I have been meaning to ask where scholar obtained his M.A. in religious studies. Anyone know? --VM44
Looking for secular proof for 609 BC...
'70 years' was symbolic of a generation. It was not intended to be interpreted literally. Not only is it so used in the OT but outside as well.
PeacefulPete, Jeremiah specified the nations that would serve Babylon for seventy years, and specified what would happen at the end of the 70 years.
These are the nations:
Egypt - Assyrian "partner in crime" sometimes subject
Philistia - Assyrian subject
Gaza - Assyrian subject
Edom - Assyrian subject
Moab - Assyrian subject
Ammon - Assyrian subject
Tyre - Assyrian subject
Sidon - Assyrian subject
Dedan - Assyrian subject
Tema - Assyrian trade partner
Buz - Assyrian subject
Arabia - Assyrian subject
Zimri - Unknown locality
Elam - Assyrian subject
Media - Assyrian subject
What else we know of these nations is that they become subject to Babylon from the overthrow of Assyria to the overthrow of Babylon. Put another way, from 609 BC to 539 BC. That is precisely 70 years.
Jeremiah 25:12-14 — “‘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 Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations. For even they themselves, many nations and great kings, have exploited them as servants; and I will repay them according to their activity and according to the work of their hands.’”
One great result is that 607 BC can't be the right year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple. Another great result is I could explain this to a six-year-old.
Another great result is that I can explain this to any JW (not all will listen, obviously).
But the best thing I like about this is its facility with shredding every bit of substantiation for 1914 being anything other than the year WWI began.
Thank you again! I have printed out these references and will go to the Library with my pen and paper in hand.
Here are a few scans for you;
From the Death of Solomon to the Captivity of Judah, A.W. Heathcote Note the first paragraph on page 93.
The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1989 edition, Note the entry for Harran on page 262.
The New Bible Dictionary, 1976 Inter-Varsity Press edition. This is one of the references quoted by Jonsson in 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered'
According to Insight, volume 1, page 205, under Assyria, the Assyrian empire fell in the 17th year of Nabopolassar (which they say is 629BC). Taking into account the missing 20 years of the Society's flawed Neo-Babylonian chronology, this places the end of the Assyrian empire squarely in 609BC.
This synchronizes perfectly with Babylon's 70 years of dominance, from 609 to 539, but doesn't allow for 1914. But rather than defend the accuracy of the bible, the Society is much more interested in defending its 1914 dogma.
edited by request of poster ~ Scully
Whoa! Thanks, nicolaou!! Printing now....
First be careful that the very trap the WT has falln into doesn't snare you. Wanting/needing to find calculations that support your intepretation makes it tempting to selectively read the text and spin numbers. Assyria fell in 612 with the taking of Ninevah, in that year Babylon was independent. Jeremiah 25 (using the Masoretic form including it's scores of additions to the LXX form of jeremiah) claimed a list of nations would be completely desolated, even never to rise again. In fact he 'fortold' world wide killing without burying. Some of the nations listed are still here today. The 70 year motif was a recurring one on the OT and outside. It symbolised a generation of punishment by the gods. We even have a babylonian example of the fortelling of 70 years of punishment upon that city for its forsaking Marduke! Babylon was to be the instrument of world destruction but then itself be taken down after it had served it's role. Jeremiah was watching events and thought he had reason to expect Babylon would be unstoppable in its conquest. He imagined his god using it to clear out the world. He was wrong.
These facts do not allow for your intepretaion of Jer 25 created out of need to disprove the equally imposssible intepretation of the WT. I've posted before on this subject but somehow the JW style obsession with bible calculations lives on on many.
Assyria fell in 609, with the taking of Harran.
Assyria: Downfall and heritage (Wikipedia)
While it is true that spine of the empire was effectively broken in 612, making it only a matter of time before Babylon ascended, many of the surrounding nations remained under Assyrian control until 609 BC.
The conversion of Babylon to world power did not occur until Harran was taken, breaking Necho's military might and simultaneously eliminating Assyria. I am being careful, very careful indeed. But the cautioning words are well taken.
I just wanted to add, avoiding and ignoring facts that support Bible prophecy is a trait of anti-JWism. Reacting to their crap is how they win. I am studying and researching for myself. I ran across proofs that Nabopolassar defeated Assyria in 609 BC so I pursued whether those proofs are well founded. As it turns out, they are! Exceptionally well proven. That these proofs happen to dovetail what the Bible says exactly is immaterial in my opinion. I am not seeking confirmation of the Bible's authenticity, I am seeking truth.
Your cautions are well taken, but your backhanded assertions regarding my possible motives is very like the JWs in my local congregation. Those are not taken at all. I will regard them as accidental backsliding to your old JW habits and we'll still be friends, okay?
This from the above linked Wiki article. I think that you may be too close to the topic. When an empire falls it takes years if ever to completely uproot all vestiges of the previous empire. I think that you attach importance to Haran because it fits your interpretation.