Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

Member
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
    The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
    You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
    Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
    scholar JW
  2. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Anna
    Herein I will attempt to answer your questions in your last two posts simply for if you read my responses to Ann and JW Insider these would address your questions in part.
    The two dates of 609 and 605 BCE are used in our publications for different events so it is not the events but the dates that are not recognized in our publications or in WT/ Bible Chronology. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 which of course lies between these two dates but these events, the battle at Carchemish and Megiddo preceded the Fall thus must be duly corrected or adjusted.
    The dates for those events 629 and 625 now corrected by means of the insertion of the biblical 70 years causing a twenty-year corrective factor.
    scholar JW
     
  3. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    WT Chronology only uses the secular date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for all other dates are based on the biblical narrative counting backwards or forwards in order to construct a scheme of Chronology, During the Neo-Babylonian Period alone there is found to be a Gap of 20 years and thus is used as 'corrective'in order to harmonize Biblical Chronology with traditional Chronology. For Dates that lie outside this period the biblical data where applicable is used to construct a Chronology that goes far back to Adam in 4026 BCE. 
    Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense.The fact of the matter is that period, the Neo-Babylonian Period parallels Biblical Period of Jewish history and contains events that are or can be synchronized between both schemes. It is proven that there is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically, therefore, any interpreter, Chronologist or scholar needs to make an adjustment or corrective in order to harmonize the two systems. This is what scholars call -METHODOLOGY!!!!! This represents sound academic practice.
    According to at least not half a dozen as you say but there are 17 lines of evidence which would corroborate NB Chronology along with thousands of clay documents wherein no mention or description of the biblical 70 years occurs. How strange! Yet the Bible mentions. discusses, explains this most important and critical period of biblical history so it cannot be ignored for it intruded upon and shaped the NB Period.
    scholar JW
  4. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann
    It is impossible to begin the 70 years of nation's servitude in 609 BCE because nothing of any historical significance occurred in that year. At that time it is historically incorrect to speak of any Babylonish domination at that time for the major player in the Region was Egypt and remained a dominant player until the Battle at Carchemish some four years later.Further, nowhere does the OT refer to the expression of '70 years of nation's servitude' for it seems you are conflating this with the seventy years of Jeremiah'.Scholars including Albertz refer to 3 deportations so that means that for some exiles their respective exiles would vary in length as you have explained but when we come to the chronology and nature of the 70 years our minds are focussed on that Exile proper which consumed the nation and as Albertz termed it- a CATASTROPHE. It is this Exile which began after the Fall and lasted until the Return which the 70 years of Jeremiah refer because it was commensurate with a period of servitude to Babylon and Desolation of the land of Judah.
    scholar JW
  5. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann, Yes we have had numerous discussions numerous times and your objections have been countered and rebutted on each and every occasion. Rainer Albertz does conform to traditional Chronology or timeline except that he begins the Exie or Exilic Era from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, rather than an earlier date. Josephus gives several references which are explanatory of the 70 years and it is only one other that refers to a period of 50 years which alone is contentious.
    scholar JW
     
