A "Conversation" about 1914 as it appeared in the Watchtower's "1914-2014 Anniversary Celebration" issues.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Yes, the 70 years were a given, so you will still probably agree that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon, whether Jerusalem was to be destroyed or not, or whether some of the Jews stayed or not,  had to start somewhere. Counting back 70 years from the return of the Jews to Jerusalem (or the decree by Cyrus to rebuild the temple) could still be an option to pinpoint when the 70 years started or not?

But the 70 years are not contingent on Jerusalem being repopulated. Jeremiah prophesied that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years and that time would be up when the Babylonian king was 'called to account.' (Jer. 25) That 'calling to account' happened in 539 when Nabonidus and Belshazzar were deposed/killed. Thus, 539 marked the end of the 70 years servitude to the Babylonian dynasty.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Yes.  I agree. The question is of course; when do the 70 years start, or end?

I already showed you the Scriptural proof that they ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah "called to account" against Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty by conquering Babylon, deposing king Nabonidus and killing king Belshazzar. (Jer. 25:12, etc.)

The Bible does not specify the start of the 70 years, but there are enough hints in the Bible that the period was already running when Jeremiah issued several prophecies. (e.g., Jer. 29:10) Many commentators now tend to view the start as in 609 BCE, when the Babylonians put an end to the last of the Assyrian forces at the battle of Harran. But no one is dogmatic about it, since the Bible is silent.

Because of your JW training, you have it strongly ingrained that the 70 years are of great significance. They are not. The ONLY reason the Watchtower Society views them as significant is that without the 70 years, they cannot get to 1914.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Why would Jeremiah speak of a 70 year exile or captivity then?

He doesn't. He speaks of a 70 year SERVITUDE.

[Anna]

20 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But the 70 years are not contingent on Jerusalem being repopulated. Jeremiah prophesied that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years and that time would be up when the Babylonian king was 'called to account.' (Jer. 25) That 'calling to account' happened in 539 when Nabonidus and Belshazzar were deposed/killed. Thus, 539 marked the end of the 70 years servitude to the Babylonian dynasty.

Yes, I realize the 70 years are are not contingent on repopulation. But according to Ezra, it could have been the decree of Cyrus that signaled the end of the 70 years, and as you said earlier, that happened in 537 . : "in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying:2“This is what King Cyrus of Persia says, ‘Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah."
 

[Anna]

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Bible does not specify the start of the 70 years, but there are enough hints in the Bible that the period was already running when Jeremiah issued several prophecies. (e.g., Jer. 29:10) Many commentators now tend to view the start as in 609 BCE,

Thanks for admitting that.

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

when the Babylonians put an end to the last of the Assyrian forces at the battle of Harran. But no one is dogmatic about it, since the Bible is silent

Right. Which means to be on the safe side,, it would be better to start at the end of the 70 years, which the Bible is more specific about.  according to..2 Chronicles and Ezra .. this happened in the first year of Cyrus. (But then the question is should we count as the return the decree to rebuild, or should we count Cyrus' conquest of Babylon).

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

Because of your JW training, you have it strongly ingrained that the 70 years are of great significance. They are not. The ONLY reason the Watchtower Society views them as significant is that without the 70 years, they cannot get to 1914.

Well yes, I will not deny that. 

Honestly, for a lay person like me, a few years plus minus do not present a big problem. I am just chuffed that something written thousands of years ago, whether it be Babylonian chronicles or the Bible, can be brought into harmony and fall within a few years of each other.

If I was to take your information regarding commentators viewing 609 as the start of the 70 years, and use Ann's 539 as the end of servitude to Babylon then there we have the 70 years. 

We can take those 70 years and slide them to the left by 2 years to get to 537 and I think it would still be fair to say that this could count as the end of servitude to Babylon. (Beginning with the decree to rebuild the temple) and so 607 could be the start of the 70 years, since as you say the Bible is silent about the exact start anyway. 

I know you will probably hate my apparent disregard for precision, but 2 years wiggle room is good enough for me. But seriously now, it seems that one cannot dogmatically claim 609 nor 607, and 539 or 537, because these dates are dependent on the interpretation of the pertinent scriptures. I do admit though, that this wiggle room automatically biases me to try to make 1914 fit, rather than actually work from available secular evidence for certain dates. I can see WT trying to do that too. 

I am still learning, as I'm sure you have guessed, so I apologize. Some of the things I say might sound ridiculous to you and Ann.

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

But according to Ezra, it could have been the decree of Cyrus that signaled the end of the 70 years, and as you said earlier, that happened in 537

How does that fit with the 70 years being fulfilled when the Babylonian king was 'called to account' (Jer. 25:12)? 

