Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Jeffro

You can make up your own rules of exegesis but the simple fact is that Jeremiah's prophecy was against Judah's sins and involved specific punishement which affected the land. The Jews broke the Law Covenant and according to Leviticus 26:31-34 the land had to be uninhabited in order for its sabbaths to be repaid. Further, Ezra most definitely linked the seventy years of desolation with the prophecy of Jeremiah.

According to Insight, " Nowhere do the Scriptures state that the Jews had failed to keep exactly 70 Sabbath years". There is nothing that states that Judah had to be completely unpopulated during the entire 70 years. Leviticus 26:31-34 employs the words shamem and chorbah to describe the desolation, Hebrew words which do not mean complete depopulation. It meant that there would be a forced resting of the land in a broad sense, not that no-one at all would be living there.
Verse 12 of Jeremiah 25 could only be fulfilled after 539 because in that year the exiles were still in Babylon and the land of Judah was still desolated. The situation changed dramatically with their release from Babylon in 537 with the seventy years at last being fulfilled. Therefore, in the light of the historical situation manifest in ch 25 clearly shows that 29:10 is correctly translated by the NWT because after the seventy years were fulfilled, the exiles who had been in Babylon were now safely returned home.
Jer25:12 says nothing about exiles. It says that Babylon and its king would be called to account, which began to be fulfilled in 539. This clearly marked the end of Babylon's period of dominance, which was specifically indicated by Jeremiah to be the significance of the 70 years.
Commentators do not agree with you in your exegesis of verse 12 for they recognize that these words clearly show the fulfillment of the seventy years ended not with Babylon in 539 but with the Return under Cyrus. So, the focus of this oracle is not the events of Babylon as yolu claim but the Return of the Exiles as noted humbly by the 'celebrated'.
None of the commentators agree with you and your 607 dogma. The wording of verses 11 and 12 of Jeremiah 25 is clear. Verse 11 indicates that nations (not just Judah) would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and that Babylon and its king would be called to account after the 70 years. This does not allow for your assertion that the last two years continued under "the Medes and Persians" after 539. The nations served the king of the world power, Babylon, until 539, at which time Babylon's king was killed, and Babylon's kingdom was divided up and given away. You continue to ignore the strong undeniable connection between Jeremiah 25 and Daniel 5.
I do not ignore Daniel's prophecy of the Fall of Babylon but nowhere is this connected to Jeremiah 25:12 which simply foretells Babylon's destruction and not its Fall:
Daniel 5 = Fall of Babylon in 539
Jeremiah 25:12 = Destruction of Babylon
With this nice little formula in mind one can easily see why the NWT has an appropriate marginal footnote indicating that Babylon would not just fall but would be desolated.
Firstly, that is not a "formula". Jeremiah 25:12 discusses not just the destruction of Babylon, but specifically states the calling to account of its king after a definite period of time. Daniel 5:26-31 discusses the calling to account of Babylon's king after its days had been numbered. There is no honest way to deny the connection.
I am glad and very happy that others give you commendation for your many battles with scholar and that I have contributed greatly to your typing skills. Keep up the good work!
My typing speed was up around 90wpm before ever encountering you so you shouldn't flatter yourself too much. It is my own efforts that have assisted me by my choice to offer my responses. You have made no contribution to my edification. However, you are right that I have done "good work" which highlights your previous lies about just who it is that other readers think is foolish.
scholar

Jeffro
Jeremiah explicitly says that Judah would be a place without an inhabitant because the population was deported from Judah so that the land would enjoy its sabbaths. The Hebrew words most certainly indicate that desolation means just that total devastation.
Jeremiah 25:12 omits many things which of course include your nonsense that it refers only to the Fall of Babylon in 539 rather than his clear stated reference that after the fulfillment of the seventy years in 537, Babylon like Judah would receive divine judgement.
Commentators may not agree with the date 607 and they also do not agree upon any date for the Fall but they certainly agree with our interpretation of 25:12 and not your stupid opinion. There is no immediate connection between Daniel 5 and Jeremiah 25:12 because these two events have different time settings but the focus of judgement upon Babylon is clearly meant.
scholar JW
Jeffro

Jeremiah explicitly says that Judah would be a place without an inhabitant because the population was deported from Judah so that the land would enjoy its sabbaths. The Hebrew words most certainly indicate that desolation means just that total devastation.

