Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Welcome, Recovery.

  I hope you and Londo don't mind me jumping in here.

  Nebuchadnezzar's 1st regnal year was 604 BCE (he ascended the throne in 605 BCE).

  The Jeremiah prophecy was given "in the fourth year of Je·hoi′a·kim the son of Jo·si′ah, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon" (25:1). What year would that be? Short answer: 605 BCE. The longer answer about how to arrive at this result and resolve the apparent discrepancy would involve discussing accession and non-accession counting, Nisan-Nisan and Tishri-Tishri years, cross-referencing other Bible verses and historical events, etc. Is the longer answer what you're after?
• 

  Londo111

  Ann,

  Thank you! I've quite a bit to learn from you. The more input you have, the better!

  And if Nananana decides to debate, we should be in for some fun times.
• 

  Recovery

  Thanks AnnoMaly. I just wanted to verify before I posted my argument. So according to the 609 BCE chronology, the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 was given in the year 605 B.C.E., which is the proposed date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year.

  Now let's continue with verses 8 thru 11: "“Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

  Notice that this is a prophecy of a future event. Jehoiakim's fourth year as king of Jerusalem corresponds with Nebuchadnezzar's first year under your chronology as the year of 605/604 B.C.E. However, the servitude was supposed to have begun in 609 B.C.E., four years earlier. Jerusalem could not have been under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar in 609 B.C.E. since he had not yet began ruling. This presents a list of problems with the chronology of events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, just one of them being: If 609 B.C.E. was the starting point of the nations' 70-year servitude until 539 B.C.E, then how could they possibly have been serving the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) when he had yet to begin ruling? Jeremiah 27:7 says (concerning Neb): "And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandsonuntil the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’ There is no mention of his father, who would've had been ruling in 609 BCE, everything starts with Neb.

  Also, notice Jeremiah 28. Verse 1 tells us the setting and time: "Then it came about in that year, in the beginning of the kingdom of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month,.." In verse 14 it states: "For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “A yoke of iron I will put upon the neck of all these nations, to serve Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon; and they must serve him. And even the wild beasts of the field I will give him.”’” So the 70 year servitude still had not yet begun in the fourth year of Zedekiah. Both Jeremiah 25 and 28 both show us that these events have not yet taken place.

  So the 609 theory has a fatal problem. The Bible says the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah. According to their secular chronology, this is about the year of 594 BCE, but their 70 years of servitude was supposed to have begun years earlier in 609 BCE. If the “yoke” bar of Babylonian servitude is put on immediately in the year of the last prophecy, then 70 years will bring us down to 524 BCE — some 15 years after Babylon’s rule has ended, and 15 years after the iron yoke has been removed. So it is not 70 years but only a mere 55 years.
• 

  Londo111

  Remember though that Jeremiah 25:12 fixes the endpoint of the 70 years in 539 BC. 539 BC - 70 = 609 BC.

  Therefore, it was after 609 BC, with the decisive blow to Assyria's last capital, Harran, that they became the undisputed worldpower for 70 years. Thereafter, the nations began to serve Babylon, as their influence grew more and more.

  It was a statement of fact, not a foretelling in Chapter 25...these nations must serve Babylon 70 years. They had already begun.

  Had Zedekiah NOT rebelled, had he surrendered even during the seige, had he served the King of Babylon, Jerualem wouldn't have had to be destroyed.

  Nebuchadnezzar was crown prince, and as the one on the battlefield, the more immediate personage to reckon with.
• 

  Londo111

  Daniel 1:1 says, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it."

  By the accession year method, this would have been 605 BC. So already Nebuchadnezzar was making his presence known, and Jehoiakim had become a vassal to him in that year. He also took Daniel and the youth of nobility.

  Berossus says, Nebuchadnezzar " learned of his father’s death shortly thereafter. After he arranged affairs in Egypt and the remaining territory, he ordered some of his friends to bring the Jewish, Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners together with the bulk of the army and the rest of the booty to Babylonia. He himself set out with a few companions and reached Babylon by crossing the desert."

  Daniel 2:1 says, " In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him."

