Nebuchadnezzar would've been king of the world irregardlessof what the Bible says
That's not even a word.
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Jeffro
-
Witness My Fury
Are we there yet?
-
Witness My Fury
Jeffro, you have the patience of the mythical man Job... and I salute you Sir!
-
Pterist
WitnessMyFury **** Are we there yet? ****
Apparently not, Ethos will show us how to get to 1914 without 607. Very courageous JW who can think for himself !
-
Witness My Fury
Let me guess,... it is measured in Pyramid Inches?
But then that was 606, not 607 and they had to come up with all kinds of mental gymnastics in order to "correct" their errors didnt they...
-
AnnOMaly
Reference 1: http://www.abc-of-christianity.com/info/exiles-return.asp
This is a pro-JW site. The author does not say he's a JW but his beliefs on God, the created Son, only 144,000 going to heaven and the 607 date for Jerusalem's fall are obviously JW-influenced.
Reference 2: http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html
The author believes the starting point of the 70 years was "around 607 BC" when Nebuchadnezzar forced Jehoiakim into submission. Jehoiakim was actually forced into submission around 605 BCE, and the author gives no evidence for his assertion that the exiles returned in the fall of 537 BC.
Reference 3: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Babylonian_Exile
It is only asserted that Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return in 537 BCE. No evidence is provided.
Reference 4: http://jewsandjoes.com/history-and-timeline-of-israel-and-judah.html
Likewise, the site just makes a claim that Cyrus gave permission for the exiles to return in 537 BCE. No evidence for this is presented.
Reference 5: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm
Again, no evidence is given for the date of 537 BC for the exiles' return.
Two can play at this game. Here are some of the online sources that advocate 538 BCE:
Reference 1. http://www.bibleworldhistory.com/70Years.htm
"The exile ended in 538 BC when Cyrus II of Persia (who had conquered Babylon the year before) decreed that all peoples originally from Jerusalem could return to their city. This is unmistakably the end of the period of exile."
Reference 2. http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/courses/bible/chrono.htm
"After the Babylonian Exile: ca. 538 BCE-70 CE
Persian Period: 538-333
Edict of Cyrus (first return from Exile): 538"
Reference 3. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/jewishworldjesus.html
"The Babylonian Exile marked a major turning point in the history of the Jewish people. When Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon he permitted various native peoples, including the Jews, to return home. Beginning in 538 B.C.E., groups of exiles began to return to the Land in a series of waves, though many Jews elected to remain in Babylonia and it remained a center of Jewish life and thought for a thousand years."
Reference 4. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/47693/Babylonian-Exile
"Babylonian Captivity - also called Babylonian Captivity, the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter's conquest of the kingdom of Judah in 598/7 and 587/6 BC. The exile formally ended in 538 BC, when the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus the Great, gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine."
Reference 5. http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/ezra.pdf
"One of Cyrus' first official acts after capturing Babylon was to allow the Jews to return to their land. This took place in his "first year" (v. 1), that is, as king over all Medo-Persia including Babylonia (i.e., 538 B.C.). The writer of Ezra regarded 539 B.C. as the beginning of Cyrus' reign probably because when Cyrus defeated Babylonia he gained authority over Palestine that had until then been under Babylonian sovereignty." (p. 8)
So then, Ethos, if you really believe 537 BCE is the correct date for the exiles' return, please present reasoning that leads to your conclusion rather than picking quotes from the internet that just say it is :-)
-
Pterist
WithnessMyFury **** Let me guess,... it is measured in Pyramid Inches?****
Lets not forget, it's official, Russell was not a member of the FDS, so the knowledge he gleaned from the great Adventist awakening needs to be revised or conviently swept under the carpet with respect to erred end time chronology and speculation.
