Corrections: In my prior post where I said "... from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order" I meant to says "... from the 607 BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order". Where I said "Since are views on this matter ..." I should have said "Since our views on this matter ...".
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Disillusioned JW
MeanMrMustard the way I see it, Jeremiah chapter 25 is including Jerusalem (which was the capital city of Judah) and all the other cities of Judah in the list of that which the chapter calls the "nations" who shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11, 17-18, 25 [ASV]).While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29. In your quotes of Jeremiah 25:29 you left out the words which said specifically where the calamity was said to begin, namely the city of Jerusalem. For example, note that Jeremiah 25:29 (ASV) says "For lo, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name ...." Verses 18 - 26 lists those who receive calamity and verse 17 (ASV) calls all of those groups "nations", and verse 18 includes Jerusalem in that category of "nations". Please keep in mind that in BCE times many cities were "nation states" (modern scholars of the history of the ancient Middle East call them such) and thus were nations (such as a the cities which the OT book of Joshua says the Jews conquered in the land of Canaan). Jeremiah 25:17 -18 (ASV) says "... and made all the nations to drink, unto whom Jehovah had sent me: to wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, a hissing, and a curse, as it is this day". Since verses 17 - 18 (ASV) indicates that Jerusalem is called one of the "nations" then when verse 11 (ASV) mentions that the "nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years", it is including Jerusalem as one those nations - even if in fact Jerusalem did not serve the king of Babylon for literally seventy years (and even if in fact the prophecy in the name of Yahweh partially failed).
The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The International Bible Commentary: With the New International Version (a revised edition of 1986; the former edition used the RSV scripture text), which has F. F. Bruce as its General Editor, says the following on page 780 about Jeremiah 25:15-29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "... The scope of the Lord's fury embraces all nations beginning with Jerusalem and Judea and then 'the uttermost parts of the earth' (18-26; 28: 33). ... After Judah the list groups places affected by direct Babylonian campaigns (e.g. Egypt in 601 B.C. and Dedan, Tena and Buz in Central Arabia--all mentioned in contemporary inscriptions). ... 20-26. all the kings of ... : this repeated phrase has caused some commentators to reject these verses as late, but such phrases occur in contemporary historical texts. ..."
The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The New Bible Commentary Revised (Third Edition, copyright 1970), edited by Guthrie and Motyer, says the following on page 642 about Jeremiah 25:11, 15, 29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "11 The duration of exile, seventy years, ensures that all the original exiles would be dead before its end; this is a round figure approximately correct. ... 15 Cup of wine is the symbol of Yahweh's inescapable wrath over Judah and other nations (cf. Ps. 75:8; Is. 51:17). Babylon is His agent. ... 29 Observe that the fury of the Lord begins with Jerusalem (cf. v.18) and extends to other nations who also deserve the divine chastisement." Notice it says "Judah and other nations" and "Jerusalem ... and ... other nations", thus by its use of the word "other" it is treating Judah and Jerusalem each as a nation also. That backs up what I said above.
Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18 it might just mean the time period in which Jeremiah wrote his account (or whoever wrote the account), namely the time of the exile of the Jews. Or, the phrase might be an insertion into the account by an editor.
-
scholar
Splash
Yet you quote these same, deceived fools when they align with your dogma.
It must be nice to pick and choose your beliefs like a child in a sweet shop.
--
No way, Hosea. The said scholar along with the celebrated Wt scholars just use the Bible.
scholar JW
-
Disillusioned JW
TonusOH I think a big part of the reason for the variation in the wording of the translations of part of a single verse that MeanMrMustard listed is due to copyright laws. In order to come out with a new translation and have it copyright protected and in order to avoid infringing on the copyright of earlier translations, the wording has differ to some extent in various places from those other translations.
-
scholar
MeanMrMustard
Note to reader: "wishy-washy" for scholar means "date I disagree with". Which bring us to this gem of a comment:
--
Perhaps you prefer the expression 'fuzzy' instead of 'wishy-washy'?
--
Note to reader: COJ's book, now in its 4th edition, peer reviewed, doesn't present 17 lines of evidence against 607. It presents 17 lines of evidence, FOR 587, showing how each independent line agrees with the others, ending finally in astronomical calculations, which are very accurate and precise.
--
False. Jonsson in his 4th edition on pp.77, 88 uses the expression: "seventeen different lines of evidence "; 'seventeen different lines of evidence".
Note that not one of these lines of evidence by itself refutes or disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.