  This would be the year 606 BC.
• 

  mP

  Ann:

  Nebuchadnezzar's 1st regnal year was 604 BCE (he ascended the throne in 605 BCE).

  mP:

  Ive also noticed that for Jersualem to be destroyed in 607, it must have been destroyed when N became king. I can help somebody in the WTS failed to comprehend or read properly that N waited 20 odd years before he eventually mobilsed his forces and destroyed Jerusalem. Could this whole nonsnse of this prophecy be the result of this ? I just find it ironic that the WTS using its own prophecy reading tools cant even read the scriptures or chapters they cite properly. Its one glorious screwup.
• 

  Recovery

  But I've just shown you how 609 BCE could not possibly be when the 70 year servitude begun since Nebuchadnezzar (according to your chronology) had not begun ruling until 4 years later. I do not see how anything you said debunked or directly address this statement. How can you honestly and seriously reason that Jeremiah 25 and 28 were just statements of events that had already taken place when the scriptures repeatedly use clauses and grammatical expressions that directly affirm a future occurrence.

  Jeremiah 25:8-11 "‘For the reason that YOU did not obey my words (past tense), 9 here I am sending(present tense) and I will(future tense) take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will(future tense) bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will(future tense) devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will (future tense) destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become(not has become, signifying it has not yet occurred) a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will (future tense) have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

  If if was a mere statement of facts, it would not use the future tense. You cannot describe a past event using verbs of that have a time clause describing a future event.

  Simple questions I'd like you to answer honestly:

  If 609 B.C.E. really is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem how is that Jerusalem and the other nations had been in servitude to Nebuchadnezzar when he did not begin ruling until four years later?

  Since Jeremiah 28 tells us that Jehovah told Jeremiah he would put the yoke upon the nations for 70 years during the fourth year of Zedekiah (594 BCE), how could it, at the very least, fulfilled 70 years when 594 BCE to 539 BCE does not equal 70 years?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Recovery,

  Ahh, so that's your angle.

  Well, one can always go the figurative 70 years route :-)

  Or perhaps this explanation can help:

  Isaiah's Prophecy-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre

  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-when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above "the stars of God." (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

  Londo already mentioned that Assyria was totally finished as the dominant empire in 609 BCE with the sack of Harran. So the Assyrians (despite a few revolts in the northern territories that Nabopolaasar had to squash) were already serving the king of Babylon.

  During the summer of 605 BCE, Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated Babylon's rival Egypt and swept through Palestine - even besieging Jerusalem and taking tribute (Dan. 1:1, 2). And of course, by the time the prophecy of Jer. 25 is given, Nebuchadnezzar had ascended the throne.

  The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc. (Compare Babylonian Chronicle, Obv. 18-20.)

  Similarly with Jer. 28. Hananiah was falsely prophesying (again an incitement to rebellion) that the Babylonian yoke the Jews were already under would be broken, that the exiles already in Babylon would return in a couple of years and the temple utensils restored. Not so, says Jeremiah, break the yoke you are under and you will get a far worse one. Then in ch. 29 Jeremiah does some damage limitation and sends out a letter to those exiles to say they will be there for the duration, until the "70 years for Babylon" are fulfilled.

  So none of your cited Scriptures, when taken in context, indicate that "the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah."

  You also have to remember that the nations' 70 years' servitude to Babylon was obligatory, decreed by God. Destruction of Judah's capital city and land was not a foregone conclusion - it was avoidable:

  (Jeremiah 27:12-14, 16, 17) . . .Even to Zedekiah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: "Bring YOUR necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon? And do not listen to the words of the prophets that are saying to YOU men, 'YOU will not serve the king of Babylon,' because falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. ... ... And to the priests and to all this people I spoke, saying: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Do not listen to the words of YOUR prophets that are prophesying to YOU, saying: "Look! The utensils of the house of Jehovah are being brought back from Babylon soon now!" For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place?
• 

  Recovery

  Well, one can always go the figurative 70 years route :-)

  Well, after parading around and promoting such a 'scripturally sound' argument supposedly based on God's word proving 609 BCE for months now, it's a little late to throw that explanation in there isn't it? After all, the author of the thread has affirmed that the 70 years are literal, and there's been no biblical evidence presented to show the 70 years to be figurative. I don't see how presenting the WTS view helps your argument or proves your point.

