The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Christ Alone

I'm just going to quickly interject here. Last year (2011) before the Harold Camping prophecy of May didn't come, I read much of what he wrote about chronology. It looked VERY similar to what the WT has written, and what Won't Face the Facts has written above.
This use of the Bible to set future dates was nothing new. As was brought out, many men before Russell used the Bible to set future dates. John Aquila Brown, William Miller, E. B. Elliott, Robert Seeley, Joseph Seiss and Barbour were among those that tried to manipulate the Bible for their own false prophesies.
I really think that Won't Face the Facts has some cognitive dissonance going on here, and that is why he is trying so hard to defend the false dates set by the WT. It comes from paranoia that if they were wrong on this, they could be wrong on everything else. Paranoia that there is no where else to go if he leaves the WT. Of course, likely he won't admit to this.
Archeology itself has proven the 607 date absolutely wrong. The proof is so strong that there is not even a debate in the scientific community as to when Jerusalem fell. Only JWs and a few very small groups still hold to the erroneous 607 date. The WT MUST hold to this date because of their 1919 prophecy. I believe that is a more important date to them than 1914.
When archelogists, historians, and other scientists see the teaching the WT has about 607, they laugh. It has so thoroughly been debunked that there doesn't even need to be discussion. And this is where I make my exit. I'm a tad bit sad and embarassed for the intelligence of those that still hold to the 607 date. For the most part I have to think that they are smarter than this. I think Won't Face the Facts IS smarter....but he MUST hold on to the WT teaching because it is his only rock. Too bad Jesus isn't that rock.
Christ Alone

Just one more quick statement. I made the comment that archeology proves that 607 is a false date. Just wanted to give some back up for that.
The Hillah Stele, also known as “ Nabon. #8 ” was discovered in the late 1800's in the area of Hillah, a place located southeast of Babylon. This archaeological find contains irrefutable evidence against the Watchtower Society's teaching of the 607 B.C.E . date.
The Hillah Stele establishes the kingly time-line because it records specific astronomical events which happened during the first years of the reign of Babylon's last ruling monarch, Nabonidus. The specified events include: The visibility of the planets Venus, Saturn and Jupiter after dusk while Mercury and Mars were not, along with the appearance of specific bright stars. Professor Hildegard Lewy* used this information to calculate the date of his reign and realized : “The only time within the given interval when this constellation occurred was the period of 3 days comprised between Simanu 2 and Simanu 6 of Nabunaid's [a.k.a. Nabonidus] first full year (May 31 - June 4, 555 B.C.E.), during which period, in fact, also the fixed stars enumerated by the king were visible in the evening sky.” This solidly establishes the time of Nabonidus's ascension year as being 556 B.C.E . This 556 B.C.E . ascension year is accepted by the Watchtower Society (Insight On the Scriptures, 1988, Vol.2 p.457 subheading “Nabonidus”).
This stele goes on to confirm the reign of Nabonidus lasting for 17 years. When paired with other items of archaeological evidence, namely the Babylonian Chronicle, a.k.a. BM 21901, and the Harran inscription, a.k.a. Nabon. H1,B, confirmation is made regarding certain events during the kingly time-line of that period, specifically the time-line from Nabopolassar's 16th year to Nabonidus, a 54 year period which ended in the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E . (Nabopolassar was the ruler at the start of this time-line; his successor was Nebuchadnezzar).
Therefore, going backwards through the time line, since this stele establishes Nabonidus's ascension year as 556 B.C.E ., then Nabopolassar would have his first year begin around 625/626 B.C.E . This means that Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year was around 604/603 B.C.E ., which means his 18th year – in which he took Jerusalem (Jeremiah 32:1-2) – would have to have been about 586/587 B.C.E ., not the Watchtower's date of 607 B.C.E . And these dates are all in agreement with those of Berossus and Ptolemy's lists.
So to try and argue Jeremiah...it's pointless. The Bible does not give any specific dates. So you must start with at least one accepted date that archeology provides, and work from that. You guys choose one date and reject another. It's really very sad...
FaceTheFacts

