marduk (693 B.C.). ... Mushezib Marduk knew that his turn would soon come for punishment, and made a vigorous effort to defend himself. He called for aid upon the new Elamite king, who for his own security must also show a bold front to Assyria. The Babylonians likewise felt that vengeance would fall upon them for their treachery, and committed an act which revealed their desperate fear and hatred of Sennacherib. They opened the treasuries of the temples, and offered the wealth of Marduk for the purchase of Elamite support. All through the winter of 692 B.C. the preparations went on to meet the Assyrian advance.
A great army of Elamites, Arameans, Babylonians, and Kaldeans was gathered. Sennacherib compared its advance to "the coming of locust-swarms in the spring." "The face of the heavens was covered with the dust of their feet like a heavy cloud big with mischief." The battle was joined at Khalule, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, in 691 B.C., and, after a long and fierce struggle, the issue was drawn. Sennacherib claimed a victory, but, though the coalition was broken, his own forces were so shattered that he advanced no farther, and left to Mushezib Marduk the possession of the Babylonian throne for that year.
229. During the next two years Sennacherib grappled with the Babylonian problem and brought it to a definite solution. On his advance in 690 B.C. he met with no serious opposition. Ummanmenanu of Elam could offer no aid to Mushezib Marduk, who was speedily seized and sent to Nineveh. Babylon now lay at the mercy of the Assyrian, whose long-tried patience was exhausted. He determined on no less a vengeance than the total destruction of the ancient city. The work was systematically and thoroughly done. The temples and palaces were levelled. Fortifications and walls were uprooted. The inhabitants were slaughtered; even those who sought refuge in the temples perished. Images of Babylonian gods were not spared. Two images of Assyrian deities, which Marduknadinakhi had carried away from Ekallati (sect. 145), were carefully removed and restored to their city. The canal of Arakhtu was turned from its bed so as to flow over the ruins. The immense spoil was made over to the soldiers. The district was then placed under a provincial government, as had already been the case with the lands of the Kaldeans and Arameans round about it. Sennacherib thus ruled Babylon till his death. The Babylonian kings' list names him as "king" both for the years 705-703 B.C. and also during this last period, 689-681 B.C., although the source from which Ptolemy drew his information denominated both these periods "kingless." The Assyrian had made a solitude and called it peace.
----
-
100
Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!
by Londo111 intherefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.
if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.
then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.
-
-
kepler
Londo111,
Thanks for the reply. I think I understand your point of view and hope that I haven't made your task or the overall discussion more difficult or bitter. In any case, it is difficult enough to sort these matters out for one's self. But as we get older, we feel more and more responsibility for what we tell those that follow, younger than we are, our children or anyone that looks to us for advice.
I am not satisfied with either of the extremes we are all talking about even if the calendar problem is put to rest.
Kepler
-
100
Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!
by Londo111 intherefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.
if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.
then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.
-
-
kepler
Londo111,
Congratulations on your 587,607 and other posting mileposts. I confess that I am not the intended audience for number 607, but I read your posts on this subject with interest and take your concerns seriously.
As mentioned earlier, I had read Carl Olaf Jonsson's examination of this matter - and it was of great help to me in sorting out the evidence and finding sources for continued study. But as I continued to examine the case that both you and Jonsson present, I see suggestion that if this particular issue is settled, all the other issues of Biblical study will remain just where they were.
I think that counter to the basic notion of a Bible student. None of us would study if we didn't understand. And I have discovered in my exposure to the Bible that the things I thought I understood I should have questioned earlier. Why do I raise that point? Because even among the citations you give above, there are significant issues.
Does that make me hostile to the Bible? If it has, since I discovered this problem I have purchased and examined more Bibles and translations than I ever had in my life. I obtained more sense of who wrote its books in what background than I ever had before - several versions.
This is not without precedent. For if you consider the basic issue here of Jerusalem's and the Temple's destruction, it happened several times. Subsequently, in light of all the covenant guarantees to the contrary to what had occurred in history Judaism in practiced changed course. Less time was spent at sacrificial temples and more in meetings examining their scriptures and "wondering why". What was it that they had missed?