  Londo already mentioned that Assyria was totally finished as the dominant empire in 609 BCE with the sack of Harran. So the Assyrians (despite a few revolts in the northern territories that Nabopolaasar had to squash) were already serving the king of Babylon.

  Yes, of course. Babylon had already defeated Assyria as a world power in 612 BCE. 609 BCE was just the finishing blow. They were serving the king of Babylon but not Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 27:6 reads "And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

  Showing us how Babylon demolished Assyria proves nothing. Notice how the scripture says "I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb". Jehovah would not have to give anything into the hand of Neb if these nations were already subject to his father during his rule. They would fall into his hand automatically as successor and king of Babylon. The scripture mentions the nations will serve Neb, his father, and his grandson. Why no mention of a father anywhere in any scripture if the 70 year servitude, figurative or literal, started with Neb's father? Isn't that a very important detail to leave out? Surely Jehovah was so focused on Nebuchadnezzar's future conquests that he forgot about the conquests his father had already made.

  The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc. (Compare Babylonian Chronicle, Obv. 18-20.)

  So you've just admitted that the servitude of the nations Jeremiah prophesied against had not yet begun by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule, which according to secular chronology began in 608 B.C.E. However, this contradicts the argument that the 70 year servitude had begun with the defeat of Assyria in 609 B.C.E. one year earlier. According to your own words the nations had not been in servitude to the king of Babylon by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule yet your argument regarding 609 B.C.E. as the beginning of the servitude requires that they were, otherwise the 70 years could not have possibly started in 609 B.C.E. Which is it AnnoMaly?

  Similarly with Jer. 28. Hananiah was falsely prophesying (again an incitement to rebellion) that the Babylonian yoke the Jews were already under would be broken, that the exiles already in Babylon would return in a couple of years and the temple utensils restored. Not so, says Jeremiah, break the yoke you are under and you will get a far worse one. Then in ch. 29 Jeremiah does some damage limitation and sends out a letter to those exiles to say they will be there for the duration, until the "70 years for Babylon" are fulfilled. So none of your cited Scriptures, when taken in context, indicate that "the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah."

  Well it is only after Zedekiah's death that the temple of Jerusalem is destroyed and that the 70 year servitude of the nations (including Jerusalem) would begin. Jeremiah 25 makes this quite obvious. Verse 27 tells us: "And you must say to them (the nations mentioned in the preceding verses), ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Drink and get drunk and puke and fall so that YOU cannot get up because of the sword that I am sending among YOU.”’ 28 And it must occur that in case they refuse to take the cup out of your hand to drink, you must also say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies has said: “YOU will drink without fail. 29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’

  So the calamity of Babylon would be brought upon the nations after Jerusalem's desolation. That was the starting point of everything. But according to what you're saying Jerusalem and thus the nations were already under Babylonian yoke (the 70 year servitude) when the events that happened in the fourth year of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 28), while Zedekiah was still reigning. This is impossible because it is only after Zedekiah was removed as king and killed that Jerusalem was destroyed and thus the calamity was brought upon the nations.

  You also have to remember that the nations' 70 years' servitude to Babylon was obligatory, decreed by God. Destruction of Judah's capital city and land was not a foregone conclusion - it was avoidable:

  Well of course. I have never denied this. But the scriptures say the calamity started with the desolation of Jerusalem (that we know took place since it's well documented and recorded in the Bible). But I don't see how this substantiates any of your claims? Regardless of whether it was or was not a definite prophecy (being contingent on the response of the inhabitants), it still happened, and thus the 70 year servitude of the nations began with the desolation of Jerusalem.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Taking the 70 years figuratively is a valid approach and some scholars interpret it that way. The 70 years for Tyre is a case in point. But you know I was just being playful with you.

  Regarding the WTS quote on Tyre, the point I was hoping you'd go away with was that the 70 years represented Babylon's greatest domination with different nations coming under that domination at different times. Just as the WTS/GB see it that way because Tyre only came under Babylonian domination sometime AFTER Jerusalem's destruction and their starting point for the 70 years, it can also be understood the same way with the conventional chronology and a starting point of 609 BCE.

