Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  NeverKnew

  Even the Watchtower proves the historians correct!

  This topic was the first that made me realize that WT literature could not be trusted. The following method was easier for me to understand and didn't require getting into desolation periods and biblical translation variances.

  I created a tick-marked timeline that went from 610 BC up to 539 BC (don’t be ashamed, go ahead and do it). I watched as tick marks were counted by a JW. After reaching the same year as secular historians, the Jews themselves (http://judaism.about.com/od/daysofmourning/f/temple1.htm), Christian theologians, archeologists, and even Josephus of 586/587 BC, it was claimed that perhaps my quotes may have been misquotes. *sigh*

  The graph below illustrates a model of what I made, but you'll need many more tickmarks.... *giggling*

  __l__l__l __l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l__l

  610 BC 539 BC

  When calculating using your tickmarks, don’t forget to start at 539 then count to the left. At Nebuchadnezzar, you're adding years so then move towards the right to get the date of destruction. I promise you, you'll end up at 586/7 the same as EVERYONE else but the WT.

  Event	Watchtower
  Babylon Fell	"Babylon fell in 539 B.C." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	539 B.C.
  Plus Nabonidus	"On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some seventeen years(556-539 B.C.E.)." Aid to Bible Understanding - Nabonidus p.1195	17 years
  Plus Labashi-Marduk	"Labashi-Marduk ... was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin." Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	1 year
  Plus Neriglissar	Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	4 years
  Plus Evil-Merodach	"After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered" Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184	2 years
  Plus Nebuchadnezzar	"Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years" Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.480	43 years
  Equals start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign	Calculated by adding above figures	606 B.C.
  Minus Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year	2 Kings 25:8-9 "And in the ... nineteenth year of King Neb·u·chad·nez´zar ... the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he proceeded to burn the house of Jehovah"	19th year
  Date for Destruction	Therefore calculated as:	?

  This article shows that the Watchtower calculates the reigns the same way.

  "Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) as the oldest son succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. He did a kindness to one of the Judean captives, by which kindness he unwittingly carried out Jehovah's purpose. Second Kings 25:27-30 states: "It came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin the king of Judah, in the twelfth month [in 580 B.C.E.], . . . Evil-merodach the king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king, raised up the head of Jehoiachin the king of Judah out of the house of detention; and he began to speak good things with him, and then put his throne higher than the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. And he took off his prison garments; and he ate bread constantly before him all the days of his life." Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah) had seven sons in Babylonia, including Shealtiel, whose nominal son Zerubbabel became governor of rebuilt Jerusalem, and through whose line of descent Jesus Christ came.-1 Chron. 3:17-19; Hag. 1:1; 2:23; Ezra 5:1, 2; Matt. 1:12. Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E." Watchtower 1965 January 1 p.29

  For obvious reasons (never having been a JW - just loving one), I cannot take credit for this. I retyped it to present to my JW friend and learned that my references had to be deleted because of that "apostate" term. I'm sure it can be found but I'm running sooo late for work. :(
• 

  Londo111

  Good work, NeverKnew! Even if this doesn't help the people you intended it to help, it will help someone who is endeavoring to "make sure of all things", perhaps now and for some time in the future.

  Your research you've detailed, as you already know, is corroborated in stone by the Adad-guppi’ stele: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/Adda_Guppi_Harran.htm

  From those who do not know: This stele, is an obituary of Adad-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus. It was found in Harran and dates after her death in the ninth year of his rule. It contains the lengths of the reigns for every king in the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, but for Nabonidus himself, who was still ruling.

  An important excerpt:

  "From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I was born,

  until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal,

  the 3rd year of his son Ashur-etil-ili,

  the 21st year of Nabopolassar,

  the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar,

  the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach,

  the 4th year of Neriglissar,

  during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple…

  …From the time of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year

  of Nabu-na’id king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb

  104 years of happiness, with the reverence which Sin, king of the gods…"

  Therefore this allows no extra kings in the chronology, nor allows the lengths of their rule to be altered one iota. It is also corroborated by the tens of thousands of cuneiform tablets that details business transitions found in multiple locations in Iraq which were timestamped with the day, month, and year of the reigning king.

  With this, it can be determined the length of reign of each king, the time of the year when each change of reign occurred, sometimes to the day. There's an average of 600 tablets from each of the eighty-seven years from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus. That's over 50000 tablets! Not one tablet can be found that reveals the name of any other king in the chronology--nor one that adds even one year to their reigns.

