Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Jeffro

Well you want some proof do you and you make the false claim that I simply restate WT arguments repeatedly, that I add nothing new to this debate on chronology. You claim that I deny things because these do not fit into my flawed interpreatations. All that you have said in respect to the seventy years and chronology is simply borrowed from Jonsson's GTR, the only original point you have contributed is a spreadsheet chart of the regnal data which is hardly 'original'.

I had established my view of the issue based purely on the scriptures and information from the British Museum before I had even heard of Jonsson, so to say I borrowed it from him is simply a lie. Incidentally, I have updated my spreadsheet to also indicate the chronologies of Thiele, Albright, and the Watchtower Society side by side.
Let us then turn our attention to Jeremiah 25:12 which you interpret the phrase "I shall to account against the king of Babylon" as only applying to the Fall or conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE. You admit to no other view or interpretation. Did you check or research the commentaries on this verse to examine what scholars say about this verse? For starters this statement does not give an event in an immediate sense but provides the only time element that this would only commence after the seventy years are fulfilled. Was the seventy years fulfilled in 539? You would say that it was but you offer no proof for this fact because the Jews right up until 539 were still exiled in Babylon, they were still in servitude and the land rermained desolated all necessary conditions of Jeremiah's prophecy. If the seventy years ended in 539 then when did they commence? Was it 609 if we understand that seventy years was an exact number, but that could not be the case because the Judah was not serving Babylon and therefore the seventy years had not then commenced. So your 539 theory simply fails.
I have never said that calling Babylon and its king to account only applies to Babylon's fall in 539, I have consistently said that Babylon's king was called to account at that time (i.e., "God has numbered the days of your kingdom", "you have been weighed in the balances", "your kingdom has been divided..."), and that Babylon's judgement began at that time. I have many times stated that the judgement may have continued for any period of time following that, but that it could not begin some time after Babylon's king was killed. This view is in harmony with Jeremiah's clear words that nations would serve Babylon, and after seventy years, Babylon would be judged. As has been previously stated many times, none of the original-text words used to describe Jerusalem's devastations require complete depopulation, nor that the exile had to last exactly seventy years. (Even the Society acknowledges in the Insight book that there is no evidence that exactly seventy years of Sabbaths had not been observed or had to be repaid.) Additionally, the bible implies that there were still people left in Judea after what you pretend was 607, and there is no evidence that it was completely uninhabited for the entire 70 years. Given that there is no point beyond 539 at which the 70 years could end, then yes, it seems reasonable that, if the seventy years is taken as an exact, unrounded, number, than they began in 609. Co-incidentally, this is when Babylon destroyed the last vestiges of the Assyrian world power. Judah did not need to be exiled to Babylon to be considered to be serving Babylon at that time, as it was not the definining aspect of Babylon's seventy years, as clearly indicated in the account at Jeremiah 25. (It is possible that a period of approximately 70 years is intended, though I do not subscribe to that view.) In any case, the entirety of the 70 years did not need to refer to Judah, just as they did not fully apply to the 70 years for which Tyre would be "forgotten".
Verse 12 states that calling to account was not an immediate event but a gradual proces that involved not just a king but Babylon and the land and that altogether Babylon would become a desolation which clearly did not occur in 539. So, this verse as recognized by leading scholars and commentators including the 'celebrated' is a prophecy of the future whence Babylon as with the other foreign nations would cease to exist which began as a processional event after the release of the captives which ended the seventy years in 537.
Again with the ignoring what I've said. To reiterate, I have never suggested that the judgement did not continue as a gradual process of Babylon's decline following the beginning of the judgement starting with the death of its king in 539. (You say "as with the other foreign nations would cease to exist" even though some of those nations are still with us today - of course in a few billion billion years the sun could go supernova, which would put an end to those nations will indeed cease to exist at some point.) The bible does not say that depopulation was required for the entirety of the period in order to pay of the sabbaths. Nor does it say that they ended only once the captives had returned. The scriptures do say that the king of Babylon would be judged when the seventy years ended, that during the seventy years, Sabbaths were repaid, and that after the judgement of Babylon's king, God would turn his attention to his people. The only scripture that might suggest that the entire 70 years were specifically of exile is 2 Chronicles 36:17-21, and a comparison of it with the other scriptures that mention the 70 years indicates that it was "until the royalty of Persia began to reign" that marked the end of the period, not the actual return of the captives. You have nothing to support your interpretation.
Further, Jeremiah uses this phrase similarly as an expression of eventual and progressive judgement not immediate judgement in Jeremiah 36:31. this expression can have an immediate beginning but its focus is over a longer period of time.
Yes, Jeremiah's expression had "an immediate beginning" when Babylon's king was called to account, though "its focus is over a longer period of time" for the gradual decline of Babylon itself, which is exactly what I have said the whole time. Try to keep up.
scholar

