Posts by scholar

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

'Oh no... something actually fits the Bible's description of Babylon's 70 years... quick, replace it with an obviously flawed straw man argument.'

--

'Oh no.. I receive a nonsensical comment as a flawed argument not dealing with the issue.-

---

Nope, wrong again. There were 6 months between Cyrus' accession until arriving in October. Plenty of time for arranging provisions and making the four-month trip. Your assertion that "they were still travelling or had not then left" is based on absolutely nothing. There are no 'WT scholars', and Josephus states that the temple construction began in Cyrus' second year, which is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's claims.

---

What evidence that there was a six month period from Cyrus accession year until arriving in October for this is just speculation in order to fit into a tight frame ignoring the time required for the proclaiming, writing and publishing the Decree throughout the Empire. Josephus gives the temple construction in Cyrus' second year which was a year after the Return in 537 BCE..

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

Yes, you're right - that is nonsense. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society actually put it best on this one in Isaiah's Prophecy, volume 1, page 253:

No irony needed for a period of 70 years was associated with Tyre as Isaiah foretold but how about Jeremiah's prophecies about the nations. Notice no 70 years here!!!

---

Of course, it would be a fallactious argument from silence to assert that 70 years can only be applied to Judah because specific periods of desolation are not known for every nation (or any particular subset) that was subject to Babylon.

---

Well do not complain about the silence just pay attention to what the biblical record is telling you.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

Not quite. 2 Kings 23:36 gives Jehoiakim's reign as 11 years (counting his accession year), and we know his last year was 598 BCE. So his 3rd year using Nisan-based dating (not counting his accession year per the Babylonian and subsequent custom) was 605 BCE (up until early 604 BCE prior to Nisan), which is when Nebuchadnezzar returned to the area to demand tribute after he claimed the throne.

Jehoiakim's last year of his 11th reign ended in 618 BCE so that means that his 1st year began in 628 BCE.His vassalage/kingship cf.Dan 1:1 of three years to Neb. began from his 8th ending at the 11th year of his total reign.

---

he 70 years (of nations serving Babylon, not Jewish exile) ran from Babylon's conquest of Assyria in 609 BCE (conquest of Haran following the earlier conquest of Nineveh in 612) until Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.

This statement is problematic because nowhere in the Bible is the Fall of Assyria associated with the 70 years and that is why many scholars date the 70 years from Neb's reign which began according to their reckoning in 605/604 BCE so this latter date would be a better fit than 609 BCE which historically is a 'fuzzy date. The difficulty is that scholars cannot agree as to the 'beginning' of the 70 years as no definitive date can be assigned. The date 609 BCE meets the arithmetic; 609 BCE - 70 years = 539 BCE or alternatively, 605 BCE - 70 years=535 BCE not the posited date of 539 BCE. BIG POBLEM HERE !!!!!!

---
The Jews returned in 538 BCE, not 537. This was during the first year of Cyrus with temple construction beginning in 537, as confirmed by Josephus.

---

Incorrect: The jews could not have returned in 538 BCE because they were still travelling or had not then left so it must have been in 537 BCE having already resettled in their cities by the seventh month in 537 BCE.- Ezra 3:1. Josephus agrees with WT scholars that the 70 years ended with the Decree of Cyrus which led to the end of the Exile and the 70 years and not the fall of Babylon previously..

----

Entirely wrong. 1914 is based on superstitious nonsense and nothing more (and the fact that something was 'supposed' to happen suddenly in or after October of 1914 is generally ignored by JWs and they just focus on the fact that 'something' significant happened in that year). The context of Luke 21:24 refers to a period that had not started in Jesus' time, and the duration of the 'appointed times of the nations' (when Jerusalem was 'trampled') is identified in Revelation as 3.5 times, 42 months and 1260 days, all being 3.5 years, and refers to the period from the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in 66 CE culminating in Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE.

