by digderidoo 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
So scholar, the debate is between "Celebrated WT scholars" and blind "apostates and higher critics".
Well, I'm neither. Please prove to me that the year 537 BCE is a scriptual date. Prove to me scriptually that the Jews could not, say, have returned to Israel in 536 BCE or 535 BCE.
Unless you can do that you are disqualified because you have an internally inconsistent argument because you claim to rely solely on scripture.
The chronology of the Watchtower given in the book " Babylon the Great Has Fallen" is excellent proof they have the right christianity God Yahweh accepts today.
You cannot ignore these dates : 607 BC, 587 BC ,537 BC, 517 BC and then 457 BC and 455 BC.
If you wish you can check a usenet group alt.apocalypse and read my posts.
By using these dates we can set up the two periods for true christian religion.
7 BC - 2 BC - 29 AD-33 AD - 36 AD - 70 AD - 106 AD
455 BC + 70 weeks as 7 Times + 70 years or 420 years + 70 years = 36 AD
457 BC + 420 years + 30 or 35 years or 36 years as extra to " 7 Times" = 7 BC - 2 BC - 1 BC + 70 years = 70 AD
70 AD + 36 extra years as God's Name hides the number 72 which is two times 36 years .
You have to deeply go into how I came up with the numbers : 2772 . YAHWEH = 2772 and YAH = 72 or 27.That is why I recommend alt.apocalypse.
God's name may have two times 7 Times so we can add two times 36 years .
1879 AD-1884 AD - 1914 AD - 1950 AD - 1984 AD - 1991 AD.
To come up with the first line we must use the dates 457 BC - 455 BC.
To come up with the second that will be a copy of the first we must use the dates 607 BC ,537 BC and to come up with the prediction of the end of the world for 2011 AD we must the dates 587 BC and 517 BC.
587 BC + 70 weeks as projected into the far future:
587 BC + " 7 Times" + 70 years or as " 2520 days " and "2520 years" + 70 years = ?
587 BC - 517 BC - 2004 AD - 2011 AD
70 years + 2520 years + 2520 days
JOSEPHUS says the 70 years in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy applies to the last deportation per Ant. 11.1.1.
So basically there are three views:
1) JWs, 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem to the 1st of Cyrus.
2) Josephus, 70 years from the last deportation, year 23, to the 1st of Cyrus.
3) COJ who rounds off the 70 years to make it fit the first nation Babylon conquered.
I did a vid on the three views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIUxOsV2Rl8
JC
As far as the "nations" along with the Jews serving the 70 years. Note that this desolation was of the entire Promised Land, including Israel and Judah, so the nations and some of the cities nearby, like Tyre, were desolated as well for the 70 years. Thus in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar he likely deported the last remaining peoples in all the cities mentioned like Tyre.
Thus there is no problem to follow JOSEPHUS who dates the 70 years from the last deportation in year 23. Jer. 52:30.
JC
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on this site... Good God this is funny!
"Celebrated WT scholars have most certainly proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 607 BCE was the calender year for the Fall and the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE all because they have payed close attention to that definite historic period of seventy years".
I would humbly ask the so called scholar, exactly who there "celebrated scholars" are in the WT organization?
Awakened007-This is really important to me also, I mean, I've heard 1914 since I was a child, and almost couldn't believe it when I found out the 607 year was inaccurate. It's the cornerstone, the most damning evince that everything they say prophetically isn't true.. But I agree with you and see your point, the evidence of that is in all their failures.
What, we get no reply about the "celebrated scholars"?
BarefootServant
The date of 537 BCE is well attested in scholarship in fact to be more precise it is only the research by the 'celebrated WT scholars that has defined precisely when the Jews returned home. Scholrs are somewhat vague about the precise historical details but generally favour 537 BCE. However, this discussion is about the 'seventy years' so you should stick to the subject at hand.
scholar JW
dawg
Post 2174
The identity of the 'celebrated WT scholars' is not for you so you should not trouble yourself with such information. I would suggest that you read the Bible and the publications of the FDS.
scholar JW
Hi Dawg. Good question, "celebrated scholars"!! But I think they mean their Writing Committee and researchers. Somehow they are very proud of them, particularly putting out tne encyclopedic "Insight In the Scriptures", etc.
Awakened007-This is really important to me also, I mean, I've heard 1914 since I was a child, and almost couldn't believe it when I found out the 607 year was inaccurate. It's the cornerstone, the most damning evince that everything they say prophetically isn't true.. But I agree with you and see your point, the evidence of that is in all their failures.
But just in passing since you commented on 607 BCE being "inaccurate." That is technically true; however, it is usually said based upon all the SECULAR evidence supporting 587 BCE. What is seldom brought up, speaking in defense of the witnesses side of this, is 2 CHRONICLES 36, which clearly introduces a 70 year period of the land keeping its sabbaths. THAT is the scripture upon which JW doctrine of the 70 years hangs...
20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
JW interpret this scripture to mean a literal 70 years of desolation. Would you mind just explaining to ME, pretending I'm a witness you are talking with, how to get past the above reference to seventy years of the land keeping its sabbaths?
Basically, XJWs go on and on and on about the nations serving Babylon to 70 years, which is fine, but they are talking with themselves and not to witnesses since seldom do they weigh in on 2 Chronicles. That is, if push came to shove, JWs themselves are perfectly capable of the extended concept of manipulating the chronology. In this case, the deportaton of Daniel in the "third year of Jehoiakim" is assigned to his third year of being a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar and is actually his 11th year, thus Daniel is not said to have even been deported until the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. When Daniel interprets the dream for Nebuchadnezzar in the "second year Nebuchadnezzar" it is really the second year after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's second year being understood as his second year after the fall of Jerusalem since that would have been critically significant from a Bible's perspective. So they can be imaginative on their end too.
Thus the rejection of the 70 years of "servitude" as presented by Carl Jonsson doesn't hinge on Jeremiah 25 but on 2 Chronicles 36 about these years the land keeps it sabbaths. In support of that interpretation of the land keeping its sabbaths and being desolate, they then quote Josephus, the Jewish historian, who likewise interprets this is a literal 70 years after the last deportation. Only, again of note, Josephus assigns the literal 70 years from the LAST DEPORTATION, whereas JWs assign it the same year of the destruction of Jerusalem.
So all the "servitude" issues of the 70 years and Jeremiah doesn't really address these 70 years of the land keeping its sabbaths which is WHY Jehovah's witnesses stand firm on the 70 years. They can't get past THAT reference. It's not that they can't understand "servitude" since, in my opinion, they go beyond the "servitude" line when they actually change the year of the king in relation to that servitude.
So since you seem to have looked into this, could you please comment on how to get past 2 Chronicle's seventy years of the land keeping its sabbaths?
In other words, the years of servitude, whether they work for the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar or not, would be unrelated to the 70 years of the land keeping its sabbaths after the people were removed out of the land.
Now Carl Jonsson does discuss this but fumbles miserably. Here's a quote from GT3(4) page 223:
"By inserting two clauses from Leviticus 26, the Chronicler did not mean to say that the land enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, as this was not predicted, either by Moses or by Jeremiah. He does not tell explicitly how long it rested, only that "all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath."
This is not only a JOKE but totally circular. That's because first he notes the 70 years as predicted by Jeremiah's prophecy ends with the rule by the Persians, in which case because of his own theory about the 70 years beginning with the servitude of the nations in 605 BCE, he finds a contradiction with this scripture referring to the land paying back its sabbaths as a literal 70 years in fulfllment of Daniel. But he admits "A CURSORY reading of verse 21 give the impression that the Chronicler states that the land had enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, and that this had been predicted by Jeremiah. But Jeremiah does not speak of the seventy years in terms of allowing the land to pay off is sabbath years. In fact, there is no reference at all to the sabbath rest for the land in his book."
So even COJ agrees a "cursory reading" seems to indicate the land was desolate for 70 years. So he can't blame JWs were reading it this way as well. It clearly suggests that. The only way COJ contradicts this interpretation is to imagine the Chronicler is talking about something else unrelated and is interjecting his reference to Leviticus here and thus not meaning to really imply the 70 years is related to Jeremiah. He thus concludes (page 222) "The two clauses about the sabbath rest are, as has been observed by Bible commentators, a reference to ANOTHER PREDICTION [caps mine], found at Leviticus chapter 26."
