in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Doug Mason
Most certainly as the Society's response covers the matter clearly:
Thus, while these ancient writers may not have been fully accurate in all the particulars, they do all agree on one point, namely, that the Jews were in captivity for 70 years, and some of these indicate that Jerusalem was desolate for the entire period.
scholar
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Doug Mason
The references to the seventy years by the Church Fathers set out in the Society's reply to Lobsto and your quotations certainly confirm our interpretation of those seventy years as being a period of Exile, Desolation of the Land and Servitude to Babylon. You have misread or failed to understand the sources provided or you have your own agenda in this matter. Our vies is also supported by the Jewish Historian, Josephus and the Church Historian, Eusebius but the latter link for Eusebius does not appear to work so if you can post the quotation it would be appreciated without your comment on that quote.
scholar
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
peacefulpete
Much time has been expended trying to make sense of the 70 years of desolation claimed in parts of the Bible with no success. I have in the past presented what i feel was evidence that the so called desolation was in fact 49 years in duration and was know as such by one of the authors of Daniel. This is the conclusion drawn by most Bible commentaries and reference works. Also the matter of what actually happened verses the Bible's description of "empty land" has been posted here before. It has also been suggested by a number of authors that the significance of certain numbers (eg.3,7,10,12) to ancient superstitious peoples is reason enuf to interpret the 70 (7x10)as literary rather than literal. I ran across an interesting piece of parallelism in Babylonian texts
----
The seventy years of desolation makes perfect sense so as it describes the biblical narrative perfectly so there is no need to worry about spending much time making sense of it for it is History based on solid Theology.
The desolation being of a period of 49 years is simply nonsense because that is not what the biblical texts say for it is simply a fictional number based on poor exegesis of the Jeremiah texts and of secular history. One only has to consult a number of leading Bible Commentaries and the scholarly literature to see that such a thesis is without scholarly support. The matter of the Empty Land continues to be of great interest to scholars which formed a basis of an International Conference some years ago and the said scholar has a great interest in this subject.
scholar
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Half banana
Secular history finds no obvious 70 year period of exile and desolation. The attacks on Jerusalem clearly happened after Babylon had become the dominant power By 609 BCE. One of the sieges of Jerusalem was in 597 BCE when Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin were taken along with the Israel's elite.The major military siege and destruction of Jerusalem was completed by 586BCE. Jerusalem however was then desolated but the land especially to the north (Benjamin) has archaeological occupancy layers. No one outside JWs and the book of Ezra can find a seventy year desolation of Jerusalem
The seventy years of Jeremiah was a definite historical period of Servitude of Judah to Babylon, an Exile of the Jews in Babylon and the Desolation of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land of Judah from 607 BCE until 537 BCE. These facts are confirmed by secular history and the Ezra, Daniel and Jeemiah.
The attacks on Jerusalem could not have happened in 609 BCE as this was far too early marking possibly the end of Assyria as a World Power thus is too fuzzy a date in order to commence the seventy years. The desolation according to some scholars was only fifty years but this view is simply based on an incorrect chronology which does not account for that definite historical period of seventy years.
If it is true that only JW's and Ezra talk of a literal seventy years then that should be sufficient.
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
Finkelstein
that’s the same reason I post and make comments on subjects like this , just to openly show how intellectual ignorant and perhaps corrupt most indoctrinated JWS are and can be.
Boy, scholar is breathless in the anticipation and in the reading of some weighty, dense material all in the futile effort to disprove WT Bible Chronology well constructed over the centuries by celebrated WT scholars-past and present!!!!!
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
LeeT
A plain reading of Dan.!:1 supports the date 617 BCE. for it has nothing to say about the events that marked Neb's first year of reign but is dealing with events during the reign of King Jehoiakim representing his vassalage to King Nebuchadnezzer. It is evident because of several factors discussed in the article 'JEHOIAKIM' in Insight On The Scriptures.
Yes, scholar can provide the evidence but scholar wants to train you to think, so see if can understand the material then get back to me and scholar will kindly help you for scholar loves to help the little people.
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
LeeT
None of which refer to the destruction of the temple which is what I was asking about. I'll try a third time. Why do you associate the beginning of the period of Babylonian dominance when nations came to serve Babylon, including Judah, with the same date as the destruction of the first temple?
Because of the simple fact is that the beginning of Babylon's dominance over Judah in connection with the 70 years is linked to the time of the desolation of the land of Judah as proved by Jer. 25:11.
But not specific in setting any date which we can discern now, 2,600 years later. That was my point.'
Jeremiah did not date the beginning of the 70 years but simply equated that with an event and that was the time when the land became desolate captives led off to Exile thus in servitude to Babylon.
"Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?
COJ does not admit to any uncertainty for that is my reading of his discussion in both editions of his GTR. Also, 607 BCE cannot be considered an implausible date but 605 and 609 BCE are both implausible dates for the beginning of the 70 years.
How do you reach that conclusion from Jeremiah?
By reading and studying Jeremiah, something you should try!!!
When do you think Daniel went into captivity? Is there any problems with taking a plain and fairly literal reading of Dan 1:1?
617 BCE I would like to see you give a plain and literal reading of Dan.1:1 Be careful!
My alternative thesis is well presented in that initial reply to Lobsto from the Society
scholar
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
LeeT
So how did your careful exegesis lead you to equate the destruction of the first temple with the start of 70 years? You seemed to skip over that part of my question which you quoted in the reply above
My careful exegesis which plainly you have not done proves that Jer. 25:11, 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Dan. 9:2 all discuss and link the beginning of the seventy years with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of Judah, the commencement of the Exile and the nation of Judah under servitude to Babylon all for the period of 70 years.
How does our inability to determine the exact start date the writer of Jeremiah had in mind preclude the idea he was talking about a period of Babylonian domination? This looks like a non sequitur.
Besides, didn't you tell me the precise time was when Babylon conquered Jerusalem making it a global power?
Jeremiah was not confused as you are because he foretold specific consequences in a judgement message addressed to Judah warning them what would happen and his description although poetic was quite specific that the Land would be desolated, the people exiled and made to serve Babylon for 70 years.
Isn't admitting to genuine uncertainty over plausible alternative dates a better and more honest approach than proclaiming certainty over an implausible date?
COJ is not known for his humility in relation to his criticism of 607 BCE.
"The Bible does not state ―this is when the Seventy Years‖ started, showing that those people were not concerned with identifying a specific moment or incident"
Utter nonsense-Jeremiah knew what he was talking about as his prophecies on the 70 years was quite descriptive and specific and could only have begun with the destruction of the City of Jerusalem, its Temple and Land in Neb;s 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 the regnal year.
That is the case he's arguing. Like most others who've spent mch time on this, he seems to have concluded that there are a few possible options which could mark the start of the seventy years. He also spends some time trying to differentiate between the seventy year period of servitude and the idea that the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple which would only happen later if Judah didn't mend its ways. That makes it clear that in his view, the destruction of the temple could not mark the start of seventy years.
Certainly, Doug has a criticism but merely reflects or maps the research of COJ so there is nothing new in this thesis. It further lacks scholarship showing no great effort to exegete the relevant texts involved and does not address all of the issues raised in bible Commentaries on those texts and the academic literature.
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
johnamos
Is the WTS there citing verse 11 and claiming that those 70 years "represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination"?
Is the WTS there stating that at the END of those 70 years that that domination comes to its end (will crumble)?
Did the WTS there point out that Babylon came to an END (fell/crumbled) in 539?
If that domination came to an end in 539 and that was the end of the 70 years, then what precise year did the 70 years begin?
You ask of the said scholar, 4 questions which are addressed as follows:
1. No, the 70 years pertaining to apply Jer.25:11 apply to the desolation of Judah in combination with other nations other nation made to serve the Kingship of Babylon.
2. At the end of those 70 years the desolation of Judah ceased, their Exile came to end with their Return in 537 BCE and their servitude to Babylon ceased also in 537 BCE.tHE domination of Babylon over Judah and her peoples had then come to an end.
3. Babylon fell in 539 BCE which opened the way or the three vents to occur in 537BCE as mentioned in my above answer.
4. 539 BCE did not represent the end of the 70 years for Judah and possibly for the other nations but history is silent about these nations and their fate. Therefore this means that in the case of Judah the 70 years could only have begun in 607 BCE as all of the evidence proves.
Well, it is like this, for something certainly blew in 1914 with the casting out of Satan and his cronies from Heaven to the Earth.
scholar
a month ago i sent a letter to the us branch about 607. my purpose for sending it was because i wanted to show to my parents through the letters the truth behind the date system.
two days ago, i received a response from them.
i think this is gonna be the first of many.
LeeT
Why does Doug need to back a different horse? All he's doing is pointing out that the three-legged nag which is due for the knackers yard which you have placed your money on isn't going to win the race
I regard Doug as a friend and I have counselled him on his many Studies and his scholarship as to its improvement. Criticism is fine and has its place but when seeks to enter the academic arena then not only must you critique the views of your peers but you must argue your case or thesis in order to be credible and this is where Doug falls short.
scholar