Jeffro
What we are talking about is not the immediate judgement on Babylon foretold by Daniel but the judgement upon Babylon as foretold by Jeremiah in 25:12. which refers not to an immediate judgement but much longer judgement period of desolation and ruin similar that befell Judah for seventy years.
You are quite incorrect when you claim that the desolations of Judah did not mean depopulation because Jeremiah was quite emphatic that the land would be without an inhabitant ie. depopulation. The historian Ezra in 2 Chronicles was also quite emphatic that the seventy years was a period in which the land would pay off its sabbaths which was stated in accordance with Leviticus 26:34-35. Josephus, Ezra and Daniel all comment upon the state of Judah during that period of seventy years as one of devastation, desolation and desert and this is by people who lived during those events or soon thereafter and not armchair scholars living today far removed from those events.
Your attempted hypothesis of the seventy years beginning in 609 is simply strained and empty reasoning and is blown away by the simple fact that at that time there was no exile of the people to Babylon and thus the land was not desolated. Therefore there was no servitude of any consequence until Nebuchadnezzer defeated Necho at in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Also, we have definitive date for the end of the Assyrian World Power and scholars give a variety of dates so one cannot choose 609. The very fact like Jonsson that you hedge your bets between 605 and 609 shows that your beginning of the seventy years and its duration as a literal number or a round number shows that your interpretataion is weak and wobbly.
It is good that you observe quite correctly that according to Chronicles that the seventy yeras ended when the royalty of Persia began to reign which was not 539 but 537 with the release of the exiles under Cyrus. This fact agrees with the statements also of Josephus who supports the view of Ezra who immediately describes the release of the exiles not the Fall of Babylon.
In short all the available evidence which includes the immediate context of Chronicles, Jeremiah, Daniel and Josephus clearly affirm that the seventy years could only end at the Return of the Exiles in 537 to their desolated homeland.
It pays to be loyal to God's Word.
scholar JW
Jeffro

What we are talking about is not the immediate judgement on Babylon foretold by Daniel but the judgement upon Babylon as foretold by Jeremiah in 25:12. which refers not to an immediate judgement but much longer judgement period of desolation and ruin similar that befell Judah for seventy years.

Jeremiah 25:12 talks about judgement 1) against the king of Babylon and 2) against that nation. Regardless of the judgement against the nation, which was a prolonged period, the judgement against Babylon's king was definitely in 539, which had to be after the 70 years had ended. This completely invalidates your interpretation.
You are quite incorrect when you claim that the desolations of Judah did not mean depopulation because Jeremiah was quite emphatic that the land would be without an inhabitant ie. depopulation. The historian Ezra in 2 Chronicles was also quite emphatic that the seventy years was a period in which the land would pay off its sabbaths which was stated in accordance with Leviticus 26:34-35. Josephus, Ezra and Daniel all comment upon the state of Judah during that period of seventy years as one of devastation, desolation and desert and this is by people who lived during those events or soon thereafter and not armchair scholars living today far removed from those events.
More lies. There is not a single reference at all anywhere where Jeremiah says that Judah would be uninhabited for 70 years. Paying off the sabbaths does not require that the land was completely uninhabited. The Insight book even admits that "nowhere do the Scriptures state that the Jews had failed to keep exactly 70 Sabbath years", so there is no reason to believe that Judah had to be completely uninhabited while the arbitrary figure was paid back during Babylon's time as world power. It will only fall on deaf ears when I once again inform you that the original-text words for desolation and devastation do not require depopulation.
Your attempted hypothesis of the seventy years beginning in 609 is simply strained and empty reasoning and is blown away by the simple fact that at that time there was no exile of the people to Babylon and thus the land was not desolated. Therefore there was no servitude of any consequence until Nebuchadnezzer defeated Necho at in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Also, we have definitive date for the end of the Assyrian World Power and scholars give a variety of dates so one cannot choose 609. The very fact like Jonsson that you hedge your bets between 605 and 609 shows that your beginning of the seventy years and its duration as a literal number or a round number shows that your interpretataion is weak and wobbly.
If the 70 years is not a round figure, than the only possible year that it can begin is 609, because the end point cannot be beyond 539. Any "definitive dates" prior to 539 that the Society claims to have are immdiately invalidated because they have no basis. (Indeed even 539 has no basis according to the Society's rejection of astronomical diaries for dating.) I specifically stated that I do not subscribe to the view of 605, so again your remarks are simply lies. It is a matter of historical record that Harrran was indeed captured by the Babylonians in 609, and I need neither your nor Jonsson's approval for stating that it is the only valid scriptural beginning for the seventy years of Babylon's power.
It is good that you observe quite correctly that according to Chronicles that the seventy yeras ended when the royalty of Persia began to reign which was not 539 but 537 with the release of the exiles under Cyrus. This fact agrees with the statements also of Josephus who supports the view of Ezra who immediately describes the release of the exiles not the Fall of Babylon.
According to Daniel, Babylon was divided among the Medes and the Persians that very night in 539. In that context, the royalty of Persia began to reign in 539, not 537. It is only the captivity that ended in 538/7/6, not Babylon's 70 years. Any other interpretation conflicts with Jeremiah 25.
In short all the available evidence which includes the immediate context of Chronicles, Jeremiah, Daniel and Josephus clearly affirm that the seventy years could only end at the Return of the Exiles in 537 to their desolated homeland.
Stop trying to pass off your lies as evidence.
scholar