In other words, even though the Bible clearly says that the land would rest for seventy years and it clearly notes this is related to Jeremiah's prophecy, COJ decides neither is to be read that way. Thus the seventy years is somehow "mysteriously" fulfilled in some unknown way at the end of the Persian Period, and it has nothing to do with Jeremiah but with Leviticus interjected here. And the basis for this conclusion is because of his OWN theory that the 70 years relate to the servitude of the nations from 605BCE. So he uses his own unproven interpretation to actually directly contradict scripture. COJ's theory about the servitude is what has to be established, it hasn't yet, and therefore, cannot be used to contradict the Bible. In fact, the Bible is actually here CONTRADICTING HIM!
What really makes this a total JOKE is Josephus. Now if it is so otherwise obvious that the 70 years of servitude in fulfillment of Jeremiah begins with the conquering of these nations and not in relation to the desolation of the land, then why did Josephus get confused by this also? He is a Jewish historian reflecting BOTH Biblical interpretation and Jewish traditional secular history. What is amazing though, is when Josephus relates this reference, he also specifically mentions Jeremiah's prophecy and assigns that to the SERVITUDE of the last deportees.
Remember, only one group can actually serve "70 years." There are many deportations!!! So just who serves these full 70 years is one of our beginning questions. JOSEPHUS assigns it clearly to the last deportees at Ant. 11.1.1, worth qouting here:
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.
Meaning? Meaning the ONLY technical issue we need to harmonize to have Jeremiah's prophecy fulfilled by the seventy years of the land lying desolate is whether or not in year 23 Nebuchadnezzar deported any other nations or captives. In fact, that's not even necessary as long as the nations were in servitude at least 70 years from the time of year 23. That is, say if Tyre went into exile in year 20, which Josephus suggests after a 13-year siege beginning year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar. They would have already been in exile and servitude as many of the Jews were already in servitude and exile. So when the 70 years began for the last deportees of the Jews, this 70 years of servitude would apply to them as well. That is, they would not be released before that seventy years were fulfilled. Thus EVERYBODY, regardless of when they were deported, would serve these last 70 years before the 1st of Cyrus.
Thus 2 Chronicles 36 is simply confirming that the SERVITUDE and the DESOLATION are linked with the land paying back its sabbaths. Thus COJ would be seen as disingenuous for noting there is no mention of the "land paying back its sabbaths" anywhere in the entire book of Jeremiah, when Jeremiah clearly talks about the DESOLATION of the land. Thus the DESOLATION and "laying desolate" is where Jeremiah gets connected. 2 Chronicles just adds the concept that while desolate the land would be paying back its sabbaths.
So the Jeremiah reference is to the "desolation" prophesied by him, not specifically paying back sabbaths, which COJ uses to suggest the Chroicler is talking about a separate reference in Leviticus. That's why COJ is a JOKE! No JW is going to by this phony argument. The level of stupidity is too high. He's asking way too much of anyone with third-grade education here.
SO HOW IS THIS FULFILLED? Easily. You just ACCEPT that the Babylonians changed their chronology and removed 26 years from the NB timeline. Then you harmonize the 70 years of servitude and desolation of the land together. Which makes since. Once the last people are deported off the land then the land can enjoy a complete rest. Plain. Simple. And historical! This is the traditional secular Jewish interpretation of the seventy years of "servitude" as prophesied by Jeremiah.
Since COJ doesn't and can't address this and maintain his theory of the 70 years, which falls apart the moment he suggests he wants to round off the 70 years to a lesser number anyway, we have to dismiss COJ's argument totally. It just doesn't work and he cuts way to many corners to make his argument work.
On the other hand, if you follow the Bible's timeline specifically and reject the current NB timeline, which was revised by the Persians, then everything is completely fulfilled. The 70 years do end in the 1st of Cyrus, after 70 years of literal servitude of the last deportees, which effected the land being laid desolate.
