Posts by scholar

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

Applegate's paper is not about chronology and does not provide and any dates featured in his research are incidental to his thesis, his approach to the subject of the seventy years is theological and reflects a harmony between the principal texts notwithstanding the flexibility of interpretation. It is in the matter of substance of what those individual texts that is devastating to the Jonsson nonsense and proves the plausibility of the approach by celebrated WT scholars. Applegate does not mention 537 BCE ending the period nor does he mention 539 BCE, the opposing opinion prpmoted by Jonsson. In fact, Applegate refrains from giving a definite chronology with the exception of the two Zechariah texts.

Nevertheless, this discussion puts the subject of the seventy years in a new and fresh perspective broadening and deepening this most perplexing subject despite the dogmatic stance by apostates who hastily and foolishly decry our true biblical position. I believe that Applegate does provide a unitary view because of the influence of the Jeremiah texts even though he admits to a "flexibility of interpretation" which is well documented in the commentaries and literature. This 'unitary' view is proved by the theology of Jeremiah and the fact that Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah sourced Jeremiah by quotation or imputation. The theology is devastating to the Jonsson hypotheisis.

At last, you see the many discontinuities and reinterpretaions by your own admission so this article is troubling for you so perhaps you write Jonsson and alert him to this observation so that he can understand that his interpretation oif the seventy years as servitude alone is a 'whacky and concocted theory'.

scholar JW

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

scholar

Jeffro

So agree with the Isaiah commentary with its explanation of the seventy years for Tyre was experienced during the period of Babylon's greatest domination which also saw Judah experiencing her seventy years of servitude, desolation and exile. Both Tyre and Judah expereinced servitude to Babylon within the same historical period of Babylonian supremacy. But those seventy years are not identical with the same exact chronology and both were also different in degree and substance.

You assume that 609 was the beginning of Babylonian supremacy with the alleged displacement of Assyria but historians do not agree that 609 is the only date for this 'beginning' for other sholars prefer 605 as a starting point for Babylonian rule. This then alters your chronology for 'seventy years.'

The reason why the Society does not chronologize the seventy yeras for Tyre is simply there is no reason to do so as its significance for biblical history and prophecy is minimal. Perhaps you take up your complaint on this matter with Jeremiah. There is no link as you say with the Return of the Jews in connection with Tyre'e seventy years but only with Jeremiah's seventy years ending as we all know in 537 BCE.

There is no treading lightly with Tyre's seventy years because scholars cannot determine that chronology and you will no reference to this in the literature. Apostates tread lightly with the Jeremiah's seventy years because it overthrows their dumb secular chronology.

scholar JW

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

scholar

Jeffro

Response to post 1209

There is no consensus. 586 is the majority opinion followed by 587 with 588 and 589 on the side. A margin of error of at least three years. Dumb scholars and apostates follow dumb dates.

scholar JW

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

scholar

Leolaia

Response to post 6992

Yes, Applegate offers observations on the principal texts that support the interpretation of those same texts made by celebrated Wt chronology which indirectly support our biblical chronology.

You have already drawn attention to Applegate on Jeremiah 29;10 on page 96 and following from this Applegate describes the likage of the 'restoration' of the temple with the completed desolation of the land in his exegesis of Ezra from pages 97 to 102. Please note Williamson's obsrvations on page 101 in the last paragraph. His treatment of Zechariah offers views contrary to Jonsson and notes that those 'seventy years' were a period of pat judgement on page 105.

Applegate's article as a whole is refreshing in that perhaps for the first time a 'holistic' approach to Jeremiah is examined demonstrating the relationship and dependence of thos principal texts and Jeremiah's prophecy. Jonsson fails to grasp that interdependence of those texts and fails to see the theology behind the prophecies and their fulfillments upon God;s people in those times consequently his theory is sterile and bankrupt leaving no room for prophecy and fulfillment.

scholar JW

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

scholar

Jeffro

Response to post 919

1. Yes I can read. Babylon's king was called to account but you conveniently omit the fact that in the same breath, 'the nation and the land of Chaldea' was also called to account. How were those three entities called to account? Jeremiah continues to state that it was by those things being made 'desolate' and not by the fall or demise of a ruler or city. You must read the context. Applegate confirms this understanding of matters by celebrated WT scholars by noting on pages 92 and 96 that "that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years".