Jeremiah does say the land would be without an inhabitant. He says the Jews were exiled. He says the land would enjoy its sabbaths. However, he does not say that the seventy years explicitly refer to a time for which the Jews would all be exiled, and that the seventy years end when they go home. Jeremiah 25:11,12 explicitly contradict your view, and all scriptures relating to the seventy years can only be correctly viewed in the context that the seventy years ended with Babylon's fall in 539.
Jeremiah 25:12 omits many things which of course include your nonsense that it refers only to the Fall of Babylon in 539 rather than his clear stated reference that after the fulfillment of the seventy years in 537, Babylon like Judah would receive divine judgement.
Firstly, I did not say that Jeremiah 25:12 is only fulfilled with the fall in 539. I have consistently said that it began to be judged in 539, with the explicit judgement of its king after its days had been numbered (70 years were over), and it had been weighed and found deficient (called to account). The words at Daniel 5:26-31 would be meaningless if they did not refer to what Jeremiah explicitly said would end the 70 years.
Commentators may not agree with the date 607 and they also do not agree upon any date for the Fall but they certainly agree with our interpretation of 25:12 and not your stupid opinion. There is no immediate connection between Daniel 5 and Jeremiah 25:12 because these two events have different time settings but the focus of judgement upon Babylon is clearly meant.
"May not" agree with 607? No, they don't agree. All of them agree that it was around 587. But you decide that because they don't have an exact day, that all of them are off by about twenty years. Of course you don't have an exact day either, just a speculative date based on another speculative date in 537, which year you accept based on a circular speculation to make 607 fit and an astronomical diary for the placement of 539. There is no indication of "different time settings". Jeremiah discusses a period that ends with Babylon's king being called to account. Daniel describes the king of Babylon being called to account after its days had been numbered. My interpretation makes the scriptural record consistent. If you are right, then the scriptures are wrong because you contradict them, in which case the entire issue is irrelevant.
scholar

Jeffro
The two texts of Jeremiah pertaining to the seventy years are the subject of many different interpretations which have appeared in a few journal articles and the best Bible commentaries on Jeremiah. These include the Hermeneia series by John Collins, the Word series by Peter Cragie, Page Kelley, Joel Drinkard and the Anchor Bible series which is the most recent by Jack Lundbom. All these commentaries are multi-volume works and reflect the best scholarship within Christendom and I have these works and and use them in my research and understanding of the seventy years.
Carl Jonsson in his most recent 4th edition of Gentile Times Reconsidered is a rebuttal of the Society's exegesis of the seventy years in which he attempts to argue that seventy years ran from 609 BCE to 539 BCE even though he admits that 605 BCE for the beginning of the seventy years is a possibility. His exegesis of the seventy year texts covers 44 pages an promtes the idea that this period pertains to servitude to Babylon alone.
The Seventy Day Adventists inspired largely by Edwin Thiele date the period from 606/605 BCE until the Return under Cyrus in 538/537 BCE. However, Max Hatton a current SDA pastor living in Australia and a former Witness who defected over Chronology in the late sixties prefers the period to run from 605 BCE until the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
How then are all these multitude of interpretations, opinions and alike which are all supposedly based upon the two Jeremiac texts as well as Daniel. 2 Chronicles and Zechariah to be accounted for? Why then if the matter of evidence or exegesis is so straight forward that such diversity of opinion is presented even amondst those who hold to the view that the seventy years was of servitude under Babylon's domination only, that there is no accepted start or end date for the period.
Clearly, the evidence clearly indicates that scholarship has stumbled over the seventy years and does either not recognize the period at all historically speaking or they cannot interpret its nature or significance. The present position is not as with celebrated WT scholars who from earliest times have long argued the position that Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah collectively teach that the seventy years can only be understood as a period of servitude-exile-desolation running fro the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE. Such a coherent and consistent view is also found in the writings of the historian Josephus..
Now to your latest response:
Jeremiah discusses many themes in his prophecy and even in connection with the seventy years so the challenge is to see the context of his prophecy, what he specifically says in Jeremiah 25:8-12; 29:10. Also, it must be discerned what Daniel who was a contemporary of Jeremiah had to say about this period in Daniel 9:2. Further, Ezra who wrote about the seventy years as an historian would also need toi be examined as to its fulfillment. So, we have the following formula:
Seventy years of Exile -Servitude-Desolation from Fall to Return= Prophecy by Jeremiah> Process of Fulfillment by Daniel>History confirmed by Ezra and Zechariah= History of Israel by Josephus.
So, in respect of Jeremiah the challenge is for the interpreter today to see what Jeremiah actually foretells and then test the fulfillment by history and this is what the 'celebrated' have done. Contrary to your assertion, Jeremiah does says that the Jews would be exiled because they had to serve the king of Babylon when the land was desolate so thes two things would have to go together because these events are in context. This is understood as an exile because in 29:10 the Jews were in Babylon as a exiled people.
Regarding verse 12, you have an interpretation that the King of Babylon would be called to account because Babylon fell in 539 BCE thus fulfilling the seventy years but this is not what the text says. Jeremiah simply states that after the seventy years were fulfilled then and only then would judgement come upon Babylon and then in the same cerse he states that Babylon would become desolate. Clearly the latter event of desolation did not happen at 539 BCE and neith er was the king of Babylon called to account bedcause the seventy years had not then yet finished or fulfilled. Jehovah's time for judgement upon Babylon would not come until his people were released from her and returned home then and only then would it be the appropriate time for Babylon to receive her due.
Commentators do not advocate 607 for the Fall and I have nether said or implied that they have but they most certainly do not advocate any date over the other. It would seem that the 'majority view' favors 586 rather than 587 in deference to Thiele's scholarship and prestige. Our date of 607 is not speculative at all because it is based upon the accepted date of 537 and the established date of 539 BCE. You can say that circular reasoning applies to 607 and that is fine but I can say that the same circular reasoning is employed by you in using secular chronology to support the speculative dates of 586 or 587.
You are are correct to say that Daniel's calling to account the king of Babylon was in 539 but this is not identical in any such manner as the Jeremiac's 'calling to account' because the former was an immediate judgement and the latter was a long-term judgement leading to complete destruction, the focus of course for both prophets was as you correctly say was Babylon.
scholar JW
Jeffro

Clearly, the evidence clearly indicates that scholarship has stumbled over the seventy years and does either not recognize the period at all historically speaking or they cannot interpret its nature or significance. The present position is not as with celebrated WT scholars who from earliest times have long argued the position that Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah collectively teach that the seventy years can only be understood as a period of servitude-exile-desolation running fro the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE. Such a coherent and consistent view is also found in the writings of the historian Josephus..

In all of your unnecessary wordiness (replete with shocking spelling and grammar) you cannot see the gaping holes in your flawed logic. You assert that because others disagree that the WT must be right, yet no-one agrees with them either, so your analysis is completely baseless. It is known that the fall was not in 607, so there is no point in clinging to an interpretation that suggests otherwise. Still waiting for your tabulation of Neo-Babylonian kings.
Jeremiah discusses many themes in his prophecy and even in connection with the seventy years so the challenge is to see the context of his prophecy, what he specifically says in Jeremiah 25:8-12; 29:10. Also, it must be discerned what Daniel who was a contemporary of Jeremiah had to say about this period in Daniel 9:2. Further, Ezra who wrote about the seventy years as an historian would also need toi be examined as to its fulfillment. So, we have the following formula:
Seventy years of Exile -Servitude-Desolation from Fall to Return= Prophecy by Jeremiah> Process of Fulfillment by Daniel>History confirmed by Ezra and Zechariah= History of Israel by Josephus.
That isn't a formula, it's a sequence of ideas. If it is a formula, it is a very very bad one: 70 years minus servitude minus desolation = prophecy by Jeremiah which is greater than process of fulfilment by Daniel which is greater than History confirmed by Ezra = History by Josephus. It is hard to tell whether it is your math or your English that is worse. There is no substance in anything you have said above. You have errantly suggested that Daniel 9:2 supports you when in reality all it says is that the Jews would return "in accord with" the seventy years.
So, in respect of Jeremiah the challenge is for the interpreter today to see what Jeremiah actually foretells and then test the fulfillment by history and this is what the 'celebrated' have done. Contrary to your assertion, Jeremiah does says that the Jews would be exiled because they had to serve the king of Babylon when the land was desolate so thes two things would have to go together because these events are in context. This is understood as an exile because in 29:10 the Jews were in Babylon as a exiled people.
According to history, nothing significant happened in 607, so your claim of testing the fulfilment of history is false. (Fulfillment is the American spelling of fulfilment.) Jeremiah says that all of the nations in the region would serve Babylon, not "the Jews". So either absolutely all of those nations were exiled to Babylon for 70 years, or you are a common liar. Your trying to bolster your argument with the NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is meaningless as it is shown to be disharmonious with almost all other translations and is inconsistent with chapter 25.
Regarding verse 12, you have an interpretation that the King of Babylon would be called to account because Babylon fell in 539 BCE thus fulfilling the seventy years but this is not what the text says. Jeremiah simply states that after the seventy years were fulfilled then and only then would judgement come upon Babylon and then in the same cerse he states that Babylon would become desolate. Clearly the latter event of desolation did not happen at 539 BCE and neith er was the king of Babylon called to account bedcause the seventy years had not then yet finished or fulfilled. Jehovah's time for judgement upon Babylon would not come until his people were released from her and returned home then and only then would it be the appropriate time for Babylon to receive her due.
Your wilful ignorance is clearly demonstrated for all to see. In the face of direct evidence at Daniel 5:26-29 that God specifically brought a judgement against the king of Babylon in 539, you straight out deny that such a judgement occurred, backed only by your circular reasoning that your interpretation of the seventy years had not been completed, and despite the fact that it is an exact description of what Jeremiah said would happen to Babylon's king at the end of the seventy years. Babylon did not become "desolate" in 537 either, so it is unclear how you imagine that shifting the judgement of Babylon's king from 539 to 537 is somehow validated by your suggestion. Daniel is quite clear that God's judgement did come upon Babylon's king in 539, which demonstrates that your interpretation is wrong.
Commentators do not advocate 607 for the Fall and I have nether said or implied that they have but they most certainly do not advocate any date over the other. It would seem that the 'majority view' favors 586 rather than 587 in deference to Thiele's scholarship and prestige. Our date of 607 is not speculative at all because it is based upon the accepted date of 537 and the established date of 539 BCE. You can say that circular reasoning applies to 607 and that is fine but I can say that the same circular reasoning is employed by you in using secular chronology to support the speculative dates of 586 or 587.
You talk about the accepted date of 537, though no exact date is accepted, and it is determined on the basis of astronomical diaries, on which it is hypocritical of the Society to base their interpretations. You can say what you like, but you cannot demonstrate where I have employed circular reasoning because you are a liar.
You are are correct to say that Daniel's calling to account the king of Babylon was in 539 but this is not identical in any such manner as the Jeremiac's 'calling to account' because the former was an immediate judgement and the latter was a long-term judgement leading to complete destruction, the focus of course for both prophets was as you correctly say was Babylon.
Jeremiah foretold judgement against Babylon and its king. No-one is denying that there was a long-time fulfilment of Babylon's complete desolation, and you are simply employing misdirection. Again, I will state that the starting point has no bearing on the time taken for the desolation to take place. Additionally, there could not be a long-term fulfilment on the judgement of Babylon's king. Further, there is no way to interpret that the judgement was applied to some king of Babylon after the explicit judgement that is described in language that clearly links it to the weighing/calling to account of Babylon's king after an enumerated period of time (Jeremah 25:11,12; Daniel 5:26-31) that occurred in 539.
What have they done to you, you poor poor man?
scholar

