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

[Ann O'Maly]

I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again Â 

11 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Read that paragraph again on p. 367 in Franz's COC , 2nd edn, Sept, 1994 which clearly shows Franz' s agreement with the Society's later published statement in the Proclaimer's book that Brown did, in fact, connect Daniel's 'seven times' with Lukes' Gentile Times in Luke 21:24.

This is how attentive to detail you are - you still can't even get the page number right. In the 2nd edition, Franz discussed John A. Brown on p. 142-3. There is nothing about Brown on p. 367 - just a reproduction of a letter regarding Franz's disfellowshipping. As I showed in my previous post, your assertion about Franz agreeing with the Proclaimers book statement is wrong. 

But you know all this. AlanF went over this with you many years ago. And yet you persist in these untruths.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(why does @AlanF call @scholar JW Scholar Pretendus

Likely for the same reason I can't address him by his chosen online misnomer. I start breaking out in hives when I do.

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

About the 537 thing. There was a fun thread on that topic started by one of the Allen Smiths a while back. His argument for a 537 return could be summarized thus: Link to post. 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

10 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.

Your antiquated source has Cyrus conquering Babylon in 538 rather than the established 539. It doesn't help you determine that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 538. In reality, once the year is corrected, it shows that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 539. We have no issue with Cyrus issuing his decree after Oct 539.

 

(Just saw Alan had already addressed this. Soz.)

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah,+ until the land had paid off its sabbaths.+ All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.+

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'

It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.

It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).

The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.

Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:

• (Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years.

But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:

• (Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Can you see the difference?

Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.

One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)

At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

[JW Insider]

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.

On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):

"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"

But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:

"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"

I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

[Ann O'Maly]

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 

17 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition

The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.

The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.

Nice try, though.

[scholar JW]

Ann O Maly

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again

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.

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

This is how attentive to detail you are - you still can't even get the page number right. In the 2nd edition, Franz discussed John A. Brown on p. 142-3. There is nothing about Brown on p. 367 - just a reproduction of a letter regarding Franz's disfellowshipping. As I showed in my previous post, your assertion about Franz agreeing with the Proclaimers book statement is wrong

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

,..

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus Activus wrote:

:: 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

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.

What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain.

Quote

You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian.

Correct. Lying and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is unchristian.

Quote

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?

I'm not a Christian, but that is irrelevant, since my conduct on these forums far better conforms to Christian standards of honesty than yours does. And no, what I've said about you is not "rich"; it is a fact based on your reprehensible, dishonest behavior demonstrated over two decades.
     
:: 538, actually.

Quote

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

Sez you.

As usual, you present no evidence, no actual arguments. Just bald assertions.

:: 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

Quote

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've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically.

Quote

I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship.

So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.

Quote

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.

LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.

Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!

:: 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

Jeremiah linked

There's one of those weasel words again, which you're so fond of using.

What passage in Jeremiah gives this "link"? You can cite none. Thus you've proved my point once again.

Quote

the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years.

Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.

Quote

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.

Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.

Quote

To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best,

Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again.

Quote

I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.

Quote

and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy'

It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date.

Quote

and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years.

Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.

Quote

The date 587BCE is also problematic

Yet another weasel word.

Quote

as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'.

Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used.

Quote

The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.

LOL! That's like saying the earth is flat because some scientists say it's spherical while others say it's pear shaped.

:: 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

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.

It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.

Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.

Quote

Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years.

No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.

Quote

Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone

Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."

Quote

unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period.

More deliberate vagueness. Tyre "served" only in a limited sense, and for much less than 70 years.

Quote

The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered

Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.

Quote

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.

Correct, but that's only because the Bible and Babylonian records say nothing more than something like "these nations". But we know for certain that Jews were taken captive in 605/4, 597, 587/6, and at other times.

Quote

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.

Very good! But not Exile for a full 70 years. Some were exiled for about 67 years, others for about 59 years, others for about 49 years. None for a full 70 years. But all of "these nations" served Babylon in a global sense from 609 to 539 BCE.

And as I have shown, the Temple was desolate for 50 years -- 587 to 537 BCE. Josephus confirms this (see below).

Quote

So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.

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

Quote

There 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'.

Complete gobble-de-goop that addresses none of my arguments.
     
:: 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

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

You continue to ignore Jer. 27, which shows that any desolation was contingent on a nation failing to bow to Babylon's power: "'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.'" -- Jer. 27:11.

Quote

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.

Again ignoring Jer. 27.

:: Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?

Quote

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.

In other words, you will continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that you don't like, because they contradict what you've learned from Mommy Watch Tower.
     
