Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Disillusioned JW

  Jeremiah 25:11 clearly says that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years" and that clearly means that the verse is saying those nations must become in servitude to Babylon for 70 years. Verses 2-9 along with verses 15-18 indicates that the kingdom of Judah was included in those called "these nations". It is not necessary that the Bible use the specific wording of "70 years of Babylonish domination or servitude" in order convey that idea, provided an expression with the meaning is clearly indicated.

  --

  I fully agree but as this is the case then what about the Exile- the Jewish Exile which is the sole descriptor used in the OT?

  ---

  scholar, since you believe the Book of Daniel describes the experiences of an actual person named Daniel, notice what Daniel 1:11-12. There is says that Daniel (in the court king of Babylon) referred himself as a servant of his guardian and the chapter indicates that the guardian was employed by "Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon", thus making Daniel also a servant of the king. Daniel 2:48-49 also indicates (according to the Book of Daniel) that Daniel was an employee of the Babylonian king.

  ---

  What exactly is your point? Was Daniel confused by his status? Could he have served in both roles?

  --

  But Jeremiah 25:12 is also relevant to helping us to see that the book of Jeremiah says the people of Judah (at least of Jerusalem) were to be exiled for 70 years in Babylon. My first clue to that was the heading of "70 years' exile in Babylon foretold" in the 1984 (bi12-E) edition of the NWT, on page 999 which includes Jeremiah 25:5 -19. In Jeremiah 25:12 the 1984 NWT has a scripture cross reference pertaining to when "seventy years have been fulfilled". The cross reference is to three verses of which one is Jeremiah 29:10. The heading for the page which has Jeremiah 29:10 says in part "Exiled 70 years.". The verse on that page says the following.

  --

  No, Jer. 25:12 refers not to Judah but to Babylon as it introduces a new pericope or subject addressed to God's judgement on the nations as the following verses describe.In short, such a judgement against the nations only have begun when the 70 years of Judah dad expired or been fulfilled as the text clearly states.

  You are correct that verse 12 is relevant in the sense that it provides a context for the events described in ch. 25 beginning with a description as to how the 70 years was fulfilled with Judah as an exiled people alone followed by the judgements against the nations from vs.12.

  As you have pointed out the headings and marginal notes in the NWT clearly indicate the relationship between Jer. 25:12 and 29:10 which set out the historical and chronological signposts for the beginning and ending of the 70 years as the Jewish Exile.

  scholar JW

  
  
• 

  scholar

  Disillusioned JW

  Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 and its reference to the exile being foretold to end after 70 years, it should be noted what The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible says. It says the following. "29:10-14. This passage is probably a later insertion, coming from an editor who knew that from the battle of Carchemish in 605 (cf. 46:2) to the Persian capture of Babylon in 539 was roughly seventy years. The intention is to encourage restoration hopes."

  The New Oxford New Annotated Bible (a study Bible) says the following regarding Jeremiah 11-12. "Seventy years (cf. 29.10). The period from 605 BCE until the defeat of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian in 539 BCE is sixty-six years. Seventy, however, is likely a symbolic number, representing the length of a lifetime (Ps. 90.10)."

  --

  The difficulty of both these two sources which agree that the 70 years began in 605 BCE until 539 BCE is that it amounts to only 66 years rather than the precise period of 70 years so that proves that this common interpretation and methodology is flawed.

  ---

  Regarding the WT saying that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE (instead of in 587/586 BCE), the WT originally said it was in 606 BC. That year is only one year earlier than the 605 BCE date of the first siege upon Jerusalem (at least according to the Bible, see Daniel 1:1-2, and other sources). According to the Bible some captives, including Jehoiakim the king of Judah, were taken at that time into exile. The gentiles can thus be said to have begun trampling Jerusalem at 605 BCE, though Jerusalem was not desolated at that time (though it likely experienced some damage at that time). If the society were to adjust their 607 BCE teaching to 605 BCE and focus upon what happened in that year and if they also said that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE or 586 BCE, then they would be much more in harmony with secular scholars. Doing such would entail a minor adjustment of their 1914 date to 1916 (or so, depending in which month the siege in 605 BCE took place in), but that would be no more a problem than their existing 1914 date. They might even wish to link it with a comment of Russell having died in 1916. Perhaps they also might go back to saying that Russell spiritually ascended to heaven in 1916 and say he began ruling with Christ in 1916, and say that the timing is highly significant. Doing that would likely require an adjustment to what they say happened in 1918 in regards to their scriptural claims.

