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."
 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

, “4Jah is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” And you’re not. So go your way in peace, for crying out loud.

I think we both know that he would have been "better off" had he not written any letters. He would have been viewed as "inactive" and he would not have been shunned. But he wanted to let the elders know how bad the org is, and this is why he no longer wants any part of it. What he didn't realize was that no one would announce that he voluntarily left, but that the announcement could make it look like he was disfellowshipped because he did something bad. The days when a disfelliwshiping and dissasociation were announced as two separate things are gone. Much to his chargrin.... 

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity.

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

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

A key point is: Jer.29:10 and Jer.25:11 are consistent: the Jews and surrounding nations would SERVE Babylon 70 years. Whether they would serve while remaining in their own land, or as captives in Babylon, depended upon their peacefully submitting to Babylon.

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

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Quote

Excerpt from WT 11/10/1

When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.

 

This says nothing about laying the foundations of the temple. It does say something about returning to Jerusalem to restore true worship,

I suppose the decree to rebuild the temple was as good as laying the foundations?

Insight 1 p.417 (captivity) "Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) "

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Had they listened, Jerusalem would have been left alone and no more captives would have been taken. Jerusalem's destruction was not a foregone conclusion; 70 years servitude to Babylon (regardless of whether the Jews were exiled or at home) was inescapable.

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?

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So the Jews, quite sensibly, didn't start work on the temple during the winter but waited till the next spring (536, WT time).

Again, when does one pinpoint exactly when to start counting the Jews as "having returned to Jerusalem"? The WT article chose the date when true worship was resumed, albite as you say; on makeshift altars. I assume that would have been about 6 months prior?

38 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Or do you have a resolution for this anomaly?

Yes. You try not to figure out exactly which deportation Jeremiah was applying the 70 years to, because as you know there was more than one deportation. So to be on the safe side, you count the 70 years back from when the Jews returned to Jerusalem and started rebuilding the temple.

Also, I am thinking that just because the letter was sent to specific people, doesn't mean that one should have started counting from exactly that time from when the letter was delivered. The 70 years it seems were applicable to when all of Judea lay desolate and the land was unworked. This could naturally be difficult, to pinpoint exactly when that started. I believe there were always some stragglers left behind, so the land was never absolutely without a single Jew at any one time. (I don't think time in history can always be approached like a scientific experiment in a lab, where you can measure out exact amounts of a substance. In my opinion anyway...)

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

. The Watchtower's claim has nothing to do with when the foundations of the temple were laid. 537 has only to do with their claimed date for when some of the Jews returned to Judah.

I don't think so. 

Excerpt from WT 11/10/1

When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Quote

Doesn't Isaiah mention 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians and the desolation of the land?

Not that I'm aware of. See if you can find appropriate passages.

Sorry, I meant Jeremiah, Jer 29:10

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)).

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Correct. And of course, both the 70 year figure and 537 are purely Watchtower interpretations of the underlying Bible verses and secular history. Those interpretations are demonstrably wrong.

Doesn't Isaiah mention 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians and the desolation of the land? And didn't the rebuilding of the temple start in 537? 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

As for anything in 1914 being 'predicted' by C. T. Russell, he got nothing right. Everything he predicted that was supposed to be observable failed.

Yes, I know.

But there was talk of 1914, and the gentile times ending, even though nothing like what he expected happened. I also know that since all expectations about it failed, 1914 got swept under the carpet for a long time, to be "resurrected" some time in the 1940's. JW history is not quite honest about that, and gives the impression that although Russell was disappointed, 1914 was always believed to be the year Jesus was enthroned, which as we know is not true. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much (the dishonesty does) because I expect understanding to progress over time. It's like that in every sphere of life, medicine, science, technology etc....

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And you expect people to seriously believe that those men were being guided by Almighty God through Jesus Christ ? 

Please stick to the topic, this is not the question in question. 

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Another problem (apart from giving the dream an antitypical fulfillment that isn't scripturally warranted), is Babylonian rulership was uniformly seen in the Bible as oppressive to God's people, and yet this oppressive regime that destroyed his people's cities and cruelly held them captive is a type for God's righteous kingdom? How does that work?

It seems that is not the concern (of WT) whether someone's bad rule is used for the sake of illustration (by Jehovah) for a secondary fulfillment of something that is good.  Cameron states:

"The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 was given so that people would know that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind.” This in itself indicates that the prophecy has a bigger fulfillment than just the one involving Nebuchadnezzar. And throughout the book of Daniel, we find prophecies about the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude, then, that this prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 also has something to do with God’s Kingdom?"

Whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not I don't know. What might make it more convincing is if the Bible anywhere else uses something bad, to illustrate something good.  Anyone?