  6. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O'Maly
    Hi Ann
    WT interpretation most certainly accommodates both meanings 'for' or 'at Babylon' because your proposition asserts  that the Exile began 10 years earlier and it is true that for those earlier exiles their length may well have been much longer than 70 years. However, the Biblical passages relevant to this matter synchronize the seventy years with the land being desolate so this requirement necessitates that the Exile proper began only after the Fall in 607 BCE. This viewpoint is in harmony with current scholarship and I urge you to read 'Israel In Exile' by Rainer Albertz and expert in the specialized study of the Exile and Restoration. Further, this also matches the description of the 70 years by Josephus. I can say much more on this topic but that will do for now!
    scholar JW
  7. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Hi Anna
    This highlights a major problem for WT critics as to when should the dating of the 70 years properly begin? Because the beginning of the NB Period is an open question historically speaking. The beginning of the 70 years should be an event that meets all of the prophetic and historic considerations and the only possible candidate for this epochal event is when Jerusalem was destroyed which scholars use the term the 'Fall of Jerusalem'. the 70 years would be and was a period of desolation of the Land Of Judah- a period of servitude for/to Babylon and Exile in/at Babylon- this formula alone encapsulates all of the relevant '70year' texts of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah and duly noted by Josephus.
    In short, you are quite correct the 70 years applies to Jews exiled to Babylon and to their former homeland-Judah.
    scholar JW
  8. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    JW Insider
    No, I cannot agree that Jeremiah's seventy years refers to Babylonish domination alone but only in part for those two texts that you have quoted make it quite clear that the 70 years was also a period of Exile and desolation of the land of Judah.This is proven by the context of Jer. 25:8-11 wherein the Exile and Desolation is well described. In vs. 12 judgement will befall Babylon only after a period of 70 years has expired. In Jer. 29:10 the servitude and Exile to Babylon and in Babylon is foretold. So this means that apart from the other 70 texts of Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra, Jeremiah' confirms the fact of DESOLATION-EXILE-SERVITUDE.
    The translation of Jer.29:10 remains a matter of dispute as to whether the Hebrew proposition should properly be rendered as 'for' or'at' as these are possible meanings. However, it does not matter because the above interpretation of the 70 years as outlined above can accommodate either of these two meanings. In short, it makes no difference whatsoever.for the simple reason that the 70 years contains the element of servitude as shown by 'for' indicating purpose  and exile as shown by 'at' indicating location.
    The 70 years of Isaiah belonging to TYRE are totally different to Jeremiah's seventy years which belong to Judah so we should not conflate the two periods for the only commonality is that both indicate Babylon's domination either in part or in whole. The 70 years of Jeremiah does contain that one aspect of Babylon's domination or servitude to or for Judah.
    scholar JW
  9. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    This is nonsense. Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it. This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return. The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context.
    scholar JW emeritus
  10. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE
    scholar JW emeritus
     
  11. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
    The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
    Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
    1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
    2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
    This is just for starters.
    scholar JW emeritus
  12. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    This is nonsense. Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it. This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return. The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context.
    scholar JW emeritus
  13. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from DefenderOTT in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE
    scholar JW emeritus
     
  14. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Further, what must be born in mind that Chronology is not just a set of numbers on paper that can be made to fit any argument according to one's bias or opinion and this why biblical chronology varies so much between scholars. Chronology simply charters history so must be built on a solid historical base and history is about people and their lives so one must not only look at a pretty colourful chart but see beyond the page and comprehend whether such a scheme can relate to human experience. In this case, a period of six months based on two calenders that already have a floating six month difference can be very problematic.
    Also, one should further consider that within scholarship there are numerous scholarly papers in reputable journals that try to resolve the Nisan-Tishri problem and that is a very complex field of study for we simply do not know with certainty what Calender, Ezra used in dating the first year of Cyrus.
    scholar JW emeritus
  15. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Alan F first raised his hypothesis on the JWD forum about August 2006 presented with a tabulation of events from Tishri, 539 BCE to Iyyar, 536 BCE. This tabulation would cover those events around the return of the Jews. He states the following:
    1. Cyrus issued his Decree in his 1st year, Nisan 538 BCE counting from Month 1
    2. The Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6 in Cyrus' 1st year, Elul, 538 BCE
    3. The Jews are settled in their cities in Month 7, in Cyrus', Tishri, 538 BCE
    What this shows that within a period of 6 full months all of the events as described in Ezra 1:1-3:1 which of course is plain and utter nonsense. Alan F has already admitted that the journey would have taken at a minimum, 4 months so one can that this is simply a 'contrivance' designed to mislead the reader.
    Now, COJ is no fool and he has had plenty of time to deal with this issue and even now he could easily post an ADDENDUM in support of Alan F's hypothesis but to date Jonsson has simply confined this issue to a footnote with two scholarly references and does not share Alan's dogmatism that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return or wording thus similar.
    scholar JW emeritus
  16. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
    The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
    Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
    1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
    2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
    This is just for starters.
    scholar JW emeritus
  17. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. 
    The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags  packed  waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days.
    Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as:
    1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE
    2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE
    This is just for starters.
    scholar JW emeritus
  18. Upvote
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    Alan F first raised his hypothesis on the JWD forum about August 2006 presented with a tabulation of events from Tishri, 539 BCE to Iyyar, 536 BCE. This tabulation would cover those events around the return of the Jews. He states the following:
    1. Cyrus issued his Decree in his 1st year, Nisan 538 BCE counting from Month 1
    2. The Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6 in Cyrus' 1st year, Elul, 538 BCE
    3. The Jews are settled in their cities in Month 7, in Cyrus', Tishri, 538 BCE
    What this shows that within a period of 6 full months all of the events as described in Ezra 1:1-3:1 which of course is plain and utter nonsense. Alan F has already admitted that the journey would have taken at a minimum, 4 months so one can that this is simply a 'contrivance' designed to mislead the reader.
    Now, COJ is no fool and he has had plenty of time to deal with this issue and even now he could easily post an ADDENDUM in support of Alan F's hypothesis but to date Jonsson has simply confined this issue to a footnote with two scholarly references and does not share Alan's dogmatism that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return or wording thus similar.
    scholar JW emeritus
  19. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    Your opinion is simply bluster lacking substance.
     
