YoYo: proof?

by cynicus 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • cynicus
    I have no further comment regarding the 607 BCE and the 539 BCE date. I will have to do some more research on that subject.

    This is indeed worrying. You stated that this was an easy subject. And now it isn't so easy after all. What it shows is that the depth of your research most certainly hasn't resulted in PROOF TO YOURSELF that what the Watchtower and the organisation publishing it, has taught, and still teaches, you and many others.

    Yet you want to discuss topics that are even more complicated than this one. And your comments reflect that you do not understand how 539 is just one of the lower cards in Watchtower doctrinal house-of-cards and what its effect might be on for example the teachings about 1914. You don't grasp that by understanding the REAL TRUTH about 539 and the derived datings, almost all Watchtower time-magic goes up in puff of real truth, and that it for example invalidates all doctrines that they have tied to the events that supposedly happened, visible or invisble, in 1914, whether it is Daniel 2, Malachi 3, Matthew 24, or the whole Revelations-shebang.

    You might conclude that your beloved anointed friend or relative isn't living in the heaven. You might conclude that there is no paradise waiting around the corner. And since the Watchtower made you believe that your religion is not some hat for Sundays but a way of life, you might conclude that you've lived a lie. It might even make you conclude that the GOVERNING BODY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WHO THEY CLAIM THEY ARE since their sheer existence is based on the 1914 doctrine. If that is somehow invalidated the whole organisational part of the WTBS turns out to be a fraud, not to speak about their sometimes damaging doctrine for millions during the last fifty or sixty years, or their shameful treatment of so many. These are very serious conclusions, and they may shock you profoundly. They will probably change your life completely once you accept them. They will bring freedom but accompanied with tremendous pain caused by the shunning of your former friends and loved ones.

    Many here have gone this path. At first we turned our heads in disbelief, we branded it 'apostate' and we brushed it all away. Yet some of us recognized the logic and truthfulness of some of this so called 'apostate' material. We started to do some research, we asked questions to those whom we respected for their knowledge and wisdom. Yet we didn't get any answers. Our honest questions were brushed off, we were told to wait for Jehovah or similar claptrap. Some of us indeed decided to wait, to wait for long years and continued to be loyal. But the answers never came, yet more questions arose. Some decided to write to the org it self or contact some org brass they knew or met. That didn't help much either. Instead some were accused of not being loyal and having no respect for holy things. Some were disfellowshipped, others decided to disassociate.

    There's nothing 'easy' in this topic, Yoyo. Actually it is only the first step on a probably sad path to freedom. If you decide to walk it you can find a lot of help and comfort here. If you don't and just continue to ridicule and fight those that have more respect for real truth than you, that's okay too. There are enough worthy opponents here for that.

    You had --- and far as I am concerned still have --- an excellent opportunity here to prove your beliefs and to back up your bold statements. Answer questions 5) and 6) and I will continue spoonfeeding you more truth about 'the truth'. Until then you're no longer a credible and worthy discussion opponent, especially not in more complex doctrinal issues than just this 'simple' one --- this according to your own saying.

    Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.

  • JanH


    It is also derived from what has happened since the year 1914, no one can deny that.

    I both can and will deny that. What exactly since 1914 has supported JW doctrines & chronology?

    - Jan
    "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

  • Lionel_P_Hartley


    I get it; you have given up on the chronology yet you know that 1914 is derived through Bible chronology even though you can't do it. But, you CAN defend your faith. Then you resort to threats alomg the lines of "my God is bigger that your God" and will soon settle matters!

    If that is defending your beliefs then show me a man who hasn't a clue.

    Any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

  • AlanF

    YoYo said:

    : I have no further comment regarding the 607 BCE and the 539 BCE date. I will have to do some more research on that subject.

    You do that. When you're done, you'll find that everything I've told you is correct.

    : Now regarding Daniel Chapter 4:

    YoYo, there is no "double fulfillment" of any prophecy given in Daniel 4. The words are clear: Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream as a prophecy that would be fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. It was fulfilled. End of story.
    : Is that all there is to the matter?

    Yes. The speculations you engage in below are just that -- speculation and bald assertion. You've given no proof of anything -- just regurgitated standard Watchtower nonsense that we're already very familiar with.

    : There is no basis for doubt that Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the heaven-high tree was prophetic, it being inspired by Jehovah God.

