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

by FaceTheFacts 255 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW
    Incorrect. You and others still are not getting the point.....Recovery/StillRecovery/OlinMoyle48/Ethos/FaceTheFacts..

    Everyone is Wrong,but ME!..

    .................... mutley-ani1.gif ... OUTLAW

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    His sciptural interpretation came across more as an attempt to harmonize the two than an argument unto itself.

    That was the point I was trying to make with my comments about archaeology. That is where the PROOF is. But Recovery (FTF) just wants to throw all that evidence out.

    Also, Carl Olof Jonson is a small fish in this. He is not the primary reason people reject 607. Nearly every scholar, historian, archaeologist, etc rejects the date because there is absolutely no proof for it. All the proof points to 586/7 as the date for Babylons overthrow of Jerusalem.

    But Recovery (FTF) wants to gloss over all that evidence and point to a single scripture.

  • Hoffnung
    Hoffnung

    Sorry mate, I don't debate with liars.

    I have proven enough.

    Hoffnung

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    I believe it was pointed out before that Carl Jonsson is not originator of or personification of these arguments or unique in his views in regard the 70 years. And he doesn’t deny the 70 years, but presents several viewpoints that fit with mountain of historical evidence. He does present a 609 to 539 chronology, but he also presents a 605 to 539 BC chronology, where the 70 years are approximate.

    However, I will prefer to address the arguments themselves, rather than dissect a single book containing the argument. Instead of encapsulating the arguments within a person, we need to discuss the ideas themselves, irrespective of where they are found…and they can be found via many sources.

    While Jeremiah 25:10-12 is in the title of this topic, verse 12 has yet to be discussed (unless I missed it).

    "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite."

    Previous apologetics that argued the 70 years ended in 537 BC, argued that Cyrus himself was called into account for his error, even though he was God’s anointed one used to call Babylon into account. Somehow the return of Temple vessels get tied up in the matter of being called into account and the arguement for 537, which really didn't make much sense to me.

    However, the plain reading of this would show it is the kings of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that would be called into account for their error--not Cyrus of the Persian dynasty, the base of his power being Persia, not Babylon. By conquest, Cyrus became king of Babylon as well, but this was in fulfillment of calling the Neo-Babylonian dynasty into account. This occurs in October 539 BC.

    Previous apologetics decried the use of Daniel 5:26-28 in conjunction with showing how the king of Babylon is called into account at the end of the 70 years. But I think it is very pertinent and can be regarded as part of a “series of intertextual biblical interpretations”.

    Therefore let's consider the passage:

    MENE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it.

    TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient.

    PERES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians."

    I believe the idea complements Jeremiah 25 nicely. God numbered the days of the Neo-Babylonian ascendancy--70 years. Its 70 years were at an end. They were weighed and found deficient, therefore it was time to be called into account.

    Thus Jeremiah 25:12 shows that the 70 years end first. It is then that the Neo-Babylonian kingdom is called into account for their error, when there time expired.

    And nobody, including Carl Jonsson, is denying that both “Judah and the surrounding nations” would have to serve Babylon during the 70 year period. During the 70 years, various nations were subjected under their yoke, including Judah.

    Even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BC, the land of Judah did become a devastated place, with repeated sieges and the burning of Judean cities and towns. How did the armies of Babylon feeds themselves? In part, Judean fields and crops became their resources. When the Babylonians razed these places and they did not get rebuilt. This occurred even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BC.

    Ephraim Stern says in his book Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.), Vol. II :“But the strange thing is that above the remains left by these destructions, we find no evidence of occupation until the Persian period, which began in about 538 B.C.E. For roughly half a century—from 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.”

    Therefore, the 70 years were one of devastation for Judah, before and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

  • kurtbethel
  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    3 pages and still no one has overcome the arguments. When people cant sidetrack the issue into a million different subjects to confuse the issue it becomes obvious who can or who cannot put their money where their mouth is. I am quite satisfied with the results. The only argument people have left are ad hominems and accusing me of being a past member.

    This was not even a matter of proving 607 but simply showing the alternate 609 to 539 chronology to be impossible according to the text. Its embarassing at this point If you dont have anything to counter the arguments with there is nothing wrong with admitting so.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Londo...thats in another section of Jonnson's book. Meanwhile you can address my earlier points since no one else is able to.

  • tornapart
    tornapart

    If you're not these 'past members' then why don't you go to the threads that they/he started on exactly this subject (which has been done to death) and read those. You have not put forward any arguments that they haven't tried and have proved nothing. If you're happy with it then why don't you just go away and live with it. Why do you have to keep going over and over and over it? It's becoming boring....

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    In this case, victory seems in the eye of the beholder. I believe everybody on JWN has been pretty satisfied with the results of the 607 debates they’ve had with you these last 4 months.

    Proving 609-539 wrong wouldn’t prove 607 right—something that IMO hasn’t occurred yet. These points do not exist in isolation, but rather when one takes the totality of the evidence, they point toward 609-539—and Jerusalem being destroyed in 587.

    With two competing interpretations of the 70 Years, the question becomes which interpretation the historical and archeological evidence points to. And we cannot cherrypick either a verse in scripture or an archeological anomaly, we must construct the picture from all the evidence.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    If one passage alone shows the interpretation Carl Jonnson makes to be incorrect there is no need to even look at all the archaelogical evidence. I just cant help but wonder why everyone wants to change the subject. Its not in the eye of the beholder but a simple observation that anyone with two eyes can make.

    In summary the argument of this thread is: FaceTheFacts is a banned member!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit