Gentile Times reconsidered

by confused and lost 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  Hi Doug, wth all due respect, I'm not basing my interpretation of the 70 years on any "desolation" issues, but a direct quote by Josephus:

  The “GB of the WTS”, “JCanon”, and “JW Scholar” share the same mistake regarding the “70 Years”.
  
  Not one of them understands what the Hebrews at that time understood by “desolation”.

  If you want a modified interpretation for "desolation", fine. But COJ's issues are not at all focussed on "desolation" issues but "SERVITUDE." His position is that the 70 years actually represent 67 years (rounded up to 70) of domination by Babylon starting with the battle of Carchamish, Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest during his accession year.

  SERVITUDE. Not "desolation." SERVITUDE and Jeremiah's prophecy. Both are mentioned by Josephus at Ant. 11.1.1:

  "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon , God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

  Doug, we're all on another page than you are on this. True the WTS emphasizes the complete desolation of the land and it turns out that the land would have been abandoned and desolate after the last deportation, but the reference for the 70 years is based upon the JEWISH understanding of these 70 years which links from the last deportation, when the "people were removed out of their own land," specifically the poor people who had been left in the land and had run down to Egypt. The last deportation was in the 23rd year; Jer. 52:30. Maybe I better quote that:

  " 30 In the twenty-third year of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar, Neb·u´zar·ad´an the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls. "

  These are the ones who "escaped from the sword" of Nebuchadnezzar that came down to Egypt to kill off the rebel Jews who refused to return to Jerusalem as ordered. It was these, the last remnant of the nation who were finally deported who had to serve the full 70 years. Others, of course, that been deported at various times earlier, including Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar who had already been in exile 24 years now. When the 70 years ended he had been in exile close to 94 years, all his life. He was a youth when he was first taken over there, so perhaps 10 years old so he would have been over 100 years old. A very old and feeble man. But we know he was when he wrote parts of the Book of Daniel, particularly in the 3rd year of Cyrus where it is apparent he was very old and feeble.

  But guess what? Since Christ raises the dead, including Daniel with the voice of an "archangel" (1 Thess 4:15) meaning before he returns to the earth in human form, since the second coming occurs in 1992, it means Daniel has already been resurrected, and I happen to know his new identity. It's great being a true "insider" just before Armageddon strikes, I must say.

  So by all means, Doug, shift over your comments to SERVITUDE issues and leave the desolation issues for the WTS. Desolations comes into the pricture, of course, but with COJ you have to deal with the "servitude" issues.

  JCanon
• 

  veradico

  You seem to be interpreting the Greek adjective talaiporos to refer to poverty in a pecuniary sense, but the word refers to suffering or wretchedness. I fail to see why you think Josephus can't be understood to be referencing the period from around 605 to 537 in the _Antiquities of the Jews_, 11, and the fifty(ish) year period from 586 to 539 in the _Against Apion_ (cf. Zechariah 7:5). Then the "Bible chronology" to which you seem to be committed does not have to conflict with the "secular chronology."
• 

  oompa

  Would someone kindly tell me why anyone is interested in this information? Is it because some really want to believe the Bible is 100% accurate and divinely predicts the future? Is is because we believe ancient history is 100% verifiable? If there are no 100%'s, then what does it really matter? We can speculate ourselves to death, and never even know if what we are trying to prove or confirm is accurate. One thing I do know is that throughout history people have not changed and always try to promote what they believe, what is important to them, and generally want to cover their @ss.

  People were and still are superstitious and careless and either of these qualities could effect their writing. How could strongly religious, superstitious, and fanatical Jews be in charge of perfectly preserving a message by using perishable materials? Why not write these things down on the inside of a Pyramid or some other heavy duty structure so that all can go and see it thousands of years later? If God chose to communicate to man anything, would it not make sense to do so in an unquestionable manner? Especially if lives were important to him and lives were at stake. I so regret I spent so many years of my life researching and trying to make sense of things like this......oompa
• 

  AnnOMaly

  scholar said:

  You certainly will be confused if you accept the Jonsson hypothesis published as Gentile Times Reconsidered for it contains at least major historical blunderin connection with modern history ...