Jeffro
I am simply telling you that in regard to the seventy years there are multiple views and interpretations. The Society has an interpretation which we belive only directly reflects God's Word.This does not mean that we are right it simply means that we believe we are right and that all the other views are in error. My analysis is correct because it is based upon the Scriptures and what the Society teaches for at least I have considered all the other opinions and you have not considered this subject in depth as shown by the manner and content of your postings on this subject.
My formula of ideas simply represent the scriptural presentation of the data for the seventy years and correct;ly refelects Daniel's observation that the seventy years of devastation was soon to end with the release of the exiles and their return to their land.
According to history nothing significant happened in 587, 586, 606 and 609 because these are false dates invented to support Ptolemy's Canon that has already been discredited and has little value in making a chronology for that period because of a twenty year shortfall. Jeremiah said that all of the nations would Babylon but Judah alone would serve for seventy years during her exile leaving a desolated homeland. The rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 clarifies the position by referring not Babylon as if these were Babylon's seventy years but to Judah because these seventy years were hers and hers alone. The brilliant NWT as produced by 'celebrated WT scholars' is in harmony with the traditional rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 as shown in the King James Bible.
The direct evidence of Daniel ch.5 is that Babylon was judged and fell in 539 BCE but this event made possible the soon to be released exiles from Babylon to Judah thus ending Jeremiah's seventy years as foretold. Jeremiah further showed that Babylon would again be called to account which would lead to her final demise because in time she too like Judah would become a desolated place.
The date of 537 is accepted for the Return of the Exiles marking the end of the seventy years which is accepted by other scholars who are not Witnesses. Are you now accusing such scholars also of circular reasoning because they accept this position?
I am well pleased that you now agree with me that the judgement of Babylon as an eventual event of desolation was fortold by Jeremiahm now all that you need to understand is that is Jeremiah prophesied in 25:12. In connection with the seventy years there must be a definite historical starting point and a definite end point with no fuzziness. What you propose is simply too fuzzy and subjects the seventy years to reductionism and meaningless as per the higher critic. The challenge for you is find another scholar or commentary that coincides Daniel 5 with Jeremiah 25:12 and thus far your interpretation is simply your own queer idea.
scholar JW
Jeffro

I am simply telling you that in regard to the seventy years there are multiple views and interpretations. The Society has an interpretation which we belive only directly reflects God's Word.This does not mean that we are right it simply means that we believe we are right and that all the other views are in error. My analysis is correct because it is based upon the Scriptures and what the Society teaches for at least I have considered all the other opinions and you have not considered this subject in depth as shown by the manner and content of your postings on this subject.

