Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Yo have completely misread my last post to you.

    No, I was pointing out the obvious contradiction in your post.

    I was simply following your rathjer silly argument about connecting 587 with the seventy years leading to 517. This is impossible because 517 is a nothing date because it was twenty yeras earlier in 537 that the seventy years finished and the exiles returned home in 537.

    Again, you fail to comprehend what I'm talking about. This must now be the tenth or eleventh time I've tried to explain my point to you. At some point I should just give up.

    Do you know what the word a priori means? Look it up in the dictionary, if you do not. You are judging 517 as a "nothing date" and 537 as a "meaningful date" on the basis of an absolute date (523 BC) and a pivotal date (539) that has been explicitly set aside in favor of another absolute date (just as you set aside other earlier absolute dates). You seem to keep forgetting that in this thought experiment 539 BC is a "nothing date". Thus you make such nonsensical statements as the above, that the seventy years ends in 537 tho I am counting them from 587. Such a statement indicates that you still don't get my point, because 537 wouldn't be an issue.

    If you are so determined for 587 as a absolute date

    LOL, I never suggested that 587 was an absolute date. You are really confused about this whole thing.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Alan F

    Firstly, I have already examined your exegesis presented in your post 3923 and I will post my reply. I found some interesting points but much of which I disagree.

    Regarding your current post 3928 I found it interesting but in using Bible commentaries found that your exegesis incomplete. Let me describe my methodology to you so that you are aware of how your material is respectfully and carefully examined:

    1. Print out to a hard copy

    2. Read carefully each paragragh, underlining and highligting main and secondary points. Those points that are agreed or disagreed are marked accordingly.

    3. Scriputes quoted or cited are checked with the NWT Reference Bible

    4. All texts quoted or cited are checked with major critical commentaries such as WBC, AB, Hermenaia,K&D, ICC

    5. Subject matter explore further by journal articles

    6. The context both immediate and general of the relevant scripture quoted or cited is carfully considered

    7. Notes are carefully made

    Jeremiah 29:10

    "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place'".

    You make much of the translation issue of whether the preposition before Babylon should be 'for' rather than 'at' but I am not to fussed about this point either way. Certainly either preposition changes the meaning of the seventy years as to whether it refers to Babylon's tenure as World Power or to the exile of the Jews. There is much considerable debate about this issue but from this two facts clearly emerge.

    1. Bible translations differ as to the translation of this phrase

    2. The Hebrew preposition 'le' affords a wide semantic range, 'for' or 'at' are both legitimate renderings

    Therefore, it is the context alone which determines how the seventy years is to be understood, ie.Babylon or the Exiles and when I mean context I mean the immediate context , Jeremiah 29:1-32.

    You state in your comments that the 'seventy years' must in this instance be a precise length of time but the text does not indicate that because it simply refers to a period of seventy years. You make much of 'precision' in regard to the seventy yeras and are critical of WT scholars because we regard that the seventy years is an inclusive period of exile, servitude and desolation. This proved to be true as correctly note that Jerusalem fell in Tishri, 607 followed by a period of captivity in, to, at, for Babylon until their release and return to their homeland by Tishri 537. In this instant a period of seventy years elapsed between these two momentous evenTS; fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Exiles. In this period the land was desolate for a complete period of seventy years.

    Interestingly, your so called 'precise' seventy years is not demanded by the Jonsson hypothesis as there is no precise beginning of the seventy years but simply the calender date of 609 running to 539. Jonsson's discussion of the seventy years for Babylon admits fuzziness at the begiinning. However, the WBC, Jeremiah 26-52, Vol.27, 1995, p.75 states "Babylon's seventy years in Jer. 29:10 should be interpreted both politically and personally. The political interpretation gives to the number seventy a meaning within international history as a more or less precise count of time elapsed between two significant political events". If the exiles in Babylon understood matters according to the Jonsson hypothesis then they would be without hope because the seventy years would be without a clearly discerned beginning. The exiles in Babylon who received Jeremiah's letter as recorded in Chapter 29 would realized that the Fall marked the beginning of the seventy years.as a momentous event.

    The prophecy of Jeremiah 29:10 was a prohecy of hope, restoration based on a period of seventy years of exile and servitude to, for, at , in Babylon and following on from the earlier prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 which in addition refers to desolation of the land combines to form the Jeremaniac seventy years formula: EXILE, SERVITUDE DESOLATION.

    The immediate context of Jeremiah in Chapter 29 cannot possibly refer to Babylon's tenure as world power as claimed for verse 10. The context is addressed to those exiles in Babylon and were given instructions as how to conduct their lives as exiles. It does violence to the context by suggesting that the seventy years refers to Babylon's suzerainity rather to the captivity which would eventually end. Surely the latter would be a mesage of comfort rather than the former to boast of Babylon's victory.

    I now refer you to the translation issue of the phrasing of 'comleted' and the nullification of this phrasing by the expression 'in accord with'. The NWT's treatment of this passage well illustrates its genius or brilliance over all other translations and I reject your allegation of supposed 'nullification'. The NWT transaltes the Hebrew text accurately as demonstrated by the literal rendering of this passage in the AB, Jeremiah 21-36, Vol.2, 2004, p.353: "when according to the completion for Babylon". which corresponds nicely with the NWT's rendering "In accord with the fulfilling".

    This more accurate rendering of the introductory phrase highlights the prophetic impuation of the seventy years as prophesied in the earlier 25:11. for the reason that there was a fulfillment of something that had been prohesied earlier as 'according to' the 'good word'. What was that 'good word' that was in accordance and addressed to these exiles? It could only have been that the exile, servitude, desolation as prophesied by Jeremiah in 25:11 woul last for a period of seventy years. What comfort and hope those Jews must have felt.

    In summary, I believe that the period of seventy years as prophesied by Jeremiah and Zechariah, determined by Daniel and later evaluated by the Chronicler demonstrate that this period constituted exile-servitude-desolation all in perfect harmony and bridging the gap between two momentous events in biblical history, the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return. The Bible provides the regnal data for both these events and chronology using this data along with pivotal and an absolute date fixes that period of seventy years beginning Tishri 607 and ending Tishri 537

    scholar JW

  • confusedjw
    confusedjw

    ScholarJW - this is an sincere question. Do you count your time posting? Several non-witnesses do read these threads. I used to post back on Prodigy years ago and counted some of my time.

    ConfusedJW

  • Little Bo Peep
    Little Bo Peep

    Found an interesting post within the "Bible Research & Study Articles" forum. For anyone who seems confused by the question, and many differing answers, the post, "586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach---no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed," by Alleymom, posted today, does simplify things, for a seemingly good place to start.

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    Welcome to the forum Little Bo Peep. Nice to meet you!

    GBL

Topic Summary

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Related Topics