  That's interesting. What historical blunder(s) has COJ made?

  A scholarly rebuttal of Jonsson's research by Rolf Firuli is now available in two volumes dealing with secular chronologies of the ancient world and a linguistic analysis of the seventy years. Further, this recent scholarly research demonstrates the reality of a twenty-year gap between biblical chronology as endorsed by 'celebrated' WT scholars and the secular chronology proposed by Jonsson and higher critics.

  To any who are thinking of reading Furuli's book: Be very cautious. Check all the source materials you can. Don't take for granted that he really has done his homework, because on checking some of his claims out for myself, he's made some embarrassing errors.
• 

  JCanon

  You seem to be interpreting the Greek adjective talaiporos to refer to poverty in a pecuniary sense, but the word refers to suffering or wretchedness. The reference to the "poor" people is based upon the Bible, Jer. 39:10 "And some of the people, the LOWLY ONES who had nothing at all, Nebuzaradan the chief of the bodyguard let remain in the land of Judah;and he went on to give them vineyards and compulsory services on that day." So the "poor people" translation in Antiquities is a reference to these "lowly ones" with nothing who were left after the fall of Jerusalem. I fail to see why you think Josephus can't be understood to be referencing the period from around 605 to 537 in the _Antiquities of the Jews_, 11, and the fifty(ish) year period from 586 to 539 in the _Against Apion_ (cf. Zechariah 7:5). Well, for one he specifically mentions "when the people went off the land" which correlates to this reference fromAntiquities 10.9.7:

  7. And when they were there, God signified to the prophet that the king of Babylon was about making an expedition against the Egyptians, and commanded him to foretell to the people that Egypt should be taken, and the king of Babylon should slay some of them and, should take others captive, and bring them to Babylon; which things came to pass accordingly; for on the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Celesyria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned (16) and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews, as it hath been delivered down to us, it having twice gone beyond Euphrates; for the people of the ten tribes were carried out of Samaria by the Assyrians, in the days of king Hoshea; after which the people of the two tribes that remained after Jerusalem was taken [were carried away] by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and Chaldea. Now as to Shalmanezer, he removed the Israelites out of their country, and placed therein the nation of the Cutheans, who had formerly belonged to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but were then called Samaritans, by taking the name of the country to which they were removed; but the king of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, (17) placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years; but the entire interval of time which passed from the captivity of the Israelites, to the carrying away of the two tribes, proved to be a hundred and thirty years, six months, and ten days.

