The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts 255 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    If your conclusion is correct, surely you can find at least one translation of the LXX that renders this way. But you cannot.

    Already provided 4 verses from Jeremiah where LXX use Greek "en ethnesin" in this sense in an earlier post.

  • atrapado
    atrapado

    FTF since you didn't answer my questions I'll answer them for you.

    Scholars are divided on how to interpret seventy years. However b ecause the "literal" interpretations have flaws, a figurative or symbolical interpretation is favored by many scholars. They suggest that seventy represents the complete period of punishment, whatever time that may include. Rudolph, Weiser, Bright, and Holladay interpret it as a normal life span, the amount of time for that generation to die. Carroll says any of these interpretations of the seventy years could be correct. Feinberg remarks that both liberal and conservative scholars interpret the seventy years as a round number. Daniel’s reference to the seventy years is not relevant for interpreting the seventy years of Jer 25:11–12 (Dan 9). The number may indicate a full lifespan (as in Ps 90:10) in comparison to forty years indicating a generation, and thus indicate a long period of servitude to Babylon

    Some of the periods for 70 years that scholars have suggested:

    587–539 less than 50 years so 70 years are symbolic.

    609–539 (from the end of the Assyrian Empire to the overthrow of Babylon), but 609 seems to be an arbitrary date

    587–516 have their advocates (from the fall of Jerusalem to the rebuilding of the second temple, symbolically marking the end of God’s disfavor)

    605–539 25:12; 29:10; Keil strains one’s credulity to make these dates equal exactly seventy years, 70 years as Babylonian Empire

    627/26–539/38 or 536

    586–516 Whitl ley Vetus Testamentum 7, 416-18

    605-538

    606-536 f rom the 4th year of Jehoiakim

    And there is more but if you research that list will find that they all have valid points. However most will say 'may be', 'probably', 'if we assume' etc. There are many ways to interpret the 70 years. The Watchtower is not honest to present all the facts and let each individual make the call nor humble enough to say we might be wrong but this is what we chose to believe.

    So you can use whatever interpretation of the 70 weeks you choose to believe but you shouldn't force or impose it to others and doesn't matter what you choose 607 was not the fall of Jerusalem and that is well documented. But if your interpretation contradicts the archaeological evidence and you still want to believe in the Bible I suggest you reconsider you interpretation. This should be easy to a JW since there is no absolute truth to a JW only current truth whatever Mother says goes.

    I wonder what FTF excuse will be later if the WT changes 607. FTF Bible interpretation is not an exact science and you want to base your probabilities on an organization that has been wrong so many times in the past and hides their history is your called. I just wished all of your JW brothers and sisters where givin the chance to see the truth about the WT and if they deside to commit to it after knowing that then I respect that.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Jeffro is reduced to arguing about spelling errors and dismissing out of hand my arguments as "pseudo-intellectualism" because the specifics of Hebrew grammar are simply far above his current understanding, yet he tried to argue against it. What honest, unbiased, "truth-seeking" researcher would argue against something he (indirectly proves) knows not a thing about? Yes, he even had to admit, he'd leave the argument to more knowledgeable posters but continues to try to argue against something he knows nothing about.

    Hoffnug tried similarly...he tried to use this big, flamboyant chronicle to disprove my argument that not a single nation provided tribute to Babylon in 609 B.C., but instead showed his gross misunderstanding of what "vassalage" consisted of and AnnoMaly inadvertently argued in favor of my point, (namely that nations paid tribute to Babylon after seeing the crushing defeat at Carchemish).

    Thus, no one has been able to overcome the arguments and we are already six pages in. The arguments are:

    • The perfect mood not being indicative of a continual action from the past continuing into the future, thus signifying the servitude had not yet begun by 605 B.C.
    • There is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute to the nation of Babylon in 609 B.C., thus Jonnson's hypothesis does not meet the burden of proof that "servitude" meant "vassalage" and therefore disproves his own starting point.
    • The challenge to anyone who said "among the nations" means something other than it says: please provide a translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations".
    • There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations.

    No amount of ad hominem attacks like "troll" and "moron" or attempting to portray me as a past member, or long cut and pastes of irrelevant arguments like Charles Russell, or attempts to sidetrack the discussion into archaeology, will change the fact that the arguments cannot (thus far) be overcome.

    Jeffro: Already provided 4 verses from Jeremiah where LXX uses Greek en in this sense in an earlier post.

    We are specifically talking about an alternate rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 not a different rendering of "among". More embarassing display from Jeffro.

    Question for you Jeffro: Is this translation valid? "The nations will destroy Babylon for seventy years." Why? The variant of doulos can also be rendered "destroy" instead of "serve". Would this rendering be valid? I can show you other instances of where the word translated as "serve" is used as "destroy". Yes or no and please state why.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Jeffro is reduced to arguing about spelling errors and dismissing out of hand my arguments as "pseudo-intellectualism" because the specifics of Hebrew grammar are simply far above his current understanding, yet he tried to argue against it.