Jeffro
Jeremiah 25:12 does not mean immediate judgement against Babylon as you interpret it because 'the calling to account the king of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeas was a judgement of desolation and not its Fall. This was to commence after the fulfillment of the seventy years which was 537. There are many references in Jeremiah stating the fact that the land would be uninhabited and its duration was specified in Jeremiah 25 :9-11. Ezra and Daniel make identical refernces to this basic fact and so does Josephus.
It is correct to say that the original Hebrew words sre not restricted only to a meaning of total desolation but such a meaning is well within their compass and the fact that Jeremiah added to their meanings by the phrase 'without an inhabitant'. The sabbath keeping of the land for seventy years was certainly fulfilled which was according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Ezra in Chronicles.
The seventy years was a literal number as it ran from the Fall in 607 and the Return in 537 and this fulfills all the comments made on the seventy yeras by the Bible writers and Josephus. Your theory whether it is a literal or round number has numerous beginning and ending problems which are too fuzzy. Fuzzy interpretations are inevitably wrong because there is confusion. You have no specific starting poinnt for your seventy years, 609 and 605 simply fail and fail magnificently.
To argue that the Society and the 'celebrated' reject astronomical dating is absurd because we use this methodology for establishing our wondrous chronology for 539. Our use of such methodology is discretionary that is all in that once the basis then such is no longer necessary because fro thence forward the Bible has its own chronology independent of the secular.
The fall of Harran does not necessarily equate with the end of Assyria for other scholars use the Fall of Nineveh to mark the end of Assyria. Once again 609 is just too fuzzy. In 539 it was a Median king who first assumed rulership in Babylon and not the Persians. The royalty of Persia did not then rule in Babylon but soon thereafter with the decree of Cyrus who released the exiles thus ending the seventy years upon their arrival back in Judah in 537. Yes that certainly ended not only the exile, their servitude to Babylon but also the desolation of the land, All in 537.
Poetic is it not?
scholar JW
Jeffro

Jeremiah 25:12 does not mean immediate judgement against Babylon as you interpret it because 'the calling to account the king of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeas was a judgement of desolation and not its Fall. This was to commence after the fulfillment of the seventy years which was 537. There are many references in Jeremiah stating the fact that the land would be uninhabited and its duration was specified in Jeremiah 25 :9-11. Ezra and Daniel make identical refernces to this basic fact and so does Josephus.