    Yes and No. Their conversion had nothing to do with me for they related to us their experience in Hobart, Tasmania but the Hasofer's had always a deep and profound respect for the Witnesses. Regrettably, it was later after their deaths that we learnt that the wife had in fact been a baptised Witness which was never revealed to us.
    That is your problem. I can only state the facts of the matter the rest is up to you.
    scholar JW emeritus
  20. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    This is simply your opinion. The Jews remained in Babylon after 539, remained in captivity to Babylon even though there was a new rulership in Babylon until their release under Cyrus in537 BCE thus ending their captivity.
    The Bible clearly states that the Jewish nation would serve Babylon and describes in detail the fact of their deportation, exile in Babylon and the desolation of Judah. It was Ezra that also described the end of the captivity-exile-servitude as ending with Persian rulership ending the Babylonian dynasty-'Nebuchadnezzer and his sons' and the release of the captives in 537 BCE. How can it be that you are now virtually certain of 538 whilst admitting to the possibility of 537? Make up your mind!
    Says you. We are not talking about Temple rebuilding at all but the fact of the Return before they began rebuilding the Temple. I am now starting to worry that you are conflating Josephus' building of the temple with the building of the Altar at the time of their Return. tThere is no way that the Jews could have returned in 538 BCE for it is too long  a stretch and my imagination has a limit. Best stick to the more comfortable 537 date.
    Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed?
    Have you not dreamt of being an astronaut?. Please do not crush my fancies or dreams for life is painful enough. I must amount to something to attract your attention over the many years and to be so rigorous in having to denounce my scholarship. Am I a worry to you?
    Not really just a simple request to reveal to the scholarly community a solution to a piece of neglected Jewish history- the date of the Return. I am sure that post Exilic scholars would love to know of some scholarship that would prove beyond any doubt that 538 is the correct date. Jack Finegan and Rodger Young which you reference at the end of your online article would be most grateful for such enlightenment. Has it been peer reviewed yet?
    Wrong. Jeremiah most certainly prophesied about the land paying of its sabbaths according to Ezra and Ezra most certainly associated this with the seventy years as described in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Perhaps you Alan have a different Bible which omits this passage. I would have thought that a careful reading of this text is clear enough but I forgot that you have excellent reading comprehension so that explains your contradictory statement as above.There is nothing that can associate the 70 years with 609 or any such claim to Babylonian supremacy for such is utter nonsense for the simple fact that the Jewish nation and its internal problems were not in the frame as it were. Babylon was not even a World Power at that time so you need to get a grip on the political reality of the region.
    Wrong. The link is Lev.26:34. The WBC- 2 Chronicles, 1987, vol.15, p.301 states on this text:"The Chronicler has conjoined his citation of Jer.25:11-12; 29:10 with a citation of Lev.26:34-35, 43".Now that was not difficult was it?
    COJ along with many others have failed abysmally. The seventy years indeed can only be a period of servitude-exile-desolation for no other paradigm fits all of the facts. Besides this proves that I am not a WT drone because this formula is of my own origination for nowhere in any WT publication is the matter thus so simply defined. Ah! creative genius at last
    So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years.
    My beliefs are relevant to me because such are personal. I have a copy of Finegan's books both editions if you please and widely used by me.
    If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years?
    Nonsense. The date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria in 609? is meaningless in its relation to the seventy years because Egypt was a menacing threat to this new invader so the politics at that time was in a state of flux with rival world powers jostling for supremacy. What is certain is that your beginning of the seventy years is fuzzy for there can be no uncertainty about the beginning of the seventy years for it is well described by Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The only certain statement that you have made is that Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE upon which we agree. Your uncertain statement about the nature of the  seventy years is a bit of a worry. Methinks!
    I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587.
    Remember this it was I that introduced Rodger Young's research onto the online forums because of his use of Methodology in order to resolve the 586/87 conflict. The date 586 remains even today the widely accepted date amongst most serious scholars.
