607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Augustin

  Oh well... According to the "excellent" study by Applegate, Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE.

  Interestingly, the "liberal" bias in Applegate's study is not accepted by leading and celebrated experts on the book of Jeremiah: Both J. Lundbom and G. Fischer make the point that the seventy years "for Babylon" (Jeremia 25 & 29) should not be equated with the time of the exile (which probably lasted ca. 49 years and ended after the end of the seventy years "for Babylon" in 539 BCE, as "predicted" by Jeremiah 29:10, NWT [in Danish and Swedish]).

  -- Augustin --
• 

  Jeffro

  So, if the seventy years for Tyre in 539 BCE then when did they begin for Tyre? Such a question and your answer will determine your comprehension of the Isaiah commentary. What you fail to realize that ther is difference between Jeremiah's seventy years for Judah and Isaiah's seventy years for Tyre. It is certainly the case that according to Jeremiah's prophecy in 25:12 that foreign nations would also be subject to Babylon during the seventy year period of Judean servitude which ran from 607 until 537 BCE. The period of Babylon's greatest domination involve not Tyre and the other foreign nations but Judah and lasted during that period of servitude, exile and desolation from 607 until 537 - a full historic period of seventy years.

  My comprehension doesn't need to be determined, and certainly not by your ilk. So my response is based on facts, not simply on some reading comprehension lesson to pander to your ego.

  There is a grain of truth in what you have said (a rare moment indeed), for part of the Isaiah publication under discussion is correct, so I'll just quote it again: "Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination."

  Tyre was subject to Babylon during the period of 70 years, as one of the "nations [that would] have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." "Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years", as Babylon conquered various nations at different times during that seventy years, which makes your question irrelevant. (Incidentally, Tyre's subjection under Babylonian rule began in 573 (after a 13-year siege)). The 70 years, the period referenced by Jeremiah in chapter 25, is easily determined. We know that the Assyrians were completely displaced by Nebuchadnezzar in 609, which began the "period of Babylonia's greatest domination", and this ran (obviously) until 539, which we know to be the definitive end of the Babylonian empire.

  In connection with Tyre we have no explicit chronology for her seventy years and its exact period is unknown so with a new ruler at Babylon, Tyre could once again resume her former glory. There is no reference to 537 in conncetion with Tyre because there is simply no link or relevance. It is only with Judah as an exilic people that a Return becomes significant.

  The reason the Society doesn't give specific chronology for Tyre is not because the period is unknown but because it is incompatible with the missing 20 years in their interpretation. There is no link or evidence for preferring 537 over 538 for the Jews' return either. Of course the Society must tread very lightly with Isaiah 23:15, not only because there is so much known of the period secularly to apply a literal 70 years to Tyre, but a literal application of the verse would also conflict with Jeremiah 25. But if it makes that too apparent, it could lose some its supposed authority regarding other scriptures about which it likes to be dogmatic.
• 

  Jeffro

  I am shouting from the rooftops that there is abundant secular and biblical evidence in support of 607 which is grounded upon the seventy years of Jeremiah.

  No, that is called claiming. You have never actually provided any evidence, because there is none to provide.

  The majority of scholars are slaves along with apostates to higher criticism and it is laughable that they cannot understand the seventy years for it is a stumbling block to them.

  And that is called a delusion of grandeur.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Response to post 1209

  There is no consensus. 586 is the majority opinion followed by 587 with 588 and 589 on the side. A margin of error of at least three years. Dumb scholars and apostates follow dumb dates.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  So agree with the Isaiah commentary with its explanation of the seventy years for Tyre was experienced during the period of Babylon's greatest domination which also saw Judah experiencing her seventy years of servitude, desolation and exile. Both Tyre and Judah expereinced servitude to Babylon within the same historical period of Babylonian supremacy. But those seventy years are not identical with the same exact chronology and both were also different in degree and substance.

  You assume that 609 was the beginning of Babylonian supremacy with the alleged displacement of Assyria but historians do not agree that 609 is the only date for this 'beginning' for other sholars prefer 605 as a starting point for Babylonian rule. This then alters your chronology for 'seventy years.'

  The reason why the Society does not chronologize the seventy yeras for Tyre is simply there is no reason to do so as its significance for biblical history and prophecy is minimal. Perhaps you take up your complaint on this matter with Jeremiah. There is no link as you say with the Return of the Jews in connection with Tyre'e seventy years but only with Jeremiah's seventy years ending as we all know in 537 BCE.

  There is no treading lightly with Tyre's seventy years because scholars cannot determine that chronology and you will no reference to this in the literature. Apostates tread lightly with the Jeremiah's seventy years because it overthrows their dumb secular chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  There is no consensus. 586 is the majority opinion followed by 587 with 588 and 589 on the side. A margin of error of at least three years. Dumb scholars and apostates follow dumb dates.

