WTBS article prove 587/586 BC fall of Babylon

by crazies 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ellderwho
    I have already posted a regnal list for the Neo-Babylonian monarchy and this has already been posted here based on WT publications namely the Insight volumes.

    Scholar you,ve already cut to the chase. You said that you had posted a list, and I just want to look at it.

    The posts by crazies and jw facts provide the information you require so you can make up your list or summary from these two postings.

    No they dont, I said I want your list, and you said its posted already. I just have to find it because you said I have'nt followed you close enough, and that I could possibly going down a path of self-delusion.

    Right here:

    It appears that you have not followed my five year long defence of our chronology as you claim so perhaps you are walking in the path of self-delusion.

    scholar JW

    Still looking.
  • ellderwho


    If I don't have to produce a kings list, I could say it fell invisibly in 1914.

    D (scholar) Dog

    Ha, yeah I think he posted his list invisibly

  • skyman

    scholar I have a saying you can show a dog water but if he is to dumb to drink let the dog die. I have spent hundreds of hours trying hard to prove the Society correct and have proven without a doubt them wrong. For you to believe the Society correct you must believe in little fairy's because there is more proof that they are real than the Society being correct about 607 B.C. There is no proof what so ever unless you believe in fairys

  • Jeffro
    That is correct all chronologies that are based upon secular materials alone such as Neo-Babylonian data are wrong not for the reason that they conflict with Jehovah;s Witnesses but because the data conflicts with the Bible by ignoring the 'seventy years'.

    I have previously indicated a model that validly ratifies the bible's seventy years with secular history.

    The end of the seventy years can only be 537 and not 539 because the exiles were still in Babylon and not then released from captivity.

    The seventy years had to end at or before Babylon's king was called to account. There is no evidence that the exiles returned in 537 anyway. The exiles didn't have to be back in Jerusalem for the 70 years to end.

    We have biblical or secular data for determining at point of the reign when Nebuchadnezzer was absent from the throne

    No, no you don't.

    but we believe in its historicity and our chronology is not based upon regnal years of the Babylonian ryulers so it is of no importance for our chronology but for apostates and higher rulers it is a devastating blow to their chronology because such chronology is soley based upon incomplete regnal data.

    The secular models allow for Nebuchadnezzar's 7 years of absence from the throne because no-one else replaced him during that time and he was still officially king. Nabonidus is also still indicated as king when Belshazzar was largley in control too.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    I have seen the threads - both the logical argumentations and the foolish assumptive positioning on both sides.

    Clear evidence abounds that the Temple was not destroyed in 607BCE as the Tower of Lies asserts.

    I propose that it does not matter. The entire supposition of using the date of Jerusalem's fall and destruction to create a symposium of irrelated scriptures to construct a timetable to establish the Kingdom's return is even more absurd than the Tower's Chronology that ignores clear and concise scientific proof of a date in opposition to the one they favor.

    To take a shotgun blast method of scriptural reference and construct 2520 years is nuts to begin with. Find me scriptural relavence to connect these unrelated passages! There is none.

    The fall of Jerusalem, the seven times of punishment on the Babylonian King, the irrelated obscure text in Numbers to tie all the ends together into a neat little package that brings us down to a date that Jesus himself stated would be unknown and unknowable.

    Why can't the Tower just accept what Jesus said? That no man would know the day of the hour? Or how about this text;

    " Respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you not to be easily shaken from your reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression, or through a verbal message, or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here." 2 Thess 2:1,2

    This organization has done little else in the past 100 years but to proclaim that they know the day and the hour as if that info springs from God.

    I think the balance of that chapter in 1 Thess may apply as well. By refusing to be reasonalble, they have made themselves vessles of Satan.

    Jesus did not lie when he said they would not know the day and the hour - they [the Watchtower] lied when they said they did.

    End of matter in my mind - all the rest is worthless Watchtower rhertoric and apostasy from Brooklyn. These endless threads from apologist who miss this very point sicken me.