We can see the obvious dilemma that the GB are in, based on date setting, as brother Ray Franz stated in his book " The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." Isaiah 28:20
As pointed out by many others the that From 1982 - 1995 the Awake stated
"Most importantly, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new order before the generation that saw the events of 1914 C.E. passes away." When it became obvious that this was false because that generation HAD all but passed away, it was changed in Nov 1995 to read: "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things." This lasted right up until Dec 2012 where it can still be read. Well I guess things move on and ideas change. From Jan 2013, this has been completely removed from the Awake! magazine. Courtesy of Splash, if I remember correctly. Its pretty obvious there will be big changes, and maybe Ethos is testing the waters in this respect. Shalom
-
Ethos
DISCLAIMER: This post will be dangerously long as I've officially reached my posting limit. Those with weak hearts and short attention spans are forewarned. They will repeat that I am not very good at this over and over but the facts prove otherwise. Jeremiah 29 has already been dealt with and explained, and I will not use my last post to repeat something so infantile.
Jeffro has been shown to be in error time and time again. He is now reduced to arbitrary responses to one or two sentences in my elucidations since it has been thoroughly demonstrated that his defense of 609 and his statements about 607/537 just doesn't add up. He is reduced to telling me a word doesn't exist or to just keep repeating 'Ethos is not good at this' to make himself feel better about his false statements. He is reduced to arguing about how many Bible translations he picked and how many he did not pick. Indeed, him and AnnoMaly can do nothing more but poorly try to discredit the secular sources and even show evidence the Jews came back in 538 BC (which is a strawman since he only asked for some proof that the Jews returned in 537) And all he can say is....Josephus was wrong, the historians were wrong, all those Bible translations are wrong, and your interpretation is wrong. Everyone's interpretations are wrong, the historians are confused, Josephus meant to revise, the Catholic Encyclopedia is just an assertion and not proof, and so on and so forth. I am awestruck that anyone who argues this way has the audacity to say someone else isn't good at this. Reeeeeeaaalyyyy?
False Statement 1: "There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile."
I showed him to be in error when I demonstrated the following secular (not pro-607) sources that did indeed connect the servitude to the exile.
Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: " But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "
The seventy years starts AFTER Neb burns the city. If Josephus meant to 'revise' this to 50 years as Jeffro contends, it still wouldn't make sense, since he contends the Jews served Babylon for seventy years, not fifty.
Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: " All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "
No according to Jeffro, Jerusalem was never a desert for 70 years (or 50 years) as his asseveration of a revision will soon show. According to him the Jews returned in 538, city was desolated in 587. 49 years not 50.
Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: " God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years , he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."
Again the servitude connected directly with the exile and the restoration of God's people to their homeland. Too bad it says Jeremiah foretells the 'captivity' and thus the 'servitude' BEFORE the destruction of the city, which indicates that the servitude began AFTER the city's destruction. 609 just doesn't work here even if it said 50 years.
Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.
The people spent 70 years in Babylon AFTER the destruction of the temple. Again the seventy year banishment starts AFTER the destruction of the temple. 609 just doesn't work here.
Thus his statement was thoroughly debunked and proved false.
False Statement #2: Because when it's convenient, it's 'majority rules'. The fact that the vast majority of Bible translations do not support the JWs' selective translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is also conveniently ignored.
A terrible exhibition of the argument from consensus fallacy. But I showed there was nothing selective or biased about the New World Translation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 AND 2 Chronicles 36:21 which showed how some scholars who do not support 607 agreed with JW's rendering and interpretation:
"This is what the LORD says: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again. - New Living Translation
"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you." - DR Bible
"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years shall be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you" - Webster's
"The truth is this: You will bein Babylon for a lifetime. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and bring you home again." - The Living Bible
"quia haec dicit Dominus cum coeperint impleriin Babylone septuaginta anni visitabo vos et suscitabo super vos verbum meum bonum ut reducam vos ad locum istum."—Latin Vulgate (c. 405).
"But thus saith the Lord, That after seuentie yeres be accomplished at Babél, I wil visit you, and performe my good promes toward you, and cause you to returne to this place."—The Geneva Bible (1560).