    Well I did also point out your less significant errors for my own amusement, but I wasn't reduced to doing that. I don't have to 'apologise' for not having any certain level of knowledge of Hebrew (though you haven't indicated any advanced knowledge of the language either), but I have adequately shown that you've contradicted your own argument. Other posters can provide more specific information about the original Hebrew.

    We are specifically talking about an alternate rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 not a different rendering of "among". More embarassing display from Jeffro.

    No we're not. You're talking about that. It's an irrelevant strawman. I have already demonstrated why it is not necessary that the word "with" is specifically used, and that Greek en is translated as "among" in the LXX in the supposedly "Anglo-Saxon" manner I've stated, in various verses I've already provided. Your strawman about "destroy" is irrelevant and I'm not going to pander to the request.

    You continue to simply ignore the fact that Jeremiah 27 quite clearly indicates that exile was a separate possible eventuality for individual nations that did not submit to serving Babylon. Such exile befell a subset of nations, at various times, after the 70 years had started. However, Jeremiah 25 indicates that all the nations would serve Babylon for seventy years, completely disconnecting the seventy years from a period of exile.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    No amount of ... attempting to portray me as a past member

    Are you seriously claiming that you're not??

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    The troll (in response to AnnOmaly) said:

    This is hilarious. Jonnson defines the "servitude" as "vassalage" and makes an equivocation of the two. So by saying "tribute isn't the issue", "servitude is", it shows you lack a basic understanding of my argument and Jonnson's, which is quite embarassing for you. For the fifth time, if the "servitude" meant "vassalage" (i.e. a tribute) and the servitude supposedly began in 609 B.C., then Jonnson needs to provide evidence that a nation provided tribute in that year.

    Now, I've never read Jonsson's book, so I can't confirm what Ethos FaceTheFacts claims Jonsson says about the seventy years here. But irrespective of what Jonsson (or anyone else) might say, it's a red herring anyway.

    What is evident is that a) all the nations were not exiled to Babylon for 70 years*, b) similarly, tribute was demanded from different nations at different times, c) Jeremiah 25:11 says all the nations would serve Babylon for a specific period of 70 years.

    *This is a matter of historical record, and is also confirmed by Jeremiah 27:8-11.

    So whatever the meaning of 'servitude' may be, we know it cannot refer to a literal* 70 years of exile or paying tribute, because neither of those things happened to all the nations for seventy years. What we do know about the period is that Babylon replaced Assyria as the dominant world power, destroying Assyria's final capital city in 609BCE. We also know that Babylon ceased to be the dominant world power in 539BCE.

    *The text does allow for the period to be figurative.

    The best fit for the significance of the 'servitude' is therefore as is stated in the Watch Tower Society's own Isaiah's Prophecy book (volume 1, page 253):

    He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination
  • Macho
    Macho

    Wow...Jeffro. Those same old tired arguments about "all the nations" not going into exile but only specific individual condemned nations? I have already explained to you on page one that "all" is idiomatic in Hebrew and is often used to convey a significant or substantiated amount. I already proved to you that a sinificant amount of nations were exiled to augment Neb's military force by the time of Jerusalem's destruction and thus the prophecy doesnt require that EVERY nation go into exile simultaneously but that a substantiated amount are all serving as slaves at any point during the seventy years.

    Sidenote: FaceTheFacts here. Apparently I was banned in the middle of having a debate (what a shocker!). Ive come to realize this forum has no value for me, since the people dont even read your arguments but would just like to believe what they want. Thereare far BETTER, scholarly, debate platforms out there. This site has deteriorated into an intellectual waseland and is simply a daycare for scared adults too weak and powerless to deal with their own problems.

    If anyone is interested, TheologyWeb is where you should go. I'll be posting under the name Agnosco and we can continue the discussion there.

  • Macho
  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Wow...Jeffro. Those same old tired arguments about "all the nations" not going into exile but only specific individual condemned nations? I have already explained to you on page one that "all" is idiomatic in Hebrew and is often used to convey a significant or substantiated amount.

    Ho hum... refer to second footnote in previous response.

    It's pretty amusing how you think you can just decide which bits are 'figurative' or 'idiomatic', without any regard for the actual context.

    Just give up. Really. You're not very good at this.

  • Macho
    Macho

    Jeffro...if you arent tired of making a fool of yourself, sign up at TheologyWeb. You think this embarassing excuse for a forum has debates? Wait til you get there.I didnt say it was figurative or symbolic, I am simply pointing out to you your lack of knowledge about the use of "all" in Hebrew. Its embarassing (again) for you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit