You ignore the whole point: you need to know what Jeremiah wrote in ch. 25 to correctly understand 2 Chronicles 36 & Daniel 9, as this is the prophecy upon which the other 2 are based. However, when Jeremiah wrote his prophecy in ch. 25, the other 2 verses were not written yet, so a correct understanding of Jer 25 does not depend on Daniel 9 or 2 Chron. 26. So they are not interdependant, as you put it, the dependacy is only one-way. Jer 25 is sufficient as stand-alone text, unless you have an agenda of course. The only reason C.O. Jonsson mention it, because of the fabrications of people like you, and the society you want to defend.
Coming to understand a text is not contingent upon who wrote what first. It is based upon an examination of numerous references (all, if possible) so that a good preponderance of evidence is examined and then a (simple conclusion) of how something should be understood is made. How should Jeremiah 25 be understood? We can examine the text itself, which shows us that the nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years and that Judah will be made desolate. Now we go to Daniel 9:2, which says he discerns that Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would be devastated for seventy years. So now, we arrive at a greater understanding of Jeremiah 25, because we have examined OTHER texts (i.e. our conclusion of how it should be understood is DEPENDENT on other references to Jeremiah's writings). I am not saying this exegesis is correct, but simply showing how ALL the texts are interdependent if one wishes to arrive at ONE, cohesive intepretation of the 70 years.
Concerning LXX: why are you not providing a comparison text with the masoretic texts?
I have already done so in post #2, on page 1:
Also a reading of Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX (which is far older and traditionally regarded as more accurate than the Masoretic text) states:"And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years." The LXX equivalent makes it quite obvious that the "servitude" (specifically, the servitude of seventy years) is NOT in reference to vassalage as it would be nonsensical to say: "The nations (they) will serve as vassals among the nations." Hence, it is patently obvious the "seventy years" refer to "THESE NATIONS", "ALL THE NATIONS", etc. which would include Judah and this attenuates his chronology causing two contravening methodologies and it invalidates his interpretation of "servitude" as "vassalage."
This is a comparison of how the LXX rendering helps us to understand how the "seventy years of servitude" in Jeremiah 25 should be understood.
you only provided different English translations of LXX, which is already a Greek translation from a different language, how old the translation is, does not take away that it is a translation, with its inaccuracies that come with any translation.
I have never stated that any translation is not prone to inaccuracies, but what you are doing is asserting that the rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 is incorrect. You have provided no evidence for this assertion; not a single quote from a Biblical scholar, not a single exegesis on the text itself, and otherwise not a single reason why the LXX should be regarded as inaccurate (in this case) other than the fact that it utterly dismantles Jonnson's interpretation.
I stand to the point, anything you want to prove upon that basis, is worthless if you choose to ignore what was written in the original language.
Would you like a detailed exegesis of the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25? I could do the same thing I did with the Hebraic rendering and I guarantee you I would be able to argue my point that the rendering is correct and consistent with what I've already stated. Can you provide a single iota of evidence to place into doubt anything I've written other than your own speculations and hasty generalizations? The ball is in your courtyard.
And my points remained unrefuted.
Somebody else brought this up, but I will reiterate the thought: the archeological and scriptural arguments are not unique to Carl Jonsson--why are we debating him rather than discussing the 607 vs 587 debate more directly?
We are discussing Jonnson because the most common alternate interpretation rejecting the seventy years is based largely, if not entirely, upon the statements contained therein his book.
Carl Jonsson is not claiming to be the unique channel of God. Nobody follows him as if he were a religious leader. While I believe it book to be a must read, it is not as though anyone, including himself, believes him infallible on all points. He offers several alternative views in his book in regard the 70 year period.
Immaterial to the discussion. It has nothing to do with Jonnson's persona or the notion that anything he said is infallible. Jonnson is only the center of discussion because his material is the basis for a number of the arguments that are used against 607.
To define parameters in an internet debate will yield the same results as herding cats. It ain’t gonna happen. As the subject is a multi-dimensional continuum, it is impossible to separate the related topics because they are very integral. One does not have to choose between Scripture and History on the matter, as if the two are at odds. The two work hand in hand.
This is precisely why parameters are necessary for this discussion to go anywhere. In 607 threads people want to discuss archaeological evidence, Watchtower misquotes, how Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 should be rendered, what the servitude meant, and so forth. It is not humanly possible nor reasonable for one human being to be able to discuss all these subjects simultaneously. Hence, why the only thing that should be discussed at this point are arguments surrounding Jeremiah 25. I do not believe it is that difficult for mature adults to stick to one subject at a time.
Today, nobody debates the Earth is in orbit about the Sun. When we read Scripture, we read it in such a way so that the two are in harmony. This was not always the case. The Inquisition felt Galileo’s work a threat. Today, the Watchtower has Inquisitions toward those whose views it considers a threat. If we read The Gentile Times Reconsidered from the beginning that is exactly what happened. The Society was more concerned that Carl Jonsson not speak his ideas to others than truth.
In high control groups, the Leadership decides who “needs to know” information. Critical information or information from former members is banned, such as the case of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful. Deviant thoughts are reported to the leadership. Only “good” and “proper” thoughts are encouraged. Frequently, cult literature contains misquotations, statements taken out of context. Information is deliberately held back. The arguments put forth by the group are full of denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking.
607 BC is a useful case study in the above. It is held onto because it is part of the 1914 chronology. The 1914 chronology is important because it is used to support 1919, which is the magic year for the Society where minuscule events are given grandiose importance as the basis for their supreme authority. Eventually they will have to discard 607 and they will find an alternative, and at that time, all these arguments will have been shown to be a waste of time.
Thanks for the history lessons, but I'd appreciate it more if you could address the points I've brought up in my two OP's. Thus far, no one has addressed them or refuted them substantially.