Posts by Alethia

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

Scholar, the punishment is for israel but their punishment only makes up part of the 70 years. I feel that a lot of the trouble with JWs understanding this account is due to the misleading NWT translation. The Nations who "serve" babylon doesn't start with Jerusalem. For example, see below

Jeremiah 25:17,18

NWT: So I took the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and made all the nations to whom Jehovah sent me drink: 18 starting with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, her kings and her princes, to make them a ruin, an object of horror, something to whistle at and a curse, as it is today

ESV: So I took the cup from the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day

Jeremiah 25:29

NWT: For look! if I am bringing calamity first on the city that bears my name, should you go unpunished?

ESV: For behold, I begin to work disaster at the city that is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, for I am summoning a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth, declares the LORD of hosts.’

As you can see above NWT adds starting and first to give the reader the impression that the 70 years begins with Jerusalem. Very sneaky

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

Scholar

The 70 years could not have begun in 609 BCE with the Fall of Assyria as the prophecy by Jeremiah was not given at that time but later with Neb's first year and Jehoiakim's 4th year- Jer. 25:1.

---

Yes it began with the fall of Assyria. In 605 BCE (1st year of Neb) the 70 years were already underway.

Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us who "these nations" refer to in Jeremiah 25:11?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

No where in the bible is the exile and and the 70 years connected even if its used in the same sentence. Babylon was used by Jehovah for 70 years to over thrown the surrounding nations. The fact that the exile was less than 70 years is irrelevent and does not contradict the scriptures in any way.

When you understand that the 70 years is "for Babylon" and not 'for Israel' you also understand the 70 years was finished when Babylon was overthrown in 539BCE. The 70 years began when Babylon conquered Assyria in 609BCE. Makes total sense and no need for vague ideas and 20 year gaps.

Also, the fact that the 70 years is "for Babylon" does not mean israel was to be punished for 70 years.

As others have said it really comes down to reading the scriptures accurately in order to avoid misinterpretation.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

Scholar

1. The astronomical diary VAT 4956 indicates that Bebuchadnezzer's 37th year was 568 BCE and the tablet Strm Kambys 400 indicates that Cambyses' 7th year was 523 BCE. This leaves only about 50 years for the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, whereas the Bible unambiguously says that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for 70 years. One or two of the sources must be wrong but which one(s)?

2. The conclusion drawn on the basis of a study of hundreds of cuneiform tablets is that the New Babylonian Empire should be expanded by twenty years. This means that Nebuchadnezzer II started to reign in 625 BCE and not in 605 BCE as is almost universally believed.

Will this suffice?

----

Not really. VAT4956 can be used to support 587 if you take into account planetary observations such as Saturn for instance.

It seems your whole basis for 607 is your insistence that the bible mentions a 70 year exile?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

Beth Sarim, i agree.

It looks like pure speculation to me. We're supposed to believe a gap of 20 years happened just because they say it happened?

Its really up to them to provide the evidence. If not, then the whole concept is wrong.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Alethia

Scholar

The missing 20 years is shown when one compares Bible Chronology with NB Chronology or secular Chronology. For example, using the calculated date for the Fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer you can calculate two different dates: 586/7 BCE or 607 BCE depending on the different methodology.

---

Can you provide further details of the missing 20 years?