    Right, and as I've said, the prophecy was completely fulfilled. Going beyond what is written, like you're doing, needs absolutely solid proof, not the mere musings of a group of men all of whose prophetic speculations have failed. All one has to do in order to see how horrible JW leaders have been in trying to speculate is to look at the many whacked-out ideas they've published as "God's truth" and then abandoned. For example, we have whacky interpretations of Revelation given in the 1917 Finished Mystery book, the 1930s Light and Vindication series, the infamous Babylon the Grape Has Fallen of 1963, the 1969 book Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, and finally the 1988 Revelation Climax book. They just keep going and going and going.

    : But is the dream's fulfillment limited to that ancient fulfillment on the person of one man, King Nebuchadnezzar,


    : for him to learn a lesson regarding rulership?

    Not only him, but whoever reads the account. Remember that Nebuchadnezzar was so powerful that the nations around Babylon must have thought him invincible. God's bringing him low would have been a great joke on God's part, and a humiliating lesson for the Babylonians.

    : Is it through his personal experience that the purport of Jehovah's dealing with him is achieved, namely, "that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind"? (Daniel 4:17)

    Of course, because that's precisely what the words say. The whole thing is focused on Nebuchadnezzar, and obviously he and his subjects and later readers of Daniel were supposed to learn a lesson from his experience. Look at the sequence of statements (from the NIV):

    17 "... that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes."

    26 "The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules."

    32 "Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men."

    34 "... Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him."

    35 "... He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth."

    37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the And those who walk in pride he is able to humble."

    It's very simple: the king boasted, he was humbled, he acknowledged God as the Most High. And since the Bible is supposed to be God's Word to all mankind, the recorded story proves that God is able to humble or raise up whomever he pleases.

    : By setting up over the kingdom of mankind "even the lowliest one of mankind" does the Most High God set up over mankind the lowest grade of rulership over mankind?

    Apparently what you're trying to claim is that the phrase "he gives it and he sets up over it" in Dan. 4:17 is a prophecy that God would at some far future time give rulership over the entire "kingdom of mankind" to "the lowliest one of mankind", but what you've actually done is to misrepresent what the scripture says by changing the phrase "lowliest one of mankind" into "lowest grade of rulership". This type of argument, besides being blatantly dishonest, is what is called a "strawman", because you've set up an easily knocked down argument that does not represent the actual argument. Having set up your strawman, you proceed to knock it down:

    : Evidently not! (Daniel 4:36, 37)

    Since you've only knocked down a strawman, there is no need to comment further.

    Now, in case you want to claim that what the scripture actually says still applies, rather than your silly strawman, namely, that God did not set up a rulership of "the lowliest one of mankind" over the entire "kingdom of mankind" in Daniel's day, that won't work either in claiming that the JW interpretation of all this stuff is correct. The problem is their claim that Jesus was once "the lowliest one of mankind" and that he was set up over the entire "kingdom of mankind" in 1914. Jesus never even came close to being "the lowliest one of mankind". He certainly was never in a wildman, crazy state like Nebuchadnezzar was for awhile. So the JW argument falls flat here as well.

    : So Nebuchadnezzar's dream must have a further fulfillment.

    I've shown why this is not possible.

    : The heaven-high, life-sustaining tree of the dream symbolized the UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY of the Most High, Jehovah God, particularly in its relationship with our earth.

    This is a claim without foundation. You haven't given a single valid argument. Therefore there is no need for me to comment on most of what you said after this.

    : For how long was this debased appearance of Jehovah's Universal Sovereignty to continue? For "seven times," which were prophetically illustrated by the "seven years" of Nebuchadnezzar's dethronement for him to live like a beast of the field.

    The Bible does not say that Nebuchadnezzar lived like a beast for "seven years". Dan. 4:16 speaks of seven times. What is a "time"? No one knows, but historical evidence proves that it cannot be a standard year. Why? Because there are enough cuneiform documents from the period that show Nebuchadnezzar engaging in various activities to cover pretty much his entire reign, and there are no gaps of seven years. Indeed, the longest gap, if I remember right, is two or three years. This of course casts no aspersions on the Biblical record -- it only disproves yet another claim of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    : So my question to you is, how much time do "seven times" cover?

    See above. They certainly don't cover a period of 2,520 years, since that figure is based on a long string of interpretations, none of which has more than a fanciful basis.


  • YoYoMama


    “Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C.” (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852)

    “When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas.”—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.

    “In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great.”—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.

    “Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C.”—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.

