Jump to content
The World News Media

Matthew 24. Is the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine based on less likely, special definitions of SIGN, PAROUSIA, CONCLUSION, LIGHTNING, GENERATION, and "GENTILE TIMES"?


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
52 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Which year did the call go out for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and when did they arrive there?

You are apparently asking for a secular date: a date that requires the input of scholars who have studied the archaeology, astronomy, language and therefore, the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period of history. The only way that we could attach a secular date to this event is if we accept the expert scholars' opinions about the chronology. Those experts tell us that it's part of a timeline that includes and is interwoven with all the lengths of the reigns of the kings of the period. The lengths of these reigns include kings well before Nebuchadnezzar back into the late Assyrian period through the kings well after Cyrus and on into the period of Greek kings. The lengths of all these kings tend to double-check each other and the synchronization with prior and later timelines is useful as a way to make sure the entire period is understood correctly. Otherwise, who is to say there were not several kings named Nebuchadnezzar, and several named Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, etc. All the data must be placed into a schema and then that schema can be double-checked through several different independent lines of evidence to see if it is being understood correctly.

So, to make a long story short, the Watchtower has admitted that it is estimating the year for the Judeans to return to Jerusalem as 537 BCE. This is based on the idea that we can confidently say that Cyrus first partial year over Babylon was 539 and therefore his first full regnal year was 538, which was therefore, the most likely time when the Jews returned. Biblically, it appears that the call went out in the first regnal year of the king called Cyrus. Putting the secular date of 539 or 538 on this year is only possible because the neo-Babylonian chronology schema allows us to know when Nabopolassar ruled, when Nebuchadnezzar II ruled, when Nabonidus ruled, when Cyrus ruled, and which astronomical sightings and other events help us to confirm each of these king's reigns and how they fit between and among the reigns of the other kings in the period. In other words, we can know that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years when he destroyed the temple. But if we are to put a secular date on them it's only because we can put a date on any other king's reign during this period.

If we say that Cyrus' first full year was 538, it's because we can say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year was 587 and 586. All the dates are part of a whole. If we say that the Temple must have been destroyed in 607, for example, that's the same as saying that Cyrus' first full year started in 558. That would mean that the Watchtower would have to say that the Jews must have returned to Jerusalem in 558 or 557, instead of 537.

Fortunately, we now have several independent lines of evidence that all show us that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586, and therefore we can be sure that Cyrus 1st regnal year was 538. If we trust the astronomical diaries, we now have literally dozens of additional pieces of evidence to pinpoint secular dates at many points in the entire chronology. We also have the dated contract documents, thousands of them, that all confirm that these secular-astronomical dates are correct. These thousands of contracts show us that there are 48 years accounted for from Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to Cyrus 1st. This is a perfect match to the other independent lines of evidence. 

Of course, all this is irrelevant, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thessalonians, 2 Peter and Revelation. There is no relationship between the time that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the beginning of the Parousia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 14.4k
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Possibly they are overstating matters a bit

There seems to be be several ways to read Matthew 24 (and parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21). This has been noted by many Bible commentaries through the years, and even C. T. Russell admits som

Posted Images

  • Member

We know that the men who govern Christian.Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are not writers of God-inspired messages; they do not write material on a par with the Scriptures. What we do know is that the first-century Christian congregation had a governing body, and a work greater in scope than what Christians accomplished in the first century is being accomplished in these last days, which again requires existence of a governing body, too. Refinements in doctrine are to be expected, maybe even as will yet affect the way we view the date 1914.. What I mean is this: we do not push ahead of direction from our Governing Body so that we remain in harmony in preaching a message that is not garbled with discordant "notes" that are off key, but remains a message that is a clarion call for all hearing it that they should be spiritually ready for the great day of God the Almighty. When it becomes Jehovah's time for refinements, we will all of us get them at the same time so that we remain united.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, TiagoBelager said:

that we remain in harmony in preaching a message that is not garbled iwith discordant "notes" that are off key, but remains a message that is a clarion call for all hearing it that they should be spiritually ready for the great day of God the Almighty.