Edit to add: How does this also fit with Jer. 29:10 where the 70 years are fulfilled then God turns his attention to bringing the exiles back?

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

We can take those 70 years and slide them to the left by 2 years to get to 537 and I think it would still be fair to say that this could count as the end of servitude to Babylon.

But Babylonian domination wasn't limited to over the Jews. Babylon dominated a whole host of other nations too.

Source

When did the 70 years' servitude for the nations end? Did it depend on when Cyrus proclaimed his decree to the Jews and when they were settled back home? The nations' freedom couldn't all hinge on that, surely?

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I am still learning, as I'm sure you have guessed, so I apologize. Some of the things I say might sound ridiculous to you and Ann.

No need to apologize. Your questions/comments are genuine and come from the right place. Even if we end up not agreeing or are not entirely convinced with each other's viewpoints, at least we're having an open, intelligent discussion. 🙂

 

[Anna]

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But Babylonian domination wasn't limited to over the Jews. Babylon dominated a whole host of other nations too.

 

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

When did the 70 years' servitude for the nations end? Did it depend on when Cyrus proclaimed his decree to the Jews and when they were settled back home? The nations' freedom couldn't all hinge on that, surely?

True, but I think WT is looking at this from the point of view of how it affected the Israelites, since the scriptures are concerned with God's people and how surrounding political and world situations impacted them, not everyone else. In this case I think WT is correct to think that way. 

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How does that fit with the 70 years being fulfilled when the Babylonian king was 'called to account' (Jer. 25:12)? 

Edit to add: How does this also fit with Jer. 29:10 where the 70 years are fulfilled then God turns his attention to bringing the exiles back?

Yes, that's what I wondered, and this is where I found myself favoring Ezra over Jeremiah in order to make 607 fit 🤪. (I am not familiar with how WT solved that problem. I will have to take a look....)

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

No need to apologize. Your questions/comments are genuine and come from the right place. Even if we end up not agreeing or are not entirely convinced with each other's viewpoints, at least we're having an open, intelligent discussion. 🙂

Yes. Thanks.

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

On 12/29/2020 at 2:07 PM, AlanF said:
The Bible does not specify the start of the 70 years, but there are enough hints in the Bible that the period was already running when Jeremiah issued several prophecies. (e.g., Jer. 29:10) Many commentators now tend to view the start as in 609 BCE,

Quote

Thanks for admitting that.

"Admit" is the wrong word. This is what proper scholars have been saying for decades. And of course, JW critics have said it at least a hundred times on this board.

Quote

  On 12/29/2020 at 2:07 PM, AlanF said:
when the Babylonians put an end to the last of the Assyrian forces at the battle of Harran. But no one is dogmatic about it, since the Bible is silent

Quote

Right. Which means to be on the safe side,, it would be better to start at the end of the 70 years, which the Bible is more specific about.

As I, Ann O'Maly and others have shown, the 70 years ended in 539 BCE when the king of Babylon was punished. Go back 70 years and you get 609 BCE. No problem.

Also note that your argument assumes that "70" is an exact figure -- which is open to question.

Quote

according to..2 Chronicles and Ezra .. this happened in the first year of Cyrus.

Nope. I've already explained the details of this many times.

Quote

(But then the question is should we count as the return the decree to rebuild, or should we count Cyrus' conquest of Babylon).

Neither the decree nor the conquest started the Return. The return occurred nearly a year after the conquest of October, 539, not later than about September, 538.

Quote

 

  On 12/29/2020 at 2:07 PM, AlanF said:
Because of your JW training, you have it strongly ingrained that the 70 years are of great significance. They are not. The ONLY reason the Watchtower Society views them as significant is that without the 70 years, they cannot get to 1914.

Well yes, I will not deny that. 

 

Good!

Quote

Honestly, for a lay person like me, a few years plus minus do not present a big problem. I am just chuffed that something written thousands of years ago, whether it be Babylonian chronicles or the Bible, can be brought into harmony and fall within a few years of each other.

As Ann and I and others keep pointing out, the Bible and secular history are in excellent agreement about virtually all significant chronology. It is only the Watchtower's distortions that are out of sync. You have only to read the many sources that I and others have pointed you to.

Quote

If I was to take your information regarding commentators viewing 609 as the start of the 70 years, and use Ann's 539 as the end of servitude to Babylon then there we have the 70 years.

Precisely! Ann and I are in agreement on this.

Quote

We can take those 70 years and slide them to the left by 2 years to get to 537 and I think it would still be fair to say that this could count as the end of servitude to Babylon.