:: 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

Quote

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.

As has been repeatedly proved by Carl Jonsson in various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and by other scholars, Josephus' first three references to "70 years" in this context were just his repeating of current Jewish legends. In his last work he corrected himself, based on his reference to Babylonian historian Berossus, and said clearly that the Temple was devasted for 50 years -- not 70.

For a more complete discussion of Josephus, see pages 298-300 at this link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjKpruOycbYAhVI5IMKHecSDa0QFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchtowerlies.com%2Flinked%2Fthe-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2qcUETI_cz35sfzx9FslCp

Quote

You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.

Wrong. I've already told you several times: a brief discussion is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

That you refuse to address the material on this forum proves that you're no scholar, and dishonest to a fault.

Quote

scholar JW emeritus

LOL!

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

11 hours ago, AlanF 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

Yes, you were forced by me during the original discussion on this topic on the other forum years ago that a connection was made by Brown and this is simply what the Proclaimers recognizes the connection as proved by the contents of page 208. The Society makes no equation of the two time periods by means of Brown's reference but simply a connection but the context of p.134 in the Proclaimers certainly implies the equating of these two periods as part of our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

: 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

No, you are misreading the Proclaimers book because even though it upholds our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times equating these with the seven times it simply uses Brown's reference on page 208 to a connection of the two periods to show that he was the first Expositor to do so.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

nce 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".

1

 

The Proclaimers  book as far as I know was not written to satisfy the needs of Alan F or to meet his criteria of how the Gentile Times should be discussed. This book simply used a reference from Brown that he was the first expositor to connect both time periods. The context of the Society's book certainly supports our traditional understanding that both time periods are equated.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

onsson'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

Yes, on page 21 of COJ's GTR he used the verb 'associate' but in his next edition, p. 69 he used the verb "connect". Now, the word 'associate' has a range of meanings as you say and context is everything so it could be argued that COJ was thinking of an equation but when he later uses the word 'connect' then that lowers the bar somewhat saying something now quite specific and this contradicts what Brown simply acknowledged as pointed out in the Society's book.

 

12 hours ago, AlanF said:

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.

Self praise is no recommendation but I am happy for you that you have excellent reading comprehension so I will look forward to your scholarly research on 538BCE. The overall context of the Proclaimers book equates the Gentile Times with the seven times. The fact that Brown connected or linked these times does not infer any equation of the two but can simply be connected by means of other reasons such as context, similar words, or thoughts or the historical fulfilment etc. You are inferring something that is absent and this is just plain nonsense.

 

12 hours ago, AlanF said:

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

That is not necessary because you possess excellent reading comprehension but the reader can make up his/her own mind and read the two paragraphs on page 208.

scholar JW emeritus

[TrueTomHarley]

[AlanF]

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:::: 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

Yes, you were forced by me during the original discussion on this topic on the other forum years ago that a connection was made by Brown

Wrong. I wrote about this back in the mid-1990s, shortly after I got hold of photocopies from microfilm of both volumes of "The Even-Tide".

Quote

and this is simply what the Proclaimers recognizes the connection as proved by the contents of page 208.

Once again you're trying to mislead readers. Only saying that there was a "connection" is meaningless. What connection? The context is that the Society is trying to justify an equation between the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", and is supposedly giving a history of that equation, so the reader will automatically understand "connect" to mean "equate", especially since the actual connection is nowhere explained.

Quote

The Society makes no equation of the two time periods by means of Brown's reference but simply a connection but the context of p.134 in the Proclaimers certainly implies the equating of these two periods as part of our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times.

Exactly what I've been saying all along. You're finally forced to admit that Jonsson was correct in his criticism and so was I.

:: 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

No, you are misreading the Proclaimers book because even though it upholds our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times equating these with the seven times it simply uses Brown's reference on page 208 to a connection of the two periods to show that he was the first Expositor to do so.

You've contradicted what you wrote above. You're so accustomed to lying that you no longer know the difference between truth and falsehood, and switch between the two from paragraph to paragraph. LOL!

:: 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".

Quote

The Proclaimers  book as far as I know was not written to satisfy the needs of Alan F or to meet his criteria of how the Gentile Times should be discussed.

It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.

Quote

This book simply used a reference from Brown that he was the first expositor to connect both time periods.

Except that the context shows that "connect" is implied to mean "equate". Again, the author's use of italics to emphasize his statement proves his intent, and that intent was to contradict what someone else had already written. Read it again:

>>

End of the Gentile Times

The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about "the times of the Gentiles" and the prophet Daniel's record of Nebuchadnezzar's dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for "seven times."--Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.