In response to hoffnung....
The 70 years of Jeremiah 25 indeed started at the 17th year of Nabopalassar, when he defeated the Assyrians in Haran.
Already shown to be impossible according to the inflective perfect mood of the Hebrew verb used for "serve" in Jeremiah 25:11.
That is where they became the supreme power of the region and one after the other of the "surrounding nations" became vassal, or under servitude, of Babylon.
The former supreme power was Assyria. It is telling you do not find this tidbit of info under "Babylon" in the it-book. A comprehensive list of the vassal nations you find in the 2nd part of Jeremiah 25, e.g. Elam = part of present day Iran. As the territory of all these surrounding nations is immensely vast, obviously they did not become vassal nations at the same time, it required some time to bring the Babylonian armies to the nations. That, the by then sill crownprince, Nebuchadnezzar needed some time, estimated 4 years, to bring also Judah into this servitude..
Tidbits of nice information, but built on a precarious interpretation, they prove immaterial to the discussion at hand. It was not my insinuation that "all the nations" would become vassals simultaneously, but that Jonnson, after having defined "servitude" as "vassalage" and the starting point as 609 B.C.E., had not proved that a single nation performed a tribute for Babylon in that year. If he cannot substantiate that a nation paid tribute in that year, by his own definition, the servitude had not yet begun in 609 B.C. Thus..
does not influence the starting point of the prophecy.
Yes it does. Jonnson's own definition of what "servitude" implied refutes the 609 B.C. starting point. Can you or Jonnson provide evidence of a single nation providing tribute as a vassal to Babylon in 609 B.C.
Face the Facts, Rolf Furuli tried the very same thing with the same kind of words as you do. His book did not convince anybody.
This is actually more therapeutic for myself, than anyone. If others are benefitted in the process, then that's just an added benefit.
Christ Alone

If others are benefitted in the process, then that's just an added benefit.
No one is benefited by the attempt to promulgate false prophecy. No one is benefited by a complete lack of historical understanding and scripture twisting to support a false prophecy.
You need to "Face the Fact" that you are absolutely alone in the belief that 607 was a valid date for the events you describe. Every part of history and archeology has proven you wrong. To keep the date you have to reject all of it, and twist scripture to come up with your own date. A date that scripture does not state.
tornapart

I think if anyone has read Gentile Times Reconsidered and still believes in 607BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem then they are a lost cause. If FtF wants to carry on believing it then it's his choice but why continue to try to prove the opposite to him when he refuses to see it despite all the logical arguments. It's just like the tiger that chased his tail till he turned into butter!!
FaceTheFacts