  Then the 'consensus' (that's a big word for you isn't it scholar - it means they think the same) is that the event occurred around 587.
• 

  Jeffro

  So agree with the Isaiah commentary with its explanation of the seventy years for Tyre was experienced during the period of Babylon's greatest domination which also saw Judah experiencing her seventy years of servitude, desolation and exile. Both Tyre and Judah expereinced servitude to Babylon within the same historical period of Babylonian supremacy. But those seventy years are not identical with the same exact chronology and both were also different in degree and substance.

  You again bring '70 years of exile in', though in your model, many of the Jews were exiled for longer than 70 years and were told that the exile would be for 70 years before the 'exile' had supposedly even started.

  Tyre did not have the full duration of 70 years applied to itself. The reason 70 years is mentioned for Tyre is because Tyre, along with many other nations, was included in the list in Jeremiah 25:17-26, and was explicitly identified as being involved in the same 70 years of subjection to Babylon as was Jerusalem, with which the Isaiah publication agrees, much to your chagrin.

  You claim that they are two separate periods of 70 years. Therefore you admit that at least one of those periods (the period of nations serving Babylon) abruptly ended in 539, which means you admit that there was a significant event 70 years earlier in 609 regarding Babylon's power in the region.

  You assume that 609 was the beginning of Babylonian supremacy with the alleged displacement of Assyria but historians do not agree that 609 is the only date for this 'beginning' for other sholars prefer 605 as a starting point for Babylonian rule. This then alters your chronology for 'seventy years.'

  609 is the most broadly accepted year for that event. What is more, it is in agreement with the scriptures. Of course I'm not trying to bolster an end-times prophecy to keep people promoting my literature and giving free labour to my real-estate portfolio, so I have less to lose by being wrong, which I'm not.

  The reason why the Society does not chronologize the seventy yeras for Tyre is simply there is no reason to do so as its significance for biblical history and prophecy is minimal. Perhaps you take up your complaint on this matter with Jeremiah. There is no link as you say with the Return of the Jews in connection with Tyre'e seventy years but only with Jeremiah's seventy years ending as we all know in 537 BCE.

  I suppose that's why they don't provide a complete chronology of the Neo-Babylonian kings either... sheesh, what a copout!

  We all know Babylon fell in 539. We all know Jeremiah said Babylon's king would be called to account after 70 years. We certainly don't "all know" anything about the 70 years ending in 537.

  There is no treading lightly with Tyre's seventy years because scholars cannot determine that chronology and you will no reference to this in the literature. Apostates tread lightly with the Jeremiah's seventy years because it overthrows their dumb secular chronology.

  When you say "cannot determine", of course you mean it doesn't fit with the Society's interpretations. What a laugh! The chronology for the kings of Tyre, like other chronology of the period, is indeed well established.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  post 924

  Well there were more than one exile for the Jewish people and during the reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin there was a exile for the nobility of Judah. This was followed ten years later by another exile involving Judah entirely to Babylon foretold by Jeremiah to be seventy years.

  I agree with you that ther seventy years for Tyre occurrred during the seventy years for Judah whereby that period was of Babylon's greatest domination. There is no chagrin here but a point of agreement as the Isaiah Commentary nicely explains.

  So, we have two seventy year periods, one for Tyre which ended with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the other for Judah which ended with the Return to Jerusalem and Judah in 537 BCE. The former period was less than seventy years whereas the latter was a precise historic period of seventy years. Big difference between these two nations. Agree?

  Celebrated WT scholars have not provided a chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period because the data is unreliable at this time but they would love to do so if it were humanly possible. We all live in hope!

  A broadly-accepted view of 609 BCE is simply inadequate to begin any useful chronology for not only is the date too fuzzy but the event itself is too fuzzy. Any chronology built on such a wobbly foudation must fall over. Such a 'fuzzy' event has no support in the Bible as you mistakenly claim and that is why Jonsson is forced to consider the alternative 605 BCE.

  We all Babylon fell in 539 BCE. We also know that Babylon, its king, land and country would be desolated after the seventy years, a judgement prophesied by Jeremiah which ended in 537 BCE.

  So where then is the chronology for the kings of Tyre documented as you foolishly claim as 'well established"?

  scholar JW
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Celebrated WT scholars have not provided a chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period because the data is unreliable at this time

  I hear the frantic hopes of 'celebrated scholars' gurgling down the porcelain of time. A symphony in sewer.

  HS
• 

  Jeffro

  Response to post 1209

  This is my 927th post.