  For the Society's chronology to work, there would need to be 20 extra years. But with the combination of astronomical diaries, monuments like the Adad-guppi stele, cuneiform business transitions, and many other lines of evidence, the chronology is locked in stone:

  Nabopolassar 21 years (625 – 605 BCE)

  Nebuchadnezzar 43 years (604 – 562 BCE)

  Awel-Marduk 2 years (561 – 560 BCE)

  Neriglissar 4 years (559 – 556 BCE)

  Labashi-Marduk 2–3 months (556 BCE)

  Nabonidus 17 years (555 – 539 BCE)

  Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, whose reading of Scripture is in harmony with ALL these findings?
• 

  Recovery

  Jeffro said: The "word by the mouth of Jeremiah" didn't mention Sabbaths. Various translations (e.g. the New International Version quoted further down) correctly link the seventy years with the word of Jeremiah, and indicate as a separate clause that the Jews were in Babylon until Persia began to reign. The word translated "fulfilling" (Strong' 4390) means "full", "completed". The desolation of Jerusalem was completed by the end of the 70 years. It does not require that it was desolatefor 70 years. No, it did not 'have to' "lie desolate for 70 years" (even if it was a 'real' 'prophecy'). Its desolation was complete by by the end of the 70 years.

  The final nail in the coffin to these ridiculous assertions is found in Leviticus 26:34-35 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths ALL THE DAYS OF IT'S LYING DESOLATED, WHILE YOU ARE IN THE LAND OF YOUR ENEMIES.At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 ALL THE DAYS OF IT LYING DESOLATED IT WILL KEEP SABBATH, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

  Now notice 2 Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

  So yes it is clearly obvious to anyone with 2nd grade comprehension, it took 70 years for the land to pay it's sabbaths. During these sabbaths, the land was desolated. This period would be when the Israelites were 'in the land of their enemies'. This again proves 609 BCE not to be the beginning of the 70 year servitude, since the fulfillment of the seventy years occurred when Jerusalem was laid desolate (didn't occur by 609 BCE), when the all the Judeans were in the land of their enemies (didn't occur by 609 BCE), and it had not begun when Jeremiah 25 happened (605 BCE, their chronology), and even if it did start in 609 BCE, the servitude would not have started with Neb, but his father. So, there's no way 609 BCE could be the beginning of the 70 year servitude.

  As if the words in Daniel 9:2 weren't plain enough, notice how it is rendered in other translations.

  The New Living Translation: “Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years.”
  The Bible in Basic English: “the making waste of Jerusalem was to be complete, that is, seventy years.”
  Young’s Literal Translation: “concerning the fulfilling of the wastes of Jerusalem -- seventy years”
  God’s Word translation: “The LORD had told the prophet Jeremiah that Jerusalem would remain in ruins for 70 years.”
  The Good News Translation: “the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins”
  New Century Version: “Jerusalem would be empty ruins for seventy years.”
  Contemporary English Version: “Jerusalem will lie in ruins for seventy years."

  It is clear that Jerusalem would be desolated, paying off it's sabbaths, for 70 years. Not desolated by the end of the 70 year servitude. I wonder how Jeffro will twist the scriptures this time?

  Regarding your other points, they are not even necessary to address as I'm not going to debate about the historicity of God's word, and even if I did, it's already been thoroughly shown that your "interpretations" of the Sabbaths and Daniel 9:2 are in error when compared with other scriptures and translations. 609 has been thoroughly disproved and all can see it.
• 

  mrsjones5

  Why are you here again?
• 

  Londo111

  According to the Bible, there are two 70 year periods and they overlap. Get it, overlap?

  The first is the 70 years of Babylonian as a world power from 609 BC to 539 BC. As Jeremiah says, when this comes to an end, the King of Babylon is called into account.

  The second 70 year period covers from the fall of Jerusalem to around the time temple rebuilding work gets underway, spurred by the prophets Zechariah and Haggai .

  According to the book of Zechariah, Judah and Jerusalem was still in a desolated state in the 2 nd year of Darius, in 520 BC. See Zechariah 1:7-12.

  Since I already quoted this passage in the first post, here is just the relevant portion: "In the eighth month in the second year of Darius . . . the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?”

  So around October/November of 520 BC, it is said that Judah had been denounced 70 years and shown no mercy. 520 BC - 70 = October/November 590 BC. The siege of Jerusalem began in January 589 BC and lasted about 30 months.