That's just it. I personally do not think that 1914 really is that important with regard to being spiritually ready or not. Not only that, but who of us uses 1914 as part of the preaching message to be honest? Who of us has recently "explained" it to someone at the door, or even to a study? In view of that, I do not think that putting forward "alternate" views regarding 1914 on this forum necessarily garbles our message, because our message is not about 1914, but about being ready because we do not know when the end will come. Refinements to our scriptural understanding are being made usually after we discern that our past application has become obsolete due to the passage of time. But notice our core beliefs have never had to be adjusted since about 1935. We still believe the same about the soul, what happens when we die, who go to heaven, what is hell, the identity of God, the identity of Jesus, God's kingdom, the good news, moral standards etc.etc. So all the other stuff is interesting, but irrelevant to our salvation in the grand scheme of things. I doubt Jehovah is going to judge someone as not worthy of life just because they have reservations about 1914 or some other chronological aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

every fly begins a very small fly, and becomes a larger fly.

This is a very funny statement because a fly starts as an egg, that hatches into a maggot which grows bigger and then becomes a pupa. The fly hatches out of the pupa and stays the same size until it dies. Perhaps it's a typo and he meant fry as in fish xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Several persons have weighed in already, and I'll be more than happy to discuss all these concerns and issues from a Biblical perspective. For now, it seems like a good idea to go ahead and get to the topic of parousia.

PAROUSIA

This is, of course, the word used in Matthew's account when the disciples were asking Jesus the question about WHEN the time would come for those predictions about the destruction of the Temple buildings. The earliest translations of the Bible, made back when koine Greek was still a living language, understood the "parousia" of Matthew 24 to be an event rather than a presence. The Watch Tower publications have said that the word parousia refers to both arrival and presence and that the more common use of the term referred more to the presence than the arrival. This is why the word is translated "presence."

(Matthew 24:2, 3) "Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [PAROUSIA] and of the conclusion of the system of things?”

Clearly, the disciples wanted some advance warning about the time of this very visible, destructive event. They are basically saying: "WHEN? WHAT SIGN will you give us?"

The Watchtower has already admitted that the disciples knew nothing about an invisible presence, so it makes sense that they would want to know when it was just about to happen, not when an approaching time period was already happening invisibly. Common sense also tells us that they were not thinking that the falling of these temple stones was going to be an invisible occurrence. It's also very easy to understand this if we understand that the terms terms PAROUSIA and SYNTELEIA refer to a final judgment event. However, if we think of BOTH these terms as referring to long periods of time of 100 to 150 years or more, then it might inadvertently give us the impression that the disciples were asking about how to identify a time period when Jesus might be present for some long period of time even well in advance of the temple stones falling. Of course, that wouldn't tell the disciples what they needed to know, or what they were immediately concerned about.

So it's a good idea here to see what Mark and Luke report as the essence of the disciples same question, because neither of them use the term PAROUSIA. Did they want to know about the period of time before the destruction, or did they want to know the timing of the destruction?

(Luke 21:6, 7) . . .“As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”

It's already clear what they had in mind, and we should not expect the essence of what they were asking to be changed by the addition of the words parousia and synteleia in Matthew. Of course, a true understanding of those two words does not change the meaning of what Luke states and, in fact, makes it even more clear that Luke and Matthew are in complete harmony. The disciples were not asking:

"In what generation will these things actually be and what will be the signs so we know we are in the generation when these things are going to occur?"

Let's look at Mark:

(Mark 13:2-4) . . .By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?”

In the discussion of SYNTELEIA we already presented the evidence that the word "synteleia" rarely means conclusion, especially not in Biblical or religious contexts. In fact, the word "conclusion" used here is not even from the noun, but is taken from the verb SYNTELEO, which always has the meaning of to reach a final end, to finish, to destroy, to complete, to fulfill, to accomplish, etc. A more accurate way to translate the verse would be the same way the NWT correctly handles the same word in Luke 4:13:

(Luke 4:13) 13 So the Devil, having finished [SYNTELEO] all the temptation, departed from him until another convenient time.

Thus, the Revised Standard Version translates Mark like this:

(Mark 13:4, RSV) "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"

The Watchtower has said that the two terms parousia and synteleia are "parallel." If this is really true, the disciples must have had in mind that parousia could refer to the same destructive judgment event that synteleia could have referred to. 

It is true however that "parousia" can refer to a simple "presence." Isn't there still a chance that this is what it refers to here? Well, we have already noted that this particular meaning would not have made as much sense in this context. And we have the evidence of that when we see that the parallel ideas in Mark and Luke show that it must have referred to the time when these events would come or arrive or happen or occur.

We also must recognize that there was a special meaning of parousia when it was applied to a dignitary, king or emperor. When you spoke of the parousia of someone like Paul, Timothy or Titus, then you might be referring to their arrival and their subsequent presence. But when the word was used for a powerful person, the focus was on the "grand entrance" or the "parade-like" event that accompanied those events. This understanding explains why the earliest translations of the Greek Bible into Latin and Coptic and Syriac recognized that words like ADVENT and COMING and ARRIVAL were better than presence, even if presence was still the proper way to discuss the parousia of someone like the apostle Paul.