Of course there can be multiple views and interpretations, but that does not mean that all of them are valid. (Note that valid is not the same as correct. Only one interpretation can be correct, but more than one can be valid.) Finally you acknowledge the possiblity that you are wrong. (You will possibly accuse me of not admitting that I could be wrong, but if you trawl back through my past replies, you will note that I have stated on a number of occasions that even if I am wrong [acknowledging the possibility], your interpretation is still wrong because of its many flaws and internal inconsistencies.) You then take a backward step and boldly assert that your "analysis is correct", and attempt to disparage my logical rebuttals to your posts without basis.
My formula of ideas simply represent the scriptural presentation of the data for the seventy years and correct;ly refelects Daniel's observation that the seventy years of devastation was soon to end with the release of the exiles and their return to their land.
Daniel says nothing about the period being "soon to end". He only says that the Jews would return "in accord with" the seventy years, which gives no indication as to when the seventy years would end.
According to history nothing significant happened in 587, 586, 606 and 609 because these are false dates invented to support Ptolemy's Canon that has already been discredited and has little value in making a chronology for that period because of a twenty year shortfall. Jeremiah said that all of the nations would Babylon but Judah alone would serve for seventy years during her exile leaving a desolated homeland. The rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 clarifies the position by referring not Babylon as if these were Babylon's seventy years but to Judah because these seventy years were hers and hers alone. The brilliant NWT as produced by 'celebrated WT scholars' is in harmony with the traditional rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 as shown in the King James Bible.
Egyptian history that was not derived from Ptolemy's work is consistent with the timing of the events of the years that you attempt to debunk. Even if both the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies were incorrect, it would be highly unlikely that both would co-incidentally introduce exactly the same aberrant 20-year discrepancy. Jeremiah said explicitly that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years", and makes no reference to the exile. This is the initial definition of the seventy years, and any other interpretations related to it can only be validly interpreted based on its original context. Your attempt to ratify your statement by quoting the NWTs rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is irrelevant. Suddenly the King James Version is the noble "traditional rendering" and not the result of, as the Watchtower Society considers, "many mistakes, additions and omissions which mark it, so that the King James Version has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors." It is therefore profitable to consider what translations not derived therefrom say at this verse, and they all indicate, in harmony with Jeremiah 25, that the 70 years pertained to Babylon.
The direct evidence of Daniel ch.5 is that Babylon was judged and fell in 539 BCE but this event made possible the soon to be released exiles from Babylon to Judah thus ending Jeremiah's seventy years as foretold. Jeremiah further showed that Babylon would again be called to account which would lead to her final demise because in time she too like Judah would become a desolated place.
Yes, Babylon began to be judged in 539, with the calling to account of its king as clearly identified by Daniel, which marked the end of Babylon's seventy years and her desolation of all of the surrounding nations (Jeremiah 25:11,12; Daniel 5:26-31). In accord with the end of the seventy years, the Jews would soon thereafter be able to return home (Daniel 9:2) and make reparations to their own desolated homeland (Daniel 9:17), though the temple would not be fully rebuilt until 517 when the seventy years Zechariah mentioned had been completed (Zechariah 7:5), during which time the other nations were at ease but Jerusalem was still denounced (Zechariah 1:12).
The date of 537 is accepted for the Return of the Exiles marking the end of the seventy years which is accepted by other scholars who are not Witnesses. Are you now accusing such scholars also of circular reasoning because they accept this position?
No, I am primarily accusing the basis on which the Society accepts such dates that are derived from astronomical diaries, which it states are not reliable for determining definite dates.
I am well pleased that you now agree with me that the judgement of Babylon as an eventual event of desolation was fortold by Jeremiahm now all that you need to understand is that is Jeremiah prophesied in 25:12. In connection with the seventy years there must be a definite historical starting point and a definite end point with no fuzziness. What you propose is simply too fuzzy and subjects the seventy years to reductionism and meaningless as per the higher critic. The challenge for you is find another scholar or commentary that coincides Daniel 5 with Jeremiah 25:12 and thus far your interpretation is simply your own queer idea.
What is wrong with you? I have consistently said that the judgement of Babylon was a gradual thing that happened over a long period of time, beginning with the calling to account of its king in 539, and only now you say that I "now agree" with you about it being an eventual desolation. I can only assume that you have some of kind of mental impediment that causes either extremely poor reading comprehension, significant memory loss, or delusions. I have provided a precise 70-year period that is derived completely from the bible using the known date of 539 for the fall of Babylon, which co-incidentally places the beginning of the 70 years of Babylon's domination in the year that Babylon overthrew the last vestige of Assyrian rule. That you do not agree with it does not make it fuzzy. Your interpretation agrees with no secular scholars or commentaries at all, and yet you assert that mine should. That is called hypocrisy. It is evident from the scriptures that the judgement of Babylon's king is described at Daniel 5:26-31, with the dramatic 'handwriting on the wall', the 'weighing' of the king, the 'numbering' of Babylon's days. You claim to place strongest credence in the bible, so I should not need to seek any higher form of authority. More amusing, you accuse me for agreeing with secular authorities, and you accuse me of not agreeing with them. You are like the children Jesus described at Luke 7:32.
scholar