  Let's skip ahead to the 4 th year of Darius in the month of Chislev--about December 518 BC. See Zechariah 7:1-5.

  Again just the relevant portion since I've already quoted it in full earlier: "in the fourth year of Darius . . . the priests … saying: “Shall I weep in the fifth month, practicing an abstinence, the way I have done these O how many years?” And the word of Jehovah of armies … ‘When YOU fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did YOU really fast to me, even me?'

  So about 518 BC - 70 = December 588 BC. This is after two years into the siege. Since this period of time they had been practicing a fast in the 5 th and 7 th months for 70 years.

  After Zechariah and Haggai , the people get busy with the rebuilding.

  Ezra 6:14,15 says, "And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the grandson of Iddo, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes the king of Persia. And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month Adar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king."

  The temple is completed in February/March 515 BC.

  In all of this, the year 607 BC is nowhere to be found, nor can it be derived naturally from any reading. Thus, scripturally, the evidence leans toward 587/586 BC. And when taken into conjunction with the 17 lines of evidence, such as VAT 4956, the Adad-guppi stele, and 50000 cuneiform business transitions, the case is a slam dunk. We must take into account all the evidence and harmonize it, rather than a selective reading that conforms to a preconceived view.
• 

  Jeffro

  Now notice 2 Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

  Again, he presents the NWT's version, which incorrectly connects Jeremiah's word with paying off sabbaths. Jeremiah didn't mention sabbaths.The fact remains that the 70 years related to 'Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah that all the nations would serve Babylon'. Whilst it is true that the reference to sabbaths is a reference to Leviticus, it doesn't mean it actually happened that way because the Bible isn't magic. There is a great deal of evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE. Therefore, either the Bible is right and your interpretation of it is wrong or the Bible is wrong and your interpretation of it doesn't matter.

  Regarding your other points, they are not even necessary to address as I'm not going to debate about the historicity of God's word, and even if I did, it's already been thoroughly shown that your "interpretations" of the Sabbaths and Daniel 9:2 are in error when compared with other scriptures and translations. 609 has been thoroughly disproved and all can see it.

  Rather pathetically (but not surprisingly), he goes for what he actually considers to be the weakest element, and then conveniently ignores everything else. It's sad when people base their reality on a book they think is magical. It's even sadder when they even ignore the parts of their favourite magic book that conflict with their view.
• 

  Recovery

  Londo said: For the sake of argument, say that the 70 years were for Jerusalem's Destruction and complete exile of Judah to Babylon. There is no way that 607 BC comes from this as a natural consequence.

  Again, Jeremiah 25:12 gives events that give a definite endpoint to the 70 years, 539 BC. The 70 years would end FIRST--and NEXT the king of Babylon (Nabonidus and Belshazzar) would be called into account, along with nation of Babylon as a world power. As Daniel says to Belsharzzar, "God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it."

  Therefore, 539 BC ends the 70 years with this event and not the Jew's returning to Jerusalem. We would still have to subtract 70 years from 539 BC and derive 609 BC.

  Your explanation would be correct, except for one thing. Jeremiah 29:10 "10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ So when the 70 years have been fulfilled Jehovah will turn his attention to bringing back the Israelites to their homeland. This presents a problem with your 609-based chronology. If the 70 years ended in 539 BCE, then the Israelites could not have been sent back to their homeland during the first year of Cyrus. As you yourself have stated: " The first year of Cyrus would be Nissan 538 BC ". This conclusively proves that 539 cannot be the ending point for the 70 year servitude. The prophecy at Jeremiah 25:12 is specific: " “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de′ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite." This did not happen at the end of the 70 years, whether it was 539 or 537. So this scripture is not referencing the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, because at the end of the supposed 70 year period, Babylon was not made a desolate waste.

  Further proof of this is found at Isaiah 13:17-20 "Here I am arousing against them the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it. 18 And [their] bows will dash even young men to pieces. And the fruitage of the belly they will not pity; for sons their eye will not feel sorry. 19 And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de′ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod′om and Go·mor′rah. 20 She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let [their flocks] lie down there. The Medes however, did not overthrow them as with Sodom and Gomorrah (desolation, never to be inhabited again). This would be done at a later time. Although, Jehovah did bring Persia against Babylon, this is not what the scripture at Jeremiah 25:12 is referencing.

