scholar pretendus said:
: Response to post 4068
: At last! You did it, You posted Jonnson's original letter to Jenni. Now that was not to difficult was it?
What do you mean "at last"? This was not the responsibility of anyone on this thread except you, who wanted it. I even suggested that you write Jonsson yourself, but it's obvious that your intellectual cowardice prevented you from doing this simple chore. Instead, you rely on others to do the work you ought to be doing for yourself.
: I notice that in Jenni's response that he made reference to Jehovah's Witnesses and their theory. This is somewhat intriquing because Jonsson did not disclose to Jenni that Furuli is a Witness so one wonders Why and How that Jenni could have made such an association
What a moronic comment! Jenni's reply to Jonsson gives you your answer:
As I recently have received an inquiry from Germany concerning Jer 29,10 (likewise in connection with a theory of Jehovah's Witnesses), I can answer you relatively quickly.
You can't understand simple English sentences, so it's no wonder you failed your Masters course.
I must admit, though, that the help your buddy Shearman is giving you seems to have advanced your writing ability from that of a toddler all the way up to that of a kindergartner!
: which may have affected Jenni's reply.
LOL! The usual grasping at straws.
: Maybe Furuli's reputation as a scholarly Witness in Europe came to Jenni's attention.
"Scholarly Witness"? LOLOL! Furuli's only reputation is as a typically dishonest JW apologist. Why do you think he was unable to get any plugs from recognized scholars to paste on the rear cover of his book Persian Chronology? Why do you think he has failed to publish anything at all in peer-reviewed journals?
: Thank you for the post.
You're welcome.
: Response to post 4069
: In this post you make the extravagant claim of proving beyond any doubt that Jeremiah's seventy years ended in 539 BCE by means of three 'points'. Perhaps, now that we are all enlightened by the said 'points' you could present them to the scholarly community by means of a journal article for their overdue enlightenment'
These points are already covered by Jonsson and many others. There's no need to guild the lily.
: Point 1:
: You claim that 2 Kings 25: 11,12
I wrote nothing about that passage.
: and Jeremiah 25:11,12 proves that the seventy years ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The crux of your argument that verse 12 clearly shows that when the 70 years were fulfilled, Jehovah would punish the king of Babylon which occurred in 539 BCE. But is this really what the text says?
Yes. Note the words once again: "When seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon." Which words do you not understand?
: I think not because verse 12 clearly shows that after the completion of the seventy years a period of judgement against Babylon would commence.
Right, and do you really think that the conquering of Babylon by the Persian Empire, and the killing of its king Belshazzar, was not the commencement of a period of judgment? How absurd! You can't even manage to give an event.
: Certainly, Babylon received a judgement from Jehovah when it was toppled as a World Power by the Persians which happened in 539 with the introduction of a new World Power at Babylon.
Precisely. Even you and Shearman seem able to understand this simple point.
: However, verse 12 is separated from verse 11 as shown by most translations and commentators which recognizes verse 12 as a new oracle delivered not to Jerusalem but Babylon.
Whether the original writer had in mind a separation is irrelevant. Verse 11 ends by saying that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Verse 12 begins by saying, "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled..." Obviously, these two verses are talking about the same 70 years, and are therefore connected.
You've made a comment, but failed to explain its relevance to your argument.
: So, the seventy year period had expired then Babylon would receive successive judgements right through history until thos judgements were completed.
Very good!
: Verse 12 and 13 make it quite clear that the land of Chaldea including Babylon wiuld now be subject to desolations which did not occur at 539 which merely saw the overthrow of a city.
The conquering of the Babylonian Empire can hardly be called "mere", either in the frame of secular history, or what the Watchtower Society terms "Bible history". Your reason for using this term is transparently obvious.
The fall of the empire most certainly was the beginning of the long period which ended with Babylon's desolation. Remember that this final desolation didn't occur until at least the 4th century A.D. more than 800 years later.
: It was only over time that all of the things spoken against Babylon by Jeremiah could have been fulfilled.
You've killed your own argument. What you now have to argue is that the beginning of Babylon's punishment was not the overthrow of the empire and the killing of its king, but some unspecified event early in the reign of Cyrus -- which is only a two year difference, and miniscule compared to the 800-some-odd additional years that Babylon would remain in existence. Your argument is clearly circular, since it depends on the assumption of the end of the 70 years in 537 B.C. to justify pegging the beginning of Babylon's punishment to 537 B.C.
: The text verse 12 does not explicitly refer to the overthrow of Babylon at the behest of Cyrus.
It was a prophecy whose fulfillment observers were supposed to watch for. It's an extremely easy prophecy to decipher: when the king of Babylon is punished, the prophecy is fulfilled. What could be easier?
: What the text does infer is that the judgement against Babylon could only have begun when the seventy years expired which was a short time later in 537 BCE
You've failed to state with just what event the long period of judgment ending in desolation began. As usual, you want to keep things as fuzzy as possible so your stupid arguments can't be nailed down.
The fact that you cannot give a starting event for your claimed beginning of this period of judgment proves that you don't know of any.
: Point 2:your argument here is that according to Jeremiah 27:6,7 which refers to Neb's family could only be the 'king of Babylon' represented by Jeremiah 25:12. This is specious reasoning. how so?
Good! You've fallen into my trap, just as I expected. Actually, it's Shearman who's fallen into it, since you haven't so far demonstrated the intelligence to see such subtle points.
First, your summary of my argument is a distortion of what I said. What I said was this:
"The text of Jeremiah 27:6, 7 shows that only Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings were the kings of Babylon referred to in Jeremiah 25:12."
There is quite a difference between Nebuchadnezzar's "line of kings" and his "family". What I meant -- and was confident that you'd miss -- was that the line was the dynasty begun by Nebuchadnezzar and duly authorized by Babylonian law to continue ruling. Obviously, Cyrus was not authorized by Babylonian law to rule the empire, and he most certainly was not a member of Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings in any way. So your misrepresentation of my argument is a straw man.
Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 425) puts my point nicely:
As the influence of the Chaldeans spread northward, the whole territory of Babylonia became known as "the land of the Chaldeans." Isaiah in his prophecies anticipated this Chaldean rise to power and their subsequent fall. (Isa 13:19; 23:13; 47:1, 5; 48:14, 20) Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon. (2Ki 24:1, 2; 2Ch 36:17; Ezr 5:12; Jer 21:4, 9; 25:12; 32:4; 43:3; 50:1; Eze 1:3; Hab 1:6) That dynasty came to its end when "Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed."
So, we have four full Babylonian kings after Nebuchadnezzar: Awel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, and Nabonidus, and one secondary king, Belshazzar. According to one of Nabonidus' royal inscriptions (the Hillah stele; cf. Jonsson, GTR4, p. 134), Awel-Marduk was Nebuchadnezzar's son and Labashi-Marduk was Neriglissar's son. Nabonidus regarded Neriglissar as a duly authorized king, but regarded the two sons as illegitimate usurpers. Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son. Furthermore, both Neriglissar and Nabonidus were Nebuchadnezzar's sons-in-law, and in line with general biblical usage could be regarded as his sons in terms of family relationships. As the Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 815) states:
Genealogical Use of Father?s Name. Ancestry of a man was customarily traced back through the father, not through the mother. Thus, whereas there seems to be sound reason for believing that Luke presents Jesus? genealogy through his mother (an exception to the general rule), Luke does not list her. Apparently he lists her husband Joseph as the son of Heli, evidently Mary?s father. This would not be improper in the least, since Joseph would be Heli?s son-in-law.
In view of the above, Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's real grandson.
: Not all of the subsequent 'kings of Babylon' were of Neb's family and I respectfully and humbly draw your attention to the comment made on this point in the WBC,1995,27:50 wherein:"The Nebuchadnezzar dynasty outlined in v.7 does not match what is known about Babylon's kings from ancient sources." Further, Lundbom in his commentary ABD,2004,21B:316 " is not to be taken literally, it simply denotes three generations...And the time period is indefinite...until Babylon fell to Cyrus, the Persian and neither was a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzer" So, even Cyrus was properly a 'king of Babylon' as similarly attested by archaeological evidence.
I have to wonder what material you left out in the ellipses. Please post scans from your sources, or we will have to dismiss your claims based on your partial citations.
In any case, in the above material I've shown that the comments of your sources are irrelevant. There is no argument whatsoever that the five kings after Nebuchadnezzar were part of his dynasty, or line. There is no question that one of these was Nebuchadnezzar's son. There is no question that two of these kings were his sons-in-law, and therefore legitimately classed as his sons by the Society's own arguments. Similary, there is no question that Belshazzar can, by biblical usage, be said to be Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.
And now for the coup-de-grace:
The Watchtower of January 1, 1965 completely confirms my above arguments (pp. 29-30):
BABYLON?S LAST DYNASTY OF SEMITE KINGS
Nebuchadnezzar was now growing old, and eyes began to turn toward a successor for him. By his Median queen Amytis Nebuchadnezzar had his first son, Evil-merodach. He had two sons-in-law, Neriglissar and Nabonidus. The latter was the husband of Nitocris, Nebuchadnezzar?s daughter by his wife of the same name. This marriage produced Belshazzar, who was therefore a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and a great-grandson of Nabopolassar, the founder of the last dynasty of Semite kings of Babylon.
. . .
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar?s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E. . .