As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.

>>

Once again, because most readers, especially JW readers, are well aware that the Watch Tower Society has always equated these two periods, when the Proclaimers book uses the word "connect", readers will automatically interpret that to mean "equate". That is especially so in view of the book's failure to mention that Brown did not equate the two periods.

Imagine a test of reading comprehension which asks:

What connection did John A. Brown make between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times"?

The natural and automatic answer is: He equated them.

Quote

The context of the Society's book certainly supports our traditional understanding that both time periods are equated.

Exactly as I keep saying.

:: 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

Quote

Yes, on page 21 of COJ's GTR he used the verb 'associate' but in his next edition, p. 69 he used the verb "connect".

Yet another red herring, as shown below.

Keep in mind that Jonsson published GTR 2nd edition in 1986, long before the Proclaimers book was published, and that some of the material in GTR 3rd edition (1998) was a response to the misinformation in the Proclaimers book.

Quote

Now, the word 'associate' has a range of meanings as you say and context is everything so it could be argued that COJ was thinking of an equation but when he later uses the word 'connect' then that lowers the bar somewhat saying something now quite specific and this contradicts what Brown simply acknowledged as pointed out in the Society's book.

Yet another fine example of deliberate misrepresentation by gobble-de-goop. Here is what Jonsson wrote in GTR 3rd edition, pp. 67-69:

<<
True, the Society finally admits that Russell took over his calculation of the Gentile times from Nelson H. Barbour, who had published it one year before Russell "in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of the Herald of the Morning." In the preceding paragraph the book even seeks to enlist the 19th-century expositors of the 2,520-year calculation as supporting the 1914 date. This impression is further enhanced by the bold-typed statement to the left of the paragraph: "They could see that 1914 was clearly marked by Bible prophecy." The presentation of the history, however, is narrowly limited to a few carefully selected expositors, the calculations of whom are partially obscured, adjusted and arranged so as to create the impression that the 2,520-year calculation uniquely pointed forward to 1914. None of the many other terminal dates arrived at by expositors before Russell are mentioned. Thus, although John A. Brown is stated to have arrived at the 2,520 years "as early as 1823," his particular application of the period is completely veiled and distorted in the subsequent sentences:

<< But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. >>

Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then are demonstrably false.
>>

Clearly, when Jonsson used "connect" in the above, he used it in the sense "equate". Obviously he understood the Proclaimers book to mean "equate". Obviously, as I pointed out, Jonsson used "associate" in the sense "equate" in GTR 2nd edition.

In view of the above specific information, Scholar JW Pretendus, it's obvious that your above statements are just gobble-de-goop designed to confuse readers, i.e., a red herring.
     
:: 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.  

Quote

Self praise is no recommendation

Oh, the wonderful hypocrisy!

I said that to goad you into yet another bit of hypocrisy.

Quote

but I am happy for you that you have excellent reading comprehension so I will look forward to your scholarly research on 538BCE.

As I continue to say, that research was done 14 years ago and a summary is available: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

The fact that you refuse to deal with that research says a great deal about your scholastic honesty.

Quote

The overall context of the Proclaimers book equates the Gentile Times with the seven times. The fact that Brown connected or linked these times does not infer any equation of the two

Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation.

Quote

but can simply be connected by means of other reasons such as context, similar words, or thoughts or the historical fulfilment etc. You are inferring something that is absent and this is just plain nonsense.

You're making after-the-fact excuses, now that the false implication has been clearly pointed out.
 
:: How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim

Quote

That is not necessary because you possess excellent reading comprehension but the reader can make up his/her own mind and read the two paragraphs on page 208.

And here I'd think that you'd love to demonstrate your scholarly prowess by carefully showing exactly what Brown meant.

Yet another punt by a master of scholastic punting.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others:

*** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” ***

• 15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them?

 

THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating."

*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***

• Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.

*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***

• Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired.

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***

• As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

*** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I ***

• 12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24.

*** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***

• 4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”

 

[Anna]

I'm having real trouble with this page on my laptop. (So im having to type this on my phone, which is a pain). I'm sure the heated dialogue between scholar JW and Allan F has fried something. I keep getting a "Web page is slowing down your browser" notice, and I can't comment, post, or quote anyone or anything. It keeps freezing up. It's been like that since yesterday..

(By the way I can't read page 208 because I can't make it bigger @Ann O'Maly. Maybe that's  because of this glitch too....)

Anything I can do? @The Librarian