--

Entirely wrong: October 1914 CE marked the end of the Gentile Times a definite historical/ prophetic/eschatological period of a calculable 2520 years based on Dan. 4, Luke 21:24 and the relevant texts in Revelation. There is nothing in or about Luke 21:24 that can be interpreted to a 'trampling' by Rome but by the 'nations' which is plural until the appointed time. So, Jesus' words are quite explicit that the trampling of Jerusalem would be continuative long into the future and beyond the events of 70 CE In short, the wording of this verse takes us beyond the events between 66 CE to 70 CE.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Rocketman123

When you closely examine the events concerning the ancient Israelites of that era and that of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it clarifies the difference of servitude, desolation and exile.

---

Historically and theologically there is no difference between the three elements of the 70 years namely exile-desolation -servitude which is an exact description of what Jeremiah foretold, witnessed by Daniel and Ezekiel, confirmed by the historians Ezra and Josephus.

---
There was a lot of historical subsequent of events which happened to the inhabitants of Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar from the beginning of servitude to him right to their return from exile which JWS are dishonestly dismissive about .

---

Exactly and that is what you should pay attention to that detailed history in the Bible and not try to harmonize with NB Chronology.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

Actually, the order of the chapters of Jeremiah in the Greek Septuagint (with the proclamations against individual nations inserted between the first and second halves of what we call chapter 25) makes it even more clear that the 70 years applied to all the surrounding nations serving Babylon and definitely not just ‘Jewish exile’.

---

Nonsense: If this is really the case then you should be able to tabulate historically when each of those nations served Babylon. The only nation that we have a precise history of Babylonian servitude is Judah as correctly prophesied by Jeremiah.

The use of the LXX is valuable but it is important to compare that with the main or principal text- Masoretic Text when it comes to any historical analysis and exegesis.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

MeanMrMustard

In the end, if you read the relevant scriptures grammatically, then the plain meaning that comes from that grammatical reading, as opposed to reading into the scriptures an ideology, is easy to see, and there are no contradictions with the historical evidence.

---

Does this comment indicate your skill in linguistics and in Hebrew and Greek?

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Rocketman123

One must remember and keep in mind that JWS are trained/brainwashed to only accept expressed information that is sanctioned and approved by god's holy spirit, which is provided through the GB Watchtower heads, so its not surprising at all that when you discuss certain subjects objectively they are closed minded and become intellectually dishonest .

--

The above is inapplicable to the said scholar for he is a different animal.

---

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

johnamos

Jeremiah's focus concerning the 70 years was that those 70 years would be the period that Babylon would be a world power and during such time the nations would have to serve Babylon as such. Serving Babylon was not dependent on being in captivity or desolate. The serving started as a result of Babylon becoming a world power and it ended when their time as such a power ended.

--

Your interpretation of the 70 years that it is only one of Babylonian servitude is wrong and does not agree with Jeremiah and the 70 textual corpus. The 70 years was a period of exile in Babylon, a period of the land being desolated and a period of servitude to Babylon as shown by Jer. 25:11-12.

178

Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 in

i hope this is in the right area.

i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.

for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.

scholar

Jeffro

There you go again claiming I've copied someone else's work, dismissing my work as 'pretty charts' without research, all signs confirming that you feel threatened. You then try to claim credit by imagining that I've provided information merely as a result of your posts, which is also wrong (I would give some credit to former posters on here like AnnOMaly, Leolaia and Alan Feuerbacher for encouraging deeper research though). In fact, I wasn't even aware of this forum when I first posted information online (some of which was copied by JWFacts) - you can readily verify the year 2004 in the footer of my timeline and my first post on this forum in 2005. So yet again, you are shown to be wrong.

---

You misread me for I have never said that you have copied another's work but have been heavily influenced by the work of others and fallen under their spell and as I was part of that long-running controversy on this forum over many years there can be no doubt that I have contributed to your obsession with JW Chronology.