When exactly did the "70 years" of Babylonian exile end?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Mights and maybes abound in all of this. I also get a feeling that argument is colored by the fact that there are participants who do not want 607 BCE to have significance as strongly as those who do. The spirit shown in the argumentative ripostes on this matter in the forum seem to me to underline the value of Paul's words below:

Yes, indeed! It's absolutely and definitively not so definitive and absolute. That was the toughest point to grapple with. I know that I personally "kicked against the goads" for a long time before accepting the full implication of what you just said. One of the first talks I remember my father giving in several congregations, was the talk on the Tree Dream Prophecy of Daniel Chapter 4. Since the time I was 5 years old I had always thought that this "absolute date" of 539 BCE was just such a perfect solution that brought Bible prophecy right up into our day. And by the time I was 10 or so, the idea wasn't lost on me that this was also one of the first "sermons" that C.T.Russell had borrowed from Second Adventist literature which he reworked slightly to get himself published in George Storrs' Bible Examiner in 1876. So this idea had a lot of history.

And I'd have to agree that the argument is definitely a bit too spirited. But I don't blame Allen Smith for his indignation at the arguments against it, and, of course, I don't blame myself for making the point as best I can, that we (JWs) can't expect to win the argument based on evidence. We either need to avoid trying to prove this topic, or expect to lose the argument if we were to insist that we were "absolutely" right, based on evidence. I also blame neither side for the tone. I think there's an element of "righteous indignation" on both sides. Perhaps it rises to the level of those "strongly entrenched things" that need to be turned over with all the power that can be brought to bear against it. In the case of most Witnesses, the strongly entrenched thing is the "evidence." In the case of some Witnesses, and I'd include myself, the strongly entrenched thing is the Witness tradition of using 607 BCE that appears to go against evidence, but more importantly, appears to go against what Jesus commanded us when he said that the knowledge of the times and seasons does not belong to us. Trying to discover a "chronology" that opens secrets of "eschatology" can turn our worship from spiritual to material. In 1975, you might remember how a lot of JWs started looking at beautiful houses and properties and declaring which ones they wanted after Armageddon. Although this was done with a bit of levity, we even had an elder who would tell householders at their door that he'd like to have their property after Armageddon. He was a "jokester" from Wilmington, NC who could somehow get away with it. Reminded me a bit of JTR. 

At any rate, if any Witnesses feel that our date-setting, including 607 and 1914, has created a material mindset where a spiritual mindset should be, then I wouldn't blame them for seeing it in about the same light as those who argue strongly for keeping it just because it shows respect for the faithful slave. Either side could easily get to the point of believing that the argument for 607 is a pro-materialistic one and is therefore something like the encroachment of materialistic concerns into the temple that drove Jesus to overturn the tables of the money-changers.

 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

1 Tim 1:4 "nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith."

Therefore, the brothers who are not in favor of using 607 BCE in the way it has been used, are arguing that it is merely speculation that doesn't provide anything from God in connection with faith. Others see any argument against our use of 607 in this way as giving rise to speculations, etc. You probably know from previous posts that I understand Paul to be saying to Timothy the equivalent of "Don't pay attention to false stories and chronologies because they end up in nothing useful, etc, etc." (The Insight article on Genealogy and Chronology explains that chronology was one of the primary purposes of genealogy, although 1 Tim 1:4 may be a statement about "pedigree" through genealogies, as the Insight book teaches.)

*** it-1 p. 907 Genealogy ***
...genealogy was important to chronology...

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem.

I believe this whole-heartedly. And I think I've admitted fairly clearly that I'm afraid many Witnesses have ended up doing exactly that by considering any of these dates, including 539 BCE, to be in any way, "absolute."

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

2:Tim 3:16.17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work"

Amen. "Fully." "Completely." For EVERY good work.

[JW Insider]

I think Eoin has made an excellent conclusion to this matter and I kind of hated to spoil it by agreeing with it. It reminds me of the ultimate conclusion of a discussion of so many of the "immaterial" [vain] material matters that we deal with "under the sun" as discussed in the book of Ecclesiastes:

(Ecclesiastes 7:27-29) 27 “See, this is what I found,” says the congregator. “I investigated one thing after another to reach my conclusion, 28 but what I continually sought, I have not found. ... 29 This alone I have found: The true God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”

(Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14) 13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.