"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon , I will visit you: and I will perform my good word in your favour, to bring you again to this place."—Douay Version (1609).
"For thus saith the LORD, That 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."—Authorized King James Version (1611, 1769).
"For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon , I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place."—New King James Version (1984; based on the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica).
Jeffro has no leg to stand on, unless he wants to take on all these scholars for their 'selective and biased' rendering interpretation of the Hebrew Text.
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.
" The land of Judah became an empty desert and stayed that way for 70 years. All this time the land rested to make up for the Sabbath rests [ a ] that the people had not kept. This is just what the Lord said would happen in the warning he gave through the prophet Jeremiah." -- Easy-to-Read Version
" And so what the Lord had foretold through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “ The land will lie desolate for seventy years, to make up for the Sabbath rest [ a ] that has not been observed.” - Good News Translation
" This is exactly the message of God that Jeremiah had preached: the desolate land put to an extended sabbath rest, a seventy-year Sabbath rest making up for all the unkept Sabbaths." -- The Message
" The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version
"Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah came true, that the land must rest for seventy years to make up for the years when the people refused to observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible
(l) Who threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible
Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12 ; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12." -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Yes, many, many scholars connect the sabbaths to the 70 years which again proves Jeffro's statement to be nothing more than arrogantly presumptuous hogwash and shows his interpretation of a 49 year sabbath to be incorrect. Thus Jeffro was shown to be in error yet again.
False Statement #3: Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE....this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.
Perhaps his most damning statement of all as I could provide a plethora of secular sites that say the Jews returned in 537 BCE. For example,
" In 537 Sassabasar, appointed Governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, King of Persia, and Zorobabel, a descendant of King Joachim, returned from captivity with a vast number of Jews and armed with authority to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. 5 ---The Catholic Encyclopedia
After Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon,he allowed the exiles to return in 537 B.C.E 3 ---- New World Encyclopedia
False Statement #4: There is no reason to doubt that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second regnal year (May 537), and this is consistent with Ezra 3:8. There is also no reason to doubt that the Jews returned in October of the previous year (538), consistent with Ezra 3:1. A decree at the beginning of Cyrus' first regnal year gives 6 full months to make the 4-month trip.
Jeffro here committed a contextomy fallacy by selectively quoting Josephus to parade his 538 theory, when Josephus' own writings in that very book showed him to be in error: "In Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19 §132 Josephus states: " [The Babylonians] set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia ." Now Jeffro says this should all be revised to 50. But from 587 to 537 the city wasn't desolate (he says the Jews returned in 538). It doesn't say the temple so that imaginary 70 year fulfillment can't be used. Josephus destroys his own 609 chronology. It takes a genius to quote from sources that dismantle his own position. Either way, secular sources say 538 and 537, and it is by no means a dogmatic, doctrinaire date set in stone as he wishes it was.
609-created problems that Jeffro and AnnoMaly had no serious answer for:
#1: But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months."
So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.
Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months.
And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah.
And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong:
"in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."
The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated and if so who prophesied it?
And also why would Jehovah rouse Cyrus spirit to build the new temple when he allegedly prophesied that the temple would be desolate long after Cyrus would die? Why does Daniel say 'the devastations of Jerusalem' and not the 'sanctuary'? I can't help but notice Jeremiah never prophesies the temple being desolate for 71 years, and 7 months.
#2: Let's look at Jeremiah 27:6 again "And now I myselfhave given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’
I wasn't aware that you could give someone something they already inherit by royal descendency. Nebuchadnezzar would have inherited the nations and the land and all those things, simply because he was Nebuchadnezzar! The 609 chronology literally flats flat on its head here.
The statement they must serve even him and his son and his grandson is simply saying that all those who ascend Neb's throne must also be served by the nations. Using the term "son" to refer to successive kings is not uncommon as the Assyrians did this and the word used here is also translated "descendant" or "relative". In either case, the all important starting point of this all important 70-year prophecy is never, ever mentioned in the Bible, not even once. Why is there so much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar, but never the person who is crucial in the starting point of the entire prophecy? It is not illogical to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected by several OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.