The 607 BCE fall of Jerusalem, though, is still technically "inaccurate" because of two things (1): The 70 years begin with the last deportation in year 23 and not the fall of Jerusalem in year 18/19, and (2) 537 BCE is not the Biblical date for the 1st of Cyrus but 455 BCE is.
Thus when 455 BCE is used to date the 1st of Cyrus, the 70 years begin in 525 BCE. That means year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 511 BCE, and that is precisely the date we find in the VAT4956 which contains BOTH dates for year 37, the revised and the original. That gives us all the confidence we need not only that the NB timeline was revised, but that, indeed, the original dating is in complete agreement with the Bible's dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.
Thus COJ's position is one to try to salvage the revised chronology and try and validate the secular Babylonian records. Which is his choice. He does not succeed, however, in harmonizing this if he has to change 70 years to 66 years or some other number, and when he uses his own unproven supposition to contradict the Bible, or he uses the Babylonian secular records to contradict the Bible. Only now, the VAT4956 confirms the revision and original chronology, dating year 37 to 511 BCE, another topic COJ does not address in his book and has since to comment on.
DAWG: So again, just out of curiosity, if you got this far, could you please tell me how you get past 2 Chronicles 36? The land paying back its sabbaths? I'm curious. I think the scripture speaks for itself, but maybe I'm missing something. If you do conclude as COJ does that this is being misread by the witnesses, would you also comment on Josephus claiming the 70 years began with the last deportees? Thanks.
My reason for asking is that I think you read COJ's book and his conclusions seemed reasonable, and there is clearly an abundant amount of Babylonian records supporting the current timeline, both relative and absolute, that is, until the VAT4956 was discovered to contain double dating. All that's changed now. You have to come to your conclusion without contradicting scripture though. And you have to do it without rounding down 70 years. That's OUT and will always be out. That's COJ's unilateral wet dream to think 70 years can be fulfilled by close to 70 years. That's why he is not taken seriously by serious Biblicalists. He's a nice guy but amounts to a lot of talk and handwaving to fool the gullible and less informed. Similar to the WTS tactics, of course, but on the other side of the fence.
Anybody can jump in on this if they want. I'm taking the semi-JW position on this and the true reason they introduce these 70 years instead of the MISREPRESENTED reason by COJ with an emphasis on Jeremiah rather than 2 Chronicles.
Thanks!
JC
P.S. You know, every time I see this topic and nobody ever mentions Josephus or 2 Chronicles, I just get the idea that they need to remind themselves of their own self-deception every now and then. Just close the door to the closet and close your eyes and hold tightly onto COJ's "Gentile Times Revisited" with all their might, hoping that will do the trick for the NB chronology problem and the 70 years.
Carl Olof Jonsson has provided XJWs with a very well-written and detailed book about Bible chronology focussing on the Neo-Babylonian Period. One of his key discussions is the 70 years of "servitude" issue, which he assigns to years of servitude by the nations first conquered by Babylon. That's cool. But he can't do that without ROUNDING DOWN 70 to 66 years.
That's FUNNY.
66 years is supposed to fulfill 70 specific years?
SORRY, COJ, NOT THIS WEEK.
The reason this is absolutely 70 years is related to the 390 years of error for Israel and 40 years of error for Judah (Ezk 4). You see, when you combine 390 and 40 you get 430 years. Basically each tribe carried an error of 39 years for the 10 tribes and Judah 40 years since it ruled slightly longer. But if you divide 430 by the agricultural sabbaths of 7 and 50 years you get the total of 70. Watch:
430 divided by 7 is 61.4
430 divided by 50 is 8.6
61.4 and 8.6 = 70
Neat, huh!!!! Yep. Therefore, as much as we'd like to round off those 70 years down to 66 or 18 or 25 or 2 or some other number COJ thinks appropriate to fulfill this 70-year prophecy, it is clear 70 years is inherent to other chronology and it's quite specific, not tht the Bible doesn't provide precise dating.
Further the VAT4956 confirms the RELATIVE DATING of when the 70 years occurs per JOSEPHUS though not the WTS. How so?
