Thanks JwFacts :)
How is life treating you friend ?
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
Jeffro
Ethos (2 days ago):
I'll respond to everything in the afternoon.
Still waiting...
-
Pterist
Ethos.....
If we put all dates aside for a moment and consider the sequence of events that befell Jerusalem by the Babylon power as follows
Visit one ....Daniel and his group taken into exile to be return after 70 years.
Visit two.....Jechoniah and his group taken into exile to be returned after 70 years.
Visit three... Jedekiah and his group (the Bad Figs) mostly destroyed and exiled without any hope of return.....
If you insist that it's 70 YEARS OF EXILE .... Which group does it apply to ???
Matthew @ 1:11-12 states that "the exile" (no specific length of time) BEGINS with the second group as follows
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah [a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.
However, that would make it 80 years of exile in Watchtower chronology ..Approx. .617 - 537 = 80 years...
If its 70 years for Babylon, all the exiles fit into his time period to rule.
Shalom
-
Ethos
Jeffro: Still simply ignoring the fact that Jeremiah 25:8-12 refers to "all the nations" serving the king of Babylon rather than Jewish exile, Ethos claims that it is 'impossible' for the 70 years to end in 539. The language in Daniel 5:26-31 (not sure why Ethos elsewhere made reference to a "prophetic riddle mentioned in Daniel 9") directly relates to the judgement of Babylon's king. Even the New World Translation has a cross-reference from Jeremiah 25:12 to the calling to account of Babylon's king in Daniel chapter 5.
You are committing the fallacy of using Daniel to qualify what Jeremiah meant as a premise for your conclusion. Daniel cannot be used to qualify the prophetic denouncement of Judah and the servitude to Babylon, especially when there are no stelwart lexicographical or hermeneutical justifications for doing so, such as a direct quotation or specific reference to V. 8-12 in Daniel 5 or Daniel 9. Another fallacy you commit is by advertising the use of a cross reference, as another premise to give credence to your argument. For your argument to stand one on one leg, though, the only usage of the NWT-cross references would have to be for references to similar events and prophetic fulfillments. However, as the "All Scripture Inspired" Book explains on p. 324 par. 20 the criteria for a cross reference in the New World Translation includes: "(a) parallel words, (b) parallel thoughts, ideas, and events, (c) biographic information, (d) geographic information, (e) fulfillments of prophecies, and (f) direct quotations in or from other parts of the Bible." The cross-reference also directs you to several passages in Isaiah that in no way relate to the overthrow of Babylon. What a hasty generalization.
It wasn't the same administation.
It was the same administration. When Cyrus conquered Babylon there was no immediate reversal of Babylonian policy and the consequent conditions imposed by the Babylonian servitude remained until Cyrus issued his decree and began to change Babylonian policy. Indeed, the Jews continued subservient to Babylon's rules and directives even after Cyrus ascended the throne, and were therefore still subsurvient to the King of Babylon when the supposed servitude terminated.
The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.
Yes there is. Both the writers of 2 Chronicles and of Jeremiah make direct reference to the prophetic denunciation foretold in Leviticus 26. We read at Leviticus 26:34 "“‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its 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 its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it."
The "paying off of sabbaths" is tied into the fulfillment of the 70 years foretold in Jeremiah by 2 Chronicles 36:21 "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." The fulfillment of the seventy years is in no uncertain or abitrary terms connected with the keeping of the sabbaths, which would happen while the Israelites "were in the land of their enemies." This directly connects the 70-year prophecy with the exile of the Jews to Babylon. Here, again, is where your 609-chronology begins to shatter, because the Jews remained in "the land of their enemies" AFTER the alleged 70-year prophecy ended, therefore the land continued to pay off it's sabbaths for the fulfillment of the 70 years, which supposedly had already ended.
Jeffro/Carl Jonnson's Chronology:
609 - Babylonian servitude (the 70 years of Jeremiah starts)
587 - The paying off of sabbaths start
539 - The 70 year servitude ends
538 - The paying off of the sabbaths end
But notice the 70-year servitude ends while the Jews are still in the land of their enemies.The keeping of the sabbaths is said to end in 538 BCE, yet the Babylonian servitude ends in 539 BCE. But the scripture says: "All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." The fulfillment of the 70 years of Jeremiah included the paying off of sabbaths, "while YOU are in the land of your enemies". But this 70-year fulfillment is relegated to a 49-year fulfillment (from 587 BCE to 539 BCE), which directly contradicts the words of 2 Chronicles. The 70-year servitude supposedly begins in 609 BCE, but Jeffro unwittingly purports that the "keeping of sabbaths" does not begin until 587 BCE.
