Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Londo111

  For those who might read this later on and not know the context, Ethos is a responding to the thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/230627/1/Post-607-Reject-607-BC-if-You-TRULY-Trust-the-Bible

  I did make an error in my opening post, where I said Daniel 9:26-28, when it should have been Daniel 5:26-28. My apologies.

  And my apologies if I've repeated the comments of previous posts in this thread...I've been typing this up a little at a time throughout the afternoon whenever I had a few minutes to spare.

  Premise 1:

  I want to point out that despite the quotes from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia or the Catholic Encyclopedia, based on research on the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Battle of Opis, Cyrus entered Babylon on October, 29 539 BC. Therefore, what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army” is a year off.

  A few useful links for background info:

  http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cyrus_cylinder.aspx

  http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cuneiform_fall_of_a_dynasty.aspx

  Again, the first regal year of Cyrus would begin in Nissan 538 BC. The proclamation of Ezra 1:1 would have been around this time, and according to Ezra 3, by the seventh month, the first wave of returnees gathered in Jerusalem. This would be September/October 538 BC, almost a year after Cyrus conquered Babylon.

  Jeremiah 27:1 says, “In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah…” Therefore, by now Nebuchadnezzar had already been king at least 8 years. Assyria had already been defeated at Harran, the Egyptian/Assyrian forces defeated at the Battle of Carchemish. Nebuchadnezzar had conquered the Middle East.

  It is in this context that verse 6, 7 says, “I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant.” Therefore the lands roundabout needed to serve Babylon and not rebel.

  It doesn’t matter the manner Jehovah gave these lands to Nebuchadnezzar, by inheritance or conquest. He was already ruling at this point. Even before his ascension to the throne, Nebuchadnezzar was the Crown Prince, the Heir Apparent. He led the armies. He was the one who won the Battle of Carchemish. He was the immediate powerhouse to contend with, through whom his father ruled. At Jeremiah 27, the 70 years are already underway.

  Babylon’s lease on power was 70 years. All nations, including Judah, were to serve Babylon or face the consequences. When Cyrus overthrew Babylon, these nations no longer had to serve it. The 70 years were up.

  This leads Premise 2:

  The timeline is simple according to Jeremiah 25:12.

  (1) The seventy years are fulfilled. The lease it up.

  (2) THEN, the King of Babylon and his nation are called into account.

  For instance, for a kid in school, when does the class period end? When the bell rings. It might take some time for them to gather their stuff and exit the classroom. But the class has ended.

  Jeremiah 51 shows the identity of the King of Babylon who is called into account. When the King and Nation is overthrown in October 539 BC, then vengeance is satisfied. Being called into account = vengeance. There was no vengeance on Cyrus, he was the instrument through whom vengeance came, God’s Anointed One ( Isaiah 45:1) . He did not render an account, for, he did nothing to incur Jehovah’s anger.

  I feel that it is quite a stretch to tie Jeremiah 25:12 to the utensils of the temple. Jeremiah 25:11 says the “ nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Verse 12 simply continues the thought in saying, “ But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt.”

  Did Cyrus have guilt? No. Again, Cyrus was the instrument through him vengeance toward the King of Babylon is administered.

  After 539 BC, whom did the nations now serve? Cyrus and the Media-Persian empire. Did this change in 538 BC? Or 537 BC? Or anytime in the lifetime of Cyrus? No.

  If Cyrus was now the King of Babylon of Jeremiah 25:12, then the nations roundabout would be free, when the 70 years had ended. But they were not free of Cyrus. They were free of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty.
• 

  WinstonSmith

  Ethos' latest response (post 49) is revealing. It proves that he is in fact a Buddhist. Recovery came back as Olin Moyle who came back as Still Recovery who has come back as Ethos.

  No matter how convincing an argument is, people will believe whatever they want anyway. This applies to both sides of the argument.
• 

  Jeffro

  Oct 539	Cyrus' accession year	Jeremiah 25:12 Daniel 5:26-31 2 Chronicles 36:20-21	End of 70 years Babylon weighed (called to account) Kingdom finished Belshazzar killed Darius captures Babylon
  Nov
  Dec
  Jan 538
  Feb
  Mar
  Apr	Cyrus' 1st year	Daniel 9:2 2 Chronicles 36:22-23	Daniel discerns end of 70 years Decree by Cyrus
  May
  Jun
  Jul
  Aug
  Sep
  Oct		Ezra 3:1	Jews in Judah
  Nov
  Dec
  Jan 537
  Feb
  Mar
  Apr	Cyrus' 2nd year
  May		Ezra 3:8; Against Apion I, Ch. 21	Reconstruction of temple begins
  Jun
  Jul
  Aug
  Sep
  Oct
  Nov
  Dec
  Jan 536
  Feb
  Mar
• 

  Ethos

  Quote from Jeffro: "When Jeremiah wrote to Jews already in Babylon, he said to them that they would not return to Judea until after Babylon's 70 years, as indicated in most Bible translations*. In JW chronology, this was in 614BCE (594BCE in actual history). It would make no sense to tell exiles already in Babylon (which was most of the Jews) that they will be there for 70 years starting from some unspecified future event.

  Conversely, once Babylon became the dominant world power, all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon. Jeremiah's letter gave the Jews already in Babylon a frame of reference in regard to when Babylon's 70 years began, and therefore when it would end." (END OF QUOTE)

  Incorrect. Your contextual conclusion regarding Jeremiah 25 and to whom it was addressed is completely incorrect. Jeremiah 25 is not speaking to the exiles already in Babylon. It is speaking to the entire nation of Judea. Letting Jeremiah speak for himself: "The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judahinthe 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; 2 which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem , saying:
  3 “From the thirteenth year of Jo·si′ah the son of A′mon, the king of Judah, and down to this day, these twenty-three years the word of Jehovah has occurred to me, and I kept speaking to YOU people, rising up early and speaking, but YOU did not listen. 4 And Jehovah sent to YOU all his servants the prophets, rising up early and sending [them], but YOU did not listen, neither did YOU incline YOUR ear to listen.."

  This argument is full of conclusions without support from premises. But the entire argument was enervated because of his false assumption that Jeremiah 25's frame of reference was to the exiled Jews already in Babylon. I think it shows quite clearly what happens when people read into the scriptures, what they'd like to, to support their conclusions instead of reading the scriptures first and then leaving their conclusion.

  A weak, unscriptural, torpid rebuttal. No supported premises for several the aforementioned conclusions. You have got to do better, Jeffro.
• 

  Ethos

  Quote from notjustyet: "I understand how hung up JWs are about 607BCE, becaue if it isn't the right date then neither is 1914. But I ask you, why is 1914 so important? Because it's the date Jesus Christ became king you may say, it was the beginning of his invsible presence. Yet JWs never taught this until 1943! (See Proclaimers book page 46,47, 133 footnote). They believed his invisible presence began in 1874 and and Armageddon was to be in 1914. Now (since 1943) they say his invisible presence had begun in 1914 and Armageddon would come within one generation. However, how many years have passed since 1914? Almost 100! The generation that saw 1914 have now passed away, so now an overlapping generation has had to be devised to still make 1914 fit. Don't you see the lack of logic here?

  607BCE and 1914 are inextricably tied. One will not work without the other."

  607 is selected because it the only date of destruction for Jerusalem that will not undermine the prophecied 70 year servitude and exile in Babylon to appease conjectured secular evidence. 1914 can still be arrived at without the "Seven Times". Although it is used as a primary Biblical premise for arriving at the 1914 conclusion, it can still be arrived at with other concrete methods. Thus, the statement: "607BCE and 1914 are inextricably tied. One will not work without the other." is false.

  Quote from jwfacts: "First, prove that Daniel 9 should have a secondary fulfilment. There is nothing to suggest so, other than your desire (or the desire of the people that supplied you with what you believe) to want to think the time you live in is important." (END OF QUOTE)

  I have never asserted that Daniel 9 should have a secondary fulfillment. In fact, I never appealed to Daniel 9 as a part of my argument, so I'm completely unsure how you arrived at this erroneous conclusion of what I was asserting. Perhaps you should go back and reread, and you will find that the only people who even used Daniel 9 were those who are supporting 609-date.

  Second, you are using circular reasoning. You want to take secular history to provide you with the dates, and then overlay some random interpretation onto it that contradicts that very secular history you took the dates from. (END OF QUOTE)

  There has been no use of circular reasoning. I have not interpreted any secular data, I have only QUOTED from secular publications. Again, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, because you are reading into things that are not there. Jeez-oh-peez, did you even read what I actually said?

  Quote from Crisis of Conscience: "Ethos, what are the chances of you answering back on your other threads?"

  I will do so when I am alloted more posts (presumably more than 10 per day).
• 

  Ethos

  Quote from notjustyet: "Your main argument was that when the temple utensils were returned then the 70 years ended. I asked you where did you get this in the Bible as I can find any evidence in the Bible that the 70 years ends once the utensils are returned. You have yet to provide that scripture. I even pointed you to a prophecy in Jeremiah that totally refutes your argument and that points out that the utensils will only be returned two years after the 70 years. You then told me that this prophecy was false because it was from Hananiah. I corrected you in your statement as Jeremiah ratified this prophecy therefore it was not false." (END OF QUOTE)

  Actually, I'd like to thank you for referencing the false prophecy by Hannaniah in Jeremiah 28. In fact, it only argue my case. Let me show you, how all of Jeremiah 28 is a false prophecy, even though Jeremiah did say "Amen", because he momentarily perceived it to be a message from a true prophet sent by Jehovah. Read verses 15-18 "And Jeremiah the prophet went on to say to Han·a·ni′ah the prophet: “Listen, please, O Han·a·ni′ah! Jehovah has not sent you, but you yourself have caused this people to trust in a falsehood. 16 Therefore this is what Jehovah has said, ‘Look! I am sending you away from off the surface of the ground. This year you yourself must die, for you have spoken outright revolt against Jehovah.’”
  17 So Han·a·ni′ah the prophet died in that year, in the seventh month.." None of what Hannaniah was actually a sentiment or a statement on behalf of Jehovah, and he was punished for it. But his false prophecy is interesting because it completely solidifies my argument.

  Jeremiah 28:1 "2 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two full years more I am bringing back to this place all the utensils of the house of Jehovah that Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon took from this place that he might bring them to Babylon .’”

  So you see, even the Jews associated the breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon with the returning of the temple utensils. This is exactly what I have previously stated. Even though the prophecy turned out to be false and he was not an actual envoy for Jehovah, it shows that there was still an association between the two. You asked for a scripture connecting Jeremiah 25 and Jeremiah 51:

  Jeremiah 25:17 "And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: 18 namely, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her princes, to make them a devastated place, an object of astonishment...For this is what Jehovah the God of Israel said to me: “Take this cup of the wine of rage out of my hand, and you must make all the nations to whom I am sending you drink it. 16 And they must drink and shake back and forth and act like crazed men because of the sword that I am sending among them.."

  Jeremiah 51:7 "Babylon has been a golden cup in the hand of Jehovah, she making all the earth drunk. From her wine the nations have drunk. That is why the nations keep acting crazed."

  Besides the symbolic, metaphorical "wine" connecting the two passages, they are both about the punishment of Babylon for its error and it's destruction it caused to the nations, as well as the destruction it will soon suffer.

  Jeremiah 25:12, 13 "‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de′ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it.."

  Jeremiah 51:1 "This is what Jehovah has said: “Here I am rousing up against Babylon and against the inhabitants of Leb-ka′mai a ruinous wind; 2 and I will send to Babylon winnowers who will certainly winnow her and who will make her land empty; for they will actually prove to be against her on all sides in the day of calamity...For clear to the heavens her judgment has reached, and it has been lifted up to the cloudy skies."

  The connections are there, plain and obvious to all. I could even quote mainstream Christian sources that link the two passages as they are almost identical. Note: No interpretation offered, simply showing how the two passages are interlinked and similar. Jeremiah 51 renders the judgement against Babylon for taking the temple utensils, Hannaniah confirms that that was a common belief among the Jews, and Jeremiah 25 is linked to Jeremiah 51 harmonizing the sequence of events.
• 

  Ethos

  All the time I have today....be back later
• 

  Phizzy

  Ethos said above: " Although it is used as a primary Biblical premise for arriving at the 1914 conclusion, it can still be arrived at with other concrete methods. Thus, the statement: "607BCE and 1914 are inextricably tied. One will not work without the other." is false."

  First of all Ethos, the 2520 days/years method is hardly concrete as a method, it is bordering on crazy, but what other method could give you 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction ? using the Bible I mean. Come to think of it, using whatever you like, but not old discredited arguments that have been dealt with on JWD/JWN.

  Or did you mean 1914 can be arrived at by another method, regardless of the incorrectness of 607 ? that you could ditch 607 and still prove 1914?

  If so how ?

  Thanks.
• 

  castthefirststone

  The connections are there, plain and obvious to all

  I still don't get it. Where does it state in the Bible that it will take 70 years for the utensils to be restored?

  But his false prophecy is interesting because it completely solidifies my argument.

  How does a prophecy, that you are so desperate to prove false, "solidify" your argument? The prophecy stated that there will be two separate events, one where the king is dethroned and the other which occurs two years later where the utensils are returned. The event that is linked to the 70 years (the dethroning of the king) happens first and then two years thereafter the utensils are to be returned. How does that "solidify" your argument??? By the way if Hananiah's prophecy was false why did the events that Jeremiah ratified still occur?

  Also AnnOMaly mentioned that the utensils were raided more than once even prior to Jerusalem being destroyed. This further debunks your theories.

  All the scriptures that you listed mentions Babylon (or is associated with Babylon) and the lifting of that yoke. Once Babylon's yoke was removed the 70 years was over. It's plain and simple and is stated explicitly in the Bible. No links or mental gymnastics required. It's not open to interpretation, it's stated explicitly. Even in the New World Translation it's clear that the 70 years is linked to the ruling of the Babylon king. No bolding or underlining required, all you have to do is read your Bible.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  [Ethos to Jeffro] Incorrect. Your contextual conclusion regarding Jeremiah 25 and to whom it was addressed is completely incorrect. Jeremiah 25 is not speaking to the exiles already in Babylon.

  Ethos, you klutz, Jeffro was alluding to Jer. 29, not 25. He no doubt assumed you would know what he was referencing. Would you like to make a comment on Jeffro's argument about Jer. 29? It's a good one.

  [Ethos to notjustyet] 607 is selected because it the only date of destruction for Jerusalem that will not undermine the prophecied 70 year servitude and exile in Babylon to appease conjectured secular evidence.

  607 is selected because it fits with the WTS's (untenable) chronological scheme. The secular evidence is not conjectured, it's based on several lines of independently verified evidence.

  1914 can still be arrived at without the "Seven Times". ... it can still be arrived at with other concrete methods.

  Baloney. If you believe otherwise, start a new thread and prove your case.

  There has been no use of circular reasoning. I have not interpreted any secular data, I have only QUOTED from secular publications.

  You take on trust the date 539 BCE, that the historical sources and historians' methods of deriving that date are sound. Yet you reject other dates that are derived from the same historical sources and methods purely because it doesn't fit with cherished WT notions. Don't you see how grossly inconsistent this is and how it results in circular reasoning?

  So you see, even the Jews associated the breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon with the returning of the temple utensils. This is exactly what I have previously stated. Even though the prophecy turned out to be false and he was not an actual envoy for Jehovah, it shows that there was still an association between the two.

  So what? How does the timing of the temple utensils' return indicate anything about when the 70 years servitude to Babylon stopped (refer to my post above)?