Similarly, we commonly use the word "triumph" to refer to a big "success," or a "win." But the Romans used the word in a special sense of a "Victory Parade" and have made statues and carvings and coins that commemorate these events called "Triumphs" or "Triumph" processions. The Oxford English Dictionary offers it as the very first definition from the Latin "triumphus":

1.1 Rom. Hist. The entrance of a victorious commander with his army and spoils in solemn procession into Rome, permission for which was granted by the senate in honour of an important achievement in war.

It's reflected in the name of the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris. A  "Triumph" is depicted in the famous "Arch of Titus" which looks like the one in Paris from the outside. Inside it shows Jerusalem's temple treasures being carried back to Rome:

TitusArcOrnaments.jpg

Similarly "PAROUSIA" had a special definition in the Roman world. It's alluded to in the Watch Tower Publications:

*** it-2 p. 677 Presence ***
Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that pa·rou·si?a is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the “visit of a royal or official personage.”

*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B ChristÂ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·si?a “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” In Mt 24:3, as well as in other texts such as 1Th 3:13 and 2Th 2:1, the word pa·rou·si?a refers to the royal presence of Jesus Christ . . .

The primary reason for the differences between more recent Bible dictionaries, and dictionaries and studies completed prior to about 1910 was because the work of Adolph Deissmann was not published in English until the early 20th century. At the end of this post, I'll copy-and-paste some quotes that were already presented in another topic, especially page 8 of this conversation:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/16699-gods-kingdom-rules/?page=8

[ I was going to make a part 2 of this PAROUSIA post, but most of the technical references were already given especially near the end of this linked topic below. Later, I'll just make another PAROUSIA post discussing only the Biblical uses of the word.]

Deissmann had studied "New Testament" era papyri and coins that showed that a Parousia of a king or emperor was an event that could be like a parade or procession with fanfare, music, dancing, lots of people wearing white robes, and even a time for a visiting ruler to take on a seat of local judgment. Expenses for making the roads straight and smooth and cleaning up debris so that the king would be more impressed might even call for a special taxation in preparation for the parousia. Deissmann and others believed this is the reason for special "parousia" coins (Greek) or "advent" coins (Latin).

philipadventvsr-jpg.458651

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/advent.271544/ (a lot more examples)

Also, in the 19th century, a few people realized that the simpler meaning of the word "parousia" gave support for their view of a two-stage parousia of Christ, including a potentially invisible stage. This was true of some Christadelphians, Plymouth Brethren and Second Adventists, too. It included persons like Benjamin Wilson who published the "Diaglott" and it was also true of W. E. Vine, the person who produced "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words." (Both items are listed in the advertisement from @bruceq above.) Note, Insight:

*** it-2 p. 676 Presence ***
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 1, pp. 208, 209) states: “PAROUSIA . . . denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with.

You might be fooled by the date 1981 used in the Insight book. W.E.Vine was actually born in 1873, died in 1949 and barely adjusted his early work on the word parousia after his work with C. F. Hogg between 1905 and 1914. He finished his commentary on Thessalonians with Hogg in 1914, where parousia was a key element. But even here, the two-stages of the Parousia referred primarily to the beginning of the Parousia which was a Rapture and therefore a short time when the saints would be with Christ in heaven during a time of persecution, followed by Armageddon which ultimately becomes the "Day of the Lord" which is the end event of the Parousia.

Here is some of that reference information from the other topic mentioned above:

---------------------------------------

[page 8]

Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation":

2. arrival, ???? ????????? ?. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128 ; “??? ???????” D.H.1.45 ; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, ????????, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.).
3. occasion, v.l. in S. El.1251.
4. ?. ???? ????????? entertain them on their official visits, OGI139.9(Philae, ii B.C.).
5. in NT, the Advent, Ev.Matt.24.27, al.

 

[page 8]

Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures.

Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158:

A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.6 Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."7Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].8 These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23).

Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.9 For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Thank you for the good outlay of the date of Cyrus's capture of Babylon.  I studied it years ago and frankly I do not have to prove it to myself again.  But as you say -  IF the Persian rule began in 538 BCE  (most scholars put it at 539 BCE such as quoted from Wikipedia -       " After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah.[4][5] According to the biblical book of Ezra, construction of the second temple in Jerusalem began around 537 BCE."   

