607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[scholar JW]

Alan F

30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia

No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE. This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths' which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo. 

51 minutes ago, AlanF said:

According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years

Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah. He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired.

54 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon.

58 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity

Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate. During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others.

All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon with a desolated land running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

Quote

Again you misrepresent the facts for nowhere did the Society in the quotation on page 134 of the Proclaimers book use the word 'equate' but used the word 'connect' which is not synonymic.

Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:

:: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book.

Quote

Brown simply connects these two time periods simply on the basis that the 'seven times' would be the 'Gentile Times' as part of the signs of his second coming which also would include his second judgement etc..(Eventide , 1823, vol.2.p.208)

Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.

Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement?

Quote

The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary.

No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree.

Quote

How then as you claim that Brown equated the two periods

I did not. You are either a liar or abysmally stupid.

Quote

when in fact he interprets both periods differently throughout his treatise and the Society did not 'equate' these either but simply affirmed the connection which is clearly understood by any unbiased reader.

The Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation.

Quote

The Society in its publication did not explain the connection but simply affirmed it, Brown, on the other hand, connected the two contextually by means of two successive paragraphs, one with the former 'seven times' and in the next, by a quotation of Lule 21;24. Further, the link between the two time periods is part of the' signs of his second coming'.

Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath.

Quote

There you have it in a 'nutshell'. No need for 'gobble-de-goop'.

Almost nothing but unevidenced gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

[AlanF]

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Yes, I know.  It's not good enough, of course, but at least it shows Cyrus' Decree being issued not before Oct of 538, when he actually arrived in Babylon.  The "seventh month" the remnant were settled back on their land,  and had resumed  the daily sacrifices ,wouldn't have been the seventh month of 538, then, would it?

I think  some people might prefer that travel back and forth between Babylon and Jerusalem be almost instantaneous, maybe to account for Nebuchadnezzar's amazing itineraries and battles schedule -some propose all happened "in his first year", if I'm remembering right?

Even the Watch Tower Society agrees that Cyrus conquered Babylon in early October of 539 BCE, and that his accession year was most likely 539-538. Thus Cyrus' 1st regnal year was 538-537, and he most likely issued his decree freeing the Jews and many other captives in early 538. Therefore there was sufficient time for the Jews to prepare for and journey back Judah by early October, 538 BCE.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.

:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule

No, the pivotal date for 1914 chronology is not 537 BCE but 539 BCE which is our 'anchor date' for OT Chronology and dates that are derived from that form the basis for our prophetic interpretation. The date 537 BCE is simply the beginning of the calculation for 1914 CE. There is no room for speculation in Chronology for it is a science and as such it must be testable or falsifiable and based on evidence and methodology. The date 537 BCE falls within these parameters. There is no evidence for 538 BCE in the scholarly literature just an assertion or opinion also unlike our publications there is no methodology disclosed either in determining a date for the Return only assumptions which can have its place for Chronology not only demands a methodology but equally it demands interpretation.

Jeremiah's seventy years are clearly stated as one of desolation and this can be ignored for nowhere does Jeremiah disassociate the period of servitude from desolation for the two are linked together as in Jer. 25:11. Yes, a measure of contingency was involved for Jeremiah urged the populace to repent but the outcome was foretold and rest is history.

26 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date

Correct ! So What?. Chronology has and always be a 'work in progress' There is no 'perfect' Chronology. How many scholarly papers have been written over the this and the last century in trying to resolve problems and issues in Chronology. That was the motivation of Edwin Thiele and others so likewise WT scholars have in harmony with the latest scholarship have had to make adjustments and there is no need to be embarrassed or apologetic about it.

Move forward Alan, Move Forward. See the Chariot! Don't live in the past.

35 minutes ago, AlanF said:

More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished

For starters, Josephus did not, as far as I know, assign past events into our modern calender thus such events relating to the rebuilding of the Temple require interpretation and it is highly unlikely that his description of matters could upset 537 BCE for the Return. Now if you have worked out some thesis that refutes 537 BCE and confirms 538 BCE once for all, I am quite sure that scholars and historians the world over would appreciate such illumination. Also, now that you take notice of Josephus' testimony in order to disprove 537 BCE then Why do you not accept Josephus regarding the 'seventy years'?

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation

What these terms prove is called 'intellectual honesty' for such terms demonstrate that scholarship recognizes the limits of history and of the historical records so when constructing any scheme of Chronology one is forced or compelled to deal with Methodolgy and Interpretation. If you cannot grasp these concepts then you should drop the subject altogether.

52 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any

Now you are being childish or girlish for you know that WT scholars in their publications have always explained matters for we do not pluck a figure out of the ether. The date 537 BCE is endorsed by scholars and historians, others prefer 538 or even the late figure 536 BCE.