Jeffro
At last you recognize that there are multiple interpretations for the seventy years and that there can only be one correct interpretation. I have not read from any source either from current scholarship as published in the journals, all of the commentaries, and apostate commentary as presented by Carl Jonsson that our interpretation of the seventy years is incorrect, invalid or untrue. In fact, all of the material that I have read confirms that the understanding of the celebrated WT scholars regarding the seventy years is absolutely correct to the finest detail and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Your commentary on the seventy years is simply erroneous and reflects your bias against the Bible and teachings that you formerly embraced and accepted so your credibility is baseless.
Daniel is quite clear form the time he composed the material of the ninth chapter which was after 539 BCE that the seventy yeras was at that time not ended but soon to be fulfilled with the Return as shown by the whole context of that chapter which was afterall a prayer of repentance to Jehovah answered by his receiving the revelation about the Messiah.
Egyptian history and chronology is just as wobbly as Babylonian history and chronology and it is wise for the Bible Student and sincere Christian to rely on Biblical history and its appended chronology. Jeremiah does indeed make mention of the exile by his remarks in 29:10 which was addressed to exiled Jews in Babylon awaiting their return upon the fulfillment of the seventy years.The initial definition of the seventy years as first outlined in ch.25 is clearly one of desolation of the land as defined from verses 9 and 10 then in verse 11, devastation is announced first followed by servitude hence the formula: Desolation+Servitude+Exile based upon ch 25 repeated in 29:10, observed by Daniel, recorded by Ezra and confirmed by Josephus.
My use of the brilliant rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 by the NWT is hardly irrelevant because Jonsson uses this text as the theme of his discussion of the seventy years and devotes many pages for the purpose of undermining this traditional and orthodox rendering. Irrelevant, Hardly! Besides, celebrated Wt scholars were quite happy to use the alternative rendering 'for Babylon' in their defense our traditional understanding of the seventy yeras long before the NWT came into existence. In short, the translation of this text can easily be accommodated into our framework of understanding but that is not the case with the apostates who stand or fall upon a rendering of a fluid Hebrew preposition.
The judgement against Babylon as enunciated by Jeremiah at 25:12 went into effect after the seventy years were fulifilled which was 537 and not before, any attempt to hijack this to the Fall in 539 is of your own perverted view and without general support. Many scholars simply do not agree with you that the seventy years ended with 539 BCE, many favour the Return in 537 BCE or in reference to the later building of the Temple. Ezra writing the Chronicles most definitely links the end of the sevnty years not with the Fall of Babylon but with the Return under Cyrus in 537 BCE.
Your period of seventy years ending in 539 BCE is inprecise as you have a problematic choice between to fuzzy dates of 609 or 605 BCE, niether of which could in any way begin the seventy years. Your interpretation is absurd and ignorant.
It is true that our interpretation of the seventy years is unsupported by scholars but that is no shame because they do not have a view, the seventy years is non-existent to them for much of scholarship with regard to these prophetic books regard such as unreliable history. The commentaries are there to serve as a kind of 'sieve' for the multipl,icity of interpretations and are necessary in order to carry out any kind of exegesis of the relevant seventy year texts. You, if you are serious about the matter in question need to read more widely and deeply on this subject or extend your 'horizon of understanding'.
I have no problem with the oracle against Babylon as announced by Daniel and recorded in the 5th chgapter and this information is wholly consistent with our Jeremiac understanding of the seventy years as clearly demonstrated in our recent commentary on Daniel.
scholar JW
Jeffro

At last you recognize [lie] that there are multiple interpretations for the seventy years and that there can only be one correct interpretation. I have not read from any source, [comma usage] either from [incorrect word transposition] current scholarship as published in the journals, all of the commentaries, and apostate [intentionally confrontational term] commentary as presented by Carl Jonsson that our interpretation of the seventy years is incorrect, invalid or untrue [ignoring facts]. In fact, all of the material that I have read confirms that the understanding of the celebrated WT scholars [cliché] regarding the seventy years is absolutely correct to the finest detail [ignoring facts] and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise [ignoring previously-provided information]. Your commentary on the seventy years is simply erroneous [unfounded statement] and reflects your bias against the Bible [unfounded statement] and teachings that you formerly embraced [supposition] and accepted so your credibility is baseless [saltus - you'll probably need to look that word up].