So if the call went out in 538 BCE or 539 BCE by secular confirmation - then it could have taken them up to a year or even two to get ready and trek the distance to Jerusalem.  So this could easily have brought the secular date to 537 BCE as indicated by the date in Wikipedia....

The Bible prophesied that they will be in captivity 70 years (most secular historians put their captivity at 50 years but Jehovah said it would be 70 - so we stick to 70 if we really believe in Jehovah's word)..... Count seventy years back from 537 BCE then you get to 607 BCE....... and you have your date for the true date for the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.  ...... So 1914 is not such a "murky' date after all!     ..........

I have looked at these dates before ...... and most of the Assyrian dates such as the fall of Nineveh is not absolutely set in stone but the ONE date on which most historians agree is the date of Cyrus the Great...... . As I have indicated before in my replies here on this website - even the Egyptian chronology is on shaky grounds and most scholars do not trust the Bible!.

To understand the  ' reality ' of the bible one needs a time-line and chronology and proof that the entire message in its various segments of time - came true - on time.   This is why I can show Muslims that Jesus is the 'true messenger' because of his genealogy of 2025 years and the accurate prophecy about the time of his birth.  Why did Jehovah give these prophecies if he did not think that we "need to understand them" at a certain time in the timeline ......and we can search and study and find these things out?  He foresaw that we will discover more about history and that ' knowledge would abound in the time of the end."

Daniel 12:  “And those having insight will shine as brightly as the expanse of heaven, and those bringing the many to righteousness like the stars, forever and ever.  “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end.+ Many will rove about,* and the true knowledge will become abundant.” (This scripture also indicates a period in the time of the end!)

The beasts and the understanding that there would be several world powers gives us a sense of the "reality of Jehovah because it gives us a better sense of the timeline and came true as prophesied.   Also Daniel 2:   44  “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up/begin building a kingdom+ that will never be destroyed.+        

Those anointed who have died have received the "first resurrection" and are invisibly ruling.  The rest will be 'changed in an instant' after they have been sealed.   The timeline of this "first resurrection" is linked to the Kingdom beginning invisibly to human eyes.  The rest of mankind will be resurrected during the 1000 years as stipulated in Revelation 20:1-3. 

So one believes these realities because everything in the timeline fits into each other perfectly like a glove - the logic of it!

Even the test of every earthly "perfect" person at the end of the thousand years proves that Jehovah was thinking of every possibility when he inspired people who write down his thoughts.  No human could have conspired and foreseen that we need rulers in heaven who were imperfect beings on earth before being resurrected to heaven..... and that earthly humans will need to undergo the same test as Adam before they are granted ever lasting life.

I do not believe in dissecting a few words in one little chapter of the bible and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  One can become too scholarly on only a few words and then become so obsessive about it and forget to take note of the entire long-term plan and the logic of Jehovah.   Jehovah is a perfect timekeeper.

When I look at USA politics I see the same frame of mind.   People looking at things so shortsightedly- the overall picture and the next 10 or 20 years are never planned for.  In the study of the bible we can also be shortsighted and not look at the long-term or overall plan/purpose of Jehovah and get bogged down in measly little details that can make one lose faith and doubting Jehovah and his very imperfect slave which he is using by his eternal grace and mercy.

I mean to bring my thoughts over - not in a derogatory way but in a way which can make my fellow believers think of things in the overall time-line of Jehovah's purpose.   Eph 1:9  after all shows that Jehovah has worked throughout the ages on "the administration" the management of his purpose.....  So we must grow to maturity and study deeper to understand how the time-flow interacted with his purpose. Once one sees the entire chronology and the purpose - how it unfolded  -this helps to really understand the "realities" Jehovah has given us.

Eph 1:9"by making known to us the sacred secret+ of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10  for an administration* at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.+ Yes, in him.

We understand the sacred secret now  - a government that will start ruling invisibly in heaven with a first resurrection..... etc. which will bring everything in heaven and earth together.  Clouds -  Only Jesus's apostles saw him go up to heaven in clouds..... Similarly the anointed would understand when he started to rule (shrouded in clouds) ....... but the day and hour no-one knows.

13  “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man+ was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days,+ and they brought him up close before that One. 14  And to him there were given rulership,+ honor,+ and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him.+ His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.+  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

The Bible prophesied that they will be in captivity 70 years (most secular historians put their captivity at 50 years but Jehovah said it would be 70 - so we stick to 70 if we really believe in Jehovah's word)..... Count seventy years back from 537 BCE then you get to 607 BCE....... and you have your date for the true date for the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.  ...... So 1914 is not such a "murky' date after all!     ..........

