Hello, everyone. We're continuing our discussion of the pivotal doctrine of the invisible presence of Christ that Jehovah's Witnesses believe began in 1914, after which he appointed a faithful and discreet slave to share spiritual food with his flock.
This slave, now considered to be the governing body, has been appointed over all his domestics and they are considered the channel of communication between Jehovah God and the flock. And all the doctrines that Jehovah's Witnesses believe and live by come through the interpretation of that faithful and discreet slave.
But if 1914 is bogus, if nothing happened in 1914, then they cannot claim that in 1919—the date they pick—is the date on which they were appointed by Jesus. And therefore the whole thing is a sham.
So that's why they so vehemently defend the doctrine of 1914. The 1914 doctrine is based on the time calculation, but we won't get into that in this video except to say that the start date for that calculation is 607 BCE, and the calculation runs for 2,520 years, which takes them to 1914. But what if 607 is not the start date? They claim that in 607 Jerusalem was desolated and that the Babylonians who destroyed it took the entire population into captivity in Babylon, and therefore that's when the 70 years of desolation began.
But what if that destruction did not occur in 607 BCE? What if it occurred in a different year? Then their calculation is off. But how do they get there?
First, they have to accept a date that is established scientifically through archeology, through history, through astronomy, and that date is 539. They consider that to be a reliable date. Why don't they consider 587 also to be a reliable date? Because it conflicts with their theology, therefore their theology trumps the science. And yet, we saw in the previous video that there is hard, incontestable evidence that 607 was not the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed. It was, in fact, what scientists say it was, and archeologists say it was, and historians say it was: 587 BCE.
Okay, so how do they get around that? After all, we do believe the Bible to be God's word, so therefore the Bible can't be wrong about such things. And if the Bible can't be wrong, do we throw science out? Or, do we say, "Hey, maybe it's not the Bible and maybe it's not science. Maybe it's us. Maybe it's the way we're interpreting things." Well, let's see for ourselves.
Okay, everything comes down to this key scripture, Jeremiah 25:11-12. Basically, this is the foundation for the whole thing.
"And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the King of Babylon 70 years. "And it must occur that when 70 years have been fulfilled, I shall call to account against the King of Babylon and against that nation," is the utterance of Jehovah, "their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." (Jeremiah 25:11, 12)
Okay, so what is the measure of the 70 years? The time span in which these nations will have to serve the King of Babylon. Notice the plural, nations, not just Israel, but the surrounding nations. And history shows that the entire group of nations in that area were conquered by the King of Babylon. Som it wasn't just Israel, but other nations. Pagan nations also served the King of Babylon, meaning they paid tribute. It was a cash grab. The king came, conquers the nations, then he comes back every year and says, "Okay, give me your taxes." "Give me some of your produce," and that's how he became rich. And he did accomplish that through force of arms.
Okay, does it say that the nations would be devastated? No, it doesn't. It says that the land—he's very specifically speaking about the land of Israel—the land must become a desolate place, an object of astonishment. But does he say the land would be devastated for 70 years? No. He says that the nation would serve the King of Babylon for 70 years. At some point during that 70 years, the land would be a devastated place. That much we can say with certainty, but the organization won't have it. They want us to believe that the devastation began the 70-year period, and to do that they want us to accept that 607 BCE was the year.
Okay, let's see how they defend that. So, I begin with a question. I ask Sarah to reply in English, because she tends to reply in Spanish by default.
I have a question, "When you read Jeremiah 25:11, do you agree that the 70 years spans the time that Israel would serve the King of Babylon?
Here's how she answers.
Hello, thank you for your thoughtful question. It's wonderful to see you carefully examining the prophecies of God's word. From the faith I practice, when we look at Jeremiah's prophecy, it's helpful to consider all the related scriptures to get the complete picture. You're absolutely right that Jeremiah 25:11 says, 'And all this land will be reduced to ruins and become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the King of Babylon for 70 years.'
She's quoting from the 2013 New World Translation. I was using the 1984 reference Bible.
