slimboyfat
hanks for the response, Fisherman, but I am not sure you have solved the problem so much as simply restated it. I know they think the 70 years at Babylon is a definite 70 years period, but the 70 years for Tyre is a shorter period. I know that’s their take, but what I’m asking for is a justification for that position. The text simply says Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years, not part of 70 years. If that “represents” a shorter period than literal 70 years, then why not the other 70 years too? What’s the justification for saying one must be exactly 70 years, but the other 70 years doesn’t?
---
Context and a careful reading of the text explain the difference between Jeremiah's 70 years and Isaiah's 70 years- different periods both occurring in the Babylonian period during Neb's reign with different implications as foretold by the prophets with different consequences.
--
Yeah dozy the date change from 606 to 607BCE was so strange and so blatant that, on some level, I didn’t even believe it could be true. But it does seem as simple as that - they moved it back a year to account for the absence of year zero and still keep the 1914 date. The honest thing to do would have been to move 1914 forward one year to 1915 (is that right?) but that would have spoiled the coincidence of World War One beginning on their favoured date. Does scholar have an answer for that one.
---
Yes, I do. It is called just doing Chronology which requires a methodology along with an interpretation of the data and the related history finally all scholarship evolves over time so when a chronologist sees the need to change or adjust then the chronology is fine-tuned.
--
Another problem is, if Satan was cast down from heaven in September/October 1914, then how come World War One began in August already?
---
The answer is right there. The book of Revelation does not give a precise chronology for the ousting of Satan from heaven but only for the end of the Gentile Times which event marked the beginning of God's kingdom confirmed by the outbreak of the Great War which was consistent with Satan being cast to the earth but as the Great War has no precise marker as it evolved during the first few months so all events fit well together.
---
Plus there was something (I forget the details) about the year 537BCE saying that events were supposed to occur within a year but there is nothing in the Bible that says it was within a year. They just assume it was not longer than a year in order to make the prophecy fit. But why not two, or three, or four years? Other than it spoils the chronology.
Plus they claim that 537BCE is an absolute fixed date and that 70 years must be counted back from then to 607BCE. But there’s no good reason why, if you are adamant about keeping the literal 70 year period, you couldn’t do it the other way round and say that 586BCE is the absolute fixed date and count 70 years forward from that to the other date at 516BCE instead
---
WT scholars have never regarded 537 BCE as an absolute date for it is calculated to fit the historical facts at the time of Cyrus' Decree in his first year and is widely accepted by scholars providing a good anchor for forming a chronology for that period.
---
Plus as Sanchy said, how do we even know that Daniel 4 is meant to be interpreted as a centuries long chronological prophecy anyway? It is a stretch to say the least.
--
No stretch but an interpretation based on what Daniel 4 says, the lexical meaning of times, the theme of God's Kingdom and Biblical Theology.
---
Plus the fact that 1914 is no longer within anybody’s reasonable conception of a single generation now. It’s ridiculous.
Until the 1990s, I think many JWs had the attitude that the whole 1914 chronology thing seemed like a bit of a leap in terms of proving it from the Bible, but on the other hand Bible Students did identify the year 1914 decades before World War One started that year. Therefore, was the reasoning at the time, Jehovah probably helped the Bible Students reach the 1914 date from the Bible somehow, and events that year proved them correct. But the further back in time 1914 recedes, the less important it seems, and the idea of stretching the “lasts days” from that date becomes increasingly incredible.
--
Utter nonsense. the date 1914 in terms of Eschatology has been well vindicated by the facts of modern history, biblical theology etc for such a chronology has breathed life into Eschatology and due credit for this belongs to those early Bible Students and their antecedents.
scholar JW