Also, what would make an antitypical fulfillment warranted? Or is the account of Neb's demise and rise just purely a lesson to show who is ultimately in charge? Since the book of Daniel is a prophetic book, it would seem that this prophesy could have a secondary application, and that this lesson is too random for it not to have an extended meaning...just my thoughts.

Just as an aside, does anyone know who first came up with an antitypical fulfillment of Neb's dream? 

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

GB need to face the fact that they are actually claiming that God went mad at one point and was left without power over the Earth

You are reading too much into it. Reasonably, it is understood that Neb did not represent Jehovah, but rulership.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The second fulfillment involved an interruption of God’s rulership

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If by any chance JHVH lost his power over Earth in 607 BCE

God never lost his actual power over the earth of course. Again, it was only an  illustration of rulership that was represented through the kings that "sat on Jehovah's throne". Some of those kings became bad, so obviously they did not literally represent Jehovah, but it was known by all that they "sat on Jehovah's throne". When David wanted to kill bad king Saul, he did not do so because he recognized Saul was "the anointed of Jehovah" and Jehovah hadn't yet passed a judgement on Saul. 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

because I will be skipping some of the less interesting dialogue between Cameron [JW Bible study conductor] and Jon [the person being studied with].

I though the same, if only for the simple reason that it's irrelevant to the topic. I was wondering whether I should copy and paste here just the relevant portions so that people don't have to keep referring to the website. Although you probably already mean that you will paste the relevant section and then comment on that. I wish we could find some method that would keep things orderly....that probably won't happen, so perhaps towards the end when it seems that everything has been exhausted, one could have a summary...

6 hours ago, Outta Here said:

10 hours ago, Anna said:

For some reason this does not seem good enough,

Is this an emotional issue?

I'm not sure if you are referring to me, or generally. I should have been clearer and said this does not seem good enough for some. It seems good enough to me. However, I am open to learning the viewpoint of those who think differently. This is why this topic was created, to hopefully get a:

6 hours ago, Outta Here said:

concise answer

Although I do understand that a completely concise answer may not be possible because there are a number of intertwining factors involved, I am hoping that at the end of this discussion, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be able to understand both sides of the coin.

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

starting in 607BCE

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.....at the time I was not familiar with the topic at all, since like everyone else I assumed that was the date. We had other topics to discuss first, so we never really got into it. She moved, and I lost touch with her. (Although I did pass her onto someone in the area she moved to). Evidently, Jon was not knowledgeable about any other dates and of course we cannot blame him since ancient history, especially something as specific as the razing of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, is not common knowledge.

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)).

For some reason this does not seem good enough, and I am sure we will find out why in this thread. Stay tuned 😁

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'll be happy to start a new topic

If you want, I'll  start it...

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

Of course!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post

Thanks. I started following this thread and then was away for a few days and got so behind that I stopped. As you probably realise, I have yet to properly research this whole topic, it's been on the back burner for a few years now and every time I intend to start something pops up and then I don't get back around to it. Then when I'm ready once more, so much time has passed that I have to start all over again and so round and round it goes. I saw you mention to someone that the whole thing could be figured out in less than a day. This is proof that I must be dumb and need an"explanation for dummies" like the type they do on YouTube, with diagrams and cute pictures 😂

I would not expect something like that from you since you are well above that. Perhaps if you viewed me as your 6 year old grandchild it might work 😁

As you say, most Witnesses haven't personally researched the 1914 topic, and rely on WT articles such as this one: 

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20141001/gods-kingdom-prophecy-1/

Which is supposed to illustrate a "typical" conversation someone might have with a householder, NOT! Not anyone I know.

When one reads both part one and two it makes sense, (to me) so perhaps in another topic one could use these two articles and insert critiques? (In another color). 

On 12/23/2020 at 2:46 PM, scholar JW said:

Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success.

For anyone following this topic, they can see a question posed, but not answered. I haven't checked further down the thread, I am assuming it hasn't been answered, so if that is the case, I think for the benefit of the readers, it might be time that you answer it if no one else has.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My grandchildren are coming over in a few minutes, so just finished a snowman.

A few people have already stopped to take a picture of it.

 

The cutest snowman! 

I hope you built another one, this time with the grandchildren 👍😄

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And then we might find that we WANT to believe something just because it fits an ideology. And we might not realize that this was a vicious cycle that created the ideology in the first place. So the problem is not whether some or a lot of the claims are true, it's how anxious we are to believe and claim it MUST be a fact, when no real evidence has shown up yet.

Yes, I understand this is your main point. 

I have just seen this recently published BBC news article and I thought it was interesting. I generally trust the BBC to be unbiased and factual.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/nz0g306v8c/china-tainted-cotton

12 minutes ago, Shirley Lowery said:

I just don't understand why 4Jah2Me is even allowed to be on this website, he plainly stated he is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses! 

This is an open club, there are some ex-witnesses on here. If you want to join a JW only club then I suggest:

www.jwtalk.net 

You will like it 🙂