Nope. The Watchtower Society and its apologists are adamant that the 70 years were a precise period of time that cannot be moved even by one month. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Quote

(Beginning with the decree to rebuild the temple)

There was no specific decree to rebuild the temple at a specific time. Cyrus' decree allowed the Jews and other captives to return to their homelands, where they could rebuild temples on their own timetables. Ezra is quite clear that this happened with the Jewish temple in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return from exile, i.e., Iyyar of 537 BCE.

Quote

and so 607 could be the start of the 70 years, since as you say the Bible is silent about the exact start anyway.

You're going in circles now. It's entirely possible that "the 70 years" was an approximate period. This has been discussed by scholars for centuries.

Quote

I know you will probably hate my apparent disregard for precision, but 2 years wiggle room is good enough for me.

Perhaps for after-the-fact rationalization, but not as a foundational figure upon which to base the Society's claim that in 1919 Jehovah anointed Watchtower leaders to a special position of spiritual authority "over all Christ's earthly belongings".

Quote

But seriously now, it seems that one cannot dogmatically claim 609 nor 607, and 539 or 537, because these dates are dependent on the interpretation of the pertinent scriptures.

The only date one can be dogmatic on is 539 BCE, since a great deal of evidence supports it as the date of Babylon's fall and the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. And of course, no scriptures pinpoint 539 -- only secular data does that. And Jeremiah 25:12, 27:7 and 29:10 clearly show that the 70 years ended when that dynasty became no more.

Quote

I do admit though, that this wiggle room automatically biases me to try to make 1914 fit, rather than actually work from available secular evidence for certain dates. I can see WT trying to do that too. 

Yes, but that is exactly the ass-backwards thinking that has resulted in the Society lying about so much to do with its bogus chronology. What about intellectual honesty?

And remember that the originators of the "606-607 chronology" (Christopher Bowen, E. B. Elliott, Nelson Barbour and C. T. Russell) were adamant that 606 BCE was the starting date for the 70 years. They certainly did no ass-backwards calculations. Rather, they began with secular data (i.e., 536 BCE for the fall of Babylon, (also wrong)) and applied their interpretations of certain Bible passages to arrive (wrongly) at 606 BCE + 2,520 years = 1914 CE. You want to work backwards from 1914. Why?

Quote

I am still learning, as I'm sure you have guessed, so I apologize. Some of the things I say might sound ridiculous to you and Ann.

Yes, but given your JW background, and the fact that you don't lie about these things, in contrast to many other JWs, you can be forgiven.

[Ann O'Maly]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, that's what I wondered, and this is where I found myself favoring Ezra over Jeremiah in order to make 607 fit 🤪. (I am not familiar with how WT solved that problem. I will have to take a look....)

Jeremiah is the source of the 70-years prophecies, though. Later interpretations and references to them need to harmonize with what Jeremiah actually said. The root of WT's divergence from mainstream understandings of the 70 years is its insistence that the 70-year period relates to the length of time the land would be 'desolate, without an inhabitant.' However, Jeremiah nowhere says this. He talks about a '70 years servitude' to Babylon and a '70 years for Babylon' but not that the land would be uninhabited for 70 years. It is this (mis)understanding that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme. 

As far as I can see, WT nearly always ignores the problem of Jer. 25:12's sequence of events. One time it attempts to resolve it (w79 9/15 p. 23-24) by claiming the nations continued serving the king of Babylon after the city had been conquered and its king removed by Cyrus because Cyrus then became king of Babylon - the 70-year period was only up two years after the conquest and it was when Cyrus let the Jews go that the Babylonians were punished. Not only is this convoluted tripe not in keeping with the wording in Jer. 25:12, but it goes against Ezra's wording too at 2 Chron. 36:20:

"He [Neb] carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign"

As for WT's solution to Jer. 29:10 - it doesn't offer one. It sticks with its translation 'at Babylon' and sidesteps the context by applying it to exiles taken 10 years later.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

True, but I think WT is looking at this from the point of view of how it affected the Israelites, since the scriptures are concerned with God's people and how surrounding political and world situations impacted them, not everyone else. In this case I think WT is correct to think that way. 

But we still have the wording of the texts to get past. The 70 years are fulfilled, then the Babylonian king is punished / then God will turn his attention to the exiles. It's not the other way around.

[JW Insider]

On 12/27/2020 at 12:11 AM, Anna said:

I know we arrive at that date by counting 70 years back from 537, (Cyrus' 'restoration of the Jews to their homeland and the start of the rebuilding of the temple (I think)).

I changed my mind about creating a table of the Jon/Cameron comments and then commenting on various portions. It seemed that it was just a repetition of what we have already gone over, and are still going over elsewhere.

