"scholar"":
: A direct reading of the text at 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 does not support your interpretation nor that expressed in GTR, 3rd edn., pp. 220-24 because the Chronicler does not specify the date when the 'royalty of Persia began to reign'.
There were no 'dates' as such back then, dummy. Dates were specified by measuring from the accession years of various kings. Since everyone knew when "the royalty of Persia began to reign", i.e., when Cyrus' accession year occurred relative to that of the king in whatever time period they happened to be in, that specified the date.
You truly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
: It is an interpretation which I reject because the context indicates 'the first year of Cyrus' in 538-537 BCE as most commentators agree.
You can say "the context indicates" all you want. The direct reading talks about Cyrus' accession year. And I'm certain that if commentators actually gave some thought to the issue, they'd unanimously agree with me.
Which gives me the idea of writing to several respected commentators. But while that would be useful for me, it would not be for you, since you'd reject their statements anyway, being a worshiper of Watchtower leaders and all that.
: The text does not link the seventy years with the servitude but with the desolation of the land as clearly stated.
Wrong. The text of 2 Chronicles 36:20 directly states that the Jews became servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign, and the linkage with the 70 years is directly stated in the prophecy of Jer. 25:11, 12. Then in verse 21 something ambiguous is said about "days of lying desolated" of the land, and this is vaguely linked with the 70 years, but the exact linkage is not stated. Therefore your inference introduces a contradiction, whereas mine does not.
: Jonsson makes numerous assertions in these pages but does not prove his case at all.
Sure he does. The problem is that for you, "proof" is "that which the Watchtower claims".
: The land had to enjoy its sabbath years of rest which amounts to 70 years and not 49 years as he alleges.
The 49 years is a derived number: 587 - 538, from Jerusalem's destruction to the return of the Jews to Judah. As long as the dates are correct, the 49 year figure is simple math.
: WHERE IN EARTH DOES JONSSON GET 49 YEARS FROM? NOWHERE IS THIS FOUND IN THE OT.
See above.
: Josephus confirms that the land lay desolate for seventy years unti Cyrus which was not 539.
Josephus either contradicted himself, or was not talking about the actual period of desolation, when he gave a 70 year figure. And remember that in his latest work, Against Apion I, he directly stated that the desolation lasted 50 years. As Jonsson writes (3rd ed. p. 298):
The Watch Tower Society next quotes two passages from Josephus' works in which the seventy years are described as seventy years of desolation (Antiquities X, ix, 7, and Against Apion, I, 19). [29] But they conceal the fact that Josephus, in his last reference to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, states that the desolation lasted for fifty years, not seventy! The statement is found in Against Apion I, 21, where Josephus quotes Berossus' statement on the Neo-Babylonian reigns, and says:
This statement is both correct and in accordance with our books [that is, the Holy Scriptures]. For in the latter it is recorded that Nabochodonosor in the eighteenth year of his reign devastated our temple, that for fifty years it ceased to exist, that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and lastly that in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.
[29] Josephus mentions the seventy years five times in his works, viz., at Antiquities X, 6, 3; X, 9, 7; XI, 1, 1; XX, 10, 2; and Against Apion I, 19. In these passages the seventy years are alternatingly referred to as a period of slavery, captivity, or desolation, extending from the destruction of Jerusalem until the first year of Cyrus.
In support of this statement Josephus quotes, not only the figures of Berossus, but also the records of the Phoenicians, which give the same length for this period. Thus in this passage Josephus contradicts and refutes his earlier statements on the length of the period of desolation. Is it really honest to quote Josephus in support of the idea that the desolation lasted for seventy years, but conceal the fact that he in his latest statement on the length of the period argues that it lasted for fifty years?
So, "scholar", it is evident that you are just as dishonest as your Mommy, the Watchtower Society, since both of you are guilty of deliberately concealing relevant historical evidence.
: In short, this text shows that 539 is impossible and that the land was the subject of the seventy years and that the Jews were simply captive under rulership at Babylon until Cyrus' decree.
In short, your exposition shows gross dishonesty and incompetence. Direct readings of the texts, along with completely verified secular evidence, show that various Jews were captives in Babylon from 605 through 538/7 B.C.E., that the destruction of the temple occurred in 587/6 B.C.E. and that the land was partly inhabited the entire time of the supposed desolation.
AlanF