Yes, but remember that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537. It says that the Babylonians would be given 70 years of rule over the nations around them.

(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 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, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·de?ans a desolate wasteland for all time.

And Babylon was to be called to account at the end of those 70 years when Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539. At that point there was no Babylon Empire anymore, it was merely a part of the Medo-Persian empire ruled by Cyrus. This is why the 70 years were never said to end when the Jews came back to Jerusalem, but when Cyrus captured Babylon.

(2 Chronicles 36:20-23) 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying: 23 “This is what King Cyrus of Persia says, ‘Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up.’”

So, this claim about 537 is actually just a necessary adjustment that is neither Biblical nor secular. It's just a way to work around the Bible's clear statement that the 70 years were over when Persia began to rule. We both agree that this was 539, but 539 would give us a starting date of 609. (Russell didn't have this problem because he thought Cyrus started in 536 and so Russell just counted back to 606 and left it at that. Of course, he also made the mistake of thinking that 606 was 2,520 years prior to 1914.)

When I used the date 538 for the decree, I was using the last possible meaning of the term "first year of King Cyrus" (2 Chron 36:22). If the prior year 539 is meant, then it would be very likely that the Jews actually returned to Jerusalem in 539, not 538. (Unless we think that most of the Jews might just want to hang around an extra few months or up to two years after they were free to go.) Nothing in the Bible says they waited until 537 if the decree was made in 539. And if the decree was made in the first official FULL year of Cyrus (538) then there is still no reason to think that they waited until 537. 537, as I said, is just a necessary adjustment the Watch Tower publications are required to make in order for 1914 to appear valid.

We don't know how much of that time period during Babylon's "70 years" that the land of Israel and Judah needed to lay completley desolate. Perhaps it was 7 times 7 years (49 years) or perhaps it was 70 x 7 years (490 years) or perhaps it was only that it needed to start paying off its sabbaths when desolations and deportations started at the very beginning of Babylonian rule nearly a full 70 years prior to 539, when Nebuchadnezzar was still "tramping about" in "Hatti-land" as a general under his father's rulership. No matter when it started, and for how many years it continued, we know it finally got to a point of such desolation that it therefore finally paid off its sabbaths. But we do know that any fulfillment of the sabbath on the land was only possible because Babylon was given 70 years of "Empire" to desolate the nations all around it. That "70 years of Babylonian Empire" is what fulfilled the word of Jeremiah, and what got Judah to a point where it paid off its sabbaths during the fulfillment of Babylon's 70 years.

This point was made clear in the discussion of Tyre in the Isaiah's Prophecy book:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
21 Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

By the way, you can't say that 607 is the true date of the fall of Jerusalem by counting back from 539 either. You have to remember where you got this secular date of 539 from. You can't claim that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 unless you are accepting the timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586. Do you believe the Bible made a mistake when it identifies Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as the time when Jerusalem was destroyed? By saying it was 607, you are claiming that it was in Nabopolassar's last two years, two years prior to Nebuchadnezzar's first full regnal year. You can't just say you want to select a portion of the timeline, because the timeline is completely interconnected, and every new piece of evidence, so far, has confirmed the correctness of the interconnected timeline. (And there have literally been THOUSANDS of pieces of interconnected evidence.)

It's exactly the same as if you said that your great-great-grandmother told you that the "Civil War" in the United States lasted about 25 years. She says it was from 1840-1865. You could repeat 1,500 times that this means the civil war started in 1840/1841, but it wouldn't prove anything. (The Watchtower Library CD repeats the date 607 about 1,500 times.) You could always point to the "true and clear" secular, historical evidence that it ended in 1865 and show how you are counting backwards correctly. The problem is that you would be ignoring that the SAME sources of "true and clear" secular, historical evidence show that it started in 1861. So, if you really want your 25 years, what keeps you from claiming that 1861 is correct for a start date and that it must therefore have ENDED around 1885/1886? You are making the exact same mistake either way.

This is why you can't use the date 539 as a correct date if you are going to say that 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is incorrect. Once you change Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you are no longer saying that 539 is correct.

Besides, even after all this, 1914 would still be a murky date because there is no Biblical evidence that says that 7 times would pass after Jerusalem's destruction until the Messiah would reign again. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 times meant 7 360-day years. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 years meant 2,520 365.25-day years. These are all just guesses.

If 1914 were so clear, why did the Watchtower begin saying that the Gentile Times ended in 1915 for a while? The following is the Watch Tower, January 1, 1916, p.4.

