Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pole

  This thread is a clash of two different serenities.
  
  Narkissos a la sérénité du sage.
  Scholar in turn seems to have the serenity of a fool :-).
  
  Pole
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  Now you can see the wisdom in the view of WT scholars

  it is only now being seriously considered as a genuine historical position by current scholars.

  Wonder why they laughed at the idea for so long?

  Ephraim Stern is forced to admit

  Sounds painful... Did the WTBTS send goons to make him 'see the light'? lol

  more scholars will turn around and be forced to conclude that Judah was in fact empty for seventy years

  When Hell freezes over, maybe. Oh, wait. You don't believe in Hell so you may not understand the analogy...

  as the Bible clearly and demomonstrably shows.

  If it demonstrably showed anything people would not still be arguing the point, what is it now, oh, yes, several millennia later?

  scholar JW

  scholar??... My, how our education system has broken down over the years...
• 

  Leolaia

  it is only now being seriously considered as a genuine historical position by current scholars. Ephraim Stern is forced to admit to an abruption in that late Judean period and more scholars will turn around and be forced to conclude that Judah was in fact empty for seventy years as the Bible clearly and demomonstrably shows.

  Amazing. No one forced Ephraim Stern to admit anything; he is in fact controversially insisting that those cities and adjoining districts were uninhabited. What he does acknowledge is that the land was not empty as a whole....that there were towns which were never desolated by the Babylonians and which grew in population during the exilic period, and that certain agricultural areas were also clearly inhabited during this post-Judean and pre-Persian period.

  As I said earlier, only an honest scholar would acknowledge the clear evidence that the land was inhabited. The "Babylonian Gap" applies to most cities and towns, but not to others, and not to certain rural areas (mainly in Benjamin). You and Rolf Furuli are dishonest for setting aside this evidence and pretending as if scholars are coming around to believe that "Judah was in fact empty" as a whole. No one believes that, as far as I know.
• 

  Jeffro

  (Some may see some repetition here from previous posts. That is because scholar keeps ignoring me.)
  
  Scholar, you state the only year the bible supports is 607. I ask you again the question you have several times ignored in my previous posts: Please explain how the Watchtower's view is consistent with Jeremiah 25:12. Specifically how could the 70 years end 2 years after an event (the calling to account of Babylon's king - 539BC Daniel 5:26-30) which Jeremiah said would occur after the 70 years had been fulfilled.
  
  The Society's interpretation contradicts Jeremiah 25:12 without doubt, and is therefore wrong. Unless they are saying the bible is wrong. Daniel's comments regarding the 70 years MUST be viewed in the context of Jeremiah's original words.
  
  
  It is not necessary that 2 Chronicles applies the Sabbaths to the fulfilling of the 70 years. To say that the paying off of the Sabbaths covered the 70 years is excessive. Specifically, the Sabbaths were to be repaid for those years that the Sabbath resting of the land had not taken place. (The land was supposed to be allowed to rest every 7 years. (Leviticus 25:1-7)) 490 years (70*7) dates back to before David was king and it is very unlikely that the Sabbath was not followed at all for the entire time.
  
  The following suggested punctuation makes it wholly consistent with 587 (wording as per New World Translation): "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, (and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign, to fulfil Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah), until the land had paid off its Sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept Sabbath. To fulfil seventy years, in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia..."
  
  They came to be servants to Babylon (609) until the royalty of Persia began to reign (539) to fulfil Jehovah's word to Jeremiah (70 years)
  
  They were carried away captive to Babylon (587) ... until the land had paid off it's Sabbaths. (possibly 537)
  
  Any other interpretation contradicts Jeremiah 25:12.
  
  
  The Hebrew word for 'devastations' and 'devastated place' (chorbah Strong's 02723, 'a ruin') at Daniel 9:2 and Jeremiah 25:11 is directly related to the the Hebrew word for 'devastated' (chareb Strong's 02720, 'ruined') that Nehemiah used to describe Jerusalem at Nehemiah 2:17, when populated. It does not mean completely uninhabited.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Jeremiah 25 verse 11 and verse 12 as recognized by commentators are not discussing identical events.for verse 11 refers to Judah wheras verse 12 is an oracle addressed to Babylon. Verse 12 prophesies that after the fulfillment of seventy years which concluded with the exiles leaving Babylon became desolated over the couse of time as Jehovah had foretold. The reason why the seventy years could not have ended in 539 is because the land of Judah was still desolate and the exiles were still yet in Babylon at 539, it was not until 537 that Babylon released her captives with their resettlement in Judah. What you must remember is that the seventy year do not belong to Babylon but to Judah. It is their seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  What WT scholars are saying is that scholars are giving greater attention to what happened during that closing chapter of Jewish history are recognizing for the first time that the cities were unhinhabited. It is yet early days for these scholars but they are moving ever closer to the full realization that the land and its cities were uninhabited for that period of seventy yeras as foretold by the prophets of Jehovah.

  scholar JW
• 

  Leolaia

  Verse 12 prophesies that after the fulfillment of seventy years which concluded with the exiles leaving Babylon became desolated over the couse of time as Jehovah had foretold. The reason why the seventy years could not have ended in 539 is because the land of Judah was still desolate

  Compare: " 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation', is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite' " (Jeremiah 25:11-12; NWT).

  1) Verse 12 says NOTHING about the 70 years ending when the exiles leave Babylon. It says it ends when the exiles STOP SERVING the king of Babylon, so that when the 70 years are over God will CALL TO ACCOUNT AGAINST THE KING OF BABYLON and AGAINST THAT NATION.