  The first year of Cyrus would be Nissan 538 BC. The next point in time says the initial returnees arrived by the seventh month, Tishri 538 BC. There is NO indication that the Proclamation of Cyrus came late in the year. There is no other year mentioned between Ezra 1:1 and 3:1, therefore the same year is assumed by Ezra. If this had been Tishri 537 BC, Ezra would have said, "In the second year of Cyrus, in the seventh month…" But he did not. By the plain reading of the text, he is referring to Tishri 538 BC.

  At Ezra 1:1, reference is made to "the first year of Cyrus," not "the year Cyrus became king" (or accession year), so he was speaking of the first regnalyear of Cyrus, which cuneiform documentation places in 538/537 B.C.E. Jewish historian Josephus corroborates by referring to "the first year of the reign of Cyrus."—( see the Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter I.)

  "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm."—Ezra 1:1 (see also 2 Chronicles 36:22).

  The highlighted portion of the above-quoted verse serves as unimpeachable evidence that "Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah" had not yet been accomplished, even by the "first year of Cyrus," proving conclusively that the conquest of Babylon by Persia was not the determining factor in fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. Therefore, the Jewish nation continued to serve the king of Babylon until their release from captivity in 537 B.C.E., resulting in the reoccupation of the land of Judah and the end of the desolation of the land.

  In cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnalyear is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnalyear of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C.

  So the 607-537 chronology fits perfectly. The 609 to 539 chronology however does not.
• 

  Jeffro

  So the 607-537 chronology fits perfectly. The 609 to 539 chronology however does not.

  The problem with your interpretation is that it only appears to work if you look at only some of the information.

  Jeremiah 25:11-12: “And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
  ‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de′ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.

  Daniel 5:26-31: “This is the interpretation of the word: ME′NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it. 27 “TE′KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. 28 “PE′RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.” 29 At that time Bel·shaz′zar commanded, and they clothed Daniel with purple, with a necklace of gold about his neck; and they heralded concerning him that he was to become the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 In that very night Bel·shaz′zar the Chal·de′an king was killed 31 and Da·ri′us the Mede himself received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

  Babylon's king was explicitly 'called to account' in 539BCE. The seventy years (which were explicitly defined as a period during which all the nations would serve Babylon) could not extend beyond 539. This is very basic math. No Neo-Babylonian king ruled beyong 539, and no 'judgement' befell Cyrus in 537. There are even cross-references in the NWT from "I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation," to Daniel 5:26, 30.
• 

  Recovery

  Why The 609 BCE Chronology Cannot Be The Starting Point of the 70 Years:

  1. At the writing of Jeremiah 25 (the first year of Nebuchadnezzar), the Bible shows calamity had not yet been brought up against Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The Bible says Jerusalem paid its sabbaths (lying desolate) for 70 years. If this the land had not yet been laid desolate in 605 BCE (secular chronology), the 70 years couldn't have already started 4 years earlier.

  2. Jeremiah 25 also shows us Jehovah would bring calamity first upon Jerusalem and then the nations. Starting with Jerusalem's desolation, the other nations would then be desolated during this 70 year servitude. 609 BCE uses 587 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction, thus the 70 years could not have started in 609 BCE since Jerusalem isn't allegedly desolated until 22 years later. 587 BCE to 539 BCE (as the ending point of the 70 years) simply does not add up and does not allow the land to keep its sabbaths for 70 years.

  3. The Bible says the nations will serve Neb, his son, and his grandson. However, if we use 609 BCE chronology as the starting point, then the servitude started with Nebuchadnezzar's father, who is never mentioned in the Bible as Jehovah's servant for the 70 year servitude. Neb had not yet ascended until 4 years later (605 BCE), therefore 609 BCE could not be the correct starting point.

  4. Ezra says the decree was given in the first year of Cyrus that the word of Jehovah "might be fulfilled". It is generally agreed upon that this scripture is in reference to Cyrus' first regnal year, not his year of accession. This would be 538/537 BCE. At this point the 70 years had still not been fulfilled. Therefore, 609 BCE could not be the starting point, since it's obvious the 70 years hadn't ended when Cyrus gave this decree.

  5. Jeremiah 29 tells us Jehovah will bring the Israelites back to their homeland at the end of the 70 years. Since Ezra indicates that the Jews had not yet returned by the first year of Cyrus (538/537), they could not have already been in Israel. So this makes the supposed end of the 70 year servitude in 539 impossible.

  That is what you call a slam dunk.