 

1916page4wt.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

What part of this scripture does not fit in with your theory?

Daniel 9:2  " in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books* the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem,+ namely, 70 years.+  So I turned my face to Jehovah the true God, entreating him in prayer, along with fasting+ and sackcloth and ashes.  I prayed to Jehovah my God and made confession and said:“O Jehovah the true God, the great and awe-inspiring One, who keeps his covenant and shows loyal love+ to those who love him and keep his commandments,+ ........

you said: "the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537"

If Daniel discerned the 70 years to be coming to an END in the first year of the new king's reign .......  than it is making a LOGICAL deduction from a secularly accepted date for the return to Jerusalem such as 537 BCE..... to add 70 years to determine the date of the BEGINNING OF THE 70 YEARS......when this king started his reign.....607 BCE 

(It is totally logical and I am sure any mathematician would agree. I did a lot of those kind of arithmetic exercises as a child..... ....If the end of the period is 1924 and the number of years that passed are10 ten, what would you say is the start of the period?  )

The other arguments about the 19 th year of Nebuchadnezzar is weak - I am not even going to go there.... You bring me a secular date that is more accurate then 539 BCE, which is the only one which most scholars agree on.... and we all know that secular dates are more shaky than Biblical dates.   

Israel had to organize itself to meet together  at a certain time to trek across a desert area - they had to trek with their belongings...... with children and had no protection.  As I said before ...they did not have cars and internet etc... it took a long time to organize and do the moving and settling and then only could they start the building!   So yes - it is not unreasonable to expect to took more than a year.    

I believe the Bible to be correct and I think the slave has done some excellent research.   ... Go and read  Chronology in the Insight Book and you will see the many different reasons and calculations they use for getting to the same year that most secular historians as well as the Jewish scholars reach as 539 BCE- and Jewish scholars also put the return at 537 BCE. 

The Insight book goes into the many eclipses etc..... and it also goes into the counting of the years which you refer to as 19 years ..... because there is no year 0  and also cardinal and ordinal numbers also changes the months and possibly the year....It also gives the secular sources of the year 539 etc etc... Read the entire Chronology section PLEASE!

I am sure that after you have read the evidence you will rethink some of your own ideas.... and hopefully those persons who agree with you as well!

I know that they regularly update this information in the insight book (I think they ask scholars  because I am aware of a brother who is a scholar in the field) . I have read some of the historical articles many years ago when I was studying the history of Sumeria and Babylon and managed to get my hands on some of the books quoted at the time....some of the information has now been updated.

Good reading to you.... as a matter of fact I will go through it myself again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

What part of this scripture does not fit in with your theory?

Daniel 9:2  " in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books* the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem,+ namely, 70 years.+  So I turned my face to Jehovah the true God, entreating him in prayer, along with fasting+ and sackcloth and ashes.  I prayed to Jehovah my God and made confession and said:“O Jehovah the true God, the great and awe-inspiring One, who keeps his covenant and shows loyal love+ to those who love him and keep his commandments,+ ........

@Arauna Thanks for responding. Daniel 9:2 fits the Biblical theory perfectly. (I haven't forgotten some of the previous points you have made that I haven't responded to yet, but I'll work backwards from this latest post of yours.)

Daniel 9:2 references the book of Jeremiah directly. Since Jeremiah is the book that Daniel bases his statement on, we should look there first. Jeremiah was already quoted above where it says that Babylon would be given 70 years of rulership over the nations around them. We also know from the context that Jerusalem and other nations were going to be punished through this 70 years given to Babylon. As the Isaiah book said: not all nations would go through their punishments for the same numbers of year. (The "seventy years" for Tyre to be forgotten evidently turned out to be about 17 years.) Jerusalem was ultimately to be desolated per Jeremiah too. But Jeremiah does NOT put a specific number of years on Jerusalem's desolation. But it is still obvious that it is through those 70 years of Babylonian domination that Jerusalem would be desolated. Jerusalem's desolation comes through, or because of, the 70 years given for Babylonian domination.

That might sound convoluted, but it's based on what Jeremiah says. Also, it might well explain why the statement in Daniel 9:2 is admittedly difficult to translate. But it's pretty clear that it means what it says, just what the NWT says. The meaning is probably more like:

Daniel discerned by reading the sacred books that Jeremiah had mentioned "the 70 years" and that the end of these 70 years would fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem . . .[therefore now that Babylon has had her 70 years, it must now be time for Jehovah to fulfill his promise to look with favor again upon Jerusalem.]  . . .therefore [quoting from the NWT]  "Do open your eyes and see our desolate condition and the city that has been called by your name; for we are not entreating you because of our righteous acts but because of your great mercy. O Jehovah, do hear. O Jehovah, do forgive. O Jehovah, do pay attention and act! Do not delay, for your own sake, O my God, for your own name has been called upon your city and upon your people.”