Nabonidus set up a second capital for Babylonia at the oasis of Tema in Arabia. In the third year of his reign he made Belshazzar coregent. While Nabonidus was absent from Babylon and down south in Tema, Belshazzar officiated in Babylon as second ruler of the land.
: Point 3.
: 2 Chroniicles 36:20 is supposed by you to prove absolutely that Jeremiah's seventy years ended not later than 539 BCE. Honestly, the text does not say this and this is merely your interpretation.
As I have shown, there really is nothing much to interpret. If I tell you that I'll be in Sydney until 2:00 pm June 15th, and I keep my word, then I will not be in Sydney after that date and time.
Similarly, the text states that the Jews servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Assuming that the text is correct, therefore, the Jews were not servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his line after the royalty of Persia began to reign.
Simple. But not for you, because you have an agenda that doesn't allow you to accept facts that conflict with your tradition.
: The text clearly states the cessation of sevitude to Babylon ended when the royalty of Persia began to reign. It does not say when the royalty of Babylon ceased.
It doesn't have to. It's completely obvious to any normal student of history. The royalty of Babylon ceased to reign when the royalty of Persia began to reign. Obviously, when Belshazzar was killed and Nabonidus surrendured to Cyrus' army, there were no more of the royalty of Babylon reigning -- but the royalty of Persia certainly was reigning.
When did the royalty of Persia begin to reign? Obviously, when they took control of the Babylonian Empire. When was that? Let the Insight book once again explain (Vol. 1, pp. 567-8):
The cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists, though not giving details concerning the exact manner of the conquest, do confirm the sudden fall of Babylon to Cyrus. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, in what proved to be the final year of Nabonidus? reign (539 B.C.E.) in the month of Tishri (September-October), Cyrus attacked the Babylonian forces at Opis and defeated them. The inscription continues: "The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned . . . In the month of Arahshamnu [Marchesvan (October-November)], the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306) By means of this inscription, the date of Babylon?s fall can be fixed as Tishri 16, 539 B.C.E., with Cyrus? entry 17 days later, occurring on Marchesvan 3.
: The focus of this verse is not on Babylon, the old World Power but a new World Power, Medo-Persia.
Wrong. It focuses on both Babylon and Persia. Note the passage again:
"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."
Who is the "him and his sons" that the Jews were servants to? The king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, and his sons. Duh.
Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.
: The text does not immediately give a year for this event but the immediate context certainly does.
Precisely: the royalty of Persia, as the Insight book states, began to reign in 539 B.C.
: It shows quite clearly that this event, the royalty of Persia is linked with Cyrus
Right, just as the Insight book states. When Cyrus entered the city and became the de facto king, the royalty of Persia certainly began to reign.
: and the issuing of the decree at the ' beginning 'of his reign.
You're copying your Mommy's tricks, I see. 2 Chronicles says nothing about the "beginning" of Cyrus' reign. In 36:22 it mentions Cyrus' first year, whereas in 36:20 it speaks of when the royalty of Persia began to reign. There is a big difference. The beginning of Cyrus' reign was his accession year, 539 B.C. His first year ran from Nisan to Nisan, 538 to 537 B.C. Once again, the Insight book supports these dates (Vol. 1, p. 568):
Cyrus? Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah?s ?anointed shepherd? for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to "the first year of Darius," and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and "the first year of Cyrus" over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus? first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius? rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus? first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus? decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled "in their cities" in Judah by "the seventh month" (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E.
Since everyone agrees that Cyrus' first year began in Nisan (early spring) 538 B.C., the very latest that even Watchtower apologists can claim that the royalty of Persia began to reign is that date. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the royalty of Persia began to reign at the end of Cyrus' first year, since this would be absurd. Even less can it be argued that this royalty began to reign in the middle of Cyrus' second year, which would be when the Watchtower Society argues the Jews had returned to their cities and complete the claimed 70 year period of desolation of Judah.
Yet this is precisely the absurd argument you and Shearman try to make:
: So it is that in verse 22 our attention is drawn to the fact that Jeremiah's prophecy is referred to and fulfilled not at the time or year of Babylon''s Fall but that of the first year of Cyrus which began after 539 BCE It was in that very first year that the decree to release the exiles in Babylon and so it was that they returned home bu Tishri in 537BCE fulfilling Jeremiah's seventy years.
But this argument is absolutely gibberish. You make no attempt to assign precise dates to anything, because you know perfectly well that if you did, even you couldn't make sense of it. So as usual, you assign it to a fuzzy never-never-land where facts and figures don't exist.
: Not one of your three points proves your proposition that the seventy years ended in 539
They all do. But your absurd, contradictory arguments -- arguments that contradict many specific Watchtower teachings -- don't even begin to address the points I made.
: for if it was the case then I am sure most scholars would be similarly converted to your theory.
