ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.
can someone maybe explain that a little?
if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.
garyneal
Post 1356
The answer to your question is simply found in Jeremiah 25:9-11 where it refers quite plainly to the fact that the seventy years was a period of desolation, exile and servitude to Babylon. This view of matters conforms to what Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah had to say about the matter and is also proven by the many references to the seventy years made by Josephus.
scholar JW
okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.
even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.
the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.
AnnOMaly
Post 1370
Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and their Apologists there remains the most Supreme supporter of 607 BCE for the Fall and that is no less than the Great Chronologist and Timekeeper, Jehovah God. It matters little if even all the scholars in the world do not recognize this sacred date because this date is firmly established upon the God's Infallible Word, Secular History and Neo-Babylonian Chronology with a slight adjustment of twenty years.
You and all fellow apostates and higher critics have one big problem and that is your inability to determine with absolute certainty a precise calender year for the Fall and until you and your 'suspects' can do this then your credibility is nought. You have a lot of work to do!
scholar JW
ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.
can someone maybe explain that a little?
if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.
AnnOMaly
Post 1369
None of those possibilities accord with Scripture and history for these are simply interpretations which are contradictory and meaningless. It seems that you regard Jeremiah as silly whern he simply prophesied that Judah would lie desolate for seventy years just as those false prophets in his day made similar accusations.
scholar JW
ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.
can someone maybe explain that a little?
if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.
AnnOMaly
Post 1368
There is nothing sensible about your interpretation either. Perhaps you should come clearly and state when did the seventy years begin and end. Our interpretation of Jer. 20:10 is based on the fact that the seventy years according to Jeremiah's earlier prophecy was about the desolation of Judah which fact cannot be harmonized with your nonsense. Scholar is LOL.
scholar JW
okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.
even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.
the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.
MrFreeze
Post 85
I am not interested in your personal opinions of me. What I do is my own business. The fact of the matter is that I responded to youir question but typical of apostates who hate the Truth you respond only with a personal attack.For your information secular historians do not agree for a precise date for the Fall so we opt for the Bible which alone supports 607 BCE.
scholar JW
okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.
even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.
the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.
MrFreeze
I think I misunderstood your question. The date of 607 and its precursor 606 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is most definitely well established according to the Biblle and secular history. The corrected date of 607 BCE is validated by the determination of the seventy years of Jeremiah and the simple fact that it also commenced the Gentile Times which expired in 1914 CE. This means that ancient and modern history along with prophecy corroborates the determination of 607 BCE as fully explained by the 'celebrated' WT scholars/
scholar JW
ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.
can someone maybe explain that a little?
if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.
AnnOMaly
Post 1367
Your hypothesis fails because Jeremiah's words at Jeremiah 29:10 simply admonish those exiles of the first deportation to simply settle down, have their babies until the foreordained prophetic period of seventy years would be fulfilled. At that time the seventy years had not then commenced because the land was not desolated until Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE in accordance with Jeremiah's prophecy at Jer. 25:9-11. Such prophecy and history definitely proves in spite of the protests of apostates, those naughty apostates, that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation of Judah and all of its citizens.
scholar JW
ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.
can someone maybe explain that a little?
if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.
thraxer68
Jeremiah's words as recorded in ch.29 were addressed to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon who were part of that first deportation to Babylon hence suich words of comfort must have been written prior to the Fall and the commencement of the seventy years of Exile-Servitude-Exile. Jeremiah simply informed those earlier exiles that they had to remian in or at Bablon until that ordained period of seventy years had expired.
The translation of Jeremiah 29;10 with that controversial phrase ' at Babylon' is consistent with the context of the chapter and Hebrew grammar. Some scholars prefer 'for Babylon' and this too is permissible for it along with 'at Babylon' proves that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude.
scholar JW
okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.
even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.
the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.
MrFreeze
Post 71
We owe a great debt to the 'celbrated' WT scholars who have given to the world of mankind a very accurate Bible chronology which champions the correct date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which falsifies the impossible and incorrect dates of 586, 587 and others for the Fall of Jerusalem. You ask concerning the origin of 607 BCE?
The corrected or adjusted date of 607 BCE was first published in 1944 in the publication The Kingdom Is At Hand which nicely brought Biblical scholarship up to date. No doubt one of the influences for such an adjustment in Bible chronology was brought about by advancing research in Babylonian chronology by such eminent scholars as Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein who published their Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 45in 1942. This period of the forties was groundbreaking in various fields of Bible schoilarship and along with further insights into biblical revelation led to many refinements in not just chronology but also translation of the Bible along with eschatiology.
scholar JW
.
thanks to frank kavelin for looking at the old well worn subject from a completely different perspective.. enjoy!.
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/chronology/607-bce-the-bible-or-the-formula.html.
sweet pea
Post 1154
Scholar has responded to Kavelin's nonsense with a brief comment. The fact of the matter is that the calculated date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is very well established in accordance with the Bible but also secular evidence despite the feigned protestations of apostaes and higher critics. Kavelin's perspective is neither new or fresh but is simply a rehash of the 'Jonsson' nonsense.
scholar JW