One way we know that this is the general meaning is that Daniel had just told Belshazzar:

(Daniel 5:26-30) . . .God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . . your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”. . . 30 That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed.

Recall that Daniel 7 goes back in time to Belshazzar's first year, chapter 8 starts out in Belshazzar's third year, and in Daniel 9 Darius has just started his reign. This is the first verse mentioned with reference to Darius: "

(Daniel 9:1, 2) In the first year of Da·riʹus the son of A·has·u·eʹrus—a descendant of the Medes who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·deʹans— 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah . . .

So this is the obvious time to realize that the 70 years should be up. 2 Chronicles, mentioned above, also said that the 70 years would continue right up until the time that "the kingdom of Persian began to reign."  70 years of Babylonian rulership was now fulfilled and it was now time for such a prayer as Daniel made to pray that the hearts of the Jews had turned back and Jehovah would fulfill his "good promise."

(Jeremiah 29:10, 13 NIV) This is what the LORD says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. . . . Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

you said: "the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537"

If Daniel discerned the 70 years to be coming to an END in the first year of the new king's reign .......  than it is making a LOGICAL deduction from a secularly accepted date for the return to Jerusalem such as 537 BCE..... to add 70 years to determine the date of the BEGINNING OF THE 70 YEARS......when this king started his reign.....607 BCE 

That is quite possible. What I said was that the Bible never says to count back from 537. This is for THREE reasons.

  1. The Bible never says that the number of years given to Babylon (70) would continue for any length of time after a king of Persia began to reign. This very well could have been 539 the very year that Cyrus captured Babylon and killed Belshazzar. Even if the Jews had remained another 5, 25 or 75 more years in Babylon (many did), those 70 years would still have been completed back in 539. It's quite possible that the Jews weren't prepared to go back immediately, or there was a delay in the exact timing of the decree by Cyrus to release them. But even if this was true, it doesn't change the time when the Bible said the 70 years were completed.
  2. The other reason I mentioned that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537 is that the Bible never mentions 539, 538, or 537. Those are secular dates, not Biblical dates. The closest we can get to in the Bible is know that it was after a certain number of years during a certain king's reign and before a certain number of years of that king's or another king's reign. The only way you or I can state with any certainty that a number like 538 or 587 or 607 should be attached to one of those dates is through a synchronization with evidence provided through secular evidence OUTSIDE the Bible.
  3. Your point was that this was the method to reach the "true date" for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible never says that the 70 years start counting from the destruction of Jerusalem. So even if the 70 years turns out to start in 607, that doesn't mean that Jerusalem was destroyed in that date. (Besides, the same point made in the previous post still stands: if you believe you can put a number like 539 on the first year or "ascension year" of Cyrus, then this is the same as claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. Otherwise you have no right to claim that 539 was that "ascension year" of Cyrus.)

However, I would say that we have enough evidence to say that the 70 years most likely did end in 539 or possibly 538 at the latest.

(Ezra 1:1) In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, . . .

(Ezra 3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem.

The Jews could have returned in 539 or 538. (It's much less likely but you are right in that they COULD have even returned in 537.) It's not based on the time the Jews returned, but if the term "70 years" was meant to be an exact number, it's true that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy could have started in 609 or 608. I could even accept that it started in 607 as long as we can accept that the 70 years could contain "parts of 70 years" just as Jesus was in the grave for "parts of 3 days" even though that can be accomplished, technically, in just over 24 hours . . . and we assume it was over 30 hours.

So yes, based on evidence, 607 is a possible date for the beginning of the 70 years. Based on that same evidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 607 to be the date when Jerusalem was destroyed. But that is not important, because the Bible never said that Babylonian supremacy would start at that point anyway. Babylon began desolating the nations all around, which would include Judea, as early as 609, the year that the previous "world empire" (Assyrian) fell and began being absorbed into the Babylonian power structure.

To keep each of these posts a bit shorter, I'll stop this one for now and pick up on your next points later. Thanks again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Arauna said:

The other arguments about the 19 th year of Nebuchadnezzar is weak - I am not even going to go there.... You bring me a secular date that is more accurate then 539 BCE, which is the only one which most scholars agree on.... and we all know that secular dates are more shaky than Biblical dates.