  Why no mention of a father anywhere in any scripture if the 70 year servitude, figurative or literal, started with Neb's father?

  Because when the prophecy was given, Nabopolassar was already dead and Jeremiah was warning the people of the time about how they should behave toward the Babylonian power. By the way, there is an issue with which king Jeremiah was addressing (see 27:3 and the continuation of the prophecy in 28:1). Certainly, Nabopolassar was long dead by Zedekiah's reign and Jeremiah needed to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations trying to throw off or break the Babylonian yoke. They could not be attempting to break a yoke that didn't yet exist for them.

  (Jeremiah 28:10, 11) At that Han·a·ni′ah the prophet took the yoke bar from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet and broke it. [Cf. Jer. 27:2] And Han·a·ni′ah went on to say before the eyes of all the people: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Just like this I shall break the yoke of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon within two full years more from off the neck of all the nations.'" . . .

  So you've just admitted that the servitude of the nations Jeremiah prophesied against had not yet begun by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule ...

  No I didn't admit that. See above. The context shows that the nations were wanting to throw off that yoke of servitude they were under. Jeremiah is urging them to put it on and submit.

  ... Jehoiakim's rule, which according to secular chronology began in 608 B.C.E. However, this contradicts the argument that the 70 year servitude had begun with the defeat of Assyria in 609 B.C.E. one year earlier.

  I don't see how the timing of Jehoiakim's accession to the throne contradicts the timing of Assyria's defeat and the beginning of the 70 year servitude. A non-sequitur. Anyway, Jehoiakim began to reign about the Fall of 609 BCE.

  Well it is only after Zedekiah's death that the temple of Jerusalem is destroyed and that the 70 year servitude of the nations (including Jerusalem) would begin.

  You can't seem to get past this fallacy. The 70 years servitude of the nations was not dependant on Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed. Jerusalem and its temple could have continued on quite happily until Persia came along and the nations would still have served Babylon 70 years, thus fulfilling prophecy.

  '"... For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?"'

  So the calamity of Babylon would be brought upon the nations after Jerusalem's desolation. That was the starting point of everything.

  'Calamity' is not limited to razing a city to the ground. According to the Bible's dating, and piecing in what we know from history, we can deduce that the battle of Carchemish occurred before the Jer. 25 prophecy, right? Then, was not the crippling defeat of Egypt a calamity?

  (Jeremiah 46:1, 2, 10) This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: For Egypt, concerning the military force of Phar′aoh Ne′cho the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Eu·phra′tes at Car′che·mish, whom Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Je·hoi′a·kim the son of Jo·si′ah, the king of Judah ...
  ... "And that day belongs to the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, the day of vengeance for avenging himself upon his adversaries. And the sword will certainly devour and satisfy itself and take its fill of their blood, for the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has a sacrifice in the land of the north by the river Eu·phra′tes. ...

  It can be argued, therefore, that Egypt felt the full force of God's wrath before Jerusalem did.

  And what about the siege of 597 BCE, where Jehoiachin and the royal family were forced to surrender and, along with "all Jerusalem," were taken into exile - 18,000 according to 2 Kings 24 - as well as having the temple virtually stripped of its sacred treasures? Was that not a calamity?

  Moreover, does not the fact that Nebuchadnezzar himself appointed a puppet king of his own choosing further demonstrate that the kingdom of Judah was already in servitude to Babylon BEFORE the city was destroyed 11 years later?

  Dan. 1:1f indicates that Judah's servitude to Babylon began in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when he besieged the city, took some temple treasures and some nice, young nobles back to Babylon. This would have been when Nebuchadnezzar swept through Palestine after Carchemish.

  It's also worth noting that Ashkelon was reduced to rubble at the end of 604 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year (Babylonian Chronicles). That city's calamity began long before the same fate befell Jerusalem.

  So can you see how your insistence that 'calamity' = 'Jerusalem's destruction' = 'the start of the nations' 70 year servitude' doesn't fit with the scriptural and historical facts?