    The 70 years can only be defined as a period of servitude or Babylonish supremacy, a period of exile in Babylon or for Babylon in recognition of its supremacy and period of a desolated land of Judah. the role of Babylonian supremacy is only part of the picture, a necessity in order to actualize the seventy years.
    There were deportations of the Jews to Babylon before the seventy years began, at its onset and soon thereafter. The captives remained in Babylon even after its Fall in 539 even though the Dynasty of Neb. had come to an end all within the 70 years as foretold.
    Their identity is not disclosed but Jeremiah addressed those nations in Jer. 25;15ff and this pericope is described as the OAN in the literature. Whatever the case if it refers to surrounding nations as you state they would have had to serve Babylon during that period of supremacy from 607 until its demise in 539 BCE but for Judah, their servitude was specifically tied to the land and exile which proved in their case a little longer in Babylon in order to fulfill their sentence of seventy years.
    I disagree for in the case of the outworking of the seventy years it proved that their captivity, servitude or exile all amounted the same. Yes, they could have chosen to serve Babylon and remain in their land but they ignored the prophets and paid the price- 70 years of enslavement to a foreign power just as Jehovah foretold.
    I do address it and have done so many times in the past. I am perfectly happy with the rendering 'for Babylon' as it proves the reality that for a period of seventy years the Jews served Babylon because they were under Babylonian supremacy right up to its end and until Babylon under new rulership released the captives in 537.
    That is an interesting argument but it fails because despite the fact that Babylonian dynasty by means of Neb. and his descendants ended in 539. the Jews remained captive at Babylon even under a new rulership proving that the seventy years had not expired.
    Jeremiah specifically addressed Judah for the seventy years applied to Judah and its land and by consequence other nations suffered similarly for they too were caught up in the maelstrom. Yes, servitude was generic, common to many nations during that period but seventy years of servitude =exile-desolation was assigned to Judah.
    That is a subject of exegesis and there a number of explanations and I have my own independent of others. Simply put, whilst Judah served Babylon under its supremacy which dominated the entire region other nations were made to serve similarly as to their respective lengths it is unknown but as Babylon as respects to Judah was the dominant force for 70 years then they too had to serve for the period of its sovereignty.
    No, you should research this matter more thoroughly try the leading Bible commentaries for starters. If you require guidance, scholar will help you because scholar likes to hel
     
     I have lost some data so will exit now.
    scholar JW
     
     
  21. Confused
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
    Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
    No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
    scholar JW
    ,..
  22. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Foreigner in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Was it going to tough for you? Please come again for I am always ready for battle.
    scholar JW emeritus
  23. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Foreigner in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
    Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
    No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
    scholar JW
    ,..
  24. Haha
    scholar JW got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.
    You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?
    Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.
     
    It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.
    Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.
    Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.
    Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.
    T
     
    here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.
    Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.
    That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.
    The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.
    scholar JW emeritus
     
     
     
     
  25. Like
    scholar JW got a reaction from Nana Fofana in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Alan F
    Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.
    You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?
    Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.
     
    It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.
    Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.
    Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.
    Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.
    T
     
    here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.
    Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.
    That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.
    The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.
    scholar JW emeritus
     
     
     
     
×
×
  • 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.