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.
Firstly, people don't cherish in something. To say that I formerly cherished the doctrine is taking things a bit far. There was a time when I accepted it, but now I know better, and that hardly destroys credibility. Your choosing to ignore the inconsistencies won't make them go away no how much you ignore them. It doesn't work at all; the events that you claim it points to did not happen, and the events that did happen in 1914 happened at the wrong time and bear no resemblance to what the pre-1914 Bible Students said would happen. You continue to allow yourself to be deceived, but beyond that you tenaciously try to convince others of your cherished deception. You never had any credibility to destroy.
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.
At chapter 9, Daniel does not say whether they had finished or not, but he does mention the fulfilment of the 70 years, and the defining point of that fulfilment was provided by Jeremiah, an event at which Daniel claimed to be present in 539, so why should he have not been aware of the fulfilment? Your attempt to play with semantics is irrelevant. Daniel mentioned the 70 years after 539 but did not say they were ongoing. (It is indeed ironic that you claim that Daniel must have meant they were ongoing, and yet staunchly deny that the 70 years referred to Zechariah had not ended.) Daniel simply recognized that in accord with the end of the 70 years, the Jews would soon return home.
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.
It doesn't matter whether you specifically said that "wobble at the same juncture". Your interpretation requires that they do, which highlights that your interpretation is untenable. Regarding the translation of 29:10, more correctly it is made an issue by all of the bible translators who implicitly reject the NWT's choice to mistranslate the verse. Changing a word to suit your doctrine doesn't "prove" anything. Jeremiah indicated that because Judah had not repented, they would suffer along with all of the other nations, but it is explicitly clear that Babylon's seventy years were of domination of all of the nations in the entire region, and there is no valid way to dispute that. And of course Jeremiah 29:1 complicates your interpretation as Jeremiah wrote to the exiles from Jerusalem, which by your interpretation indicates that the 70 years had not yet begun, so it would be meaningless to say the exiles would be in Jerusalem for only 70 years. Yes, Josephus correctly indicates that the temple was desolate for only 50 years, in agreement with the Bible, a fact that you continue to deny.
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.
You're still capable of misapplying Jeremiah 25 despite what is clearly stated, so it doesn't surprise me that early Witnesses could misapply the correct translation of 29:10.
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.
Whether others have picked up on the clear connection between Daniel 5 and Jeremiah 25 or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that there is indeed a clear connection between the two. I have indicated the connections previously, and you have not been able to specifically criticize those connections, so you simply provide a blanket statement saying there is no connection.
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.
Another example of terrible logic. You suggest that because opponents have suggested a number of alternatives, that all of them must be wrong, and in a savage assault on logic, assume that therefore you must be right. As stated previously, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong in some aspects of my viewpoint, however, as also stated previously, your view is wrong regardless of whether I am right or wrong because of your internal inconsistencies.
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.
Sounds like money well spent for a painter.