  Here, in the context of year 23, the final deportation, the removal of the people out of the land is linked with 70 years. Ant. 11.1.1 also mentions specifically 70 years. This is specific and also agrees with the Bible. Cyrus, on the other hand, became king twice, once in Babylon and once in Persia 20 years earlier. The difference is fifty years. Josephus mentions BOTH, a 50-year period and a 70-year period in Against Apion at 1:19 and 1:21, respectively. That is, both a 70-year period and a 50-year period in the same work. Therefore, there is no way around this. It's either a contradiction or Josephus is making reference to the time from the last deportation to when Cyrus first became king, which is 50 years. In that case, both the 50 and 70-year references are relevant to either of the two rulerships for Cyrus. The 50-year reference thus does in no way effectively dismiss the 70-year references. Then the "Bible chronology" to which you seem to be committed does not have to conflict with the "secular chronology." Well NOW the Bible doesn't conflict with secular chronology because the VAT4956 corrects it for us. The two 511 BCE references in the VAT4956 means 568 BCE is a fabrication; it's just that simple. The credible date is 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So SECULAR history itself contradicts it's own chronology and now it is no longer necessary to contrast secular vs Biblical. The Bible contradicts the chronology dating the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar in 568BCE but not 511 BCE. The cryptic date preemps the primary dating. So you can't say "secular chronology" any more, you have to quality it as "current popular secular chronology" or "VAT4956 511BCE corrected chronology," etc. In fact,that's the issue now. The VAT4956 dating to 511 BCE matches both the RELATIVE chronology and the ABSOLUTE chronology. That's important to note. That is, the relative chronology involves the 70-year period from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. When 511 BCE falls in year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE and 70 years later is 455 BCE, the pivotal absolute Biblical date for the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. So there is a new secular timeline to deal with. But even considering all that, Zechariah 1 and 7 confirms where the 70 years are. 70 years expires in the 2nd year of Darius and another 70 years 2 years later in the 4th year of Darius. Yet the Jews are still in exile asking when will God show mercy to Jersualem. Explanation? Gedaliah was killed the following year after Jerusalem fell and his mourning in the 7th month began. Per Josephus, the 70 years of "servitude" did not begin until the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of the last deportation. Thus either 70 or 72 years after the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews would still have been in exile, which is why they still are in the 2nd and 4th year of Darius. Only this is not Darius I but DARIUS, THE MEDE! The Bible is quite clear that Darius, the Mede began to rule immediately after Babylon fell. Just as some background, Daniel had been in exile since he was about ten years old. If the Jews were released the same year Babylon fell why was he still there putting up with the schemes of the Babylonian priests getting himself eventually thrown into the Lion's den? On the other hand, in the 3rd year of Cyrus we find Daniel no longer in office; in fact, apparently he could have returned to Jerusalem with Zerubabbel (Neh. 10:6). Remember, it was Daniel who was to witness the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem" which suggests he was at Jerusalem to witness when the building actually began. Bottom line, Darius the Mede ruled for six full years before Cyrus became king over the entire Medo-Persian kingdom. That's when he released the Jews, exactly 70 years after the last deportation. But again, both the SK400 and the VAT4956 correct the rule of Nebuchadnezzar to the same year, the SK400 year 7 to 541 BCE and the VAT4956 year 37 to 511 BCE. Same dating? Accident? Hardly. It explains everything! It explains why the Bible's NB period is 26 years longer and Persian Period 82 years shorter than the "popular uncorrected secular timeline." But there's more, the RC14 dating and the Egyptian timeline are in sync with 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus! So it truly depends on which timeline you are looking at in terms of the Bible. The "relative" and "absolute" chronology of the Bible matches the Egyptian dating. That is, 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus means that the Exodus occurs in 1386 BCE. That's the date for the 1st of Akhenaten per the KTU 1.78 astronomical text when dated to the solar eclipse of 1375 BCE and year 12 of Akhenaten. It also matches the fall of Jericho to 1346 BCE which falls within the archaeological dating for Jericho of 1350-1325 BCE. So basically the SECULAR TIMELINE from the time of Apophis when Joseph came into Egypt, specifically the 4th year of Apophis, down to the Exodus in the 1st of Akhenaten in 1386 BCE and all the way to Shishak's invasion dated by RC14 dating to 871 BCE is totally in sync with the Bible's chronology. But when the Assyrian Period starts and dating converts to astronomical text matching, then there is a 54-year discrepancy until the NB Period begins. Then the discrepancy is 56 years for the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. But the new chronology combines the accession year events with year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar. So from year 1 throughout the rule of Nebuchadnezzar the discrepancy is 57 years. That is what the VAT4956 reflects, two dates for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, 568 and 511 BCE, 57 years apart. But because 57 is divisible by 19, the number of years in the lunisolar cycle, the moon in both years is close to the same location, but not exactly. COJ tries to do what you suggested. Find some way to make the revised chronology work with the Bible in some way. Fine. But now there's another secular timeline to deal with. The old arguments don't work. JCanon
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 525

  The historical blunder made by Jonsson is repeated throughout the many editions of his book and concerns a dogmatic statement that John Aquila Brown in his Eventide...did not connect Luke 21:24 with the Gentile Times. Jonsson makes this allegation because the Society in the Proclaimers of God's Kingdom on page 134 says that he did connect the two.