    Jeff [of the little bit pissed off mood class]

  • Jeffro
    Neo-Babylonian chronology is indeed a 'dog's breakfast' because it is faulty and does not agree with biblical history and the biblical texts. It has been used to deceive people over the centuries from the biblical history and chronology based on God's Word and serves as a one of Satan's 'crafty acts' in undermine the confidence of sincere people in the Bible. It distracts people's attention from the reality of the Messianic Kingdom established in 1914 at the end of the Gentile Times etc.

    You again equate 'faulty' with 'does not agree with (Watchtower interpretations of) biblical history'. You then launch into a delusional conspiracy theory about other-worldly beings messing with historical records for centuries just so people won't become JWs. Get help.

    The twenty year gap is proved by comparing biblical and secular chronology as real because the figures demonstrate it for it is not some bookeeper's 'sleight of hand'existing in the imagination. It is an existent! It exists because the seventy years- a period of desolation, servitude, exile exists.

    The 20-year problem is introduced only by the "WT fable and myth society". Even if your application of the 70 years were correct (which it is not because it conflicts with Jeremiah), the endpoint the Society selects for the return of the Jews has no basis in fact and is merely speculation. You state that the Society's interpretation is superior because it has definitely established beginning and end points, but that is simply not the case. At best it is as tenuous as you claim 586/7 to be.

    The contention over the date for the Fall of Jerusalem is not my doing, it is not of my origination nor is it result of special pleading but it is a consequence of poor scholarship and higher criticism. But it is not just about two dates to wit, 586 or 587 but it involves also 588 or 589 that are advocated by some scholars at present. This means that there are four possible candidates for the Fall, one of the most momentous dates in Jewish and Biblical history.

    It is poor scholarship to dogmatically say that an event definitely happened at a certain time though there is no definite evidence to support it - that is what the Society does with 537. However, it is legitimate scholarship to have variance over dating an event if there is not sufficient evidence to give a definite date. Hence, a variety of dates have been provided for Jerusalem's fall.

    The date for the Return as 537 is not universally accepted by scholars but there is little departure from that year and is biblically well founded for it is not made into a big deal even by the apostate Jonsson. Afterall when the entire framework of chronology is examined the only date that is universally accepted is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE which serves suitably as a pivotal or Absolute Date for the OT.

    So you admit that using 537 for an endpoint of the 70 years is just as shaky as you accuse 587 as being for Jerusalem's fall. So the uncertain and incorrectly derived 537 is the basis for 607 in which year nothing significant happened, to support the beginning of the 'appointed times of the nations' that began at or after 70AD. Dog's breakfast anyone?

  • Jeffro
    The calculation of 617 has been discussed many times in WT literature because it is linked with the 'third year of Jehoiakim' mentioned in Daniel 1:1 despite your claim to the contrary. The mess that historians have made for themselves is because they have chosen to ignore the historical reality of the biblical 'seventy years' and have 'dug their own graves' on the subject of chronology. The interpretation of the seventy years presented by celebrated WT scholars is plainly and absolutely correct being a period of exile-servitude-desolation running from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE.

    I made no claim to the contrary that the information has been discussed by the Society. My point was that they have no actual basis for stating their claimed years apart from their interpretation of the 70 years which has no evidence, which conflicts with parts of the bible. What undisputed proof do you have even for 537? To take your approach, the Society's interpretation is 'blown out of the water' because there is not even agreement among secular authorities concerning the year that the exiles returned.

    The Society has on a few occasions said that the 70 years had to end in 537 because they began in 607. Though this seems like plain dimwitted circular reasoning, it also demonstrates that the Society backwardly formulates the position of the 70 years specifically to fit in with their 1914 doctrine.

