Scholar does not lie for he needs not to lie. Jeremiah 25:11 states that the nations would serve Babylon for seventy years but you only quoted half of the text. Why did you also not quote the first half wherein Jeremiah also sated that the land would be desolate for seventy years? Your deception in this matter is clear evidence that you only see what you want to and that you twist the Scripture to conform to your adherence to the Jonsson hypothesis. The next verse 12 also sates that the king of Babylon would be called to account when the seventy years are fulfilled but again you omit the fact that the other half of the text explains for the reader the manner of this 'callong to account' which was the desolation of Babylon. Why do you do things by halves? Why is your chronology half-baked?
If 'scholar' does not realise he is lying, than the situation is sadder than I thought. I did not need to quote the rest as it was not relevant to the point being discussed, which was regarding when Babylon and its king began to be judged. However, I'm glad you raised the issue. Your accusation of my being deceptive simply highlights your own twisting of the bible's use of the word 'desolated' (which does not in actuality require depopulation), and the fact that you errantly apply it to only Judea, though the passage clearly applies it to "all these nations round about". Verse 12 indicates the calling to account of the king and the land, however the verses indicate that both occur after the seventy years is fulfilled.
I did not say that the Fall of Babylon was a factor in the Fall of Babylon but that the Fall of Babylon was a factor of the Return of the Exiles. The Fall of that great city was predicted and explained by Daniel in his fifth chapter. Jeremiah also foretold the end of Babylon but did not end the seventy years with this event but with the Return when the seventy years were fulfilled. Jeremiah 29:10.
You specifically said that two events caused the "Fall", after which you listed three factors, one of which was the Fall of Babylon. Apart from the mistranslation of the NWT of Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah only states that the Jews would be allowed to return "in accord with" the end of the seventy years, not that the event marks the end of the period. To do so would have been to contradict himself at Jeremiah 25:11-12.
The king of Babylon would represent those rulers in Babylon or rulership in Babylon whatever their ethnicity so it was that afer 537, Babylons rulership, the city and the land woul all be consumed by the sands of history for times indefinite.
The Medo-Persian kingship was not judged in 537. Conversely, the wording of Daniel 5:26-29 strongly indicates that it is specifically discussing the calling to account of Babylon's king.
Yes Ezra did connect the end of those seventy years with the Return which you finally agree but now you insist on exact phrasing to support your outlandish theory well I can play that game . You show me in the Bible where it exactly says that THE SEVENTY YEARS ENDED WITH THE FALL OF BABYLON.
Jeremiah 25:12 specifically says that when the 70 years had been fulfilled, only then would the king of Babylon be called to account. Everything else has to fit in with that. That sets a physical limit on when the 70 years could end, and Daniel chapter 5 describes that physical event, placing it in what is universally agreed as being 539BC. Therefore all of the other scriptures that mention the 70 years can only be validly interpreted in a manner that is consistent therewith.
Neo-Babylonian chronology is derived from Ptolemy's canon but Thiele said that it was useless for chronology. So let us follow Thiele's caution and use now the Bible rather than Ptolemy. Can you do it?
We both know that I have already done so.
ps: Who keeps Jethro on his toes despite faulty English, poor logic and reasoning, and the IQ of a retard.
You hardly keep me 'on my toes'. Your posts are repetitive and just a little mind numbing. It is only a little logic that is required, and it isn't hard to see the flaws in your posts. It is interesting and amusing that you acknowledge your "faulty English, poor logic and reasoning, and the IQ of a retard." And why have you started typing with a lisp?