The Bible is simply what it is. We have it in various translations, versions, sequences, inclusions... It's NOT God, but a collection of testaments to God. Sub-testaments if you like. But in the name of fundamentalism and inerrancy, canon categories are mostly IGNORED in concocting fantasies like the pamphlet with which I was introduced to this subject: "What the Bible Really Teaches". Verses are cherry-picked into a cat's cradle of interlocking quotes hardly with any consideration for context.
Things are not going to be OK just by remembering Jeremiah 25:12 or Daniel 9:1; because there are some serious considerations in verses like these too. Jeremiah 25:12 says something like Babylon was nuked after 70 years. It wasn't. Life was brighter for the upper classes there than it was before, when they were ruled by the last Neo-Babylonian ruler Nabonidus who wasn't paying attention to the ceremonial needs of Marduk. And even though most of the captive Judean population was free to return, most remained in Babylon - and wrote the Bible. See, for example, the last chapter of the recent book"Babylon" by Paul Kriwaczek, "Passing the torch". Even the NWT appendices give credence to the idea that Babylon continued: it claims Peter's epistles were written there. What could confound its claim of destructive prophecies and inerrancy more than its own litera-lmindedness?
As to Daniel 9:1, there is no historical basis for Darius the Mede - save that Greek writer Thucydides (circa 430 BC) claims when the Persians invaded Greece and they were repulsed at Marathon in 490 BC that they were Medes and their king was Darius, Darius the 1st of Persia, 522-486 BC. He makes this claim about 50 times; so maybe a later author or two bought into it. But it gets worse. In chapter 3, when Nebuchadnezzar builds his golden statue, he summons "satraps" to observe the ceremony, satraps who are an institution of the Persian king Darius mentioned above. Of all the books of the OT to select to build a coherent structure! From chapter to chapter, changing narrative language and person, demonstrating questionable chronicling - the book of Daniel has no consistency.
Yet passages in support of a desolation from Daniel or Jeremiah weigh as much or more than Gospel parables or the beatitudes in these discussions of doctrine...
Yes, there are consequences to examining these passages. Both seeing what observant JWs see and seeing what my own eyes behold. Truly disturbing and I don't know how I will resolve it all. I do Know that it would have been truly dangerous though to accept what I had been told. But in effect, when representatives of the Watchtower knock on my door or the door of someone else, they are inviting others to do just that thing: either accept a truly outlandish story or uncover some very unpleasant truths through investigation.
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
kepler
Jeffro,
Of course, you are not obliged to care. But you statement of the case is backward. The verse is wrong and JWs sidestep it, claiming that the previous 3 support a dogma with shaky historical evidence at best. In essence, it is ALL wrong and in plain language the vehicle for a hoax.
The text from the ministry school above is a snow job, saying that because Jeremiah said it, it had to occur. Usual reaction of community that gives a hoot about what Jeremiah says: We are not sure what he is talking about in 25:8-11, but here is our opinion of the best fit. JWs say: No, it's a proclamation from God that lays out the next 2500 years or more - much more - ...Now let us explain. You take heed and obey...
Then the next line 25:12 is just wishful thinking. Jeremiah has put his foot in his mouth. None of it happened. If it had, the WatchTower would be revelling in that too and would have included it in the ministry school lesson and everywhere else. Your line of argument is akin to saying that there were never any gladiator contests in the Roman Colosseum because there sure aren't any now.
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
kepler
St. George of England,
Good to hear from you. Was wondering if I'd gone off on another untenable tangent? Hope not.
Given that we are talking about the same verses in context,
it would make no sense to me to keep this under wraps.
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
kepler
RE:
It is not at all unlikely that the claim about the region becoming 'desolate to time indefinite' is simply propagandising. However, the term translated, "time indefinite" (Strong's 5769) doesn't mean exactly the same as 'forever' (Strong's 5703) anyway. In any case, whilst the main city of Babylon is unpopulated (largely for reasons relating to heritage preservation rather than some 'curse'), Babylon Province is still inhabited.