  To claim otherwise, as you are doing, is to say that black is white and white is black.

  2) Verses 11-12 do not say the 70 years CANNOT END when Judah is still DESOLATED.

  3) If the 70 years end in 537 BC, then who was the KING OF BABYLON from 539 to 537 BC? And what did God do AGAINST THAT KING and AGAINST THAT NATION in 537 that CALLED THEM TO ACCOUNT for their error?

  It's a simple matter of sequence. The Bible gives the sequence 1) SEVENTY YEARS and 2) God PUNISHES the KING OF BABYLON. Since Babylonian empire ended in 539, how can (2) happen before (1) is even finished??
• 

  Leolaia

  The reason why the seventy years could not have ended in 539 is because the land of Judah was still desolate and the exiles were still yet in Babylon at 539, it was not until 537 that Babylon released her captives with their resettlement in Judah. What you must remember is that the seventy year do not belong to Babylon but to Judah. It is their seventy years.

  My, my, it do appears that you have not kept up with Jehovah's organization. It is your duty as a Jehovah's Witness to keep current with the truths that the F&DS class is teaching. Otherwise you are just repeating "old light" that can otherwise mislead others. The interpretation of the 70 years you give here belongs to the Fred Franz era; the organization has now made some needed corrections to hold fast to the pattern of healthful words.

  You must take note that the Society is now teaching that the 70 years mentioned in Jeremiah 25 are years of Babylonian domination which came to an end in 539 BC, and that not all nations (such as Tyre or Judah) necessarily experienced the full 70 years of Babylonian rule:

  *** Isaiah's Prophecy Vol. 1, page 253, paragraph 21***

  Isaiah goes on to prophesy: "It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king." (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will "be forgotten". True to the prophecy, for the duration of "one King" -- the Babylonian Empire-- the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: "These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia's greatest domination -when the Babylonian royal dynasty boast of having lifted its throne even above "the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

  To wit:

  • The "seventy years" of Jeremiah 25 refer not to years of desolation of Judah but a period of Babylonian domination as a world power.
  • They pertain not only just to Judah but to other nations (including Tyre) that must serve Babylon for "seventy years".
  • The 70 years of domination end in 539 B.C.E., when Babylon's domination crumbled, and thus would have begun in 609 B.C.E., when nations began to come under Babylonian rule.
  • Because the figure refers to the total period of Babylonian hegemony, individual nations (like Tyre or Judah) need not have served Babylon for the entire 70-year period.

  So are you going to accept the "new light" that "WT scholars" adopted in 2000? Or will you "oppose" the spiritual food the F&DS wants you to accept?
• 

  Narkissos

  What WT scholars are saying

  Plural of majesty or plural of abstraction?
  

  is that scholars are giving greater attention to what happened during that closing chapter of Jewish history are recognizing for the first time that the cities were unhinhabited.

  With such a spelling it might be the first time indeed. Otherwise, make it "some cities" and acknowledge that this is a very common phenomenon in the aftermath of an invasion, destruction of the fortified places, and deportation of the elites. (Cf. Isaiah 7:15,21-22 for a similar depiction of a post-invasion reversion to a rural farming way of life.)
  

  It is yet early days for these scholars but they are moving ever closer to the full realization that the land and its cities were uninhabited for that period of seventy yeras as foretold by the prophets of Jehovah.

  As I noted in my previous post, to get there they would have to wipe out the extant positive evidence to the contrary (which is not what decent "scholarship" is ever about).

  As a side note, the late sabbatical explanation for the 70 years (2 Chronicles 36:21; cf. Leviticus 26:34,43) artificially makes the agricultural management of the land the main issue of the 70 years, which is completely absent from the earlier prophetic texts such as Jeremiah.
• 

  Jeffro

  Jeremiah 25 verse 11 and verse 12 as recognized by commentators are not discussing identical events.for verse 11 refers to Judah wheras verse 12 is an oracle addressed to Babylon.

  You claim that the two adjacent verses discuss two disjunct periods, each of 70 years. You say that the first discusses Judah's servitude to Babylon, and the second, which ends before the first, discusses the end of Babylon's dominion. You are, of course, wrong. Verse 9 indicates that it is not just Judah, but all these nations round about against whom Nebuchadnezzar would be sent, and verse 11 clearly states that not just Judah, but these nations would have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Verses 17 to 26 indicate that this message was not intended for Judah only.

  Verse 12 prophesies that after the fulfillment of seventy years which concluded with the exiles leaving Babylon became desolated over the couse of time as Jehovah had foretold. The reason why the seventy years could not have ended in 539 is because the land of Judah was still desolate and the exiles were still yet in Babylon at 539, it was not until 537 that Babylon released her captives with their resettlement in Judah. What you must remember is that the seventy year do not belong to Babylon but to Judah. It is their seventy years.

  • Show me where the Bible says the 70 years belong to Judah.
  • Show me where the bible says that Judah would be uninhabited for the entire 70 years.
  • Explain how Jer 25:12 allows for the king of Babylon to be called to account before the 70 years ended. (To deny that Daniel's explanation of the writing of the wall, and Babylon's subsequent overthrow on the same night, is the calling to account of the king would be very bold indeed.)

  scholars are giving greater attention to what happened during that closing chapter of Jewish history are recognizing for the first time that the cities were unhinhabited.

  Which scholars?