However, the Bible itself clarifies what this 70-year period specifically refers to. While the servitude to Babylon happened during that time, the 70 years were primarily a period of complete desolation for the land of Judah.
Now, she's done a reversal here. She's saying that the servitude happened during that time. In other words, it didn't span the full 70 years necessarily, but that's exactly what Jeremiah says it would do. They would serve Babylon for 70 years. It doesn't say they would be desolate for 70 years. She's flipped the script.
Notice how another prophet, Daniel, who lived during that time, understood it. He wrote, "I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years that the word of Jehovah had come to Jeremiah the prophet for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, namely 70 years." So Daniel understood the 70 years as a period of Jerusalem's devastations. This is confirmed in another account at 2 Chronicles 36:20-21, which says, "He took those who had escaped the sword captive to Babylon and they became servants to him and his sons until the King of Persia began to reign, 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." Based on the harmony of these scriptures, we understand that the 70 years was the specific period when the land of Judah was completely empty and lay desolate, paying off the sabbaths it owed. This period of desolation began with the final destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and ended in 537 BCE when the Jewish exiles returned to their homeland. Isn't it faith-strengthening to see how beautifully different parts of the Bible explain and complement one another? I hope this explanation is helpful.
Okay, let's pick this apart. Let's begin first with a little trick question. So I ask:
Sara, you mentioned Daniel in your explanation. Daniel was taken into exile before the desolation of Jerusalem. Can you tell me in what year that occurred?
And she says it occurred in 617 BCE. Now, I'm not going to argue with her as to how reliable that date is. The important thing is it occurred, according to her, 10 years before 607, before the supposed desolation of the land. Okay, and she goes into a lot of extra verbiage there. So, here we go.
Will you admit that the servitude of Jerusalem to the King of Babylon began, at the latest, in the year that Daniel and the youth of Israel were taken into exile?
Wow, that's a long answer. A simple yes or no would do.
That is another excellent and logical point you're making. It's so good to examine these events in detail to get the full picture. Based on what the Bible teaches, it's clear that Judah's submission and a form of servitude to Babylon began during the period when Nebuchadnezzar took Daniel and others captive in 617 BCE. He made Judah a vassal kingdom, essentially a state serving Babylon. So yes, you could certainly say that a period of serving the King of Babylon started at that time.
Okay. They're trying to say it's a form of servitude. Okay.
However, from the faith I practice, it's very important to distinguish between the beginning of Babylon's dominance and the specific 70-year period that Jehovah, through Jeremiah, foretold.
Notice the "from the faith I practice." In other words, "We need to look at it this way because this is what my faith teaches me." What do we call that? That's called eisegesis, imposing your previous doctrinal structure onto what the Bible says. So now you have to redefine what servitude means, make them two periods of servitude, a lesser period and a greater period, I'm assuming. Let's see. Let's go back again.
So yes, you could certainly say that a period of serving the King of Babylon started at that time.
I think so. Yeah, I think that's exactly what you could say.
However, from the faith I practice, it's very important to distinguish between the beginning of Babylon's dominance and the specific 70-year period that Jehovah, through Jeremiah, foretold.
What did he foretell? He foretold they would serve the King of Babylon.
Let's look closely at the prophecy again. It connects two ideas, servitude and desolation. The Bible itself clarifies that the 70-year time clock was tied specifically to the desolation of the land.
No, it ties the 70-year time clock to the servitude, not to the desolation.
Think back to the verse we discussed at 2 Chronicles 36:21, "To fulfill Jehovah's word spoken by Jeremiah until the land paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate, it kept sabbath to fulfill 70 years.
Alright, so here's my question.
Sara, I want an honest answer. Is it possible within the framework of logical thought that a period of servitude lasting 70 years could include a period of desolation lasting 50 years, and that both the servitude and the desolation could end at the same time? And if that were so, then would it not be correct for Daniel and the writer of Chronicles to use the word “fulfill” to show that the servitude and the desolations had ended without both servitude and desolation having to be of equal length, but only that they ended concurrently? This may not be in line with your interpretation, but I'm asking if logically such a situation could also be understood to be sound reasonably. So I'm asking basically that even if your interpretation were right, is this another possible interpretation? Is it a sound interpretation?