Caleb's Airplane....
FaceThe Facts... Before asking anyone to face any more facts, you really need to get your hands on early WT literature and determine whether or not the Watchtower has been grossly misrepresenting these "facts"
Those subjects are immaterial to the discussion at hand. I have a copy of every publication from that time period until now. Trust me, I am more than aware. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
Hoffnung....
- 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 specifically refer to the 70 years of Jer 25, hence Jer 25 is required for a correct understanding of both verses, not the other way around. Jer 25 specifically states that the 70 years are for Babylon, not for Judah or Jerusalem. C.O.Jonsson is correct.
Well, yes, they are all interdependent, intertextual references to the seventy years. The point was: the Watchtower's exegesis of what the "servitude" and the "seventy years" meant is not simply a reading of Jeremiah 25:10-12 but it is the end result of interpreting several intertextual seventy year references. I pointed out that it was a strawman because Jonnson repeatedly stated: "nowhere is the desolation linked with the seventy years of servitude" (i.e. that it cannot be deciphered from the text alone) but that is ridiculous as the interpretation of Jeremiah 25 is based upon SEVERAL TEXTS.
- LXX or the septuagint, is a translation made for a population of dispersed Jews in the hellenic empire who could not read there own language any more. It contains quite a few inaccuracies, more than on this point alone.
Moot point. ALL manuscripts contain errors and quite a few at that. Secondly, are you postulating that the LXX's rendering of this is inaccurate? If so, why? Because it does not agree with Jonnson's interpretation of what the servitude means? Can you provide any proof that the rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX is accurate? Yes or no?
I do not know what makes you believe that it "is far older and traditionally regarded as more accurate than the Masoretic text", but it is quite easy to prove it is an incorrect presentation of the facts.
Jonnson even disagrees with you here. Notice his quotation (footnote 8 on p. 203)
The quotation is from The New World Translation (NW), which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). The Greek Septuagint version (LXX) says: “and they will serve among the nations,” instead of: “and these nations wil1 have to serve the king of Babylon.” In Jeremiah 25:1–12 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are omitted. There are many differences between Jer-MT and Jer-LXX. Jer-LXX is about one-seventh shorter than Jer-MT, which contains 3,097 more words than Jer-LXX. A number of modem scholars hold that Jer-LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that was earlier than the text tradition represented by Jer-MT, arguing that Jer-MT represents a later revision and expansion of the original text, either by Jeremiah himself, his scribe Baruch, or some later editor(s). Thus, with respect to Jeremiah’s prediction that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would attack and destroy the kingdom of Judah, these scholars often find it difficult to believe that Jeremiah was able to give such concrete and specific forecasts. They find it easier to accept the more general and vague wordings of the Jer-LXX as representing the original prediction, with all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar being left out.
As Jonnson noted, a number of scholars believe that the text translated in the LXX is a): older than the text of the MT b): closer to the original text c): that the MT is later a revision and expansion of the original text
Whether or not you agree with their conclusion is immaterial...but what I stated is certainly held as "factual" by many scholars and higher "critics" and was in no way "an incorrect presentation of the facts" as you stated.
Any conclusion based upon the inaccurate rendering of the LXX without comparison with other renderings, removes your credibility and demonstrates you do not want to expose facts, but you are looking for elements that fit an interpretation you already hold, discarding everything that contradict it.
The bolded statements are pure speculation or simply false. You have not proved that the rendering of the LXX is inaccurate. You have no basis for asserting so, other than your attempt to uphold Jonnson's flawed interpretation. Secondly, "without comparisons with other renderings"? I have already done so...but will do so again:
"And the whole country shall be a desolation. And they shall be slavesamong the nations seventy years." - Charles Thomson's English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible
"And the whole land shall be an annihilation, and they shall be slavesamong the nations seventy years." - New English Translation of the Septuagint
" And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years." - Translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton
It is universally rendered as "among the Gentiles" and even in some cases "serve" is rendered as "slaves" which further argues my case. It is easy to see whose presentation is "an inaccurate representation of the facts" and who "is looking for elements that fit an interpretation you already hold."
If the point you try to prove in your 2nd part, holds any ground, than all the English translations of this verse would be incorrect. A lot of well educated people looked into the many renderings of this verse, before they wrote the translations as they did. Again you are not exposing any fact, but looking for elements that fit an interpretation you already hold.
Please show me how anything I expounded on is inaccurate. You have asserted several inaccuracies about my stance but have yet to provide an iota of proof about anything. The fact is these verbs are rendered in the past perfect mood, and your statement is just plain silly and shows you lack any type of understanding about how hebrew verbs are conjugated. Are you really going to argue that the verbs are NOT rendered in the past tense? Seriously?
LOL!!! A quick Google search could've at least made you sound more credible about Hebrew morphology and thus able to discredit my exegesis. Prophetic statements are commonly stated in the PAST (as I stated in my OP) because it implies that the events are so certain to happen, that it is as if they already happened. Simply dismissing out of hand all my points shows you willfully disregard anything that contradicts your position and that you are the one who is "not exposing any facts." Everything I stated has been backed up by factual references and statements but I cannot say the same for you or the other Jonnson fans.
Christ Alone

