The premise seems to insinuate that the servitude ended in 539 B.C.E. and uses this as a basis for adding the seventy years and arriving at 609 BCE when Babylon defeated Assyria. But 539 BCE cannot possibly be the end of the 70-year servitude.
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.
A czar's death does not signify the end of servitude to those under that administration's yoke.
It wasn't the same administation.
Admittedly, scholars hold in general consensus that the Jews did not leave Babylon in 539 B.C.E.
Strawman argument. No one says the Jews left Babylon in 539BCE. Many of the Jews didn't leave Babylon at all. Those who left following Cyrus' decree returned in 538BCE, not 537. Comparison of Ezra 3:1,8 with Josephus' Against Apion confirms that the Jews were in their cities by Tishri (October) of 538BCE and that temple construction began in Iyyar (May) of Cyrus' second year. Ethos has already confirmed for us that Cyrus' first regnal year began in 538. October of Cyrus' first regnal year is still 538. Even if the comparison of Josephus with Ezra could not be used for confirming the correct year, there would still be no reason for dogmatically asserting that Cyrus' decree 'must' have been at the end of his first regnal year, or that the Jews 'must' have returned in 537.
Therefore, their servitude, included in the nations aforementioned in Jeremiah 25, had not yet ended at the supposed ending point of 539 B.C.E.
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.
Cyrus had not yet changed Babylonian policy when he ascended the Babylonian throne.
Ethos continues his strawman argument. However, Cyrus' first regnal year began in Nisan (April) 538BCE, giving ample time for the Jews to return to Jerusalem by October of the same year. (JW apologists argue this isn't enough time, despite the fact that a) Ezra 7:9 says the journey takes 4 months and b) in their chronology, the Jews take about the same amount of time to return but in a different year)
They continued as exiled servants until Cyrus issued his decree at Ezra 1:1, permitting the Jews to hark back to Jerusalem. This decree was issued, not in Cyrus' ascension year but in his first regnal year. Ezra says "in the first year of the King of Persia", and not "his first year becoming king".
Again, this still has no bearing on "all the nations" being in 'servitude' to Babylon. In particular, claiming that the 70 years hadn't ended yet contradicts Jeremiah 25:25, as the Medes were clearly not 'subject to Babylon' when they conquered the place. Verse 26 says the king of Sheshach (Babylon) would drink after the Medes (and all the other nations), but if Babylon's king was called to account two years after there was no Babylonian king then the Medes were not subject to the 'cup' for the 70 years, and the Medes and Babylonians would have 'drunk from the cup' in the wrong order anyway.
Additionally, 2 Chronicles 36:21 mentions the land 'paying off its sabbaths'. The JWs would have us believe that this was the 70 years, and they punctuate the verse accordingly. However, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" is actually a reference (almost verbatim) to Leviticus 26:34: "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated". Leviticus 25:8 provides the period of seven sabbaths of years, or 49 years, which ran from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. The construction of the temple began the following year in 537BCE, which is also confirmed by Josephus, who states that the temple "lay in obscurity for fifty years." The period of fifty years was also significant to the Jews as a Jubilee year as confirmed at Leviticus 25:10.
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus corroborates this by referencing this as "the first year of the reign of Cyrus" - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter XI, Chapter I. Many secular sources further corroborate this statement, for example:
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Page 748 states: "Already in his first regnal year (538 B.C.) Cyrus issued a decree by which exiled Jews were allowed to return to their homeland."
The Handbook of Bible Chronology, page 170 states: "The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem are presumably stated in terms of his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. His Babylonian regnal years began. . . .accordingly in his first year, in which he made the proclamation, 538/537 B.C."
Red herring. Cyrus' decree in 538BCE is not contested.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army, and a few weeks later the great conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus, made his triumphal entry into the fallen city. One of the official acts of the new ruler in Babylon was to give to the exiled Jews full liberty to return to Judah.."
The year stated in the Catholic Encylopedia depends on which version you pick up. Other editions say 539. In either case, JWs officially agree with other secular historians that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persians in 539BCE, not 538 as claimed here.
Jeremiah 27:6, 7 state: "And now I myself have 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.’ Undoubtedly, if the servitude began with Nabopolassar, there would have been no need for Jehovah to "give these lands" into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. 'These lands' would have been an inheritance for Nebuchadnezzar at his ascension to the Babylonian throne.
Indeed, it says "I have given", not will give. Jeremiah 25 indicates a coming calamity (attacks by Babylonian armies) which affects different nations at different times, but doesn't stipulate a starting point for the 70 years which by necessity affects all the nations at the same time (Babylon being dominant world power).
The nations must serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson but the father, who would be the *pivotal* starting point of this all-important 70 year prophecy is not mentioned, nor is there any scriptural basis to assume the servitude commenced with his rule.
The mention of only 3 individuals proves nothing at all. There's no reason why Nebuchadnezzar couldn't be called king from an earlier time for practical purposes. According to secular history there were 5 kings from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus (who also isn't mentioned at all in the Bible), and that's not counting Belshazzar (who the Bible calls a king when he was actually a prince) or the extra imaginary kings to fill the 20-year gap in the spurious JW chronology. In any case, Jeremiah 25:11 only says the nations would serve "the king of Babylon" rather than Nebuchadnezzar.
This again, clearly, shows that the 70 year-servitude could not have begun in 609 BCE, and therefore could not have ended in 539 B.C.E.
You've shown nothing at all. 609BCE marks the fall of the Assyrian empire, with the fall of Harran. Babylonia was the world empire from 609BCE until 539BCE. The nations were subject to Babylon during that period.
