607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    1. No, the judgement on Babylon was yet future as a perpetual desolation according to Jeremiah wheras Daniel's judgement concerned only its Fall which of course occurred in 539 BCE.

    2. The Isaiah's commentary says nothing of the sort and you are guilty of misreading and misunderstanding its comments. The commentary does not in any way confuse 539 with 537 but deals in a straightforward manner with all of facts recognizing as with Tyre that the seventy years of Judah also involved a precise period of domination/servitude to Babylon ending in 537BCE.

    3. Scholars do not usually define the year of the Return but leave this historical detail alone but they comment that the release of the Jews under Cyrus' Decree must have occurred sometime in his 1st year from 538-537BCE. Josephus' account in no way contradicts the fact that the Jews were home by the seventh month in 537 BCE and you have proof to the contrary.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    1. No, the judgement on Babylon was yet future as a perpetual desolation according to Jeremiah wheras Daniel's judgement concerned only its Fall which of course occurred in 539 BCE.

    Can you even read? Babylon's king was indisputably called to account in 539, and it was explicitly that action that was defined by Jeremiah occurring only once the 70 years had ended, so ongoing future judgement of Babylon as a kingdom is not relevant insofar as when the 70 years ended.

    2. The Isaiah's commentary says nothing of the sort and you are guilty of misreading and misunderstanding its comments. The commentary does not in any way confuse 539 with 537 but deals in a straightforward manner with all of facts recognizing as with Tyre that the seventy years of Judah also involved a precise period of domination/servitude to Babylon ending in 537BCE.

    LOL. It would be interesting to get a third-party perspective on this, because in view of the foregoing, what you've said there is bordering on delusional... actually, maybe just a little over the border. Of course you can't actually point to what I've supposedly misread, because I have misinterpreted nothing. There is no mention of 537 whatsoever; it is clearly stated that the 70 years referred to at Jeremiah 25:12 were of Babylonian dominance, and that such dominance ended at its fall in 539. Don't complain to me, complain to your precious Writing Committee™.

    3. Scholars do not usually define the year of the Return but leave this historical detail alone but they comment that the release of the Jews under Cyrus' Decree must have occurred sometime in his 1st year from 538-537BCE. Josephus' account in no way contradicts the fact that the Jews were home by the seventh month in 537 BCE and you have proof to the contrary.

    Well put! Yes, I do have proof to the contrary. (Is that your split-personality kicking in?) But AlanF has shown you previously how Josephus' account is incompatible with the Jews returning in 537, and you gave him no valid response, so there is no reason for me to reiterate.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Simply amazing. Scholar pretendus admits to being a goat bugger, then goes on to ignore every point in everyone's rebuttals of his lies.

    Again, what an astoundingly good illustration of cult-induced braindeadness can hardly be found!

    AlanF

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Such restoration of pure worship certainly commenced soon after as Applegate thoughtfully acknowledges. Certainly, the seventy years ended in 537 BCE by the seventh month Tishri with the Jews resettled in their homes with the opportunity to now restore true worship with the rebuilding of the temple.

    So, this means that the Society's chronology supports the Bible as nicely confirmed by Applegate's wise observation.

    Please give us the specific reference to Applegate's thoughtful/wise observation that supports ending the "seventy years" in 537 BC. Please back up these remarks.

    And also please read my last post to you which you have ignored.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Response to post 919

    1. Yes I can read. Babylon's king was called to account but you conveniently omit the fact that in the same breath, 'the nation and the land of Chaldea' was also called to account. How were those three entities called to account? Jeremiah continues to state that it was by those things being made 'desolate' and not by the fall or demise of a ruler or city. You must read the context. Applegate confirms this understanding of matters by celebrated WT scholars by noting on pages 92 and 96 that "that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years".

    2. Indeed get a third party perspective on the meaning of that paragraph in the Isaiah commentary but better still you should study the entire volume for context because that is what you are missing. Context man! context, something of which apostates fail to grasp. There is no need to mention 537 BCE because this is not the context of Jeremiah's seventy years but that of Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre and Tyre alone.

    3. So where is your proof from Josephus or are you simple relying on AlanF as to What to think and How to think? Do not worry I deal with the clown at a time of my choosing.

    scholar JW

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho
    Do not worry I deal with the clown....."

    That speaks volumes. But cuntinue on....

  • scholar
    scholar

    Leolaia

    Response to post 6992

    Yes, Applegate offers observations on the principal texts that support the interpretation of those same texts made by celebrated Wt chronology which indirectly support our biblical chronology.

    You have already drawn attention to Applegate on Jeremiah 29;10 on page 96 and following from this Applegate describes the likage of the 'restoration' of the temple with the completed desolation of the land in his exegesis of Ezra from pages 97 to 102. Please note Williamson's obsrvations on page 101 in the last paragraph. His treatment of Zechariah offers views contrary to Jonsson and notes that those 'seventy years' were a period of pat judgement on page 105.

    Applegate's article as a whole is refreshing in that perhaps for the first time a 'holistic' approach to Jeremiah is examined demonstrating the relationship and dependence of thos principal texts and Jeremiah's prophecy. Jonsson fails to grasp that interdependence of those texts and fails to see the theology behind the prophecies and their fulfillments upon God;s people in those times consequently his theory is sterile and bankrupt leaving no room for prophecy and fulfillment.

    scholar JW

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    You have already drawn attention to Applegate on Jeremiah 29;10 on page 96 and following from this Applegate describes the likage of the 'restoration' of the temple with the completed desolation of the land in his exegesis of Ezra from pages 97 to 102. Please note Williamson's obsrvations on page 101 in the last paragraph. His treatment of Zechariah offers views contrary to Jonsson and notes that those 'seventy years' were a period of pat judgement on page 105.