On 12/27/2020 at 12:11 AM, Anna said:

I think this happens to be the most disputable assumption in the whole discussion between Cameron and Jon. I actually had a study where the lady, a science teacher, wondered about that date, since no one else except the Witnesses recognized it

Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).

Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).

The reason so many Bible commentators use 539 back to 609 is because this is a 70-year period with actual, definable, and dateable events at each end.

So there is nothing so far off about the date 607 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years. It implies that the actual end date of the 70 years was 537, and although this would only be 2 years off the most Biblically acceptable date, it implies that the Israelites were still serving Babylon even after Babylon was destroyed. But the sense is not impossible in my opinion, because most of the exiles were still in exile in Babylon until Cyrus probably decreed they could go home in the first month of 538. (Arauna has often insisted that the decree MUST have happened in the first month of 538 at the New Year's Akitu festival. This would mean that they were back by the seventh month of 538 (c. October 538) which is actually only a couple months from January 537.)

 

Of course, the Watchtower publications, although they once used 606 to 536 for these dates, do not allow for an adjustment even by a month. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in the summer, it must be October 607 for the start, and since we claim (without any evidence) that Cyrus waited until months after the beginning of the year to make the decree, and therefore NOT at the festival of Akitu and 538, that it must have been the following year 537 in the 7th month (Tishri/October) when the Jews returned. (And we count back a few more months to give them time to prepare and travel, putting the decree as likely in the first month of 537, not 538.)

Here's how INSIGHT puts it:

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize what INSIGHT means by "In view of the Bible record . . ." It has nothing to do with anything written in the Bible about Cyrus or the exile or the return. It means, basically: "In view of our interpretation of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Cyrus must have made the decree late enough after the beginning of 538 so that they could not have resettled in 538, otherwise WWI and our interpretation of 1914 would not quite fit, and the "parousia" would have started in 1913."  I'm not kidding in the least about that. Those words are about our interpretation of 1914 and nothing else.

And of course the big difference between any scholars who might start the 70 years in 609/608 and the Watchtower publications is that the Watchtower says that 609/8 is when the siege on Jerusalem began, resulting in it's final destruction in 607. That's Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. The other scholars and Bible commentators indicate that the archaeological date of 609 is 4 years before Nebuchadnezzar even began his first accession year after his father died, but that it was marked by the Battle of Harran in 609 BCE, not the destruction of Jerusalem which happened about 22 years later. So the Watchtower chronology says 607 is Jerusalem's destruction 18 or 19 years into Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the archaeologically-supported chronology says 607 is near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's father's reign, more than 20 years different.

Saying that Babylon began dominating the region for 70 years fits the Bible's account, but the Watchtower publications would like an easier explanation of Daniel 4, which requires a different event in 609/608/607. The ending of the Davidic/Messianic kingdom makes for a better event, so the destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrarily changed from 657 to 607. Other commentators note that the death of the last good king Josiah in 609 (archaeological time not Watchtower time) makes for a pretty good demarcation of the 70 years with respect to Judea and Jerusalem. A commentary by Albertz considers the start of the reign Jehoiakim to be the reason that the Chronicler begins discussions of deportations (exiles) in the reign of Jehoiakim which would have started in 609/8 after the death of his father Josiah.

If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:

(2 Kings 24:1, 2) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.

[Anna]

On 1/4/2021 at 3:40 PM, JW Insider said:

Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).

Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).

While I have been formulating a reply to Ann’s last post on here, (which I hadn’t posted yet and probably won’t bother in view of your comments here). I had been noticing blanket statements in some of the WT publications regarding some dates. I suppose this is what you mean when you and others refer to intellectual dishonesty. In my reply to Ann I was trying to reconcile two points of view for the same event, one of servitude and the other of desolation. She says that it is “this (mis)understanding (desolation) that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme."

In my reply I wanted to say that Jeremiah does say that the land will be ruined, and it goes without saying that it’s obvious the impact an invading army would have on a sovereign state, especially if that army took victory. Although Jeremiah does not specifically use the word desolation, Daniel does: Daniel 9:2  In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. So in view of that, I don’t think it’s wrong to use desolation and servitude interchangeably. Both situations arise from the same thing; the conquest of a people.

But it seems to me, from what you say, that the understanding of what the 70 years refer to exactly is of secondary importance, and that the key to it all is not the 70 years, but Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king. I would tend to agree with that.

Insight says: Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)

Secular scholars say he ruled as king 605 BC – c. 562 BC

So where does WT get those dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s rule? Why is WT chronology regarding the Neo Babylonian period 20 years earlier than secular chronology? (and I am not looking for an answer that says in order for it to fit 1914 😄)

On 1/4/2021 at 3:40 PM, JW Insider said:

If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:

(2 Kings 24:1, 2) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.

Why doesn't it do that?