Let's see what she says.
That is a very carefully and thoughtfully constructed question. I truly appreciate that you are thinking so deeply about how these different concepts—servitude, desolation, and fulfillment—can relate to one another. You're asking for an honest evaluation of a logical possibility, and I will do my best to answer in that spirit. From a purely logical and structural standpoint, the scenario you've described is coherent.
Well, that's nice to hear.
It is absolutely possible in a general sense for a longer event to encompass a shorter one and for both to conclude at the same time. A person could, for instance, be an employee of a company for 70 years, and for the last 50 of those years, the company's main factory was closed. When the person retires, both their 70-year career and the 50-year factory closure end. In that sense, your reasoning is sound and follows a clear logical path.
Okay, that's all I really wanted: an admission that their interpretation can be questioned; that it's not the only valid interpretation—assuming it is valid.
However, from the faith I practice, the reason we understand it differently is not because your scenario is illogical in itself, but because the Bible's own wording seems to point to a more specific conclusion. It appears to directly assign the 70-year duration to the desolation itself. Let's look again at those key scriptures with your question in mind.
All right, now she goes into 2 Chronicles 36:21, and this may be something you don't know. I didn't know until recently, but Jeremiah never spoke about paying off the Sabbaths.
It says this was to fulfill Jehovah's word spoken by Jeremiah until the land had paid off its Sabbaths. All the days it laid desolate, it kept Sabbaths to fulfill 70 years. Basandome en la verdad Biblica (Spanish again, meaning "Based on Bible truth.) This phrasing seems to explicitly state that the period of desolation was what lasted for 70 years. It doesn't just say the desolation ended. It says the desolation itself fulfilled or completed its 70-year period.
Okay. It doesn't actually. It says that the land paid off its Sabbaths. It doesn't say that the desolation lasted 70 years, but that it fulfilled 70 years. Okay, she goes back to the other two scriptures. But before we go there, I want to tie her down on something.
Since Jeremiah said specifically that the period of servitude was to last for 70 years, and since that period began before the desolation, then based on Bible truth (Two can play that game.) the period of desolation must be shorter than the period of servitude. There's nothing in Scripture that speaks of two distinct but overlapping periods of servitude.
She replies:
That is a very keen observation, and I see exactly the point you're making by focusing on Jeremiah's specific words. It truly is a credit to your careful study of the Scriptures. From the faith I practice, the way we resolve what might seem like a discrepancy is by allowing the Bible to interpret itself.
I thought that's what I was doing!
The principle we follow is that all of God's inspired word is in harmony and does not contradict itself. So, when we have Jeremiah's prophecy about 70 weeks of servitude in Jeremiah 25:11, and then later we have the inspired writers like Daniel and the writer of Chronicles looking back at that same prophecy, their words give us Jehovah's own clarification of how it was to be understood and fulfilled. Let's consider their inspired perspective again. Daniel, who lived through those events, doesn't just mention the desolation. He says he understood from the books the number of years for fulfilling the desolations of Jerusalem, namely 70 years.
Okay, let's stop right there. So now I write,
Sara, you state, 'Daniel, who lived through these events, doesn't just mention the desolation. He says he understood from the books the number of years for fulfilling the desolations of Jerusalem, namely 70 years.' But you admitted that it is possible to view Daniel's words as referring to the end of the desolations, not the span of them. According to the historical, archeological, and astronomical records, 607 BCE marks the start of the servitude, not the start of the desolation. Israel served Babylon from 607 BCE, but its servitude was much more severe when they were taken into captivity and their city was laid desolate. In that scenario, Daniel read that the servitude, which in his time ended in exile and the desolations, was fulfilled when 70 years of servitude—in the land or in exile—ended. There you have an interpretation that is logical and in line with what is stated in Scripture and also is supported by science and scholarly research. Why do abandon an understanding that is scripturally and historically accurate for one that conflicts with science and archaeology? What is the motivation behind that?