  --

  The difficulty with your proposal is that there is simply no evidence of Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and took captives in 605 BCE for it was until 617 BCE that Neb besieged Jerusalem and took captives which included King Jehoiakim as per Dan.1:1`

  It would be nonsense to adjust our teaching from 607 BCE to 605 BCE because nothing significant occurred in that year in relation to the 70 years and adjusting the date of the Fall to either 587 or 586 is stupid as there remains another shortfall of the 70 years so in either case, the maths do not stack up. So, we have from 537 BCE for the Return counting backwards 70 years of Exile comes to the fall in 607 BCE. The maths is powerful, the history is powerful and so is the theology all based on the JEWISH EXILE of 70 years.

  The said scholar too is powerful!!!!!

  scholar JW

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  t’s good that you’re researching but it sounds like your opinion is very easily swayed. In general, I would not be so hasty to prefer what is stated in Christian commentaries about the period (because they tend to cling to traditions, such as the outdated and incorrect belief that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 rather than 587 BCE), though they shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.

  --

  Perhaps you learn from DJW's example and read and consult more widely taking notice of what is published in the scholarly literature and Bible commentaries instead of relying on your own mixed-up opinions. You will thus be informed that scholars since the time of Edwin Thiele advocate 586 rather than 587 BCE.

  --

  Consistent with what is stated in Daniel, 2 Kings and Jeremiah, BM 21946 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar led a campaign through the Hatti region (including Judea) in his accession year and comparison with the Bible suggests that whilst Nebuchadnezzar may have intended to besiege Jerusalem then, Jehoiakim averted the siege by paying tribute. However, the Babylonian chronicle indicates that this was in January-February of 604 rather than on his return from Egypt in the summer of 605 (when he was going home to claim the throne). Jehoiakim’s capitulation begins the 3 full years of him paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, but he refused to pay after Egypt defeated Babylon in a battle in 601. Various marauders were subsequently sent against Jerusalem while Nebuchadnezzar regrouped his army, and then besieged Jerusalem in 597 BCE.

  --

  My issue herein is that based on Daniel. 2 Kings, Jeremiah that your dating is in error and should be corrected or fine-tuned to 617 BCE rather than 597 BCE with the added historical correction of Jehoiakim's reign and Neb's reign in terms of Jehoiakim's vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer in his 3rd year otherwise you muck up the history and the chronology for that period. Sloppy history makes for a sloppy chronology.

  scholar JW
  
  

  
  
• 

  scholar

  Disillusioned JW

  It looks like the first siege on Jerusalem might have been in 597 BCE instead of 605 BCE, though the battle at Carchemish was in 605 BCE. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nebuchadnezzar-II . That article does also say the following, however. "On expeditions in Syria and Palestine from June to December of 604, Nebuchadnezzar received the submission of local states, including Judah, and captured the city of Ashkelon." But note though that https://www.rationalchristianity.net/jeremiah.html says the following.

  "605 First attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem (2 Ki 24:1-2)

  597 Reign of Jehoiachin (3 months) (2 Ki 24:8-17, 25:27-30, 2 Chr 36:9-10)

  597 Second attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem (2 Ki 24:8-17)

  597-586 Reign of Zedekiah (2 Ki 24:17-25:7, 2 Chr 36:10-20)

  586 Third attack on Jerusalem; Jerusalem destroyed (2 Ki 25:1-21)"

  2 Kings 24:1-2 (1984 NWT) says Jehoiakim became the "servant" of "Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon", but that after three years Jehoiakim rebelled and that as a result "Jehovah began to send against" Jehoiakim "marauder bands of Chaldeans" and others, and "against Judah to destroy it".