--
Jeffro,
"Time indefinite" does not mean the same as "forever", but the punishment was immediate and compares closely to similar language in Isaiah. Was it Strong 5769 or 5703 in Isaiah. I'll make a mental note to look it up. When will I get back with it? Time indefinite or never? I think I used it in context. When was the last time you used "time indefinite" in a sentence other than quoting NWT? Now is that what the thought that text was to convey? That the Lord was wiping the city clear until he noticed someone was inhabiting it again? Or that he was wiping it off the map in the same manner as in Isaiah?
Babylon the city was not "unpopulated" by Cyrus. Nor by any of the successive Persian kings. Is it that I am not getting through to anyone about this? No one lives there now, true. But it remained a principal city of the region we call Iraq even after Alexander. The trade routes and the meandering of the rivers eventually killed it. It withered more like Detroit or Timbuktu. Not by some Sodom and Gomorrah retribution.
What I am saying is that all the claims of Babylon's destruction - It's a HOAX inherent in the scriptural text. These claims are so inaccurate that I had read in one guide to reading the Hebrew scripture the commentary of the translator wondering why Isaiah had made it into the canon in the first place since he was so off-base in his prophecies. The best explanation I can find for myself, is that First Isaiah was amended from a description of Sennacherib trashing Babylon in the 680s to Babylon getting its due in the 6th century before the Judeans exited. It didn't happen.
If Babylon were destroyed as described, the Watchtower would be quoting Jer 25:12 as well as Jer 25:9-11.
Where is Diamondiz amid all this? Diamondiz - and I believe others - brought up the issue that focusing on the year of Jerusalem's destruction was missing the target, that it's the matter of 70 years.
All right. So let's examine some of the cited verses. They're in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Ezekiel makes the same claims about 70 year desolation and then assumes Nebuchadnazzar's siege of Tyre is a sure thing. It wasn't. It was a draw. Is he a prophet from Judea or a mouthpiece for power in Babylon? We've just discussed Jeremiah and the connection is even closer. From one verse to another.
To me the declarations of death and destruction in the 7th and 6th century BC look very similar to the ones we are talking about today: a definite agenda in behalf of theocrats. The ones from Ezekiel and Jeremiah are derivative of Assyrian cultural conventions and they've been passed on to the Millerite and fundamentalist of our era like an assembly manual with little bother with the minor detail of whether Babylon was eradicated or not.
It simply came under new management.
For some odd reason when Seleucid Greeks were having a field day desecrating the Temple in the 2nd century BC, prophets had little or nothing to say about Antiochus acting as an agent of God acting to punish Judea or invoking 70-year desolations. The literary form had changed. Their approach to their contemporary problems had now morphed into Daniel and the Maccabees.
A lot of the feedback I get on these issues is that it is necessary to study more closely the history of Dispensationalism and the nuances of desolation declarations. That somehow, even though the Watchtower Society has a death grip on this doctrine, it's all a matter of just not getting some of the details right. I'd say that there has been enough and that we are already wading around in a pervasive pathology. Coming in from the outside, having hardly looked at Biblical text prior, I feel like a bank examiner faced with the books of a bank in default - and it is sinking a number of institutions along with it.
My own prophecy (and I don't have to back-write this from 100 years later): I see my ex now and then her grand-daughter, and her grand-daughter's daughter someday going door to door buoyed by explanations like the one I attached above, telling people about these supposed glad tidings. And everyone they can possibly recruit, all experiencing the many inducements described on this forum. Til time indefinite.
-
20
If you believe Jer 25:8-11 is evidence for 70-year desolation, then read Jer 25:12
by kepler inabout a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what i had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, i received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.. "this question was on my theocratic ministry school review that will be covered tonight:".
how does 2 chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at jeremiah 25: 8-11?
judahremaindesolate?
-
-
kepler
About a year and a half ago (03-03-11), discussing what I had learned in ancient history studies with someone who had been close to me, I received this note in the mail explaining why nothing was possible other than what was taught in ministry school, a 2520-year sequence of events that culminated invisibly in 1914.