55 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion

This is simply your opinion and proves nothing for if 538 BCE is such a certainty then how is it the case that I do not find in any of the literature such explanation. COJ although preferring 538 over 537 did not make an issue other than quoting two sources so you will need to come up with not opinion but sound, reasoned scholarship, my lad. If there was really such an issue then COJ would have been all over it for all that he has done is simply footnoted it.

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.

At last. Honesty prevails for your statement acknowledged that there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology but that it requires sound methodology and interpretation. Well done!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.

Quote

Present your evidence with scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.

Simple. Just do the online course sponsored by the Tel Aviv University under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits and his course team- The Fall and Rise Of Jerusalem which plainly explains the political reality of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

scholar JW

[TrueTomHarley]

3 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Move forward Alan, Move Forward. See the Chariot! Don't live in the past

Whatever happens, don't nobody leave the keys in the chariot when it is idling.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

32 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:

:: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book

The quote in the Proclaimers book was simply recognized that Brown was the first scholar to connect the seven times with the Gentile Times. The quote does not 'equate' the two periods but 'connects' them only. We have and do equate the periods but Browns' reference and the Society's reference is not to equation but connection. Plain and simple!

36 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.

Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement

This first paragraph is correct, the second is false for you are making the implication that the Society is equating both periods but that is your reading of it and not mine. Just leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree

GTR, 1986, Second Edition, p.21.

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

he Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation

That is your interpretation of the quotation and its context. There is a big difference between an equation and a connection for these are not identical.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath

Simple just read the two paragraphs on page 208 for this is self-explanatory.

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Almost nothing but unevidenced gobble-de-goop

There is no room for such in Chronology except in the minds and hearts of our opposers.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Nana Fofana

38 minutes ago, AlanF said:

ven the Watch Tower Society agrees that Cyrus conquered Babylon in early October of 539 BCE, and that his accession year was most likely 539-538. Thus Cyrus' 1st regnal year was 538-537, and he most likely issued his decree freeing the Jews and many other captives in early 538. Therefore there was sufficient time for the Jews to prepare for and journey back Judah by early October, 538 BCE

Yes, this outlines for the first time within scholarship sound methodology relating to the determination of a precise date for the return of the Jewish Exiles however 538 is an unlikely candidate for the reasons we have explained as to the journey's length and time of travel amongst other unknown specifics which would make 537 BCE the most likely candidate.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia . . .   

Quote

No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE

I did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!

Quote

but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE.

538, actually.

Quote

This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE.

So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus.

:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

Quote

According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths'

You just proved my point: Jeremiah nowhere makes such a prophecy.

If you disagree, then cite the appropriate passage.

Quote

which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo.

More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. You still can't cite the Bible for evidence.

:: According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years

Quote

Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah.

Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.

Quote

He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired.

Pure speculation and a fine example of circular argumentation. Far more likely, Daniel had already observed the fall of Babylon, and therefore concluded that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy had ended, based on Jer. 25:11, 12: "'... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,' declares Jehovah." Since Jehovah had clearly called to account the king of Babylon by removing him (Nabonidus) from power and killing his viceroy (and probably son, Belshazzar) Daniel could only conclude that the 70 years had ended.

:: This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.

Quote

Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon.

It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
     
:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

:: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity   

Quote

Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate.

It does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:

<< . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>

Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.

Quote

During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others.

Exactly. But just as many of them capitulated to Babylon and were not made captive or desolate, so did Judah have the opportunity (Jer. 27) but rejected it, and suffered the consequences.

Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?

Quote

All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon,

Yes, of Judah and the surrounding nations.

Quote

an exile in Babylon with a desolated land

Wrong.

Quote

running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.

And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!

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?

19 minutes ago, AlanF said:

538, actually.

Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus

 

28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

 

 

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.

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended whe

39 minutes ago, AlanF said:

 

 

n the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

1

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'.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
     
:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

:: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity

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.

58 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.

T

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

 

 

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'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:

<< . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>

Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

hy do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.

And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossibl

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

 

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

..... when all is said ...and done......

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.

:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule   

Quote

No, the pivotal date for 1914 chronology is not 537 BCE but 539 BCE which is our 'anchor date' for OT Chronology and dates that are derived from that form the basis for our prophetic interpretation. The date 537 BCE is simply the beginning of the calculation for 1914 CE.

I'm perfectly well aware of the Watch Tower Society's claims, but I'm talking about reality: the reality is that 1914 must be maintained at all costs, and 1914 is based on these dates: return of the Jews -- back 70 years -- fall of Jerusalem -- forward 2,520 years -- 1914. The date of Babylon's fall (539) is undisputed. The date of the return of the Jews is undetermined in the scholarly community but Watch Tower chronology is fundamentally based on it being 537. Therefore it is the real, practical pivotal date.