It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocationsB): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar
I think onlookers can see who's 'really not good at this'.
-
Jeffro
Bored now.
I showed him to be in error when I demonstrated the following secular (not pro-607) sources that did indeed connect the servitude to the exile.
Incorrect. Already stated that whilst Josephus' earlier writings (quoted by Ethos) mentioned the 70 years without regard to the correct context, his later writings correctly indicate both the 50 year period as well as explicit agreement with Berossus' statement of all Neo-Babylonian reigns from Nebuchadnezzar through to Nabonidus. No doubt Ethos would agree that the Watch Tower Society's earlier writings on a great many subjects can be 'ignored' in lieu of 'refinements', and yet he seems to have trouble understanding when other sources actually make corrections.
A terrible exhibition of the argument from consensus fallacy. But I showed there was nothing selective or biased about the New World Translation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 AND 2 Chronicles 36:21 which showed how some scholars who do not support 607 agreed with JW's rendering and interpretation:
Wrong again. Apart from the sad fact that he's repeatedly resorted to argument from fallacy (which he's not very good at because he gets some of the fallacies wrong), he continues to not actually show any evidence for his assertions, and then provides a short list of translations despite the fact that I have already explicitly demonstrated that the majority of translations do not support his view. He continues to ignore the fact that the context of Jeremiah 29:10 invalidates his (the JW) interpretation of the verse and the chapter that contains it. So he simply resorts to copy-and-pasting the same verses (in the minority) that he's already asserted, still without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Similarly, he asserts an interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 that contradicts Jeremiah 25:12, while also ignoring the chiastic structure of 2 Chronicles 36:21 itself.
Perhaps his most damning statement of all as I could provide a plethora of secular sites that say the Jews returned in 537 BCE. For example,
And, wrong again. Ethos continues to paste assertions from other sources with no supporting evidence. The fact that other editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia actually indicate the correct years is also conveniently ignored. He is yet to provide anything to indicate how it is 'likely' or even possible for the Jews to have returned in 537 to the exclusion of 538, despite explicit testimony from Josephus as well as various modern sources that specifically indicate 538 as the correct year for the return. Even while pretending to acknowledge that secular sources variously suggest either 538 or 537 as possibilities (though those that suggest 537 do not take into account all the available information), Ethos actually dogmatically sticks to his baseless selection of 537 in order to prop up his a priori beliefs about 607 and 1914.
when Josephus' own writings in that very book showed him to be in error: "In Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19 §132 Josephus states: " [The Babylonians] set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years
And, surprise surprise... Ethos is wrong again. He apparently still does not understand the meaning of the word during, so he simply asserts over again with his emphasis on a different part of the sentence.
609-created problems that Jeffro and AnnoMaly had no serious answer for:
The first of the false 'problems' seems to be based on something AnnOMaly posted. In any case, the 70 years mentioned at Zechariah 1:12 ended after “the fourth year of Darius” (518 BCE), 70 years after 587 BCE, the year established in history that Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed. Sharezer and Regem-melech were then sent to ask if the weeping and fasting (that commemorated the destruction of the temple and the death of governor Gedaliah in the fifth and seventh months, respectively) should stop, because the angel had said that the denunciation would last 70 years. They asked about the fasts in the ninth month, after the annual fasts had already been held for the seventieth year, 518BCE.
Ethos provides nothing new for his second assertion about Nebuchadnezzar 'inheriting' the kingdom.
And he continues to simply ignore various issues, as well as several quite direct questions posed to him by various contributors. It really is quite sad. And we haven't even covered all the biblical evidence, let alone the archeological evidence.
-
tornapart
OK.. I'm not bothering anymore.. You're clearly only interested in debating with Jeffro and AnnOMaly. Why do I get the impression that this Recovery reincarnated?