As usual, Won't Face the Facts is ignoring all archeological evidence.
Face the Facts, you write like Ethos wrote. And Recovery. Are you one of them?
FaceTheFacts

AnnoMaly....
FTF ought to know that Jonsson takes into account all the intertextual scriptural references when discussing Jer. 25. The book shows it is the WTS that actually bases its interpretations on superficial reading and ripping those references from their historical context. FTF wants to discuss Jer. 25 without bringing in other relevant scriptural evidence and thus wants to do the very thing he (mistakenly) thinks Jonsson has done. Inconsistent.
Incorrect. You and others still are not getting the point. Let me re-explain it for what, the fourth time, so you can see why I termed it a strawman. It has nothing to do with the fact that Jonnson examines these scriptures in isolation, but with the fact that he is attacking the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years BASED UPON a reading of Jeremiah 25. Jonnson states:
Although it is predicted in the passage that the land of Judah would be a devastated place, it should be noted that this “devastation” is not equated with, or linked with, the period of the seventy years.
Here he is pointing out that the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years is not based upon the text of Jeremiah 25 because the text doesn't say "Jerusalem will be devastated for seventy years" but it refers to the nations' servitude. This is a strawman. Why? Because as I already showed (quoting from p. 463 of the Insight Book), the Watchtower arrives at its interpretation that the seventy years of Jeremiah meant seventy years of desolation based upon the reading of OTHER texts (i.e. Daniel 9:2). They do not arrive at this interpretation from simply reading Jeremiah 25. Thus his argument is a strawman.
The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations.
Jonnson continues refuting the Watchtower's 70-year interpretation by stating the passage says seventy years of servitude, not desolation. The Watchtower does not base their understanding that Jerusalem will be devastated for seventy years from Jeremiah 25 alone, but on Daniel's reinterpretation of the seventy years and other passages like 2 Chronicles. Thus, his argument is a strawman.
No inconsistency on my part.
The following, however, REALLY TICKS ME OFF! BADLY QUOTING FROM YOUR SOURCE!
FTF, you need to pay careful attention to this as pulling isolated quotes from different pages and cobbling them together into one paragraph is very misleading. It's telling that you don't bother to give page references.
I specifically stated I was quoting the thrust of Jonnson's arguments (i.e. his main points). I have not misrepresented anything he has stated or misconstrued any of his words, therefore, I have not badly quoted from my source. But even if I didn't leave every single page reference, is this really the best you can come up with? What really should tick you off is a): how no one thus far has been able to counter my exegesis of Jeremiah 25 which shows the servitude had not begun at the earliest (605 B.C.) b): how Jonnson has been unable to provide an iota of evidence showing that a nation paid tribute to Babylon in 609 B.C., and thus his important starting point is refuted by his own definition of the seventy years c): how no one has been able to successfully argue against the LXX and it's rendering of "among the nations" which clearly shows serving the king of Babylon was not a reference to vassalage.
soft+gentle
FaceTheFacts

jwfacts...
How could anyone trust anything on a thread written by a person the dishonestly keeps creating new accounts for themselves? I really think it is time people let these threads disappear to where they belong. Too many hours have been wasted, going around the same circle.
Fallacy here. Who I am is of no importance. Disprove my arguments or counter my points. People here are so focused on the who that they have lost site of the "hows".
tornapart...

I thought JWs didn't believe in reincarnation?
How many times has this poster reincarnated himself? Going round and round in circles trying to refute the irrefutable....

Witness My Fury...
Recovery you are beyond pathetic.
If you have to make shit up to try and make your point then you have already lost. There must be a very dark hole in your heart matey...

More attacks and speculations about who I am instead of tackling the arguments. Nothing I said has been made up. Everything I stated has been backed by the facts and no amount of speculating who I am...or trying to divert this into a "he/she is djeggnog, thirdwitness, Ethos reincarnated" dialogue will overcome my arguments.
So after a full page no one has refuted my exegesis of Jeremiah 25 which clearly shows the servitude had not started at the time of writing. Quite dissapointing.

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

Share this