    “The Persians took the city in 539 B.C.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 10)

    “In 539 B.C., the Persians conquered Babylonia.” (Ibid., p. 13)

    “Nabonidus, the last king of Chaldean Babylonia, who reigned from 555 to 539 B.C.”—Ibid, p. 193.

    “The downfall of Lydia prepared the way for a Persian attack on Babylonia. The conquest of that country proved unexpectedly easy. In 539 B.C. the great city of Babylon opened its gates to the Persian hosts.”—Ancient History, Hutton Webster, 1913, p. 64.

    “In 539 B.C. Babylon, too, was captured by Cyrus.”—The Story of the Ancient Nations, W. L. Westermann, 1912, p. 73.

    “In 539 B.C., however, Cyrus advanced for the conquest of Babylonia. . . . Sippar was taken without a blow and, two days later, the van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon.”—History of the Hebrews, F. K. Sanders, 1914, p. 230.

    “It is not likely that there was a long interval between his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] death and the fall of the Chaldean Empire before the onslaught of Cyrus in 539.”—The Biblical Period, W. F. Albright, Reprinted from The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, 1955, p. 49.

    “Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people.”—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.

    “Nebuchadnezzar had surrounded Babylon with huge walls, but after the defeat of Belshazzar’s army the city surrendered with slight resistance in 539 B.C.”—World History at a Glance, Reither, 1942, pp. 28, 29.

    “When the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, Babylon opened its gates to Cyrus in 539 B.C. without opposition.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p. 335.

    “In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (B. C. 539), Cyrus captured Babylon.”—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopœdia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fallows, 1913, Vol. 1, p. 207.

    “Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C., added the Babylonian to the other empires which he had acquired and consolidated with magical ease and celerity.”—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 1926, p. 91.

    “The city [Babylon] was taken by surprise B. C. 539.”—The Universal Bible Dictionary Peloubet, 1912, p. 69.

    “539 B.C. marked the collapse of Semitic hegemony in the ancient Orient, and the introduction of Aryan leadership which continued for at least a thousand years. This conquest of Babylon by Cyrus laid the foundation for all the later developments under Greek and Roman rule.”—Darius the Mede, Whitcomb, 1959, Introduction, p. 2.

    “It was Cyrus, also, who conquered Babylon in the year 539 B.C. and thus became master of Mesopotamia and Syria.”—Ancient and Medieval History, Hayes and Moon, 1930, p. 92.

    “Nabonidus (Nabunaid) . . . was the last King of Babylon (555-539 B.C.).”—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 184.

    “In 539 the kingdom of Babylon fell to Cyrus.”—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 3397.

    “The Chaldean Empire, with its capital at Babylon (Second Babylonian Empire), lasted, . . . until 539 B.C., when it collapsed before the attack of Cyrus.”—The Outline of History, H. G. Wells, 1921, p. 140.

    “Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B. C.”—The International Standard Bible Encyclopœdia, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 367.

    “In the year 539 Cyrus conquers the city Babylon, Babylonia becomes a province of the Persian Empire.”—Translated from the German Bibel-Lexikon, edited by Herbert Haag together with associates, printed in Switzerland, in 1951. See page 150 under Babylonia.

    End of argument.

  • JanH



    Right. No doubt, really, about that issue. So why not quote the same sources when they say Jerusalem fell in 586/7?

    - Jan
    "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

  • AlanF

    : End of argument.

    What a joke! There never was any argument in these threads that Babylon didn't fall in 539 B.C.E.

    Now, YoYo, go back to those same references and post what they say about the dates of the first and second falls of Jerusalem. You won't find any support for the Watchtower dates.


  • YoYoMama

    This type of argument, besides being blatantly dishonest, is what is called a "strawman"

    You must be kidding, right? Your blind man, open your eyes, or has Jehovah clouded your mind?

    This scripture is being fulfilled in you:
    2 Chronicles 32:4
    “Accordingly many people were collected together, and they went stopping up all the fountains and the torrent that floods through the middle of the land, saying: “Why should the kings of As·syr'i·a come and actually find a great deal of water?””;

    The waters of kingdom truths do not flow for the benefit of opposers.

  • YoYoMama

    Yes, there are references to the 586/7 date, but that would not match Bible chronology that says that the Jews were captive for 70 years, because that would bring us to the year 516/517. Therefore, Biblically it makes sense to place 539 as a pivotal date instead of 586/587.

  • AlanF

    You're just going around in circles now, DoDo. I'm done with you. You've proved yourself as dishonest as the Governing Body -- which is about as dishonest as anyone can get.


Share this