  • Jeffro
    Celebrated WT scholars have shown in WT literature how the date for the Return is calculated and is found to be 537 BCE. I suspect that you are simply using this as a useless exercise or 'red herring' to distract sincere readers of the dilemna over 586 or 587. However, if you want to play this game then so be it, firstly you supply your reasons for your proposed date and then I will show our reasons. In other words, as you have raised this issue it is the case of : You show me yours and I will show you mine.

    Yes, they have shown how they arrive at the date, but it is simply speculation. There is no actual evidence to definitely support 537. I do not need to supply reasons, and it is not me who proposed a date anyway. You argue that because there is disagreement concerning 586/7 that both must be wrong. If you are not biased, you would apply the same criteria to 536/7. Of course we all know you are biased.

    You've played this "you show me yours and I will show you mine" game before; I am still waiting for your tabulation of the Neo-Babylonian monarchy that is consistent with Watchtower interpretations. It's your turn.

  • crazies

    This little piece that I'm working on is not yet finished. There is going to be about 3 parts too it, the one on there is Part 1, Part 2 I'm still working on, and the following is part 3 (I'm still working on this as well with other scriptual points that support when the real end of 70 years is.)

    When does the Bible and Jehovah say the end of the 70 years is?

    (Jeremiah 25:8-13 RBi8)

    8 “Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of seventy years.”

    12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of 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.

    13 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.’”

    (Daniel 5:24-30 RBi8)

    24 Consequently from before him there was being sent the back of a hand, and this very writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: ME´NE, ME´NE, TE´KEL and PAR´SIN.

    26 “This is the interpretation of the word: ME´NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it. (see Marginals)

    27 “TE´KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient.

    28 “PE´RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”

    29 At that time Bel·shaz´zar commanded, and they clothed Daniel with purple, with a necklace of gold about his neck; and they heralded concerning him that he was to become the third ruler in the kingdom.

    30 In that very night Bel·shaz´zar the Chal·de´an king was killed

    (Marginals Rbi8 Daniel 5:26)

    (Isaiah 13:11) And I shall certainly bring home [its own] badness upon the productive land, and their own error upon the wicked themselves. And I shall actually cause the pride of the presumptuous ones to cease, and the haughtiness of the tyrants I shall abase.

    (Jeremiah 25:12) “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of 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.

    (Jeremiah 27:7) And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

    (Jeremiah 50:1) The word that Jehovah spoke concerning , concerning the land of the Chal·de´ans, by means of Jeremiah the prophet:

    (Jeremiah 51:11) “Polish the arrows. Fill the circular shields, O men. Jehovah has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because it is against that his idea is, in order to bring her to ruin. For it is the vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance for his temple.

    (Isaiah 13:1,9,11,17,19,22 RBi8)

    The pronouncement against that Isaiah the son of A´moz saw in vision:

    9 “Look! The day of Jehovah itself is coming, cruel both with fury and with burning anger, in order to make the land an object of astonishment, and that it may annihilate [the land’s] sinners out of it.

    11 And I shall certainly bring home [its own] badness upon the productive land, and their own error upon the wicked themselves. And I shall actually cause the pride of the presumptuous ones to cease, and the haughtiness of the tyrants I shall abase

    17 “Here I am arousing against them the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it.

    19 And , the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de´ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod´om and Go·mor´rah.

    22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight. And the season for her is near to come, and her days themselves will not be postponed.”

    More to come…………

  • scholar


    Reply to post 699

    Your model poorly attempts to reconcile the seventy years with the secular data by claiming that this period was a period of servitude only and not recognizing that it was a period of servitude-exile-desolation in its entirety.

    The Bible does not say that 'calling into account the king of Babylon' terminated the seventy years for the only event that terminated the period was the return of the exiles under the new king of Babylon namely Cyrus.

    My comment should have read '"We do not have ...". A typo only.

    The secular data contains no reference to Neb's vacant seven years so their integrity is compromised by this omission whereas the Bible does mention this period so its data is superior to the secular for the purposes of chronology.

    scholar JW

Share this