Because the VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. That means the last deportation in year 23 would occur in 525BCE. 70 years later would date the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. The Bible assigns the fulfillment of the "70 weeks" prophecy to Cyrus in 455 BCE, that is 483 years before the baptism of Christ in 29 CE. So the VAT4956 supports a 70 year period beginning in year 23. The WTS would date the 70 years beginning with the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 or 18 which is 4-5 years earlier and that would contradict the VAT4956 dating as well as Josephus.
Thus there are 74 years from the fall of Jerusalem when dated to year 19 until the 1st of Cyrus, and 70 years exactly from the last deportation, just as the Bible says.
It used to be said that the Bible and secular history contradict, but that has to be qualified now with the VAT4956 sporting both dates for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE and 511 BCE. Astrographs for the 511 BCE dating can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZ09dVfpbU
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUd_ioV0t2c
What is really nice is that archaeologists have so completely narrowed the dating down for Shishak's invasion, using RC14 dating as well as archaeology that it is clear Solomon is dated too early, but specifically 54 years too early, which is the discrepancy revealed in the VAT4956's 568 vs 511 BCE dating. These 57 years adjust with the eclipses during the Assyrian Period of 709 vs 763 BCE.
So now there is even more confirming the Bible's timeline for the 1st of Cyrus falling in 455 BCE. Even the fall of Jericho specifically dated by Kathleen Kenyon agrees with the 455 BCE chronology. The Exodus occurs 19 jubilees prior to the return from Babylon and thus in 1386BCE. Kathleen Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
The "third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. is 1350-1325 BC.
Jericho was conquered 40 years after the Exodus and thus in 1346 BCE. 1346 BCE, of course falls within the archaeological range of Kenyon for this event. Further, the city was not occupied for over 400 years as the Bible reports as well which archaeology confirms.
So NOW in the contest of all those clay tablets and records, you have to deal with RC14 dating of increased accuracy to less than 10 years as well as the general archaeological timeline from the time of the fall of Jericho down to the time of Solomon. RC14 dating dates Shishak's invasion in 871 BCE which would fall in year 39 of Solomon. Based on the Exodus occurring in 1386 BCE Solomon's 39th year would fall in 871 BCE because his rule would be dated from 910-870 BCE. Solomon's 4th year is exactly 480 years after the Exodus, when the temple began to be built.
1386-480=906BCE giving a rule of 910-870 BCE.
So for those who like the SECULAR and SCIENTIFIC end of things in comparison to the Bible, there is more to consider now contradicting the NB records which we presume to have been revised since we know it directly contradicts both the Bible and Josephus. But the archaeological record and dating now in place completely agree with the Bible's timeline for dating Solomon 910-870 BCE and the Exodus to 1386 BCE.
PLUS we have 1947 as a "pivital date"!!! JWs use the secular date of 539 BCE as their "pivotal date" for dating everything. But the return of the Jews ends the "gentile times" and also celebrates the 70th week jubilee. That jubilee has to harmonize with the Exodus though, which it does. It would date the Exodus to 1386 BCE, the precise dating we get using 455 BCE synchronisms.
So now those arguments about the 587 BCE chronology is more challenged, not that that argument did best when critical references were omitted in the discussion, like the double-dating in the VAT4956 or Josephus clearly dating the 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus.
BUT ultimately, it seems some will insist, like JWs or those wanting to believe in the reliability of the secular Babylonian records above the Bible, that some, like MARTIN ANSTEY hold out for the Bible being the ultimate and last word in history and chronology. That position has paid off now with now more secular evidence revealing the original timeline when everything is considered, including the recent advancements in RC14 dating methodology.
So God's word is true and now we can use science and secular references as well to correct the revisions. The VAT4956 alone proves 568BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar was fabricated and then provides us with the original dating, which is 511 BCE. So its basically over for the informed.
But like I said, I think after the shock of knowing you're wrong, some people go into denial and just repeat their own arguments over and over in a self deluding and self-reassuring manner.
All I can do, after laughing, is post the STRICT BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY concept which follows Martin Anstey so people reading this material will have a choice and not think everything presented is all there is.