Yet again, this ignores the fact that the scripture states it will keep sabbath to fulfill the seventy years of Jeremiah, which coincides with the Jews "being in the land of their enemies." Using Jeffro's interpretation, the "keeping of sabbaths" is also in no way fulfills the 70 years since the land of Judah would have been in servitude to Babylon as world power anyway; which again blatantly contradicts 2 Chronicles.
Simplified: Leviticus 26 tells us the sabbaths will be paid "while the Jews are in the land of their enemies" (V. 34), 2 Chronicles tells us the land kept its sabbaths to fulfill the 70 years of Jeremiah (V. 20), thus linking the exile to the 70 years. Jeffro's chronology blatantly contradicts 2 Chronicles and thus Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra.
-
Jeffro
Sigh. Nothing compelling there. Pretty funny that Ethos tries to associate me with what he calls "Carl Jonnson's Chronology". I had never even heard of Jonsson when I researched this subject in detail (and didn't alter anything once I had heard of him).
Quoting 2 Chronicles 36:21 from the NWT isn't especially convincing after I've already pointed out previously that various translations (e.g. NIV) properly separate the 70 years from the fulfilling of the sabbaths. In doing so, Ethos also demonstrates ignorance of chiastic structure in Hebrew literature.
-
Ethos
never a jw said:
Conclusion:
So the ending point of the 70 years is 539 BCE.
Your conclusion implies that you trust secular chronology and history.
If you accept secular history to reach 539 BCE, you have to accept 587/586 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem too.
1). That was not my conclusion, it is Jeffro's.
2). This is also a hasty generalization. The same secular chronology used for 539 is not the same as 587. And there is a variance of reliability with different secular/historical records and therefore all secular history is not to be accepted and to be held of the same merit.
isaacaustin said: If the WT were wrong about 607BCE then what? Then their whole chronology leading to 1914 collapses. Then Jesus did not turn his attention to earthly affairs in 1914 and begin examining all professed Chrisitian religions. He did not choose the International Bible Students as his people...and the org has preached for 100 years.
Incorrect. There are other methods (besides the Gentile Times chronology) for arriving at 1914 as a pivotal date. Therefore, the chronology would not collapse as it would still have sufficient Biblical and secular support.
TD said:Would it be consistent to accept the dates in the captioned quotes above if one rejects the data and methods with which they are arrived at?
I think explaining what secular dates you accept and why you accept them would be helpful.
This will be explained in a future post, in which the secular evidence for 539 is compared with that of 587.
-
Ethos
New International Version: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."
New Living Translation: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled, just as the prophet had said."
English Standard Version: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."
God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.
Young's Literal Translation: "to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept sabbath -- to the fulness of seventy years."
DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."
Just a bunch of hogwash intended to make onlookers think the NWT has sullied the translation of 2 Chronicles, when in fact, every translation quoted linked the fulfillment of the 70 years with the keeping sabbath. Some even said "she kept a sabbath TILL the seventy years expired." (contradicting Jeffro's 587 to 538 chronology). Another said "While it lay in ruins, the land had its 70 years of rest." (contradicting the 609 to 539 chronology) again. Another says "The land finally enjoyed its sabbath rest, lying desolate UNTIL the 70 years were fulfilled." (contradicting the 587 to 538 chronology yet again).
Hilarious.
-
sd-7
Here's an interesting example of where 607 becomes a problem. Jeremiah 29:1 shows that the statement about 70 years at/for/whatever Babylon was addressed to Jews already in exile in Babylon, exiled a full 10 or 11 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. By Watchtower chronology, the prophecy would've had to be given in the year, what, 617/618 BC? To tell the exiles to wait 10 years for their exile to begin? That I find confusing.
Either way, I think the question is, why does matter what year Jerusalem was destroyed? What exactly does it prove? That a prophecy about 70 years of servitude is correct, or that the 7 Gentile Times prophecy is correct, or both, or none? There's no reason to debate 607 if this is just about a 70 year prophecy that would in our time just be a historical curiosity or maybe even spiritually uplifting at best.
By debating this issue, you're inviting the inevitable question of whether the motive is to prove 607, or simply to prove 1914.
--sd-7
-
Pterist
Ethos....**** Yet again, this ignores the fact that the scripture states it will keep sabbath to fulfill the seventy years of Jeremiah, which coincides with the Jews "being in the land of their enemies.***
Which group of exiles ?...there were 3 deportations ! You never answered my question ?