Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?

by digderidoo 103 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CunningMan

  Well, I have a response to Scholar:

  Even if this 607 date were correct, the WBTS cannot claim that the "seven times" mentioned in Daniel 4:25 refers to a period of 2,520 years. There are two reasons for this:

  (1) If you read Daniel 4:25, you'd see that it only refers to 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and nothing else. There is no indication that the word "year" is used symbolically.

  (2) The WBTS makes us of the day-year principle, which was inherited from Adventist speculation. They try to justify the use of this principle by appealing to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5. However, neither of these scriptures give any indication that the words "day" or "year" are meant to be used symbolically and neither of them establish a rule used for interpreting other scriptures.

  I'm sure I'll get the usual lame response, but that's what I get for posting this already convoluted thread.
• 

  Narkissos

  JCanon,

  c. the time of desolation of the land of Judah, which is historically unaccurate (since the exile only lasted about 50 years, cf. the 1st "7 weeks" of Daniel 9, and did not imply a complete desolation to begin with), but seems to be in view in 2 Chronicles 36 (and later in Josephus, although he does know from Berossus the actual duration of the exile). I tend to think that this third interpretation (c) was worked along with the first one (a) into the extant text of Jeremiah 25:11, for the part: "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

  You forgot to mention Josephus' interpretation of the 70 years as beginning with the last deportation and ending the 1st of Cyrus. It doesn't matter if it is believed to be accurate or not. That is precisely where he places the 70 years in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, thus the 70 years of "servitude" specifically are for the "poor people" remaining from those killed off in Egypt. He clearly indicates the land lay desolate for 70 years after this last deportation. That is a clear contradiction of the shorter NB Period. But it is quite consistent with the Bible's reference at 2 Chronicles that those last deported of those "remaining from the sword" would serve the kings of Babylon for 70 years while the land paid back its sabbaths.

  You should definitely read better what you paste before replying... I did refer to Josephus' own interpretation, although I did it briefly. I agree that it most likely implies the idea (not the fact!) of a 70-year desolation, which I think also underlies 2 Chronicles 36 and perhaps the final redaction of Jeremiah 25:11, both in the TM and the LXX (where the notion of "nations serving the king of Babylon" is replaced with the different idea of Judean exile into "the nations").

  However that is a clear contradiction, not only to the so-called "secular" N-B chronology, but to other scriptural references to the 70 years as well (Jeremiah 25:11bc; 29 as starting before Jerusalem's fall, Zechariah and Daniel as running after the return from exile; re-read my posts).

  It is clear from the chronological indications of the context (1:7 = 519 BC, 7:1 = 518 BC) that those "seventy years" have kept on running after the return from exile.

  It is NOT clear that those seventy years kept running after the return, because it clearly asks "how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?"

  The denouncement of the cities clearly means their destruction. This denouncement had not ended yet. This was the 70th year of the denouncement that was continuing past 70 years now. Showing "mercy to these cities" meant the ending of that denouncement period. So only with the revised chronology would you think this "denouncement" continued past the return, when normally the denouncement would end when the return occurred and the cities were rebuilt again. YOU are suggesting that some sense of the denouncement was continuing after they returned and after they began to rebuild, as if that incident was insiginficant to God having shown any degree of mercy to these cities that remained "denounced." That makes not sense, especially compared to when you follow the JEWISH TRADITIONAL HISTORY of the 70 years as provided by Josephus which begins the 70 years in year 23. That means the 70 years was still yet to be completed in 4 years. So per Jewish historian Josephus, 70 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem the Jews still would have been in exile. Thus there is no conflicting concept of this "denouncement" and God showing "mercy to the cities" in relation to their return and why their return didn't automatically end the denouncement. So this scripture alone contradicts the pagan revised chronology.

  I thought you were going to repeat the WT's (and scholar's) misunderstanding that "these 70 years" refer to a period that had ended years before. This (as I pointed out in my post # 8720) is a philological impossibility. But what you are doing is even worse. It would imply that Zechariah's references are made before the return from exile (i.e., from Babylon) which contradicts the whole content of the book and the specific dating of the oracles...

  Unless you allow for the fact that scriptural mentions of the "70 years" actually refer to different periods (some of them approximative, others simply imaginary), you have no way to "reconcile" them. So in addition to its obviously fantastic character your revision of universal chronology still stumbles on the same textual diversity as every other which maintains one chronological reference for all "70-years" texts...
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Yes, you claim to have read the article but you seem to miss the point of the article which was about methodology so I repeat you must read the Introduction again.

  Indeed it is you that have missed the point of the article. The 'methodology' was a means to an end. It was to logically assess all the scriptural and secular evidence, taking into account the differences in accession and non-accession, Nisan and Tishri systems, to come to a firm decision between the 586 and 587 dates (which, btw, Young says was a biblical problem in his intro). Once the 'methodology' was employed 587 was settled.

  It seems that all that you see is the fact that the author uses computer modelling to arrive at the opiionated date of 587 BCE for the Fall.

  So after jumping up and down in glee that Rodger Young vindicated your loooong belief that chronology was all about 'methodology,' you're implying that he misuses computer modelling to arrive at a pre-supposed date. That is HILARIOUS! Excellent!

  Celebrated WT scholars have used all of the evidence oth biblical and secular to prove that 607 BCE is the only possible datre for the Fall of Jerusalem. Their methodology is carefully explained as with all of the evidence and it is simple and precise which cannnot be said for the proponents of 586 or 587 BCE. The existing secular chronology is sick and is not in good shape and that is why Young wrote that article. The very fact that the precise date for the Fall cannot be determined proves that the traditional chronology is hopeless. This chronology was far too complex long before your so-called amateurs dealt with for you only need to read the immense literature published on trying to solve the calendrical problems over the last few decades. Even Jonsson an amateur was forced to acknowledge these issues in his Appendix to the GTR.I believe I first introduced Young's article on this forum and perhaps on Channel C but in any event I beat the apostates to the punch on this line as well as with a few others. Besides, Young's article nicely addresses Jonsson's complaint about the Society's preference for 539 BCE.

  I see you have now withdrawn further into your make-believe world. Unless you snap out of it, further dialogue with you is like a broken pencil ... pointless.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 767

  We are both talking about different articles. The article by Young that you refer was entitled 'When Did Jerusalem Fall' which was the second part of a series of three studies wherein Young raises the issue of methodology in chronology. He discusses the calendrical issues when using a 'regnal' based approach and proceeds by using Dcision Analysis which according to his new hypothesis favoured 587 BCE. In his third article 'When Was Samaria Captured The Need For Precision In Biblical Chronologies' he explores in more detail the issue of methodology and it is this article that I am mainly interested. I have said on many occasions that chronology is methodology and interpretation and is well supported by Young's contribution.

  Methodology would vary amongst scholars especially with chronology and that is why there are numerous schemes and dates within scholarship but this is the first time that a scholar has 'nailed the matter to the mast' apart from the aforesaid scholar.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Cunningman

  You are sadly mistaken. The seven times of Neb's madness had a typical and antitypical fulfillment and this is proven by the use of 'times' and the context of Ch. 4.

  The day for a year principle is well enshrined in Biblical Hermeneutics and has a long history of tradition apart to being well attested in Scripture. So you are certainly wrong on both counts. You need to research the subject more deeply rathing than relying on the mischief of apostates. Why not make a detailed analysis of Daniel chapter 4, verse by verse for starters and scholar will help you.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  We are both talking about different articles.

  I very much doubt that. The Samaria article is talking about ... well ... Samaria's capture. Jerusalem's fall is mentioned only in passing, where Young's approach in 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?' (remember - that's the article that settles the 586/587 issue - you know? the subject under discussion?) relates to dating Samaria's fall too.

  Stop dodging the ball.

  (And stop talking about yourself in the 3rd person. Who do you think you are? The Queen?)
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 768

  No, the Samaria article is about methodology wherein the Introduction discusses three major factors that produce conflicting chronologies. All of these involve methodology and the article's summary discusses five reasons that require careful analysis in determining the beginning and end of the regnal years. The preceeding jounal article is the one that sets out Young's preference for 587 over 586 for Jerusalem's Fall. It is the former article nott the latter that interests me but the reverse is true in your case no doubt.

  I am not dodging the ball but playing catch up as I always have done on this forum and every now and then I throw a little further so as to annoy the apostates.

  scholar JW
• 

  CunningMan

  Typical response.

  By the way, what reason is there for buying into the type/anti-type distinction used by the society? No justification has been given for this distinction, but it's simply presumed for the sake of their preconceived conclusions.

  As for the day-year principle, it is far from "enshrined in Biblical Hermeneutics." Only Adventists and Witnesses adhere to it. You haven't even discussed my reasons for rejecting the principle.

  By they way, don't talk down to me. I have done my own research by fairly reading and verifying the claims made by people like Jonsson. What really undermines the society's chronology is not just secular chronology, but the old literature by Russell himself. What did Russell really claim concerning 1914 and what were the supposed evidence he gave for that claim? If you understand that, it's obvious that the society's current teaching is an ad hoc reinterpretation of Russell's speculations.
• 

  scholar

  Narkissos

  Post 8752

  Seeing that you make a reference to me in this post I feel obliged to reply.

  Josephus is quite descriptive in his many references to the seventy years describing the period as one of servitude-exile-desolation running from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return of the Jews. His testimony is unambiguous on this subject and agrees with the statements by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah each of which referrred to the seventy years from different standpoints and yet they all agreed with the foregoing. Higher critics and apostates dishonestly misrepresent those clear descriptions of the period by introducing fuzziness as to the chronology and emphasizing that the period began much earlier from the time of the first exile of prominent Jewry to Babylon and that the period was of Babylonian domination.

  Such a hypothesis conflicts with the clear testimony of the Bible writers and finds no support in Josephus and amounts to a clear distortion of the Biblical evidence. There is simply no reason for believing that Jeremiah 25: 11 bc;29 applies before the Fall of Jerusalem and that the period ran after the Return according to Daniel and Zechariah. This is simply nonsense. The relevant texts speak for themselves.

  Further, the two references to the seventy years in Zechariah most clearly showed that the period had already long ended before he received the vision and this well supported by the context for both chapters. Otherwise we have a hodge-podge of several seventy year periods all over the place which makes no sense at all.

  The evidence is quite clear that there was only one definte historic period of seventy years pertaining to Judah and this was well described by Ezra, Jeremiah, Daniel and Zechariah, a period of exile-desolation-servitude from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE confirmed by Josephus. Scholars and apostates with regard to the seventy years share one thing in common; confusion of interpretation of the seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  The preceeding jounal article is the one that sets out Young's preference for 587 over 586 for Jerusalem's Fall. It is the former article nott the latter that interests me but the reverse is true in your case no doubt.

  As I said, you're ball-dodging by pretending to be thinking of the Samaria article rather than the Jerusalem one. OK, you do your next face-saving post, and we'll leave it at that, shall we?