But the tree cannot represent Jerusalem's desolation. It firstly represents Nebuchadnezzar and secondarily the Babylonian world power. If 7 times has any secondary application it relates to world rulership authorised by God. The 7 times is not calculable, it just means completeness of time passing for the outworking of God's purpose regarding world rulership. The 7 times began with Babylon's demise in 539BCE when a 'holy watcher' pronounced mene mene tekel parsin on the night of Babylon's (Belteshazzar's) overthrow, and it ends when world rulership is given to Jesus Christ.
Seven times
by Jeffro 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
But the tree cannot represent Jerusalem's desolation. It firstly represents Nebuchadnezzar and secondarily the Babylonian world power. If 7 times has any secondary application it relates to world rulership authorised by God. The 7 times is not calculable, it just means completeness of time passing for the outworking of God's purpose regarding world rulership. The 7 times began with Babylon's demise in 539BCE when a 'holy watcher' pronounced mene mene tekel parsin on the night of Babylon's (Belteshazzar's) overthrow, and it ends when world rulership is given to Jesus Christ.
That interpretation can be discounted because it relies on the magical thinking, "world rulership given to Jesus Christ", and referring to "MENE MENE TEKEL PARSIN" as the name of someone/something has no basis whatsoever. It is far more likely that if there is any meaning other than a tale about Nebuchadnezzar, that it related to something the author's audience were already familiar with. The statements in Leviticus (to which Daniel refers elsewhere, and to which Jeremiah also refers) are a perfect candidate. However, it is also possible that the period doesn't refer to anything at all.
-
Jeffro
The 7 times began with Babylon's demise in 539BCE when a 'holy watcher' pronounced mene mene tekel parsin
referring to "MENE MENE TEKEL PARSIN" as the name of someone/something has no basis whatsoever
(Either the earlier comment by yadda yadda 2 was edited after I responded, or I misread 'pronounced' as 'named'.)
-
yadda yadda 2
Its not much more 'magical thinking' than the vision of the statue of gold, which is about future world powers. Much of the book of Daniel is about the advance of world empires until the son of man assumes world control. So its not unreasonable to suspect that the tree may have a similar symbolic meaning.
-
Jeffro
Its not much more 'magical thinking' than the vision of the statue of gold, which is about future world powers. Much of the book of Daniel is about the advance of world empires until the son of man assumes world control. So its not unreasonable to suspect that the tree may have a similar symbolic meaning.
Except that those other 'visions' aren't really about future world powers and none of them have anything to do with Jesus whatsoever. The 'visions' are only accurate up until the time of writing in the 2nd century BCE. You conclusion about the 'tree' is based on a false premise, and can therefore be discounted.
-
Larsinger58
Okay, all of this is so confusing. But I will add another version to this since many are enjoying discussing this.
REVISED HISTORY, 455 BCE VIEW
1. Leolaia claims Herodotus calls "Labynetus" = Nebuchadnezzar. This is only because the revised history ends up dating a famous eclipse, that of Thales, to a revised date in 585 BCE (reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, year 20, revised history) rather than 478 BCE, year 2 of Nabonidus, Biblical timeline). This eclipse was famous because it was predicted by Thales. Now in the 455 BCE version of this history, Nabonidus rules for 19 years, 17 years of which was co-ruled by his son, Belshazzar. Records confirm that Nabonidus left the throne to his son in his third year, thus there were only 2 years of sole rule by Nabonidus. In this reference by Herodotus, this famous eclipse caused a peace agreement between Lydia and the Medes and this peace agreement was mediated by "Labynetus" who was king of Babylon at the time. So once you realize there was revision of the Neo-Babylonian records, this famous eclipse would have to have a match when Labynetus was on the throne during his two-year co-rulership.
Per the 455 BCE chronology, which dates the 1st of Cyrus that year, Darius the Mede rules for 6 years just prior to the rule by Cyrus. Thus Darius the Mede rules from 461-455 BCE. The fall of Babylon would have occurred the year before in 462 BCE, which would be the last year of the 19-year rule of Nabonidus. Perhaps Herodotus calls Belshazaar "Labynetus II" because in the revised history, 2 years were removed from the rule of Nabonidus, assigning him a 17-year rule. Be that as it may, the 19-year rule of Nabonidus would have begun in 480/479 BCE. His 2-year sole reign on the throne would have been from 480/479 to 479/478 BCE. This would be the short period where we would look for this famous, predictable eclipse by Thales, an eclipse which he predicted would occur over Ionia. The redated eclipse in 585 BCE does not occur over Ionia.