  --

  There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in 605 BCE or at that time so remember that accurate chronology is based on accurate history so if the history is sloppy then the chronology is also sloppy. I recommend that you read the published research by WT scholars so as to get a better understanding of Neb's reign and that of the kings for that period.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Disillusioned JW:

  Furthermore, it is not important to me know whether it was in 587 BCE instead of 586 BCE, or vice versa.
  

  For most practical purposes this isn’t so important. But when dealing with dishonest people like ‘scholar’ who will try to convince other readers that the actual year for the destruction of Jerusalem is imprecise, the fact that the Bible identifies a specific year is significant. Decision table analysis rules out 586. However, various sources still say 586 due to a) misunderstanding the relevant dating systems or b) repeating the traditional dating without making any analysis at all. Additionally, some sources simply use the notation ‘587/586’ because Nisan-based dating spans part of both years, even though the relevant events occurred in 587.
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  You will thus be informed that scholars since the time of Edwin Thiele advocate 586 rather than 587 BCE.

  should be corrected or fine-tuned to 617 BCE rather than 597 BCE

  Hypocrite 😂
  
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  For most practical purposes this isn’t so important. But when dealing with dishonest people like ‘scholar’ who will try to convince other readers that the actual year for the destruction of Jerusalem is imprecise, the fact that the Bible identifies a specific year is significant. Decision table analysis rules out 586. However, various sources still say 586 due to a) misunderstanding the relevant dating systems or b) repeating the traditional dating without making any analysis at all. Additionally, some sources simply use the notation ‘587/586’ because Nisan-based dating spans part of both years, even though the relevant events occurred in 587.

  ---

  It is a bit like this Jeffro that when a JW critic is critical and very dogmatic that 607 BCE is incorrect then a WT apologist can legitimately as the question if 607 BCE is incorrect for the fall then what date is correct? Now if the response does not give a definitive date then how does a reasonable person conclude that the date 607 BCE is wrong.. So, the onus is on you and fellow critics to come up with a definitive date as either 588, 587 or 586 BCE. Now if that can not be done then there remains a problem with the METHODOLOGY. So get your side right before being critical of another position.

  You are simply relying on the Decision Tables analysis proposed by Rodger Young and in that very same article, he raises the issue of METHODOLOGY and his analysis is merely a fabrication and it stinks.

  Now you say that scholars who prefer 586 have some sort of misunderstanding about the dating system but such scholars would argue that it is the proponents of 586 that have got it wrong. Further, there are scholars who sit on the fence by arguing for 586/587 but this is still imprecise whereas the 'celebrated' WT scholars have long held to the precise date of 607 BCE based on a simple METHODOLOGY and Biblical Interpretation.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Hypocrite 😂

  --

  No, it is called scholarship at its very best. Something you need to heed!!!!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  if 607 BCE is incorrect for the fall then what date is correct? Now if the response does not give a definitive date then how does a reasonable person conclude that the date 607 BCE is wrong
  

  False dichotomy. It is because of idiotic ‘reasoning’ like this that I won’t bother responding to your nonsense unless it amuses me. Aside from the fact that Jerusalem was definitely destroyed in 587 BCE and Babylon’s 70 years definitely ended when it was conquered by the Persians in 539 BCE and therefore began when Assyria was conquered in 609 BCE, an assertion isn’t automatically proved correct in the absence of presenting an alternative.

  According to ‘scholar’ ‘logic’ is someone says they were abducted by aliens, then unless someone else knows exactly what did happen then that must mean they really were abducted by aliens. 🤦‍♂️

  You are simply relying on the Decision Tables analysis proposed by Rodger Young and in that very same article

  Wrong again, liar. I did my own analysis from scratch and for various events beyond what is addressed by Young. (If you think decision table analysis is something invented by Young, you’re stupider than I thought.) But I understand why logical analysis is anathema to people such as yourself who hold to irrational beliefs.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  'scholar':

  So, the onus is on you and fellow critics to come up with a definitive date as either 588, 587 or 586 BCE.

  The world according to 'scholar'. 🙄 It's a bit like if one person says driving from Sydney to Melbourne is 870km and another person says it's 865km, so in comes 'scholar' saying, "You people can't even agree. I say the distance is actually 12km, and if you can't agree on an exact distance, then you can't tell me I'm wrong." 🤣