70 years = 607?

by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  davegod

  Holy cow he is a Russelite! I thought they were all dead.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  ............
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  ............
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  ................
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Sorry, these pages don't show up easily. Yeah, they are Russelites, which makes (fake) Scholar a highly ironic charecter in these parts...
• 

  allelsefails

  I am free! I can post again. Now 100 at a time no more 10/24hr rule. Yeh me. I would love it if Scholar would answer my questions directly with any sense. Having given up on this it is safe to say: ..... 1) There is no scriptural connection between "70 years" and the "Gentile times" or Nebs 7 years of insanity. (unless you say "obviously there is" then of course that can't be argued with) .... 2) The arguements against this are nonense and Scholar has proven to me better than anyone else ever has that the WTS has no facts to back it up, just "trust us we're the FDS". No one agrees with us, but thats OK because we rely on Real research only when it benefits our position and ignore it the rest of the time.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Leolaia,

  Thank you for your lucid summation. I will seek the article you refer to.

  I am wondering, and probably did not express myself adequately, whether their actions with the texts reveal their motives and in this way show us their attitude towards the cause of the captivity. We know what the Watchtower says is the reason for the destruction of the Temple, but I want to see if we can show the Hebrews' explanation for their condition, and whether this contradicts the WTS's opinion.

  I wonder if the manner in which the material was written/edited by them shows us that they were blaming their condition on the fact that the people were not lsitening to the message which had been given by them and their predecessors.

  Can this be shown through comparing the various traditions (MT, LXX, and their variants)?

  We have problems since history is controlled by those who write it, and we appear to have access only to the material produced by the city elite class and not by the "people of the land" class.

  A young boy and his grandfather were walking together across the desert sand. The young boy broke the silence, asking, “Grandfather, they say that the lion is the king of the jungle, don’t they?”

  “That’s true”, was the reply.

  “Then why in all of the books is the lion killed by a man?”

  “That’s because the lion didn’t write the book”.
• 

  BarefootServant

  Scholar said:

  537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.

  538 BCE IS A BETTER DATE AS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED.
• 

  Leolaia

  I can send you the Applegate paper, just PM me your email.

  I wonder if the manner in which the material was written/edited by them shows us that they were blaming their condition on the fact that the people were not lsitening to the message which had been given by them and their predecessors.

  Well, that's the case in the book of Jeremiah as a whole. The prophet Jeremiah was in a real sense a political activist who sought to persuade the king and the people that the course they were taking against Babylon was a ruinous one. He never wavered from that conviction, but the details of what would actually happen changed in response to changing historical realities. Read the first several chapters of the book to see what I mean. The differences between the MT and the LXX in ch. 25 are intelligible in this respect.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  After begging “Scholar” (MD post 181):

  Scholar! Wait! Before you run off again, please oh please oh please oh please explain how you can show from the Bible ONLY, that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era. You have a start by showing that the exiles returned 70 years later. Can you establish that the return was 537 years before the common era using only the Bible? PLEASE?

  Scholar replied (1664):

  Your question is too easy for starters if you want scriptural proof for 537 BCE for the Return then you only need to read the last few verses of 2 Chronicles and then proceed to read Ezra 1:1 until 3:1. This contains all of the esential historical and chronological data that you need. Enjoy the feast. (emphasis added)

  BTW, no where does the verses cited mention 5 centuries of time.

  Now “Scholar” says (post 1716):

  537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up.

  So, where does that leave us?

  Ø After repeatedly asking scholar to “Prove that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era,”

  Ø Scholar repeatedly claims that this is an easy thing to do… BUT

  Ø Never produces… THEN

  Ø “Scholar” finally admits that he needs “secular evidence” to do it.

  “Scholar”, how can you expect me, or anyone else, to take you seriously when you have been entirely unable to make good on your grandiose claims? You said both that you can do it using the Bible only, and that it can’t be done using the Bible only. Why should we believe anything you say?