Well, let's see what she says.
Thank you for asking this with such sincerity and clarity. It's a very important question that gets to the heart of how we approach understanding the Bible and its relationship with secular history. You have laid out the alternative viewpoint very well, and I will do my best to explain our motivation with the same honesty you have requested. The motivation you ask about is truly central to our faith. It comes down to a fundamental question: When secular historical interpretations appear to conflict with the Bible's internal chronology, which one do we accept as our primary guide?
That's just the point. They don't conflict. We've just shown they don't conflict. Oh, dear.
From the faith I practice, our motivations are deep and unwavering trust in the Bible as the inspired, unerring word of God.
Now, this isn't just an AI speaking. You might say, "Well, that's just an AI," you know. But if this were written from the service desk, I guarantee you it would say the same thing, because I've had letters from them, and this is the kind of wording they use and the kind of intransigent insistence on their own interpretation that they cannot let go of. And why should they? If they were to write, "Hey, you've got a point, you know?" Then what do you think would happen? They'd be ousted from the service desk. Matter of fact, anybody writing to the service desk, as we're writing here, would be visited by the elders, and pretty soon would be encouraged to either stop or leave the congregation.
Now, it's going to go back and say the same thing all over again. It's just going to keep reiterating what it's already said. However, for those of you who might still be wondering, there is another point I think worth considering that kind of shows once again that the Bible can be completely consistent and completely in line with historical and archaeological findings. That point has to do with Chronicles' use of paying off the Sabbaths.
So, my question to ChatGPT is this:
Does Jeremiah actually mention paying off the land's Sabbaths as 2 Chronicles 36:21 suggests, or does that come from a different source?
Jeremiah does not connect it with paying off its Sabbaths. It says that they'll serve the King of Babylon for 70 years. After 70 years, God will restore the exiles. There's no mention of sabbatical years, the land resting, or paying off Sabbaths. Where the paying off Sabbaths idea comes from, that detail is from 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21. It comments retrospectively on Jeremiah's prophecy to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days of its desolation, it kept Sabbath to fulfill 70 years. This connection builds on Leviticus 26:34, 35, and 43, where God warned that if Israel became unfaithful, the land would lie desolate and enjoy its Sabbaths.
Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you a question. Do you know about the jubilee year? The jubilee year was a year in which all debts were forgiven, slaves were freed. Everything went back to the way it was. It was a big reset, a national reset every 50 years. And the jubilee year was basically a double Sabbath, so they'd have the 49th year as a Sabbath, because every seven years they had a Sabbath year in which the land rested. They didn't plant anything. They'd let it just go fallow. But after the 49th year, they'd do it again for another year. That would be the jubilee year. So, for two years the land lay without anyone sowing seed on it or farming—to restore the land.
Okay. So, all debts were forgiven every 50 years, right? All debts were forgiven after 50 years. So, if all debts were forgiven, any debt you had was forgiven. All the things owed were paid off, were wiped clean on the jubilee year. So, it doesn't make sense that it was 70 years for the land to pay off its Sabbaths, because the land wasn't desolate for 70 years. It was desolate for 50 years, which beautifully coincides with the whole idea of a jubilee year, a year in which all debts were forgiven. So, everything fits beautifully, except they don't want it to fit beautifully, because they need to have support for their 1914 doctrine, and that needs to count from 607 BCE.
And here's the irony: It could. All they have to do is say, "You know, we were wrong. It's not about the desolation. It's about the servitude. That's what it's about. So, we can still count from 607, but now it's not the desolation, it's the servitude."
A simple adjustment, new light. Maybe they'll do that. I don't know. But of course, it's still meaningless, because even if 607 were the year that they claim it to be, they still have to justify the calculation that leads to 1914 and that is so full of holes that really, when people bring up 607, I give it to them. You can have it, because the prophecy itself is so ridiculously illogical that you can take it apart without worrying about the astronomy, or the history, or the archaeology, or even your particular interpretation of when Jerusalem lay desolate. And we'll do that in the next video.