But it would not be fair to just end it here. The presentation has been too lop-sided. The WTS position has not been presented. Since no one else has really presented it, I will likely post the WTS position next. Perhaps even from the very first time the entire chronology issue was first addressed by the WTS, with a specific discussion of how the 70 years fits in. This will simultaneously present a good idea of the history of the doctrine and how closely we still hold to the same positions and arguments.

 

 

 

[Evacuated]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I will likely post the WTS position next.

That will be interesting.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/24/2016 at 11:04 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem.

I think I'll discard all the crumbling, dusty secular "evidence" for everything, including 539 BCE, interesting though it is. Then I can construct a view based on the word of God alone. If there are some apparently corroborative features in the secular field, then fine. If not, then fine too. That element will not arbitrate on what I believe anyway.

Questions (open to all):

1. If there were no artifacts to corroborate Bible history, on what would your faith be based? 

2. Biblical interpretation is the scaffold upon which faith hangs, is it not? 

 

[Evacuated]

33 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

1. If there were no artifacts to corroborate Bible history, on what would your faith be based? 

 Heb.11:1 "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen."

Heb.6:18 "two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,"

What do you base yours on?

39 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

2. Biblical interpretation is the scaffold upon which faith hangs, is it not? 

More like the gallows.

[Ann O'Maly]

Surely, without artifacts to corroborate Bible history, you might as well have faith in Aesop's Fables, right?

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

More like the gallows.

Bible interpretation kills faith? Is that what you're saying?

[Evacuated]

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Surely, without artifacts to corroborate Bible history, you might as well have faith in Aesop's Fables, right?

Wrong!

Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts. Faith in Aesop's Fables will not lead to everlasting life.

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Bible interpretation kills faith? Is that what you're saying?

Not me! 

2Pet.3:15-16. "our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"

So there's fallacy in them there arguments!

[Ann O'Maly]

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Wrong!

Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts. 

Oh dear. If Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts, why do the Org. and other Bible believers go to great pains to provide historical evidence for biblical accounts and characters?

See for example:

• http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012403 - History, Not Myth.
• The Awake's 'A Book You Can Trust' series beginning 11/2010

And there are too many other examples to list.

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Faith in Aesop's Fables will not lead to everlasting life.

If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either.

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not me! 

2Pet.3:15-16. [snipped]

So there's fallacy in them there arguments!

I don't follow (again). You said that biblical interpretation is the gallows upon which faith hangs. I asked for clarification and if you thought interpretation kills faith. Now you've backtracked. 

[Evacuated]

 

23 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Bible interpretation kills faith?

For these, apparently so:

2Pet.3:15-16. "our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

If Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts, why do the Org. and other Bible believers go to great pains to provide historical evidence for biblical accounts and characters?

Why not? It's of more interest than watching soap operas right?

As for the necessity for human detritus to corroborate God's word of truth .....not required.

Compare  2Thess. 2:13 "..when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.."

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either.

So, are you saying that without artifacts to corroborate, the Bible is not true?

[The Librarian]

@Eoin Joyce and @Ann O'Maly 

Your subsequent questions are SO far off topic... please create new questions when you head down various paths and just paste a link to discuss them there.

This current conversation has very little to do with the original question.

Thank you.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

For these, apparently so:

2Pet.3:15-16. "our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"

OK. Apparently you are trying to say that some interpretations kill faith while (I presume) other interpretations strengthen faith? Am I understanding you right? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Assuming that the interpretation is pretty much sound, isn't that the scaffold upon which faith hangs?

6 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why not? It's of more interest than watching soap operas right?

Huh?

6 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

As for the necessity for human detritus to corroborate God's word of truth .....not required.

Compare  2Thess. 2:13 "..when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.."

But the Beroeans. And Luke.

Are you a "naive person" that "believes every word" (Prov. 14:15)?

*** g00 3/8 pp. 26-27 True Faith—What Is It? ***
Faith or Credulity?
Much of what passes for faith today is in reality credulity—a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason. Credulity is often built on the shifting sands of emotion and superstition. This is not well-founded faith because it has no reliable basis for belief.
Credulity could cause one to jump to conclusions that may be out of harmony with Bible truth. Accordingly, the Bible warns against unfounded faith: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) The apostle Paul wrote: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) The Bible does not promote credulity. It does encourage faith based on evidence.
 

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, are you saying that without artifacts to corroborate, the Bible is not true?

No. I said:

"If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either."

[Ann O'Maly]

I only saw The Librarian's response after I hit submit.

Duly noted, sir.