The waffling above is pretty much the same as what you wrote the last time. It is no more correct this time around.
It is correct to say that the original Hebrew words sre not restricted only to a meaning of total desolation but such a meaning is well within their compass and the fact that Jeremiah added to their meanings by the phrase 'without an inhabitant'. The sabbath keeping of the land for seventy years was certainly fulfilled which was according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Ezra in Chronicles.
A bit of suggesting what things could mean... though it's a pity it doesn't fit the facts. Nothing of merit there either.
The seventy years was a literal number as it ran from the Fall in 607 and the Return in 537 and this fulfills all the comments made on the seventy yeras by the Bible writers and Josephus. Your theory whether it is a literal or round number has numerous beginning and ending problems which are too fuzzy. Fuzzy interpretations are inevitably wrong because there is confusion. You have no specific starting poinnt for your seventy years, 609 and 605 simply fail and fail magnificently.
You continue to ignore that you in fact do not have a definite end point for your 70 years, as 537 is based purely on speculation. Therefore, you also have no stable beginning of the period either. The return in 537 does not fulfil Jeremiah 25:12, but rather contradicts it. My interpretation has one beginning and one end, though I do mention starting points offered by others. Again you ascribe an interpretation of a round number to me, which I have told you I do not hold to.
To argue that the Society and the 'celebrated' reject astronomical dating is absurd because we use this methodology for establishing our wondrous chronology for 539. Our use of such methodology is discretionary that is all in that once the basis then such is no longer necessary because fro thence forward the Bible has its own chronology independent of the secular.
'Astronomical dating' is a method employed by historians. It is not a methodology. Aside from that, your reasoning is of course profoundly stupid. It is illogical to accept a source for a particular date to make your own interpretation fit, and then to say the same source is wrong elsewhere because it doesn't fit your interpretation.
The fall of Harran does not necessarily equate with the end of Assyria for other scholars use the Fall of Nineveh to mark the end of Assyria. Once again 609 is just too fuzzy. In 539 it was a Median king who first assumed rulership in Babylon and not the Persians. The royalty of Persia did not then rule in Babylon but soon thereafter with the decree of Cyrus who released the exiles thus ending the seventy years upon their arrival back in Judah in 537. Yes that certainly ended not only the exile, their servitude to Babylon but also the desolation of the land, All in 537.
It is the bible that indicates that the fall of Harran was the beginning of the 70 years because Babylon's king was called to account in 539 when Babylon was "divided and given to the Medes and the Persians." Also, you have provided no actual evidence for your fuzzy end-point of 537. You think that you have some definite model (likely because it fits so well with 1914), but the WT interpretation is as fuzzy, if not more so, than any other.
Poetic is it not?
No, 'scholar', it's really not.
'Scholar' thinks that he's being poetic,
That his reasoning's somehow aesthetic,
But it seems he's confused;
Of lying, stands accused,
And his grasp on logic is pathetic.
scholar

Jeffro
You simply rehash theories and interpretations without any scriptural and historical substance. The end point for the seventy years is hardly speculation awhen one can determine a agrred date for the Return of the Exiles in 537 which was a most significant event in biblical history. It is most unlike your fuzzy date of 539 as the end of the seventy years because in 2Chronicles 36:22-23 immediately following his observation on the seventy years commences to give an account not of the Fall of Babylon but the return of the Exiles under the Decree of Cyrus which marked the direct fulfillment according to Jeremiah 25:11.
All history is based upon methodology particularly chronology because it is the tool which makes chronology appear or happen. Just because you have a different methodology to that of the 'celebrated' does not make it stupid but different. I would say that your methodology is stupid because it is fuzzy, clashes with history, unaccounts for the seventy years and undermines the Bible.
The Bible nowhere connects the fall of Harran with the beginning of the seventy years perhaps you have had too much of the XXXX because you are confusing Harran with Jerusalem and you are confusing Danielic Babylonian judgement with the Jeremaiac Babylonian judgement. Scholars nowhere regard 537 as fuzzy nor do they regard the Return as a fuzzy. Yes, our model does indeed substaniate 1914 which further confirms our chronology but your chronology is useless for Christians today as it points to a nothing.
Our chronology is a wonder, a beauty whereas yours is lifeless, dead.
scholar JW
Navigator

Here is what Harrell F. Beck relates in the History of Israel, Part I contained in the Interpreters One Volume Commentary of the Bible:
After recounting the decline of the Assyrian empire he writes:
"Predictably the Babylonians and Egyptian forces joined battle at Carchemish on the upper Euphrates in 605. Nebuchadrezzar defeated Neco and Bablyon became mistress of the Near East. Shortly thereafter Jehoiakim of Judah, confident that Egypt would support him, led a revolt against Nebuchadrezzar. The Babylonian king marched against Jerusalem and Jehoiakim died, perhaps killed by his own men. Nebuchadrezzar's forces captured Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim. He and a number of other Judean princes, numerous priests, military officers, and artisans, and significant element of the upper classes of Judean society were carried off to Babylon. Zedekiah, a 3rd son of Josiah, was made puppet king in Jerusalem.
In due course, Zedekiah also rebelled against Babylonian authority. Nebuchadrezzar retailiated with fury. The major fortresses of Judea were caputred and burned. For 30 months (588-586) the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem, and the city suffered tragically. When the Babylonians finally broke into the city, they leveled the walls and palaces and razed the temple to the ground. Zedekiah's sons were slain in front of him, and he himself was blinded and carried to Babylon in chains. The greater part of the population of Jerusalem was taken into exile with him. Thus the kindom of David came to a tragic end."
Kaput