  Question for Jeffro: Was Babylon made a desolate waste at the end of the 70 year servitude? YES or NO?
• 

  Jeffro

  1. At the writing of Jeremiah 25 (the first year of Nebuchadnezzar), the Bible shows calamity had not yet been brought up against Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The Bible says Jerusalem paid its sabbaths (lying desolate)for 70 years. If this the land had not yet been laid desolate in 605 BCE (chronology), the 70 years couldn't have ended in 539 BCE.

  The "calamity" went "from nation to nation". The "calamity" was not something that happened to all the nations at the same time. It therefore cannot be synonymous with the "70 years". 'The Bible' only says the land paid sabbaths for 70 years in translations that do not honestly maintain the context of what was actually stated by Jeremiah. Other translations correctly indicate that Jeremiah did not mention paying off sabbaths, and instead referred to nations serving Babylon.

  2. Jeremiah 25 also shows us Jehovah would bring calamity first upon Jerusalem and then the nations. Starting with Jerusalem's desolation, the other nations would then be desolated during this 70 year servitude. 609 BCE uses 587 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction, thus the 70 years could not have started in 609 BCE since Jerusalem isn't allegedly desolated until 22 years later. 587 BCE to 539 BCE (as the ending point of the 70 years) simply does not add up and does not allow the land to keep its sabbaths for 70 years.

  Again, the calamitycannot be 'the 70 years' and still come upon different nations at different times. Jeremiah 25:11 doesn't say, "Jerusalem will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and then other nations will serve for other various shorter periods of time." It says the 70 years were a specific period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon. The calamity happened to different nations at different timesduring the 70 years.

  3. The Bible says the nations will serve Neb, his son, and his grandson. However, if we use 609 BCE chronology as the starting point, then the servitude started with Nebuchadnezzar's father, who is never mentioned in the Bible as Jehovah's servant for the 70 year servitude. Neb had not yet ascended until 4 years later (605 BCE), therefore 609 BCE could not be the correct starting point.

  There were at least five kings that ruled Babylon during the 70 years. And that's not counting the extra imaginary ones in JW fantasy land during the extra 20 years. The Bible doesn't mention all of those either. The Bible never mentions that Nabonidus was actually king when Belshazzar was really only a prince, but apparently that's okay because of the secret magical reason.

  4. Ezra says the decree was given in the first year of Cyrus that the word of Jehovah "might be fulfilled". It is generally agreed upon that this scripture is in reference to Cyrus' first regnal year, not his year of accession. This would be 538/537 BCE. At this point the 70 years had still not been fulfilled. Therefore, 609 BCE could not be the starting point, since it's obvious the 70 years hadn't ended when Cyrus gave this decree.

  What was 'fulfilled' at this time was the returnafter the 70 years (basically, the second part of Jeremiah 29:10: "I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’" Ezra says nothing remotely similar to 'the 70 years haven't ended yet'.

  It certainly was in Cyrus' first year in 538BCE (and not his accession year) that the Jews who went to work on the temple returned (most Jews remained in Babylon). Comparison of Ezra with the writings of Josephus (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21) confirm that those Jews were in Jerusalem by October of 538, not 537BCE, and that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second year (537BCE), the year after the Jews went up to Jerusalem.

  Indeed, even the King James Version which is one of the very few translations that has a rendering of "at Babylon" instead of "for Babylon", says at Jeremiah 29:10: "after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place." The word translated "after" in the KJV is Strong's 6310 (peh) in this context (it usually means "mouth") identifies the end or extremity of something, but the NWT translates this single word as the more ambiguous "In accord with the fulfilling of" to dishonestly make it appear that the 70 years continued up until they were actually in Jerusalem, despite that contradicting Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31.

  5. Jeremiah 29 tells us Jehovah will bring the Israelites back to their homeland at the end of the 70 years. Since Ezra indicates that the Jews had not yet returned by the first year of Cyrus (538/537), they could not have already been in Israel. So this makes the supposed end of the 70 year servitude in 539 impossible.

  Jeremiah 29 doesn't say that at all. In information addressed to exiles already in Babylon 11 years before Jerusalem was destroyed, they were told that Babylon would have 70 years, despite the NWT's dishonest translation. It would be meaningless at best, and intentionally cruel at worst, to tell those people that 'they would be in Babylon 70 years'. Further, it says that when the 70 years were fulfilled, thenthey would return; it does not say the 70 years would end when they actually arrive home.

  That is what you call a slam dunk.

  LOL. Hardly. Slam drunk maybe.