Now, in those days the only type of predictable eclipse known to the ancient historians was an exegismal eclipse pattern that occurred 54 years and 1 month apart and approximately 8-9 degrees farther north. That would mean the predicting ecliipse track would have been observed over Egypt where Thales studied astronomy for 7 years. Thus the way Thales was able to predict this eclipse wasn't a prediction at all. He found out about an upcoming predictable eclipse from the Egyptians who were expecting one over Ionia based on the one they experied 54 years and 1 month earlier in 532 BCE. So Thales, simply "warned" the Ionians about this upcoming eclipse and when it happened he became famous for "predicting it." The 585 BCE eclipse which was the redated eclipse for the revised history is not a predictable eclipse. But an eclipse in early 478 BCE is a perfect match for this predictable eclipse occurring over Ionia. As noted, this eclipse event does fall late in the 2nd year of Nabonoidus when he was still sole ruler on the throne and thus there to negotiate this peace agreement caused by the eclipse. So in the 455 BCE Biblical timeline for this period, this predictable eclipse is now used to confirm that Nabonius was ruling in early 478 BCE. So because of the direct relevance here of matching this famous eclipse to the reign of Nabonidus, it is quite dismissible that, as some claim, Herodotus was referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
But more pertinent, perhaps, is the fact that Herodotus' history only reflects the first revision of the Persian Period. The Persian history was revised twice using Greek historical propagandists, like Herodotus and Xenophon. Herodotus lived down into the beginning of the Peloponnesian War and reflected the revised history of 30 years added to the reign of Darius I, expanding the Persian Period by 30 years, adding 30 years to the 6-year rule of Darius I (Ezra 6:13,14). But this revision was partially adjusted by removing some 26 years from the Neo-Babylonian kings, so there is a 4-year mismatch in the timeline. This is why Darius I, who died at Marathon and which sparked that conflict, mysteriously dies 4 years later. But after that the revised and true timelines are in sync and that is reflected by Herodotus by another eclipse which occurs during the year of Xerxes' invasion in 424 BCE. The second revision was mastered by Xenophon along with his friends Plato and Aristotle who added an additional 58 years to the Greek timeline. But this was long after the death of Herodotus. That second revision is what distorts the Neo-Babylonian timeline by 58-57 years during the time of Nebuchadnezzar II. This distortion is where an eclipse in 585 BCE, which is not an exact match to the eclipse Herodotus mentions nor is a predictable eclipse is dated by historians now, which occurs during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, which is totally incidental to the revision, having nothing to do with who was reigning at Babylon at the time. So in no way was Herodotus exchangeably referring to Herodotus. The practice was to go along with the revised history but to use cryptic references, especially eclipses to point back to the true timeline.
But clearly, not knowing the above, since the closest match to this eclipse in the revised chronology is found in 585 BCE, observers think that Herodotus was exchanging "Labynetus" for Nebuchadnezzar II. But this is quite dismissible and should be politely ignored, suppressing strong urges to burst out laughing. (smile)
Now some might challenge the above and request additional back-up proof. I'm not doing that here as much as simply adding to the context of this discussion how those who date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE handle this eclipse and the presumption that Herodotus was interchanging an event that occurred in year 2 of Nabonidus with year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
-
darthfader
It's threads like this that I find fascinating yet.... they are all way over my head.
Thanks all for the interesting reading.
-
Larsinger58
Comment on expandable chronology.
Someone above claims that the 70 years of desolation is assigned to 490 years. This does not work for the basic concepts of expandable chronology. The expandable chronology converts a year to 360 days and then using the "day of a year" formula (Ezk. 4:6), converts those days to years. This is consistent throughout. Therefore the 70-year desolation can never be converted to 490 years by this basic conversion. Let's look at a couple of examples:
A) The "7 times" prpohecy is a period of 7 years. At 360 days per year, you end up with 2520 days. Thus in this case, you have two fulfillments, one fulfilment called the "minor" fulfillment, where 2520 days are a literal 7 years, and a "major fulfillment" where the 2520 days become 2520 years, which the WTS applies to the 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem and end up with 1914.
B) Another example is the "70 weeks" prophecy. A week is 7 days, so 70 weeks would be 490 days. So the "minor fulfillment" would be a period of 490 literal days, and the "major fulfillment" would use the "day for a year" formula to look for a fulfillment for 490 years. This prophecy has to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and also the 1st coming of the messiah. A literal 490 days is about a year and 4 months. Certainly no messiah appeared in such a short time period after Jerusalem began to be rebuilt. When 490 days becomes 490 years, though and we date the beginning of the 70th week with the appearance of the messiah at his baptism in 29 CE, then this prophecy begins in 455 BCE, as the witnesses claim. This prophecy begins with the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem." For those using the revised timeline like JWs, 455 BC has been manipulated ot occur in the 20th of Artaxerxes where we find Nehemiah engaged in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, which took a total of 52 days. But others who use historical records to remove 82 fake years from the Persian Period, date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. This is supported by the famous predictable eclipse by Thales occurring in year 2 of Nabonidus in February of 478 BCE. We get this chronology by using the first 20-year rule of Cyrus before he became king of Babylon and began his new rule over the combined empire of the Medes and Persians and began to start that new rule as year one. He became king over the Persians for 20 years beginning the 6th year of Nabonidus, thus in 475 BCE. (455+20=475 BCE) Add 5 years back to the 1st of Nabonidus and you get his first year in 480 BCE. (475+5=480 BCE). The eclipse match occurred in February of 478 BCE, which falls in the 2nd year of Nabonidus. After this, Nabonidus left the throne under the charge of his son, Belshazzar. The revised timeline which found an eclipse near Ionia in 585 BCE, though, is not a precise match and is not a predictable eclipse. Even so, 490 days is simply converted to 490 years.
So when someone claims that the 70 years of desolation can be converted to 490 years, it has nothing to do with the "day for a year" conversion. 70 years, a literal 70 years, when converted to days at 360 days per year is a period of 25,200 days, which then converts to 25,200 years! So it just doesn't work. I suppose one can convert 70 years to 490 years by a simple formula of multiplying by 7, but that's outside the rather direct concept of a "day for a year" conversion.
Now, someone noted that the time of desolation was only 50 years and not 70 years, quoting Josephus in Against Apion 1:21. What some don't realize is that in the same work Josephus states the period of desolation was seventy years, a reference he made in Antiquities 11:1. So the 50-year reference is considered cryptic and certainly does not reflect a revision of his previous statement about the 70 years. That is, no one has an epiphany within his own work sometime between paragraphs 1:18 and 1:21. Why he makes both references is up to interpretation, but you must remember Josephus is playing both sides of the fence here. He has created a history that can be "politically correct" on the surface while otherwise reflecting the true Biblical timeline. So you have to read between the lines. Here are those two, critical "seventy year" references by Josephus in both Antiquities and Against Apion:
Antiquities x.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."
The above 70 years are dated from the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, when the nation was removed out of their land.
Antiquities 11.1.1 "1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) 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."
Here, the "poor people" is a reference to the poor people left in the land after Babylon had been destroyed in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar, which poor people later ran down to Egypt, from which they were then deported to Egypt in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the 70 years of desolation are linked with the servitude of these poor people for 70 years at Babylon. Now of note, Josephus is dating this from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar linked with the last deportation. The Bible agrees with this, and, in fact, the above reference is almost a direct paraphase of scripture at 2 Chronicles 36:
2 Chronicles 36:20 "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."
2 Chronicles here calls the poor people "those remaining from the sword" and is a reference of those who escapled the sword of Nebuchadnezzar during his 23rd year campaign. Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 clearly notes that a few ones remaining from the sword in Egypt would return to the land of Judah. Deportations to Babylon were customarily at the very end of the year (beginning of Spring) so these last remnants of the Jewish people apparently were in Judea a very short time, perhaps only passing through Judea via the main highway from Egypt to Babylon. The WTS, therefore, ignores and contradicts both Josephus and the Bible by claiming the 70 years began the year Jerusalem fell. At any rate, you have two quotes from Josephus as to seventy years, not fifty years. Now here is his quote for seventy yeras in his final work, Against Apion 1.19:
1:19 "And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."
Okay? Now, rather mysteriously, just 2 paragraphs later at 1.21, he mentions these "fifty years" that everybody focuses on, ignoring the previous 3 references to the "seventy years", including the one above in the same work of Against Apion:
1:21: "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius."
So just so that all know, the fifty-year reference seems to be a cryptic one or it is a direct contradiction of the 70 years noted 2 paragraphs earlier in 1:19 and in consistent agreement with his two earlier references in Antiquities. So it is there to discuss and comment on and speculate on. Even, so, many always quote from 1:21 as if this 50-year reference supports the revised timeline.
MY THEORY, JUST IN PASSING: My personal take on this is that you can get around the obvious self contradiction here by Josephus if you recognize that Cyrus had two rulerships, 20 years apart. That is, by saying the temple was laid desolate for fifty years is not a contradiction if you are referencing the first fifty years before Cyrus came to the throne. Cyrus then ruled 20 years over the Persian part of the empire while Darius the Mede, his uncle-in-law, ruled over the Median part o the empire. When Babylon was conquered, Darius the Mede ruled over Babylon for 6 years. Then he abdicated to Cyrus who then became king over Greater Persia which included Babylonia, and began to restart this new rule over the entire Medo-Persian empire with year 1. So one way to harmonize the two references is within the context that the 50-year desolation occurred up to the time when Cyrus first became king over Persia Minor, but continued desolated for the next 20 years before Cyrus became king over Persia Major (including Babylonia), a period of 70 years.
Otherwise, this appears to be a contradiction and it is up for grabs why the two references are made. Even so, again, most discussants don't know about the three 70-year references, only the 50-year references that fits well into the revised chronology of the NB Period. Don't forget, per the Bible, the NB Period is 26 years longer! Many discussants like to quote Josephus' 50-year reference and apply it to 587-537 BCE, which fits into the reduced revised timeline, ignoring three 70-year references specifically beginning year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus. But that's how propaganda works in the context of ignorance, that is, ignorance about the complete references by Josephus.
-
BroMac
however you look at it JW's have it wrong.
i cant see the Egibi family revising their own business records
or stelle Guppi not really being 100yr old or so.
Larsinger i think you should put all that down in a book, you have really put alot of time into the subject and clearly have good writing skills.
then the historians, archaeologists, professors of the neo-babylonian, medo-persian history can critique/comment on your work.
it might make best seller.
-
Jeffro
Larsinger i think you should put all that down in a book ... it might make best seller.
Maybe in the Fiction section.