"This question was on my Theocratic Ministry School Review that will be covered tonight:"
How does 2 Chronicles 36:21 underscore the fulfillment of the prophecy recorded at Jeremiah 25: 8-11?
***
w0611/15p.32DidJudahRemainDesolate?***
Did
JudahRemain
Desolate?
THE Bible foretold that the land of the kingdom of Judah would be devastated by the Babylonians and would remain desolate until the return of the Jewish exiles. (Jeremiah 25:8-11) The strongest reason to believe that this prophecy came true is the inspired historical account recorded some 75 years after the first group of exiles returned to their homeland. It states that the king of Babylon “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.” And regarding the land, it is reported: “All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath.” (2 Chronicles 36:20, 21) Is there any archaeological evidence to support this?
In the journal BiblicalArchaeologyReview, Ephraim Stern, professor of Palestinian archaeology at Hebrew University, points out: “The Assyrians and Babylonians both ravaged large parts of ancient Israel, yet the archaeological evidence from the aftermath of their respective conquests tells two very different stories.” He explains: “While the Assyrians left a clear imprint of their presence in Palestine, there is a strange gap after the Babylonian destruction. . . . We find no evidence of occupation until the Persian period . . . There is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.”
---------------------------
Citing Ephraim Stern as a reference for 607 BC and 70-year desolation has been discussed before. As far as I can tell, reading his article in the Biblical Archeology Review, its introduction and critique - all parties agreed that Jerusalem had been leveled 20 years later. Only this ministry school excerpt never tells anyone that - and I have never convinced my correspondent to even look it up.
But let's go to the crucial matter. A number of people have suggested that concentrating on the date of the Temple's destruction is a side issue. It's dealing with the assertions of prophets.
What does the next line of Jeremiah chapter 25 say?
In the NWT:
"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." In clearer KJV English: Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, and I will make it a perpetual desolation." ---------------------------------- It never happened. It's not even known whether Nabonidus died in battle outside the city or was appointed a regional governor by Cyrus. The city changed hands with little bloodshed and continued as a principal city and capital of the Persian empire for CENTURIES. Alexander made it his capital in the 4th century and died there. Specifically, Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BCE. The fact is that Jeremiah 25:12 is a FAILED prophecy. And since it is false, why should anyone assume that Jer 25:9-11 overrules existing historical evidence? Jer 25:8-11 does in deed conflict with historical evidence. And the compilers of such documents as the ministry school lesson notes - they know it. Just like they know that Ephraim Stern in no way support their dates or 70-year suppositions.
In fact, it was even clear to the Jewish community of the 5th and 4th centuries BC that Babylon had not been punished because much of it still remained in Babylon and other Persian ruled cities. Persian rule was the best thing that ever happened to Judea, providing it with centuries of security the Jewish community never had before or after. In the light of history, the four verses look to be propaganda rather than prophecy. Similar destruction notices appear in Isaiah in chapters 13 and 14, but as I said before, 14:22-23 gives that one away too. "I will rise against them, declares Yahweh Sabaoth, and deprive Babylon of name, remnant, offspring and posterity", declares Yahweh. "I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp." And that is in fact what Assyrian King Sennacherib did 100 years before Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Sennacherib just as thoroughly destroyed Babylon, flooding it and driving its population off into slavery. Nothing like it happens again. But both the editors of Isaiah and the Watchtower Society (e.g., "What the Bible Really Teaches", distributed for home instruction to people like me) would have you believe that Cyrus was dispatched the city in the same way. It was also Sennacherib that condemned Babylon to 70-years desolation, but his son and successor Esarhaddon gave it a reprieve after 11 years. My conclusion from this is that the 70-year desolation position of the society is not unassailable. Should I say this is an obvious weakness? It took me long enough to notice it. But it is a gaping hole in an argument that is based on, "A prophet prophesies it, and that settles it." When that argument is offered, it helps to read the previous or next verse. -
10
Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914
by kepler inin the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.
explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.
but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .
-
-
kepler
AnnOMaly,
I see that you examined in detail the first half of the Jeremiah pronouncement. But not the second.