---
Of course, this has already been done, and he knows it, as his last comment reveals. It's important to note that it's the WT apologist that MUST stick to every point dogmatically, violating grammar, changing plural to singular, mutating servitude into complete desolation, proposing conquest order that contradict the grammar in the verse, and established historical order, independently of any set date.
--
The said scholar simply relies on careful exegesis to prove 607 BCE and refute the dates 586 or 587 and even 588 BCE so you have a big problem here.
---
There is no contradiction between history and the Bible. There is only contradiction between history (and even astromony at this point) and the WT's ungrammatical reading of the scriptures and interpretation of these events.
--
Nonsense. The contradiction is the different interpretations of history and the plain and natural reading of the Bible and the subject of the Exile is a prime example.
scholar JW
-
MeanMrMustard
Combining a get posters here, @Disillutioned JW and @TonusOH:That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.
Right. That's why I prefer to start at Jeremiah 25. Even though COJ shows quite clearly 587 is the year, WT apologists always have their trump card - mainly arguing from the Bible as the absolute authority. For such people, no amount of physical evidence will suffice. It will always be "clunky" and "wishy-washy", as scholar states. If you could imagine a world where we could time travel (in a DeLorean, of course!), go back and visually, physically confirm 587 as the date, it still wouldn't be enough for scholar. Some objection about the reliability of the time machine would be raised.If all of these varied translations are from relatively few manuscripts, then it shows how difficult it is to get a consensus (impossible, by the look of it).
I don't think that is the case. There are translations that tend to be more literal, and those are always good to focus on. Some translations offer a "common" language format. All sorts of paraphrasing goes on in this case. For most religions out there, remember, the date of Jerusalem's destruction doesn't play a role in a far-fetched prophetic scheme. So something like 25:29, might be rendered with "first". -
Disillusioned JW
Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18, A Commentary on The Holy Bible By Various Writers (copyright 1908, 1909), Edited by Dummelow, on page 470 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "18. As it is this day] a later insertion by Jeremiah or another as comment on fulfillment."
The Abingdon Bible Commentary (copyright 1929), edited by Eiselen, Lewis, and Downey, on 694 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "Vv. 17-29 describe Jerusalem as desolate at this day (v. 18), and must therefore date from the time after the destruction of the capital. Their late origin is further proved by their asserting to Jeremiah in v. 17 what was physically impossible to any man. The later generation, which had lost touch with the actual situation, interpreted in a somewhat bald and literal way the fine symbol of the prophet being intrusted with the cup of divine anger. What remains after these excisions is an oracle on the day of the Lord: Jehovah is about to bring all the families of the North (v. 9, cf. 1:14) against Jerusalem first, but also against all the nations round it. The world shall become a desolation, returning to the condition from which God brought it at first (cf. 4:23f.). Jeremiah is repeating the revelation he received in the second vision after his call."
-
MeanMrMustard
While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29
"Beginning to bring" or "starting to bring" evil / destruction onto the city (starting thr process described, and to some extent already in progress) isn't the same thing as having it happen to Jerusalem first, as an order of operations.
An example: Let's say I make a list of things I want to accomplish over the weekend. Half way through the weekend you read the list. I say "I'm beginning to plant my flowers." You can't infer its the first thing I did, maybe it is. But maybe not. It doesn't have to be, and that's the point here. The language doesn't *require* it. And that allows the Bible to agree with history quite well.
I know you are taking the perspective that the phrase in v18 is a later edition. Could be - granted. But I'm meeting scholar at his level - his fallback. We can show, just by letting the verses speak for themselves, that his escape route from the hard evidence for 587, mainly "Bible good - secular bad", even that doesn't work. -
MeanMrMustard
False. Jonsson in his 4th edition on pp.77, 88 uses the expression: "seventeen different lines of evidence "; 'seventeen different lines of evidence".
Note that not one of these lines of evidence by itself refutes or disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.
Missed the point completely. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing. Yes, 17 is the number. Yes, they are lines of evidence. The evidence provided isn't against 607 in as much as its for 587. It's an important distinction. There could be a 17 independent lines of evidence *against* 607, and each could arrive at a different date. Each line arguing a different date is a line AGAINST 607. But if all the lines agreed on a single date, that's an entirely different story. It's evidence FOR 587. Yes that disproves 607, by it raises the confidence level for 587 to near certainty. -
Disillusioned JW
Hi MeanMrMustard. I notice you said "... starting thr process described ...". I am thinking you might be correct in saying that is what the phrase means. Though I didn't say it in my prior posts, I was wondering if the wording of "beginning" or "begin" might mean that, namely the start of the process, even if the first part of the process doesn't directly effect Jerusalem or Judah.