I think scholar means "celebrating" WT scholars
Jeffro

You simply rehash theories and interpretations without any scriptural and historical substance. The end point for the seventy years is hardly speculation awhen one can determine a agrred date for the Return of the Exiles in 537 which was a most significant event in biblical history. It is most unlike your fuzzy date of 539 as the end of the seventy years because in 2Chronicles 36:22-23 immediately following his observation on the seventy years commences to give an account not of the Fall of Babylon but the return of the Exiles under the Decree of Cyrus which marked the direct fulfillment according to Jeremiah 25:11.

Now you are stating that 539, the only date actually agreed on by the Society, is also a 'fuzzy date', though it is clearly defined by both Jeremiah and Daniel as the event that marks the beginning of Babylon's judgement and which ends the seventy years. You state that the return of the exiles marks the end of the period, directly contradicting Jeremiah. At Daniel 9:2, Daniel discerned that the 70 years had ended. There is little reason why Daniel would suddenly start "fasting with sackcloth and ashes" if there were still 2 years remaining of the 70 years. Obviously the return of the exiles was important, so it is not suprising that the event was given prominence in 2 Chronicles, but there is nothing to indicate that the event specifically marked the end of the seventy years, and to do so would directly conflict with Jeremiah.
All history is based upon methodology particularly chronology because it is the tool which makes chronology appear or happen. Just because you have a different methodology to that of the 'celebrated' does not make it stupid but different. I would say that your methodology is stupid because it is fuzzy, clashes with history, unaccounts for the seventy years and undermines the Bible.
"chronology ... is the tool which makes chronology appear or happen"? That just doesn't make sense. I don't have a different methodology. You need a dictionary. Fuzzy? No, I have a specific period from 609 to 539. Clashes with history? No, no 20 year gaps here, and in agreement with what is historically known of the period. Unaccounts for the seventy years? Well "unaccounts" isn't even a word, but I do have the 70 years accounted for quite well, with no mysterious 20 years of unknown Babylonian rulers. Undermines the Bible? No conflicts with the bible here, harmonised all of the relevant scriptures with no problems - chiefly because I don't have a 1914 agenda to uphold.
The Bible nowhere connects the fall of Harran with the beginning of the seventy years perhaps you have had too much of the XXXX because you are confusing Harran with Jerusalem and you are confusing Danielic Babylonian judgement with the Jeremaiac Babylonian judgement. Scholars nowhere regard 537 as fuzzy nor do they regard the Return as a fuzzy. Yes, our model does indeed substaniate 1914 which further confirms our chronology but your chronology is useless for Christians today as it points to a nothing.
No, I am not confused. The bible indicates 70 years during which "all these nations round about" would serve Babylon. Even the WT admits that "evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination". This period ended abruptly in 539, which meant that it had to begin in 609, which was specifically when Harran was conquered by Babylon. Because it is the only relevant significant event that happened at exactly the right time, then it is fair to say that the Bible indicates that the fall of Harran marks the beginning of the period because it is the perfect (and only) candidate that fits the 70 years and clearly "represents the period of Babylonia's greatest domination." Your model does not 'substantiate' 1914 at all, though it does attempt to; 607 is wrong, 2520 is based on superstitious numerology, there was no October fulfilment, the 'gentile times' is misapplied, etc. Your chronology is only 'confirmed' by 1914 in the same way as celebrity endorsements 'confirm' the quality of exercise machines advertised on television 'infomercials' - it targets the uninformed and the gullible. Apocalyptic groups always need to put their end-time prophecies affecting 'today' or the near future, because otherwise they don't scare and excite people enough. No crackpot religious group comes up now and says that God's going to end the world in 1000 years because no-one would care. You feel a need for these prophecies to be useful in our day because you have become addicted to 'end-times' melodrama.
AuldSoul

scholar,
What you lack in intellectual integrity, you more than make up for in passive acceptance. Glad to have you here. Where else could we find the perfect foil? You demonstrate so beautifully all that is unconscionable about that wicked and deceitful Corporation.
All we have to do is demonstrate what has been done to your reasoning ability and it proves the flaw in the idea of ever becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses better than we could hope to do.
Mind you, I think you're a good guy and probably sincere. But that makes it all the more damning when your unfounded credulity surfaces.
Cheers!
AuldSoul

Desolation of Jerusalem

Share this