Another fictitious "at last". You've really got issues. The inconsistencies inherent to your interpretation are what make it incorrect, invalid and untrue. No external help is required. There is no non-WT material at all to confirm the WT understanding, and even the WT literature contradicts itself, such as the duality of applications of the 70 years referred to by Jeremiah. Again you claim that I am biased but provide no actual evidence.
Daniel is quite clear, [comma usage] form [spelling, poor word usage - "in consideration of"] the time that [omitted word] he composed the material of the ninth chapter, [comma usage] which was after 539 BCE, [comma usage] that the seventy yeras [spelling] was at that time not ended [unfounded statement] but soon to be fulfilled with the Return [unfounded statement] as shown by the whole [redundant word] context of that chapter [unfounded statement] which was, [comma usage] afterall, [comma usage] a prayer of repentance to Jehovah, [comma usage] answered by his receiving of [omitted word] the revelation about the Messiah.
Daniel does not say that the 70 years had not ended. He says that he discerned the end of the 70 years from what Jeremiah had written, and Jeremiah had written that Babylon's king would be judged after the 70 years had ended. The context of the rest of the chapter does not provide an indication that the 70 years was still ongoing. Daniel would have been aware of the events of 539 at which he was present, and said himself that Babylon's days had been numbered, and he would have had these thoughts in mind when he discerned from the books the significance of the 70 years.
Egyptian history and chronology is just as wobbly as Babylonian history and chronology [unfounded statement] [logic error - probability of coincidence] and it is wise for the Bible Student [unnecessary capitalisation] and sincere Christian to rely on Biblical history and its appended [poor word usage] chronology. Jeremiah does indeed make mention of the exile by his remarks in 29:10 [biased translation usage] which was addressed to exiled Jews in Babylon awaiting their return upon the fulfillment [spelling - fulfilment is Australian spelling] of the seventy years [unfounded statement]. [omitted space] The initial definition of the seventy years as first outlined in ch. [omitted space] 25 is clearly one of desolation of the land [faulty application - implication of restricted focus] as defined from verses 9 and 10, [comma usage] then in verse 11, devastation is announced, [comma usage] first followed by servitude, [comma usage] hence the formula [poor word usage] [run-on sentence]: Desolation+Servitude [faulty application - implication of restricted focus] +Exile [word usage - not mentioned in verses discussed] based upon ch [inconsistent abbreviation punctuation] 25, [comma usage] repeated in 29:10 [biased translation usage], observed by Daniel, recorded by Ezra [misquoted source], [comma usage - separating list of phrases] and confirmed by Josephus [misquoted source].
Your claim that the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologes both happen to 'wobble' at exactly the same points to arrive at the same 20-year discrepancy prove that you are biased. You can't just put words in Jeremiah's mouth by choosing a translation that you like. Translations not based on the King James correctly indicate that the 70 years pertained to Babylon, consistent with chapter 25. Your attempt at warping the focus of chapter 25 which is explicitly stated to be all of the nations of the region further demonstrates your bias. It is evident from the context of Ezra that he was discussing a different period, which ended with the completion of the temple, demonstrated by his statement that the other nations were "at ease". Josephus' comments are taken out of context, forcing the assumption that Josephus is inconsistent and therefore unreliable.
My use of the brilliant [subjective term] rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 by the NWT is hardly irrelevant [misdirection of context of irrelevancy] because Jonsson uses this text as the theme of his discussion of the seventy years, [comma usage] and devotes many pages for the purpose of undermining this traditional and orthodox rendering. Irrelevant,? [punctuation] Hardly! Besides, celebrated Wt [capitilization] scholars [cliché] were quite happy to use the alternative rendering, [comma usage] 'for Babylon' in their defense of [omitted word] our traditional understanding of the seventy yeras [spelling] long before the NWT came into existence [logic error - KJV used before NWT]. In short, the translation of this text can easily be accommodated into our framework of understanding [ignoring facts], [comma usage] but that is not the case with the apostates [intentionally confrontational term] who stand or fall upon a rendering of a fluid Hebrew preposition [unfounded statement].
It is not your use of the NWT that is irrelevant. That point is very relevant, for it forms part of your biased and flawed interpretation. However, the NWT's translation of this verse is irrelevant because it is simply a distortion put in place to lend support to the WT's flawed view. Prior to the NWT, Witnesses largely used the King James Version, which is the source of the "at Babylon" error.
The judgement against Babylon as enunciated by Jeremiah at 25:12 went into effect after the seventy years were fulifilled [contradicting scripture] which was in [omitted word] 537 and not before [contradicting scripture],; [punctuation] any attempt to hijack [poor word choice] this to the Fall in 539 is of your own perverted view [poor grammar - "attempt" cannot be of a "view"] [ignoring scripture] and without general support [irrelevant statement]. Many scholars simply do not agree with you that the seventy years ended with 539 BCE, many favour the Return in 537 BCE, [comma usage] or in reference to the later building [poor word usage - rebuilding] of the Temple. Ezra, [comma usage] writing the Chronicles, [comma usage] [poor sentence structure] most definitely links the end of the sevnty years, [comma usage] not with the Fall of Babylon, [comma usage] but with the Return under Cyrus in 537 BCE [unfounded statement].
This attempted distortion of the facts is just plain laughable. There is simply no valid way of placing the judgement of Babylon's king past the judgement of Babylon's king in 539. It is flattering that you think my wisdom is unique, but the connection between Jeremiah 25 and Daniel 5 is really quite obvious. Ezra's primary interest is the return of the Jews, however it does not alter Jeremiah's original definition of the 70 years.
Your period of seventy years, [comma usage] ending in 539 BCE, [comma usage] is inprecise [spelling] as you have a problematic choice [lie] between to [spelling] fuzzy [unfounded statement] dates of 609 or 605 BCE [lie], niether of which could in any way begin the seventy years [ignoring scripture and facts]. Your interpretation is absurd and ignorant. [unfounded statement]
I don't have any "problematic choice". The 70 years runs from 609 to 539. That others choose 605 is no concern of mine.
It is true that our interpretation of the seventy years is unsupported by scholars, [comma usage] but that is no cause for [omitted words] shame because they do not have a view [missing adjective?],; [punctuation] the seventy years is non-existent to them [faulty scope], [comma usage] for much of scholarship [poor word usage] with regard to these prophetic books regard [redundant word repetition] such as unreliable history [poor sentence structure]. The commentaries are there to [wordiness, misuse of authors' intent] serve as a kind of 'sieve' for the multipl,icity [spelling] of interpretations, [comma usage] and are necessary in order to carry out any kind of exegesis of the relevant 'seventy years [pluralization]' [punctuation] texts. You, if you are serious about the matter in question, [comma usage] need to read more widely and deeply [wordiness] on this subject or extend your 'horizon of understanding' [poor sentence structure] [redundant statement]. [unfounded statement]
Your suppositions of what you think I need to learn more about are irrelevant. Though not all scholars pay attention to the 70 years, that has nothing to do with me.
I have no problem with the oracle against Babylon as announced by Daniel and recorded in the 5th [inconsistent abbreviation] chgapter [spelling], [comma usage] and this information is wholly consistent with our Jeremiac understanding of the seventy years [contradicting scripture], [comma usage] as clearly demonstrated in our recent commentary on Daniel.
The "commentary on Daniel" contains a number of errors, such as the biased and distorted view of Daniel 1:1, its plainly unscriptural approach to Daniel chapter 4, and purely speculative views of the 'kings of the north and south'. It is not surprising that the Society's twisted view of Daniel is consistent with its twisted view of Jeremiah.
You have stated previously that you have some kind of accreditation in the field of religious studies, yet by the sheer volume of errors in your posts, both in structure and logic, it seems that if you did undertake such studies, it must have been with considerable difficulty.
scholar