  I wrote to Jonsson, Franz and Penton who also repeated this falsehood in their respective editions. Jonsson refused to admit to the facts that I submitted which were obtained by letter from the Writing Dept concerning the matter. Franz was stubborn and rude in his response and Penton did not reply. The facts are that Jonsson was informed as to the exact page and reference whereby the connection is plainly stated and yet Jonnson was not intellectually honest to see that he was wrong. This case study plainly demonstrates that Jonsson cannot be trusted with interpreting modern history so then how can he be trusted with interpreting ancient history especially when he is not proficient with the Semitic languages. These facts were made known to Alan F on this very forum and even he was forced to concede that an error was made.

  You claim that Furuli has made some errors in his published volumes then the correct and decent thing to do would be to write to Furuli and point such errors out. I would say that any such errors are simply typographical and due to poor proofreading. You make the claim then you should put up.

  scholar JW
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Scholar what do you make of the new light on the Generation and the WTS revising all its chronology
• 

  scholar

  stillajwexelder

  Post 13270

  You are misinformed because the Society is not or has no plans, needs to revise it Bible-based chronology, It is in the field of eschatology that the FDS has seen fit to have a another look at our understanding of the 'generation' in Mattnew 24:34. Such an endeavour proves that the FDS is indeed 'faithful and discreet' because this phrase is extremely challenging for all scholars and commentators. We were thrilled to learn that such an adjustment was to be made at the recent Annual Meeting of the Society in October and in keen anticipation of this soon to be published revision I have spent much time researching this problematic phrase at Moore Theological Library in Sydney in conjunction with my own personal theological library.

  I now see how difficult this subject is and that it has caused numerous interpretations based upon the definition of genea which have been applied to the context of Jesus' Olivet discourse. My research has led me to focus on the Hebrew word dor which has theological or metaphorical meaning of 'assembly'. This seems to fit the new understanding of 'generation' as now applied to the Church or the anointed ones, Elect. etc.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 378

  Firstly, I planned to respond to your 'fictitious dialogue' today but I will need to do that later. Now to your present post.

  Celebrated WT scholars, FDS, Governing Body and humble 'scholar' have made no mistakewith the seventy years. We believe that despite the plethora of interpretations of this event from apostates, scholars and higher critics that our traditional understanding as published in the Society's publications including the scholarly journal The Watchtower is correct.

  I have spent may decades of research on this subject and I have perused, examined critically all that is published in leading scholarly, academic journals and Bible commentaries of Cathollic, Protestant and Jewish leanings. Have you done this methodical, intellectual exercise? I think not!

  The matter of the two Hebrew words used for desolation and destruction of the land appeared years ago in the Adventist Journal, Witness now defunct. It is certainly the case that the meaning of these Hebrew terms does not automatically mean total or absolute destruction by themselves as their linguistic range is rather broad and non-specific. However, the context of those terms used by Jeremiah and the accompanying language such as 'without an inhabitant' leads one to conclude that the desolation was total and absolute with no sense of vagueness or partiality. So, your argument is weak.

  I urge you to engage in formal study on this matter of the interpretation of these Hebrew terms used not only in Jeremiah but the rest of the OT. You should use Lexicons, Theological Dictionaries such as TWOT, TDOT and NIDOTE and major technical commentaries such as Word, Anchor, ICC, Keil &Delitzsch and Hermeneia.

  I look forward to your appraisal of these matters as you certainly excell in producing well -polished work

  scholar JW
• 

  Farkel

  I see that "Bibleman", aka JCanon (and dozens of other names) continues to take a dump in someone else's threads. He's been doing that for ten years, starting on the old H20 board. He's probably upset because he can't get any new gigs dressing up like and singing Diana Ross songs.

  Farkel