Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

by thraxer68 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thraxer68

  Ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason I cant get past the bolded part. Can someone maybe explain that a little? If this even makes sense, Im usually not t his dense, I've been reading this for ever and for some reason I keep getting thrown off track at that part. Any help is appreciated

  Next, let’s look at Jeremiah 29:10, as it is presented in several translations:

  ‘This is what the LORD says: ‘When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.’ - NIV

  ‘For thus says the LORD, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.’ - NASB

  ‘For thus says the Lord, When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you and keep My good promise to you, causing you to return to this place.’ - AMP

  ‘After Babylonia has been the strongest nation for seventy years, I will be kind and bring you back to Jerusalem, just as I have promised.’ - CEV

  The King James and other bibles have confused matters slightly by their incorrect use of the phrase ‘at Babylon’ rather than ‘for Babylon’, but that aside, a look at the context in Jeremiah 29:4-11 shows these words to be part of a letter sent from Jeremiah to those who were taken captive from Jerusalem in the second (of three) deportations. This second deportation happened eleven years before Jerusalem’s final destruction. Jeremiah is telling the captives they should settle themselves and not expect a quick return as some false prophets had predicted, for only after seventy years had been accomplished ‘for Babylon’ would they return. This only makes sense if the seventy years had already begun.

  If the seventy years were to begin with the destruction of Jerusalem some ten years after Jeremiah’s words were written, it would mean the people Jeremiah was writing to would have to wait even longer than seventy years. Plus to do so would mean God had already decided that Jerusalem would be destroyed. And if this were this case, the later warnings recorded at Jeremiah 38:17, 18 would have no meaning. It reads:

  ‘Jeremiah now said to Zedekiah: ‘This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire , and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand.’

  If God had already decided to burn the city ten years before he did it, such a warning would have been futile. However if we understand the seventy years to be years of servitude, then the warning to Zedekiah is clear, serve Babylon and the city and its inhabitants will be spared, rebel against God’s appointed agent, Nebuchadnezzar, and be destroyed.
• 

  thraxer68

  Oops, heres the link to the original source:

  http://www.2001translation.com/607.htm
• 

  Black Sheep

  Have you tried drawing up a list of kings of that era using sources that you consider reliable?

  If you can't make one that fits WT chronology, who is wrong?

  WT apologists are very clever with their red herrings. Try just dealing with known facts before you go chasing 'evidently' correct red herrings. Once you have established when J fell using known data you are less likely to fall for red herrings, faulty logic and misstranslated scriptures.

  The same applies if you are tying to explain it to a Dubby. If you are going to spend forever explaining away every bit of loopy logic and badly translated NWT you are going to be there for a very long time and your Dubby doesn't give a toss about truth anyway. You would be better off going to the pub for a game of shove ha'penny.

  Cheers

  Chris
• 

  scholar

  thraxer68

  Jeremiah's words as recorded in ch.29 were addressed to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon who were part of that first deportation to Babylon hence suich words of comfort must have been written prior to the Fall and the commencement of the seventy years of Exile-Servitude-Exile. Jeremiah simply informed those earlier exiles that they had to remian in or at Bablon until that ordained period of seventy years had expired.

  The translation of Jeremiah 29;10 with that controversial phrase ' at Babylon' is consistent with the context of the chapter and Hebrew grammar. Some scholars prefer 'for Babylon' and this too is permissible for it along with 'at Babylon' proves that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude.

  scholar JW
• 

  bohm

  scholar, how about you go back and answer Ann on the thread you ran away from the least time you got in over your head?
• 

  isaacaustin

  Pseudoscholar said:

  thraxer68

  Jeremiah's words as recorded in ch.29 were addressed to the Jewish Exiles in Babylon who were part of that first deportation to Babylon hence suich words of comfort must have been written prior to the Fall and the commencement of the seventy years of Exile-Servitude-Exile. Jeremiah simply informed those earlier exiles that they had to remian in or at Bablon until that ordained period of seventy years had expired.

  The translation of Jeremiah 29;10 with that controversial phrase ' at Babylon' is consistent with the context of the chapter and Hebrew grammar. Some scholars prefer 'for Babylon' and this too is permissible for it along with 'at Babylon' proves that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude.

  scholar JW

  My reply:

  NWT translation of 29:10 is consistent with the context? Says who? WT dogma? 70 years was not a period of exile or desolation- only servitude for all the nations. Go back and re-read chapter 27.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason I cant get past the bolded part. Can someone maybe explain that a little?

  Hi thraxer68.

  It's clear from Jer. 29:1-3 that Jeremiah was writing to the thousands and thousands of exiles taken when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar after the siege of Jerusalem in 617 BCE [WT time] (see 2 Kings 24:8-17 and Jer. 52:28).

  This is the problem if the rendering 'at Babylon' is correct as the WTS asserts. Jeremiah is telling those exiles, who have been 'at Babylon' for about 4 years or so already (Jer. 28:1) that, contrary to the false prophecies about an early release, they would be there 'at Babylon' for 70 years so go make themselves at home, marry, have children, work the land, etc.

  BUT if these exiles were taken to Babylon in 617 BCE [WT time], and if they returned to their homeland in 537 BCE, then they were 'at Babylon' for 80 years not 70. Big inconsistency.

  The WT apologists try to make the 70 years 'at Babylon' a future prophecy that only relates to when all Judah is off its soil soon after Jerusalem's destruction, but of course, not only does that not make sense with the context and overall message of Jer. 28 and 29, but it doesn't gel with God's appeals to the nation, e.g. at Jer. 27:12, 17, where it shows that Jerusalem's destruction wasn't a foregone conclusion and it might have escaped its final calamity if only the king and people did as God said - in which case what good was it to tell the exiles who'd be yearning to get back home that the 70 year clock would only start ticking from a disastrous event that might never happen???

  If the rendering 'for Babylon' is employed, and it is understood that the 70 year period belongs to Babylon's domination over the nations (Jer. 25:11), those particular inconsistencies evaporate.

  Does that help any?

  (Btw, hello Neil :-) )
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  bohm: "scholar, how about you go back and answer Ann on the thread you ran away from the least time you got in over your head?"

  Is this the one?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/182993/1/Do-the-celestial-positions-on-BM-33478-help-to-prove-Artaxerxes-Is-20th-year-was-455-BCE-For-scholar

  How about I bump it up for posterity...
• 

  garyneal

  Scholar is back! Let the games begin!
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1367

  Your hypothesis fails because Jeremiah's words at Jeremiah 29:10 simply admonish those exiles of the first deportation to simply settle down, have their babies until the foreordained prophetic period of seventy years would be fulfilled. At that time the seventy years had not then commenced because the land was not desolated until Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE in accordance with Jeremiah's prophecy at Jer. 25:9-11. Such prophecy and history definitely proves in spite of the protests of apostates, those naughty apostates, that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation of Judah and all of its citizens.

  scholar JW