Jeffro
You are the one with the issues with your pitiful attempt to undermine our wondrous chronology in which you formerly cherished. There are no inconcistencies in our chronology because it is based upon sound secular and biblical evidence and its interpretation does not follow the theories of men and higher critics. Further, it works, pointing forward to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy with 1914. There is no duality involved in Jeremiah's seventy years but a single period of exile-servitude-desolation from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE. You are biased because you are now ridiculing things that you formerly believed so your credibility is destroyed.
Daniel does not say that the seventy years had ended but rather like Ezra and Jeremiah, Daniel speaks of 'fulfillment'. Do you know and understand the difference between 'ending' and 'fulfillment'? You keep referring to the 'end' of the seventy years and ignore their 'fulfillment' which is quite different to an 'end' so you need to stick to the language and be accurate. Daniel wrote about the seventy year's after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE in which he discerned their soon to be completion so that demolishes irrevocably your argument that the period ended in 539 thus being fulfilled.
I did not say that Egyptian history and chronology and Babylonian history and chronology wobble at the same juncture at all but these systems are wobbly throughout and thus are unreliable. The matter of translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is made an issue by apostates alone because they have to prove that the seventy years are of Babylon and not of Judah. For us it is no big deal for our seventy year teaching was long based upon modern translations which prefer the phrase 'for Babylon' so for us it is no big deal. The NWT in its brilliance has chosen the more accurate 'at Babylon' which clearly proves that the seventy years belonged to Judah as confirmed by the other Bible writers Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. The focus of Jeremiah's ch 25 is clearly Judah and not Babylon or the nations because the initial verses for this chapter are in fact addressed to Judah. Now you claim in order to wriggle out of your illogical argument that Ezra in Chronicles has a different seventy years. How can this be when in fact Ezra refers to Jeremiah's seventy years as did Daniel. This proves that there is only one period and that same period was the one referrred to by Jeremiah, Ezra and Daniel. Josephus' words are not taken out of context for he clearly states their period of duration, their start and end point and their characteristic. all in agreement with the Bible.
Your comments about the use of the NWT are relevant but we were able to teach and preach for many decades without this fine instrument and now that we have this superb instrument it is just that much easier and persuasive in the defence of our sacred theology.
The understanding of Jeremiah 25:12 as I have written simply reflects the plain statement of Jeremiah whereas yours inserts ideas that are not part of the discourse because you ignore the meaning of 'fulfillment' which hijacks your sloppy exegesis. There is no obvious connection between Daniel 5 and Jeremiah 25 for if there was then others too would have readily seized upon it. The only obvious connection is the plain fact that Babylon was addressed by both prophets and thus was the focus of the prophecy.
The very fact that there are two different points for the seventy years such as 605/609 to 539 and 605 to 537 BCE proves that even amongst our critics the interpretation of the singular texts differs markedly so that means that one or all of these views is wrong and if you are so interested in this subject then you should be concerned because your view is possible quite wrong.
Our commentary on Daniel is superb because it uses the best commentaries and truly honours the God of Daniel. Jehovah and also it does subscribe to the Maccabean thesis which plagues most modern commentaries. Yes I do have accreditation in Religious Studies with a Masters Degree conferred by the University of Sydney so your derogatory comments are simply irrelevant.
scholar JW

Desolation of Jerusalem

Share this