Quote

There is no room for speculation in Chronology for it is a science and as such it must be testable or falsifiable and based on evidence and methodology. The date 537 BCE falls within these parameters. There is no evidence for 538 BCE in the scholarly literature just an assertion or opinion

Still lying. I and others have pointed out a number of sources to you. That you continue to ignore them proves your scholastic dishonesty.

Quote

also unlike our publications there is no methodology disclosed either in determining a date for the Return only assumptions which can have its place for Chronology not only demands a methodology but equally it demands interpretation.

Lying still more. I've given you a brief reference ( https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ), and you've read and ignored far more extensive writeups.

Quote

Jeremiah's seventy years are clearly stated as one of desolation

Wrong. Jer. 25 and 27 clearly define the 70 years as a period of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations in the Near East. Whether desolation of a nation occurred was contingent on how it reacted to Babylon's supremacy.

Quote

and this can be ignored for nowhere does Jeremiah disassociate the period of servitude from desolation for the two are linked together as in Jer. 25:11.

A flat out lie. As I pointed out, and you have steadfastly ignored, Jer. 27 shows that you're lying:

<< 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’ 9 “‘“‘Therefore, do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your magicians, and your sorcerers, who are saying to you: “You will not serve the king of Babylon.” 10 For they are prophesying lies to you, so that you will be taken far away from your land and I will disperse you and you will perish. 11 “‘“‘But the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to cultivate it and dwell in it.’”’” >>

You know you're lying because these scriptures have been pointed out to you dozens of times over the years.

Quote

Yes, a measure of contingency was involved for Jeremiah urged the populace to repent but the outcome was foretold and rest is history.

If the outcome was definitely to be desolation, then there was no contingency. Get your story straight.

:: Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date

Quote

Correct ! So What?

 

As I said above: the whole focus of Watch Tower efforts has been to maintain the 1914 date.

Quote

Chronology has and always be a 'work in progress' There is no 'perfect' Chronology. How many scholarly papers have been written over the this and the last century in trying to resolve problems and issues in Chronology. That was the motivation of Edwin Thiele and others so likewise WT scholars have in harmony with the latest scholarship have had to make adjustments and there is no need to be embarrassed or apologetic about it.

The difference is that the Watch Tower Society has always claimed that its chronology is divinely directed, and has treated critics as if they were heretics. Scholars don't do that.

:: More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished

Quote

For starters, Josephus did not, as far as I know, assign past events into our modern calender

Straw man. Josephus did not use the modern Gregorian calendar since it did not exist, nor the Julian calendar. He used some form of the Jewish calendar, as anyone can see by reading his works.

Quote

thus such events relating to the rebuilding of the Temple require interpretation

Very little interpretation is needed. Ezra 3:8, 10 states that in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the return of the Jews to Judah, the temple's foundations were laid. Since Ezra is clear that the Jews returned in the 7th month (Tishri of 538 or 537), the 2nd month of the next year must necessarily be Iyyar of 537 or 536. The Watch Tower Society claims 536, based on Ezra's statements.

Understanding Josephus' statement that "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid" requires little interpretation. Whether that 2nd year is in a Nisan or Tishri calendar makes no difference to the final result -- the temple foundation was laid in Iyyar of 537, requiring the return of the Jews in 538.

Now, you can deal with actual details for once, or resort to your usual meaningless generalities and gobble-de-goop, as you do here:

Quote

and it is highly unlikely that his description of matters could upset 537 BCE for the Return. Now if you have worked out some thesis that refutes 537 BCE and confirms 538 BCE once for all, I am quite sure that scholars and historians the world over would appreciate such illumination.

Surely a competent scholar such as yourself could easily point out where Josephus and Ezra combined are wrong, thus saving us all a lot of trouble. But you can't, not now and not a decade ago. Thus you'll just bluster and spew gobble-de-goop.

Readers with a bit of scholastic honesty will read my linked article, analyze the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. But most of them already know that my argument is correct, and that you cannot refute it.

Quote

Also, now that you take notice of Josephus' testimony in order to disprove 537 BCE then Why do you not accept Josephus regarding the 'seventy years'?

Irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway: Josephus mentioned the 70 years four times. In the earliest three instances he said that Judah was desolated for 70 years, but a good deal of evidence shows that he was merely repeating the current popular legend. But in the last instance Josephus referenced material from an earlier Babylonian writer, set down various dates, and showed why the temple was desolated for fifty -- not seventy -- years. This latter material is consistent with most other historical material.

But you already know all this, so your bringing it up is a red herring and another instance of your scholastic dishonesty.
     
:: Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation

Quote

What these terms prove is called 'intellectual honesty' for such terms demonstrate that scholarship recognizes the limits of history and of the historical records so when constructing any scheme of Chronology one is forced or compelled to deal with Methodolgy and Interpretation. If you cannot grasp these concepts then you should drop the subject altogether.

More gross lying. The Watch Tower Society is so convinced that these speculations are divinely inspired that it actually declares anyone who disagrees an apostate from God, declares them wicked, and disfellowships them. That is NOT intellectual honesty but intellectual terrorism.

Furthermore, only in a handful of instances does the Society admit that its 537 date is speculative. In most cases, the date is stated or implied to be definitively established, thus definitively establishing a base for the 1914 calculation. The Watch Tower Society is lying about this. Like mother, like son.
     
:: Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any

Quote

Now you are being childish or girlish for you know that WT scholars in their publications have always explained matters for we do not pluck a figure out of the ether. The date 537 BCE is endorsed by scholars and historians, others prefer 538 or even the late figure 536 BCE.

As I said: you cannot cite any historical sources to support your claim. You lose.
     
:: Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion

Quote

This is simply your opinion and proves nothing for if 538 BCE is such a certainty then how is it the case that I do not find in any of the literature such explanation.

Because I'm the first one to have written about it, so far as I know.

Quote

COJ although preferring 538 over 537 did not make an issue other than quoting two sources so you will need to come up with not opinion but sound, reasoned scholarship, my lad.

Already done. Read the material at the link I provided.

You disagree with it? Then argue your case. Otherwise you're just blowing wind, as all readers can see.

Quote

If there was really such an issue then COJ would have been all over it for all that he has done is simply footnoted it.

COJ was not aware of this argument until after he published the last edition of GTR.
 
:: Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.

Quote

At last. Honesty prevails for your statement acknowledged that there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology but that it requires sound methodology and interpretation. Well done!

LOL! The Watch Tower Society and you are thoroughly dogmatic about your fake 537 date and about a host of other chronological matters. Such a gross hypocrite!
     
:: It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.

Quote

Present your evidence with scholarship.

Read my linked essay.
     
:: Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.

Quote

Simple. Just do the online course sponsored by the Tel Aviv University under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits and his course team- The Fall and Rise Of Jerusalem which plainly explains the political reality of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

I've read Lipschits' book. It says nothing to support Watch Tower traditions.

Readers should note that "scholar JW" normally cites no scriptures or scholarly souces. Rather, he resorts to bald assertions and statements of opinion without presenting actual evidence.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:

:::: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book

Quote

The quote in the Proclaimers book was simply recognized that Brown was the first scholar to connect the seven times with the Gentile Times.

You continue with your gross dishonesty. You refuse to acknowledge that what I said was correct. You refuse to admit that the Watch Tower Society's words were not meant in some vague way, where "connect" has no specific meaning, but were meant to convey to the reader that Brown equated the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times".

Quote

The quote does not 'equate' the two periods but 'connects' them only.

This is actually a very good illustration of how the Watch Tower Society dishonestly uses language. It uses ambiguous language to convey a clear meaning to naive readers, while actually saying something non-committal or even opposite. That way, when called out on a false statement, they can claim, "well, we didn't actually say blah blah blah".

Quote

We have and do equate the periods but Browns' reference and the Society's reference is not to equation but connection. Plain and simple!

Still not defining exactly what "connection" means in the offending Proclaimers book statement.
     
:: Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.

:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement

Quote

This first paragraph is correct, the second is false for you are making the implication that the Society is equating both periods but that is your reading of it and not mine. Just leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.

Continuing to try to pull the wool over readers' eyes.

Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection".
     
::: The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary.

:: No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree

Quote

GTR, 1986, Second Edition, p.21.

It's astonishing how dishonest you can be when you put your mind to it.

Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it.

One is still left wondering why the Proclaimers book's author bothered to italicize his statement. There is no reasonable explanation other than that he wanted to contradict someone else.

:: the Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation

Quote

That is your interpretation of the quotation and its context. There is a big difference between an equation and a connection for these are not identical.

I happen to have excellent reading comprehension, and am not prone to misinterpreting subtle cues in Watch Tower literature. Once again, the overall context of the Proclaimers book here is how the "seven times" came to be equated with the "Gentile Times". With that context in mind, the statement that Brown "did connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" clearly implies that Brown equated the two periods. This is especially so because the book gives no information about how the periods were "connected" apart from the implication that they were equated.
     
:: Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath

Quote

Simple just read the two paragraphs on page 208 for this is self-explanatory.

How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim.

So far you're batting zero, as I said you would.
     
AlanF