by ithinkisee 20 Replies latest members private
Marjorie ... you rock ... I'm not trying to change the thread topic to the Divine Name ...but it is nice to know I have this in my back pocket if need be.
(You wouldn't happen to have those George Howard articles scanned in would ya now?)
-ithinkisee
They quote a guy that "proposes" a theory that the divine name was omitted from the Greek scriptures:
An interesting road to go down is the Society's appeal to "worldly wisdom" in the face of the Society's claim of having exclusive access to channeled communication from the creator of the universe. Why use "worldly wisdom"? Why not JUST rely on channeled information DIRECTLY from god?
It beg's the question. "Is there any channeled information DIRECTLY from god"? If there isn't, why not? If there is, why not use it and disclose the source?
ithinkisee, you might try the following as an outline.
Read 2 Chron. 36:20. It clearly states that the Jews were servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his descendants until the royalty of Persia came to power. When was that? Obviously in 539 B.C. when Cyrus' armies conquered Babylon and killed Belshazzar. The Society has never commented on this passage, for rather obvious reasons.
Read Jer. 27:6,7. This clearly states, consistently with 2 Chron. 36:20, that the nations would serve kings in Nebuchadnezzar's line of descent by using the idiomatic phrase "serve him and his son and his grandson". Every Babylonian king after Nebuchadnezzar was either his actual son, his son-in-law, or, in Belshazzar's case, his grandson. The Society goes along with all of this.
Read Jer. 25:11, 12. It clearly states that the Jews and surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years, and that when that 70 year period was fulfilled, or complete, the Babylonian king would be punished. Now, if Belshazzar's being killed, and the dynasty of kings of Nebuchadnezzar's line being ended, wasn't a punishment, I don't know what punishment is. This is also completely consistent, as Jeffro has pointed out, with Daniel 5, which clearly states that the Babylonian kingdom had been judged adversely and was punished the very night the handwriting appeared on the wall. Obviously, this punishment occurred in 539 B.C. The Society has commented only once about this, in a 1979(?) Watchtower article, but the explanation given is simply ridiculous -- that the punishment was actually Cyrus' letting the Jews go free in 537 B.C.
Hope this helps.
AlanF
So what happened in 609 that would signify the start of the seventy years of domination by Babylon?
also ...
Would anyone have a definite location for that article Alan F mentions ...
The way my wife is researching ... I can't leave anything to chance.
Thanks,
ithinkisee
If you have the WT-CDROM, just search for "jeremiah 25:12". I'm fairly sure it's a 1979 article.
AlanF
*** w79 9/15 pp. 23-24 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
10 The Persian conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus the Great, did not restore the kingdom of the family of David to Jerusalem. It is true that he conquered Gentile Babylon in 539 B.C.E., or about two years before the “seventy years” of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He proclaimed himself “king of Babylon” and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve “the king of Babylon” 70 years. First in the 70th year of the desolation of Judah did Cyrus the Great release the exiled Jews from their direct servitude to the king of Babylon and let them return home to rebuild their desolated country and their national capital Jerusalem and its temple. (Ezra 1:1 through 3:2) In this way Jehovah called to the account of the Babylonians “their error” that they had committed against the God of Israel.—Jer. 25:12.
Not sure if I am a (bleeping) idiot or what ... but that almost sounds like it could be plausible from a JW standpoint.
I guess they say Ezra 1:1 is placed in 537 in JW Chronology?
Do historians speak of a two year gap? Does the bible? I can't seem to find either.
-ithinkisee
When you think about it for awhile, ithinkisee, it makes no sense at all. This was admitted to me some 11 years ago, when I discussed it with a couple of "anointed" JWs with very close ties to Bethel. One of them was in Brooklyn Bethel during the late 1970s to late 1980s, and while there he apparently compiled the information for the appendix to chapter 14 in the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come". So even some bright JWs can see such nonsense for what it is. Their response to me when I asked what a loyal JW should do when faced with such blatant nonsense from the Society? "Wait on Jehovah."
AlanF
So there is now scriptural or secular support for a two year gap? No mysterious Bound Volume piece-of-sh!t that's gonna surprise me if I say that? Or some scripture totally unrelated in some minor prophet or something?
If so ... GOOD!
Your outline rocks ... thanks.
-ithinkisee
Heh ... I thought of a funny question to ask regarding the supposed two-year gap:
If the nations were still subject to the Babylonians for two years - who was the person that allowed it? It had to be someone RULING that ALLOWED it! That would be Cyrus.
(By the way .. the INSIGHT book reasoning on this is atrocious.)
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
Still that is only 69 years ... right?
-ithinkisee
ithinkisee wrote:
: So there is now scriptural or secular support for a two year gap? No mysterious Bound Volume piece-of-sh!t that's gonna surprise me if I say that? Or some scripture totally unrelated in some minor prophet or something?
Nope. I've researched this question thoroughly, using the printed Indexes and the WT-CDROM.
The modern consensus is that Cyrus began ruling as king of Babylon in late 539 or early 538 B.C. Whatever the precise date, it was enough to put his accession year in 539/38 B.C., which year ended just prior to Nisan 1 of 538 (roughly March, if I remember right). Jonsson points out that the consensus is also that the Jews were released by Cyrus not in 537 but in 538, and were back in Jerusalem by the autumn of 538. So the Society is on shaky ground here as well.
I did some research not long ago on whether the Society has produced any commentary about why it chooses 537 over 538. All it says it that 537 is correct, with no commentary anywhere I've found on why they don't use 538. What I think is that it's just their tradition at work. Remember that, until 1944, they used 606 B.C. for the date of Jerusalem's destruction, and 536 for the return of the Jews. When 606 was changed to 607, 536 had to be moved one year as well. I think that's all there is to the question of how the Society picked 537.
If you're interested in how the Society went about changing 606 to 607, along with changing many other related dates, see here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/606.htm
AlanF