I think that plenty of scholars would be if they saw the arguments. Jack Finegan certainly accepts the basic conclusion that the 70 years ended in 539 B.C. Conversely, no scholars in the world accept Watchtower claims about the 70 years or their other Neo-Babylonian dates.
But that's really not relevant. What is relevant is that I have proved my points using both secular and Watchtower literature, and your counterarguments are either absolute gibberish or are demonstrably false.
Readers will note that you once again show your gross hypocrisy by using the argument from authority. No matter the weight of authority shown to you by various posters, you fail to accept it. Yet you demand that I need such weight of authority for my arguments to hold water. Of course, even if every scholar in the world disagreed with your claims, you still wouldn't accept their judgments -- you've already demonstrated that.
: At best, scholars accept the idea that the seventy years belong to Babylon but they disagree as to its chronology.
So what? Argument from authority again?
: But all of the Bible writers attest to the fact that the seventy years belong to Judah, Jerusalem, its Temple and its people and is a definite period of desolation-servitude-exile.
Absolutely false, as I've demonstrated.
: There is no fuzziness in rendering 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon'.
Of course there is. The fact that you refuse to see it is diagnostic only of the sort of mental defect that long membership in the JW cult usually induces -- a thoroughly Orwellian inablity to understand or acknowledge any bit of information inimical to Mommy. See below for nice description.
: To the contrary, in that entire letter, Babylon is associated with various prepositions, many of which give a locative sense. The phrase 'in accord with' properly puts the focus not on Babylon but the fulfillment of that period namely seventy years because it is that entity that Jeremiah earlier referred to in chapter 25 which was marked by desolation and servitude to and in Babylon
These arguments have been blown away too many times already to do it again. Poof!
: You now raise the matter of a so-called inconsistency as if you have not enough holes to fill in the Jonsson hypothesis as per a definte date for the beginning of the seventy years and a definite year for the Fall of Jerusalem.
There are no holes. Given some assumptions similar to the Society's, and combining these with solid secular and biblical data, the 70 years began in 609 B.C., ended in 539 B.C. and Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. Jack Finegan agrees with these dates. Jonsson has given a thorough treatment of them, and his scholarly contacts agree. And I've shown above that even the Watchtower Society's own words provide independent confirmation of the 587 date.
: The Society is quite correct in claiming that the seventy years is a period of desolation and captivity to Babylon, these events are and must be wholly commensurate.which proves the soundness of our exegesis.
This is not only absolute gibberish, but an extremely amusing circular argument. First, it amounts to claiming that 69.5 equals 70.0. I've already shown why. The fact that you don't refer to numbers proves that you don't want to deal with facts, and that's why you've resorted to gibberish. Second, the argument is circular because you're claiming that your sound exegesis proves that 69.5 equals 70.0, which proves that your exegesis is sound.
It's no wonder you flunked out of your Masters program.
: It is the fact of their consistency and their definition respect to chronology which is the ace in the hole.
Achieving consistency by ignoring fact is self-defeating. You ignore lots of facts, biblical and otherwise, as I've demonstrated in these posts.
: Your reasoning about the time in months of the journey to and from Babylon is spuriuous.
So you can explain why 69.5 equals 70.0! Let's see you do it!
Oops, you can't, so you dive right back into a complete bit of irrelevancy:
: The fact of the matter is that from the time of the desolation of the land without an inhabitant until the reoccupation of the exiles was exactly seventy years right to the very month Tishri.
Which does nothing whatsoever to justify any of your claims, because my point was that if such desolation lasted 70.0 years, the exile, being shorter by the roundtrip time from Judah to Babylon had to be 6-8 months shorter -- a point that you've simply ignored.
Tell us now, scholar pretendus and Mr. Shearman: how can the periods of desolation and exile be the same length?
: Rather than dwelling on such stupidity
In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the sort of doublethink that occurs in people who resort to such thought-stopping techniques. Because of threats of punishment from the Watchtower organization, and the teaching that the Governing Body speaks for God, whenever clear errors in organizational teachings or policies are pointed out to Witnesses, they will either refuse to acknowledge them or deny their importance. They deny it even to themselves, to avoid an intolerable internal conflict between what they know deep down to be the truth and what they have been taught. The denial is automatic and almost unconscious, because they have been trained this way from their earliest experience with the Watchtower Society. In addition to doublethink, the process is strongly reminiscent of another kind of mental gymnastic George Orwell described:
A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.
. . . The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. [Part 2, Ch. IX; pp. 212-13 hardcover; pp. 174-5 paperback]
: I suggest that you expend your considerable intellectual ego in trying to solve the problem of 'months' in connection with your proposed Fall of Jerusalem in 586/587, 586, 587?
This has already been done by Carl Jonsson. You have his book GTR. You and Shearman must read it again.
: scholar JW
Who flunked out of his Masters course.
AlanF