    None of this has any pertinence with the "seventy years" ending in 537 BC. You know full well what Applegate says about the "seventy years" in Zechariah and how the latter reckons them as ending much later than 537 BC. Try again, please provide any quote and citation from Applegate supporting your claim that he furnishes support of the Society's chronology ending in 537 BC.

    Applegate's article as a whole is refreshing in that perhaps for the first time a 'holistic' approach to Jeremiah is examined demonstrating the relationship and dependence of thos principal texts and Jeremiah's prophecy.

    Applegate does not provide a unitary interpretation of the "seventy years" across all relevant texts, what you have regarded as "holistic". His assumptions are higher critical, as has already been abundantly demonstrated in this thread. Yet you vociferously condemn higher criticism. How can you laud Applegate yet condemn higher criticism at the same time boggles the mind.

    Jonsson fails to grasp that interdependence of those texts and fails to see the theology behind the prophecies and their fulfillments upon God;s people

    And what you have utterly failed to grasp is that Applegate points out discontinuities and reinterpretations of the "seventy years" in the OT....observations utterly undermining your own "holistic approach".

  • scholar
    scholar

    Leolaia

    Applegate's paper is not about chronology and does not provide and any dates featured in his research are incidental to his thesis, his approach to the subject of the seventy years is theological and reflects a harmony between the principal texts notwithstanding the flexibility of interpretation. It is in the matter of substance of what those individual texts that is devastating to the Jonsson nonsense and proves the plausibility of the approach by celebrated WT scholars. Applegate does not mention 537 BCE ending the period nor does he mention 539 BCE, the opposing opinion prpmoted by Jonsson. In fact, Applegate refrains from giving a definite chronology with the exception of the two Zechariah texts.

    Nevertheless, this discussion puts the subject of the seventy years in a new and fresh perspective broadening and deepening this most perplexing subject despite the dogmatic stance by apostates who hastily and foolishly decry our true biblical position. I believe that Applegate does provide a unitary view because of the influence of the Jeremiah texts even though he admits to a "flexibility of interpretation" which is well documented in the commentaries and literature. This 'unitary' view is proved by the theology of Jeremiah and the fact that Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah sourced Jeremiah by quotation or imputation. The theology is devastating to the Jonsson hypotheisis.

    At last, you see the many discontinuities and reinterpretaions by your own admission so this article is troubling for you so perhaps you write Jonsson and alert him to this observation so that he can understand that his interpretation oif the seventy years as servitude alone is a 'whacky and concocted theory'.

    scholar JW

  • Terry
    Terry



    At first I thought this might be a discussion of the radical differences between the official Watchtower position on 607 b.c.e. and the rest of the entire planet Earth's scholars.



    But, then....it became abundantly clear that something else was happening. It is not unlike listening to two musical instruments playing simultaneously. The dissonant harmonic structure of the posts emerged as an effect in itself.



    Scholar is merely chain-yanking by hewing to his line and repeating the "celebrated Watchtower scholars" mantra because it produces the desired effect. He is rattling the cages and driving the critters into mad fits as they hurl themselves against the bars. The funny thing is that it is an illusion in a reverse universe. It is scholar who is behind the bars and cannot emerge from Watchtower prison. Yet, his only joy remains; he can trap everybody else into actually treating him as if he had something to say worth responding to!



    Folks, the merits of the discussion ending pages and pages ago.



    What is now transpiring is the mad debate over how many angels can dance on the head of pins.



    Scholar cannot and will not cry "Uncle" because he doesn't need to. His visits are to stir up the folks the way a kid will step on a red ant hill just to watch the buggers streaming out to do battle with an invader.



    He keeps kicking the hill and the red ants have nothing to sting. The melee is illusory but the spectacle provides amusement.



    In short: Scholar is certainly bright enough to know his apologia of Watchtower scholarship won't stand up against even the most casual examination. Thus, he descends into minutia the way you can stir up the bottom of a clear pond by scraping a stick against the sediment causing all sorts of effluvia to float about obscuring a clear view of anything.



    This pseudo-debate is a windmill joust.



    Fred Franz was bright enough to fool Nathan Knorr into thinking he could see deeper and farther than the rest of the world of humanity. Franz enjoyed that and began believing it himself. He constructed a house of matchsticks and plunged headlong into a bizarro cartoon world of "the sky is falling" because I say so. 1975 laid out reality's trump card that shut him up but good. It proved once and for all time he pulled his theology out of his lower intestines.



    The embarassment to the celebrated Watchtower scholar (singular) brought him down to size. His only recourse was to make everybody's life miserable until the day he died.



    One such casualty is the rank and file members who are loyal to these huckster doctrines and try to defend them.



    Scholar isn't the first and won't be the last to die on that hill in a Last Stand that destroys their own personal integrity as their eyes are suddenly opened to the nothingness they thought was pure gold. The remaining recourse is to toy with the enemy (apostates) and make them dance like jiggling puppets on a string.



    A dog grabs a stuffed toy and shakes it until the stuffing comes out.



    Scholar is doing just that right here.



    T.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit