Interesting Find with Chronology

by Kelley959 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

MeanMrMustard

True the Bible does not contradict so one's interpretation must be in harmony with not just the context, the Bible book itself and the whole Bible. The 70 years ends with the 'calling to account of Babylon' which according to Jer. 21:12 what is clearly stated in that verse was only after the 70 years was fulfilled and not before that time.

Yeah, "These nations" (Judah and all the nations "round about") serve Babylon for 70 years. The 70 years end, and Babylon is "called to account".

When were the 70 years fulfilled?

From v12, sometime before Babylon was "called to account".

This could only be at the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE and not at the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.

That is the most unnatural reading, basically a non-sequitor. It doesn't follow. The 70 years of servitude could not continue past the fall of the government that they applied to. Illogical. For you to say "this could only be at the return of the Jews" is nonsense.

The servitude to Babylon of a specific period of 70 years applied to Judah which also included other nations as stated in Jer. 25:11

Yes, and it was ongoing at the time 25:11 was written, as referenced by v18. It was 70 years of servitude, which had gotten its start before the destruction as a vassal state.

Are you an expert in Hebrew and Bible translation?

Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. But irrelevant anyway.

I concede no such thing. Babylon's calling to account or judgement was not immediate but a process in time as verse 12 clearly explains culminating with its desolation of the land which did not happen in 539 BCE. A careful and not sloppy reading of that verse proves that the judgement against Babylon could only have begun after the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE.

No, scholar. The promise of desolation is in no way connected to the 70 years, either in verse 10 or verse 12. Verse 12 states that the seventy years would end, Babylon would be called to account, and the land would be made desolate. The desolation is not connected to the end of the 70 years, just as the desolation of Judah is not connected to the beginning in v10.

For you to hypothesize that the "calling Bablyon to account" is suddenly a drawn out process that goes beyond the reign of Babylon the most indirect, illogical, ungrammatical reading.
scholar

MeanMrMustard
That is the most unnatural reading, basically a non-sequitor. It doesn't follow. The 70 years of servitude could not continue past the fall of the government that they applied to. Illogical. For you to say "this could only be at the return of the Jews" is nonsense.
--
There is nothing unnatural about reading carefully what is stated in Jer.25:12
-Yes, and it was ongoing at the time 25:11 was written, as referenced by v18. It was 70 years of servitude, which had gotten its start before the destruction as a vassal state.
---
Impossible for the land was not in a desolate state at that time but only after the Fall in 607 BCE
----
--
Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. But irrelevant anyway.
---
Simply responding to your false claim
--
No, scholar. The promise of desolation is in no way connected to the 70 years, either in verse 10 or verse 12. Verse 12 states that the seventy years would end, Babylon would be called to account, and the land would be made desolate. The desolation is not connected to the end of the 70 years, just as the desolation of Judah is not connected to the beginning in v10.

For you to hypothesize that the "calling Bablyon to account" is suddenly a drawn out process that goes beyond the reign of Babylon the most indirect, illogical, ungrammatical reading.
----
Well the land was not made desolate was it in 539 BCE was it? So your interpretation does not agree with the prophecy in vs.12.
Vs 10-11 are about desolation and servitude in connection with the fall in 607 BCE and the following verse which now turns its focus on Babylon after the 70 years had ended in 537 BCE would now experience judgement. Plain and simple!!!
scholarJW
MeanMrMustard

Impossible for the land was not in a desolate state at that time but only after the Fall in 607 BCE.
It's seventy years of servitude, not desolation. The land doesn't need to be desolate to be a vassal (to serve). Not only is it possible, but common place.

Well the land was not made desolate was it in 539 BCE was it? So your interpretation does not agree with the prophecy in vs.12.
It doesn't have to be. Verse 12 states the land would become desolate. It does not state it would become desolate corresponding with the end of the seventy years. That's all added in your head.

Vs 10-11 are about desolation and servitude in connection with the fall in 607 BCE.
Yes, and if read grammatically, the verse states that Judah would become desolate. The thought ends (compound sentence). Then the statement "these nations" would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. The seventy years attaches to the servitude, not the desolation.

...and the following verse which now turns its focus on Babylon after the 70 years had ended in 537 BCE would now experience judgement.
Same grammatical problem. Reading the verse grammatically, 70 years ends, Babylon called to account (overthrown), and it will become desolate (a statement that could be true anytime in the future). It is simply not required by the verse that the "calling to account" equals desolation. In fact, the grammar indicates otherwise.
Jeffro
scholar:
No: I am very familiar with Stern and I copied and pasted that quote quite deliberately in anticipation of your reply. So, what we now have two quotes from Stern that appear to be contradictory which is simply part of the ongoing debate between archaeologists regarding the subject 'the Myth of the Empty Land' so the problem is with Stern not with WT scholars so better to stick to what God's Word says about the state of Judah during the Exile, Don't you think?
This is seriously the level of delusion and dishonesty we're dealing with...
- Thinks it is a contradiction that Stern says the towns that were destroyed were not resettled but that some other towns weren't destroyed and remained populated
- Claims that 'Babylon will be called to account after 70 years' (Jeremiah 25:12) and 'attention will be given to return from exile after 70 years' (Jeremiah 29:10) really means 'Babylon is called to account, then Jews return from exile two years later, then 70 years ends'
Unfortunately, 'scholar' is a lost cause, but other readers of the forum can see through his nonsense.
MeanMrMustard

Unfortunately, 'scholar' is a lost cause, but other readers of the forum can see through his nonsense.
Yyyeeeaaap. He's been going around in these illogical circles for two decades. At least on this forum..
Jeffro

scholar:
Your timeline covers the Divided Monarchy and is part of Bible Chronology which should not be ignored as COJ does and WT scholars have always provided such a timeline.
Why are we talking about COJ all of a sudden? Watch Tower's timeline for the period is very very wrong as can be seen here (PDF).
The Decision Tables as a Methodology are from Rodger Young's research which in itself is incredulous, proving nothing in resolving the 586/587 dilemma, in short, such analysis is gibberish.
Nope. I've done decision table analysis on various aspects through the Divided Monarchy, independent of Young's research. Claiming it is not a valid method or that it something unique to Young just further demonstrates that you are inept at applying or understanding logic.
scholar

Jeffro
This is seriously the level of delusion and dishonesty we're dealing with...
Thinks it is a contradiction that Stern says the towns that were destroyed were not resettled but that some other towns weren't destroyed and remained populated
Claims that 'Babylon will be called to account after 70 years' (Jeremiah 25:12) and 'attention will be given to return from exile after 70 years' (Jeremiah 29:10) really means 'Babylon is called to account, then Jews return from exile two years later, then 70 years ends'
Unfortunately, 'scholar' is a lost cause, but other readers of the forum can see through his nonsense.
----
You introduced Stern so if there is a contradiction in his statements then that is not my problem.
You need to focus on the fact that the judgement of Babylon only occurred after 70 years was fulfilled and that was not at its Fall in 539 BCE any other interpretation is fanciful. Also, the verse clearly indicated that the land of Babylon would also be desolated which did not happen in with the Fall.
scholar JW
johnamos

You need to focus on the fact that the judgement of Babylon only occurred after 70 years was fulfilled and that was not at its Fall in 539 BCE any other interpretation is fanciful.
Wrong scholar! Not according to Jehovah and to your beloved WTS.
[Jeremiah 25: 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and THESE NATIONS will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 ‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah,]
[8-1-81 WT p. 27-28 – “The idol-worshiping Babylonians now were in line for God’s judgment to be executed upon them. That happened in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and the Persians.”]
[11-15-98 WT – We know that Jehovah is the Great Timekeeper, and we have confidence that he never fails to fulfill his purposes at his appointed time.]
Jehovah's appointed time to execute judgment on Babylon was when 70 years had been fulfilled and according to the WTS that happened in 539.
scholar

Jeffro
Why are we talking about COJ all of a sudden? Watch Tower's timeline for the period is very very wrong as can be seen here (PDF).
--
For the reason that you have been influenced by COJ and your timeline does not accord with WT chronology.
--
Nope. I've done decision table analysis on various aspects through the Divided Monarchy, independent of Young's research. Claiming it is not a valid method or that it something unique to Young just further demonstrates that you are inept at applying or understanding logic.
-- The logic is that you accessed Decision tables because I informed you about the matter on this forum of Young's research and it was and still is unique to Young.
scholar JW
Jeffro

scholar:
Why ask me such a question when you are such an expert so you must have an answer. The answer is simple. By the time Neb received his first dream in 606 BCE or thereabouts based on Dan 2:1, Daniel had already been in Babylon for at least 11 years having completed his three years of training becoming unlike yourself, a very wise man. As to whether he was known to Neb during that period of training and thereafter I do not know as I unlike you I am unfamiliar with the protocols of the Babylonian Court system.
Obviously Nebuchadnezzar didn't really know Daniel because Daniel is a fictitious character invented later as a trope for analogues to the Maccabean period. But aside from that, in the context of the story, Daniel was specifically appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as the chief of all things superstitious (Daniel 1:19-21; compare Daniel 5:11), so your attempted excuse for dodging even more flaws in Watch Tower chronology by suggesting that 'maybe Nebuchadnezzar didn't know him at any time' is plainly wrong.

Interesting Find with Chronology

Share this