587 BC for Total Dunderheads

by Farkel 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Thirdson

    I wanted to post on this thread but it seems to have gotten hijacked by those who miss the point (or can't read plain English) and want to argue their own cause or that of their cult master. I thought Farkel's term for our one poster friend was "Bible twit!" He must be getting mellow after all this time.


  • link

    Excuse my ignorance but the Bible says THESE NATIONS will serve the King of Babylon for 70 years. It does not say that the JEWISH NATION - or any single nation will serve for all of the 70 years.

    A date for the start of the Jewish exile cannot be fixed from the Bible records and there is no valid reason that it had to be 70 years in length. All the indications are that The nations as a whole served Babylon for 70 years with the majority of the Jewish people serving about 50 of them.

    Just my personal opinion.


  • gumby

    "Wanna know what I think" ( said in my best droopy cartoon voice),

    I think JCanon.....since he claims to be Jesus Christ himself in the flesh......should use some of those powers he has and give us all some mindblowin, cyber zappin, internet explodin, visual convincin proof, that his ass REALLY came in 1914...... or whenever he actually came. A god as powerful as he shouldn't need to debate on dates.


  • Mac


    Being ever the gentleman and having recently expanded the amount of spare hours I have available for contemplation I've decided to write a book......"Genteel Times Reconsidered"...whatcha think?


  • scholar


    The Society's literature has simply given the traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty and this cannot be construed as an endorsement of this traditional chronology, The Society has not yet presented a reconstruction of this period but has assigned different beginnings for these kings such as the begiinning of Neb's first year. If you follow the current reigns for the dynasty then you would have a twenty year differnece because precedence has been for the the dynasty over and above the seventy year period. It is the seventy year prophecy that spoils the plot and not the length of the Babylonian period. However, one must make a personal choice and as I have said time and again the whole matter comes down to methodology, sevent years or the dynasty?


    BA MA Studies in Religion

  • gumby

    Scholar.......tell me one thing. Regardless of WHO is correct........do you truley believe Jesus came invisibly sometime around 1914? If he did......what was his role and how did he perform his role?


  • Sunspot

    **Unfortunately for him even to make a few of these references work he has to use a different measuring system than the Babylonians used and also has to ignore the scientifically proven and observable rate of decline of the Earth's rotational speed. This means his "double dates" only work from Honolulu!
    There are eclipses he changes for other dates to fit his agenda where Babylon is at Babylon, not Honolulu!

    Maybe the scenery's better in Honolulu, City Fan!

    **Scholar.......tell me one thing. Regardless of WHO is correct........do you truley believe Jesus came invisibly sometime around 1914? If he did......what was his role and how did he perform his role?

    I hope he answers this, Gumby! Either Scholar or JCCanon would (should?) be able to answer these honest questions with honest answers! Inquiring minds want to know!

  • Sunspot

    **"Bible twit!"

    It seems as if Fark is merely complying with "forum rules" in using this term----but it DOES rhyme with his usual expression, LOL!

    Good to see you posting again, Thirdson---it seems to have been a long time between seeing your comments....



  • City Fan
    City Fan


    I just wanted to draw your attention to a comment Peacefulpete made in this thread.

    this only illustrates the problem of attempting to interpret scripture using other scriptures written by men who themselves are only interpreting the earlier ones.

    The seventy years prophecy of Jeremiah is spoken of in 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 and Daniel 9:1-2. The chronicler views this prophecy as being fullfilled in 539 BC when the "royalty of Persia began to reign", and the 70 years of Babylonian domination was over.

    The prayer of Daniel in chapter 9 during the supposed first year of Darius the Mede shows that the writer thought the seventy years had already ended. That's why he is asking God not to delay the return of the exiles any longer. So again this writer is saying the 70 years had already ended by 539/538 BC. Unfortunately what God actually replies is something like "Did I say 70 years? What I meant to say was 70 weeks of years". So the writer of Daniel 9 is actually rejecting any fullfillment of the seventy years until a time long into the future (which is a give away as to when this chapter was actually written).

    The writer of Zechariah 7 seems to be talking of yet a different 70 years, that ended in the fourth year od Darius I, or 518 BC. If the seventieth year of fasting and wailing for Jerusalem ended in 518 BC then they must have begun in 587 BC.

    So it appears that these 3 bible writers disagree with the Watchtower society on the interpretation of the seventy years.

    You also have the possibility that "seventy years" simply refers to a lifetime as at Isaiah 23:15 and Psalms 90:10, and does not mean an exact number of years.

    And as Peacefulpete stated, there are examples of writings outside of the bible where 70 year periods of desolation are prophecied e.g. Marduk's 70 year desolation of Babylon, which is evidence that the 70 years was a standard period of desolation.


  • Farkel

    The several strawman arguments about the 70 year desolation have drawn the attention away from the WTS's statement that the "Gentile Times" started in 607 BC and ended in 1914 AD.

    My challenge was for those true believers to provide a shred of evidence that shows either 587 BC or 607 BC to be the start of that period, considering the Jews was majorly "trampled" on by the Egyptians for over 400 years long before either of those dates and continued to be "trampled" on for at least 38 years AFTER 1914.

    So those true believes have two dilemmas: Biblically tie Jesus' statement about the Gentile Times tying in with Daniel 4. If you can't do that, the whole 1914 theology collapses. Second, Biblically tie the year 607 BC as being the year Jerusalem was crushed by Nebuchadnezzer. If you can't do that, the whole 1914 theology collapses.

    It's not just about dates, folks. It's more importantly about the "Gentile Times." If the Gentile Times does not Biblically tie to Daniel 4, it is meaningless to talk about dates.

    I notice "scholar" has totally ignored both points and merely lauds the WTS for its "research."


Share this