Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 2

Before 1975
As I know of, there were never any statements in the literature that recommended members to run up large debts or that encouraged everyone to sell everything they owned. They simply appreciated that someone did sacrifice much for being pioneers. That is something else. I put that specific section in NPOV because it seemingly claims that such behavior was clearly affirmed by the organization.Summer Song 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to take care of your concerns. I think the section still needs work but hopefully this will resolve the NPOV issue. Dtbrown 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Validity of dates
It is interesting to note that the "Millions now living will never die" dates are still valid for a few years to come. I you take 586 BC as the date of the fall of Jerusalem, as most or historians do, it becomes 1935 AD, not 1914. And people who were born in 1935 is only 72 years old now. So, it could be still valid for a couple of decades.

I wonder what are they going to say 200 years from now, when they see still nothing happen. Surely they are gonna say that they have realized that it's all about something spiritual, not visible. LOL. --Damifb 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Content of the article
I am going to add some tags and try to fill in some necessary information. I just removed a large amount of text in the presence of Christ section. This article is about the Escatology of JW's not the criticism of it. There is plenty of that in other criticism atrticles about JW's. If mention of the fact that there is little acceptance of JW views is included it does not need to be the bulk of a section. That is why I cut it out. George 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

607/586 controversy
We have a discussion on this in the "Presence of Christ" section and later towards the end of the article in the "Fall of Jerusalem" section. A suggestion. In the first part of the article we say we are giving the JW view. How about if we present the Witness view that they believe the Bible teaches a 70 year exile thus date Jerusalem's fall to 607 BCE and briefly note the disagreement with generally accepted chronology and then detail the controversy in the later section? Thoughts? Dtbrown 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this earlier but was not sure how to work it out. The earlier section is troublesome to me, I wouldn't mind seeing it drawn the way you have suggested. George 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Noticing the language in the Gentile times section I think most of that should be in the earlier part as well with the controversy part expanded to flesh out the points of contention. George 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Presence of Christ Jesus
The article currently states: "Witness sources posit Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians to 607 BCE. Non-Witness sources date Jerusalem's destruction to 587/586 BCE, some twenty years later." This is not accurate. The sources are not "Witness" or "non-Witness". Secular chronology disputes what the bible says on the matter. Witnesses re-interpret existing evidence (what Parker and Duberstein ignored, Josephus' contradiction of Ptolemy etc..) in support of the bible and the full 70 year desolation of Jerusalem. http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/default.html is an excellent resource. Duffer 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Duffer, the site you mention is woefully erroneuous, as I have shown elsewhere. Futher information is available on request but this is not the forum for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any non-Witness sources which posit Jerusalem's destruction at 607 BCE? Dtbrown 17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that Witnesses and non-Witnesses interpret the same sources differently. It's not like Witnesses and non-Witnesses each pull sources out of thin air, they interpret ancient cuneiform tablets, ancient historians, even the Bible itself.  It is true (as far as i know) that only Witness scholars (well, publicly only Furuli) are the ones positing the idea of a full 70 year desolation.  It doesn't mean that the sources are "Witness", just the interpreters of the sources.  Duffer 22:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, JWs do pull 537 somewhat out of 'thin air'. They use words like 'probably', 'evidently', and 'likely' when explaining why they arrive at 537 rather than 538 for the Jew's return (though their view disagrees with a comparison of Josephus with Ezra). The specific selection of 53 7 is entirely based on circular reasoning for the selection of 607BC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, the only scholars that claim a 70 year desolation are Witness scholars. So, I think the statement in the text is correct. Dtbrown 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rolf Furuli says in his book that almost nobody seem to have made any real sense of the 70 years in recent times. He talkes about an adventist, R. E. Winkle, who wrote a discussion in which he claims that the Bible does not really say that the exile was that long. Therefore, Furuli says that new interpretations of the chronology should be taken into account.

Encyclopedia Britannica says in the article "Babylonian Exile":

"Many scholars cite 597 BC as the date of the first deportation, for in that year King Jehoiachin was deposed and apparently sent into exile with his family, his court, and thousands of workers. Others say the first deportation followed the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586; if so, the Jews were held in Babylonian captivity for 48 years. Among those who accept a tradition (Jeremiah 29:10) that the exile lasted 70 years, some choose the dates 608 to 538, others 586 to about 516 (the year when the rebuilt Temple was dedicated in Jerusalem)."

No further discussion on who they are is included.

Furuli says that it seems that no modern scholars have taken the 70 years seriously the last 50 years. It is worth noting that Nelson Barbour did believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, but that bishop Ussher many years earlier actually beleived in 586. (See Ussher chronology) I have myself heard some talk about Jerusalem destroyed in 600.

I thik that this is a question about more than eschatology. It is a question about whether the Bible is right, and if it is, who is interpreting the chronology right. Therefore, I think that not only JW should be clarifying what they really believe. Summer Song 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Millions now living will never die cover.jpg
Image:Millions now living will never die cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

70 years
Current wording in the article regarding 607 suggests that secular sources agree that the 70 years refer to years of captivity (though as a figurative duration), however it is generally agreeed that the 70 years refer to Jerusalem's 'devastation', not specifically the actual exile. Additionally, the bible never mentions 70 years of exile, and explicitly indicates the 70 years to be of Babylonian power over the entire region rathen than of Jewish exile.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)