2. Indeed get a third party perspective on the meaning of that paragraph in the Isaiah commentary but better still you should study the entire volume for context because that is what you are missing. Context man! context, something of which apostates fail to grasp. There is no need to mention 537 BCE because this is not the context of Jeremiah's seventy years but that of Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre and Tyre alone.

3. So where is your proof from Josephus or are you simple relying on AlanF as to What to think and How to think? Do not worry I deal with the clown at a time of my choosing.

scholar JW

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

scholar

Jeffro

Response to post 916

No, they pray and study God's Word. Do you do that?

No, the consensus is with 586 rather than 587.

scholar JW

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

scholar

Jeffro

Response to post 915

So, if the seventy years for Tyre in 539 BCE then when did they begin for Tyre? Such a question and your answer will determine your comprehension of the Isaiah commentary. What you fail to realize that ther is difference between Jeremiah's seventy years for Judah and Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre. It is certainly the case that according to Jeremiah's prophecy in 25:12 that foreign nations would also be subject to Babylon during the seventy year period of Judean servitude which ran from 607 until 537 BCE. The period of Babylon's greatest domination involve not Tyre and the other foreign nations but Judah and lasted during that period of servitude, exile and desolation from 607 until 537 - a full historic period of seventy years.

In connection with Tyre we have no explicit chronology for her seventy years and its exact period is unknown so with a new ruler at Babylon, Tyre could once again resume her former glory. There is no reference to 537 in conncetion with Tyre because there is simply no link or relevance. It is only with Judah as an exilic people that a Return becomes significant.

Only apostates dream of reprints but perhaps they sholuld start dreaming a new and revised accurate, biblical chronology.

scholar JW

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

scholar

Jeffro

Response to post 914

I am shouting from the rooftops that there is abundant secular and biblical evidence in support of 607 which is grounded upon the seventy years of Jeremiah. The majority of scholars are slaves along with apostates to higher criticism and it is laughable that they cannot understand the seventy years for it is a stumbling block to them.

scholar JW

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

scholar

Jeffro

1. No, the judgement on Babylon was yet future as a perpetual desolation according to Jeremiah wheras Daniel's judgement concerned only its Fall which of course occurred in 539 BCE.

2. The Isaiah's commentary says nothing of the sort and you are guilty of misreading and misunderstanding its comments. The commentary does not in any way confuse 539 with 537 but deals in a straightforward manner with all of facts recognizing as with Tyre that the seventy years of Judah also involved a precise period of domination/servitude to Babylon ending in 537BCE.

3. Scholars do not usually define the year of the Return but leave this historical detail alone but they comment that the release of the Jews under Cyrus' Decree must have occurred sometime in his 1st year from 538-537BCE. Josephus' account in no way contradicts the fact that the Jews were home by the seventh month in 537 BCE and you have proof to the contrary.

scholar JW

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

scholar

Alan F

Response to post 4437

No you are dead wrong, Applegate's interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is reasonable as presented on page 92 of his article because WT scholars have long held the view that after the seventy years had ended in 537 BCE with the end of the Exile, the Jews could now experience the blessings of Jehovah with the restoration of the temple which began construction soon thereafter. Such restoration of pure worship certainly commenced soon after as Applegate thoughtfully acknowledges. Certainly, the seventy years ended in 537 BCE by the seventh month Tishri with the Jews resettled in their homes with the opportunity to now restore true worship with the rebuilding of the temple.

So, this means that the Society's chronology supports the Bible as nicely confirmed by Applegate's wise observation.

scholar JW