The part I highlighted is, unfortunately, a completely false statement. It's true, as you said before, that Egyptian and Assyrian chronology is not as well corroborated with astronomical data and other synchronizing evidence. But it's the entire period of the Neo-Babylonian empire which includes Kings from Nabopolassar to Cyrus which is probably the most well-corroborated of all the ancient chronologies. The first astronomical diaries which can produce "absolute dates" and can be corroborated with independent lines of evidence start becoming available in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. But they become much more numerous after that. These continue well into the Persian and Greek kingdoms, even to the first century C.E. But it's the sheer number of dated tablets, astronomical diaries, and royal chronologies along with additional records by later historians that all work together to confirm the ENTIRE timeline. You could even lose some of the independent lines of evidence and still have enough evidence to completely piece together the entire Neo-Babylonian period. For example, you don't need "Ptolemy's Canon" at all anymore to know when Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year began, or when Cyrus' 1st year began, even though it was once considered essential.

If anyone tells you that 539 is more accurate than any other date within the time period, then you should watch out for any of the following three possibilities:

  1. They are misinformed
  2. They are dishonest
  3. They are exaggerating a point because they are referring to the fact that there are very few major events recorded during this time period that are of much historical interest outside of the records themselves, and therefore the fact that Cyrus captured Babylon is one of those events of at last moderate outside historical interest. So, being able to attach an accurate date to this particular event is of some interest to scholars and historians, and therefore makes it one of most talked about dates of that period. But this does not mean it is any more accurate than the 8th year of Cyrus, or the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, or the 15th year of Nabopolassar, or the 2nd year of Nabonidus, etc.

Based on point number 3, just mentioned, I would say that the secular date of 597 for the siege of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as mentioned in Jeremiah 52:28 and 2 Kings 24:11,12 and 2 Chronicles 36:10 is actually attested to (both directly and indirectly) by even more independent Neo-Babylonian and near contemporary sources than 539 is, but this still makes it JUST AS accurate, not MORE accurate than 539. It's all part of an interconnected chronology. (And, of course, using the Bible, it becomes easy to see that if 597 is accurate, then Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.)

Actually, I'd have to say that even the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 586, which you called "weak" is slightly better attested to, from more independent sources, than the 539 date. But again, this does not make it more accurate than 539. But it does not make it less accurate either.

The Bible itself adds additional weight for each of these dates, 597, 587/6, and 539, and thus the accuracy of the Bible is here supported by archaeology and secular chronology. Once again we have evidence that the Bible harmonizes as a book of history. We often point this out when an archaeological discovery is made about a person or place named in the Bible. So, it's actually a shame that with all the overwhelming data available for the Neo-Babylonian period, we are just about the only Judeo-Christian religion that can't admit that the Bible's record is shown to be corroborated by secular, historical and archaeological records in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Arauna said:

...and we all know that secular dates are more shaky than Biblical dates.   

In order to figure out Biblical dates don't we have to rely on secular dates? As far as I am aware the Bible does not give any dates, it merely gives reignal years of kings, i.e 19th year etc. and in order to find out the actual year in history one has to consult ancient secular chronicles and calendars etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@AllenSmith,

I appreciate the scriptures you quoted as they completely coincide with these same points already made. But I can't quite figure out why you also said the following at the top of your post before you mentioned the scriptural points:

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Example 1:  of many disingenuous comments by the “POSTER” that would be in error to suggest Jesus disciples were unaware of Christ invisible return in Matthew since that “wasn’t” something they had in mind at that time. [. . . .] Therefore, the reference of the Watchtower admitting of something they hadn’t considered themselves is inconsistent with the Watchtower teachings.

I already agree 100% with the portion I left out, [ . . . ] but I'm wondering what the remaining part means. Are you saying you just don't like the word "admitting," or are you saying that when the Watchtower said the following, below, that they were actually wrong or they were inconsistent with their own teachings?

*** w64 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers ***
At Matthew 24:3, when Jesus’ disciples asked him about the “sign” of his presence, what did they have in mind, since later events show that they did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence? . . . [Answer]. . . But not yet having received holy spirit, they did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne; they had no idea that he would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible

If so, in what way were they wrong? In what way were they inconsistent? Is there a place where the Watchtower changed its view and said that the disciples actually were concerned about a possible invisible presence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Linda S.

      Linda S. 4

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Miracle Pete

      Miracle Pete 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.