Babylon did not die nor become desolate. That part is largely propaganda as are the similar passages in early Isaiah. Even the WTs own position on this is contradictory when it claims that I & II Peter were WRITTEN at Babylon. This is cherry picking biblical "inerrancy" out of a lot of misthrown darts. If we were even to look at why there has been a large community of Jews in Baghdad for millenia, it takes us back to a continued community in Babylon.
Diamondiz,
I must sound like Johnny One Note, but to me the 70-year desolation seems to have more to do with adhering to Assyrian and god Marduk's legal conventions, a Geneva Convention for war turned upside down. Evidently, you can't have a proper city eradication unless you invoke procedures to place it off-limits for a lifetime (70 years). Assyrian records for Babylon regarding Sennacherib and Esarhaddon indicate that that had already been done 100 years before Jerusalem - and there was a reprieve by a procedure that Old Testament writers would hardly imagine - or at least share with us.
But there is also a very similar frame of mind in Millerite movements and 1st millenium BC prophets. We are told to keep our eyes on the texts and listen to their interpretations of what they mean for the world outside. Read the texts and you will understand that Babylon the Great is gone even though it's the 5th century and Herodotus is writing a tour guide about it. Persians will put down repeated revolts there and Alexander will set up world government there. Reading Isaiah and Jeremiah in this regard, I infer that they are telling me that their patron is as good as any army and war god on the block according to prevailing rules. They are not telling me what actually had happened. Or will happen.
Russell and successors are doing much the same thing. One could wish that similar texts existed in the engineering world so that when a bridge collapsed or a ship sank a white bearded prophet can come out and declare that the event was rendered impossible by prophetic texts.
-
10
Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914
by kepler inin the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.
explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.
but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .
-
-
kepler
AnnOmaly,
Observations by you and OG about 607 BC vs. 606 acknowledged. I don't see much point on my part to insist on the year. But there is still the question of two decades differences between Russell and a source such as Barnes for II Kings. In the table above, I did not include the authors since the publisher claimed it was across the board Albert Barnes and James Murphy.
What would still be a matter of interest is this: Scholarship or general knowledge in the 19th century would point to a specific date or dates for the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonians. The example I provided indicated that the Barnes series of books provided a date, but it was published in 1879. The date for the event in Daniel was published in a volume in 1851.
Now going from there, it would make sense to me to examine what was the consensus at the time and why? Did Darby say the temple's destruction was at either of these dates? Is there another well known writer of that era that made a call? My argument for Barnes was that his books were in wide circulation. An Adventist or Millerite publication is valid up to a point. But that does not necessarily mean that was a consensus among historians; nor more than say among astronomers there was a consensus that Mars was covered by canals because Percival Lowell had claimed to obseve them.
You also mentioned the 70 year desolation argument. I am coming up to speed on this. My first reaction to this was that 70-year declarations amounted to circular reasoning. A prophet predicted something - and therefore because an individual was a prophet it had to happen. Is Jeremiah 25:11-12 a valid citation for this argument?
"I shall curse them with utter destruction and make them an object of horror, of scorn ... and this whole country will be enslaved to the king of Babylon for seventy years. (But when thaat seventy years are over, I shall punish the king of Babylon and that nation, Yahweh declares, for the wrong they have done, that is the country of the Chaldeans, and make it desolate forever)and against that country I shall perform all the words which I have threatened it.."
The portion in parentheses in the NJB notes some difference in Greek and Hebrew versions. In the NWT the same idea remains, however, though the translation is a little more gibberish.
I better understand now the insistence of the pamphlet , "What the Bible Really Teaches" that Cyrus had marched into Babylon and destroyed the city like Sennacherib had done.
But reading this, just like in Isaiah, I would call a good portion of the prophecy FAILED. The Watchtower built doctrines on scripture passages of prophecy that are demonstrably false by recorded history. Babylon prospered under the Persians and it remanined one of their principal cities or capitals. Alexander chose it as his capital for world empire and died there. Half wrong at best and questionable for the rest. How can the source foundation for the 70-year desolation prophecy proceed on the basis of being absolutely half right?