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

by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FaceTheFacts

  Funny...people even said these arguments are rehashes of what has been debated to death. LOL!!!! Now you're really showing your bias. Can anyone show us a single thread where the perfect mood of Jeremiah 25 has been discussed at length? Can anyone show us a single thread where it has been challenged that Jonnson does not meet the burden of proof because there is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute in that year?

  I doubt most of these people spouting their derogatory comments about my arguments have even read them! Anyone with eyes can see who's provided the facts here and who is trying to argue over how something should be quoted LOL.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Uh oh. FTF is getting worked up. Will the insults start again as with his other usernames? I think so. I'm gonna start using his technique and no matter what proof and evidence someone else uses, I'm going to keep repeating, "You haven't been able to argue sufficiently! None of you have provided any evidence! I win!"
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  No...unlike pretty much everyone else in this thread I will not use ad hominem attacks but will continue to try to bring the discussion back to one accord.

  Now ChristAlone, since you're insinuating that I have been proven wrong (as have Londo, cantleave, and ScenicViewer) perhaps you can be so kind as to point out of how these arguments have been refuted. All you have to do is cut and paste. Are you up to the challenge?

  • 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.
  • 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.
• 

  Hoffnung

  FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", that there is no record of any nation paying tribute to the Babylonians, is easily debunked with Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4, describing the last few years of Nabopallassars reign. A picture of the chronicle is below.

  

  It reads:

  1 The eighteenth year of Nabopolassar(608/607): In the month Ulûlu the king of Akkad (Akkad=Babylon) mustered his army and

  2 following the bank of the Tigris to the mountains of Bit-Hanunya

  3 in the district of Urartu, he went up. He set fire to the cities and

  4 plundered them extensively. In the month Tebêtu the king of Akkad went home.

  5 The nineteenth year(607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

  6 Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince,

  7 mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...].

  8 The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu.

  9 After his departure, Nebuchadnezzar did battle at Biranati, situated in the mountains,

  10 captured Biranati, set it on fire, and took many prisoners.

  11 He conquered all of the mountains as far as the district of Urartu.

  12 In the month Ulûlu the prince returned to Babylon. In the month Tašrîtu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

  13 marched to Kimuhu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

  14 He crossed the river, did battle against the city, and in the month Kislîmu he captured the city.

  15 He sacked it and stationed a garrison of his in it. In the month Šabatu he went home.

  16 The twentieth year(606/605): The army of Egypt marched [17] against the garrison of Kimuhu

  17 which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. For four months,

  18 they laid siege to the city, captured it, and defeated the garrison of the king of Akkad.

  19 In the month Tašrîtu, the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates, and

  20 pitched camp in Quramatu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

  21 He had his army cross the Euphrates and they captured [22] Šunadiri, Elammu,

  22 and Dahammu, cities of Syria,

  23 and plundered them. In the month Šabatu the king of Akkad went home.

  24 The army of Egypt, which was in Karchemiš, crossed the Euphrates and

  25 against the army of Akkad, which was camped in Quramatu,

  26 it marched. They pushed the army of Akkad back so that they withdrew.

  27 The twenty-first year(605/604): The king of Akkad stayed home while Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son

  28 and crown prince, mustered the army of Akkad.

  Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4 clearly demonstrates that Babylon (or Akkad in the Chronicle) took the spoil of a lot of cities in the period between 609 and 605 BCE, and that during the reign of Nabopalassar, prior to battle of Carcemish and Nebuchadnezzar ascension on the throne in 605. It can also be added that Nabopalassar had already made alliances with quite a few other nations to defeat the many Assyrian strongholds, Cyaxares, the Median King, and the Scythians are specifically mentioned. It is beyond any doubt that Babylon was the dominating partner in all these alliances.

  FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", is proven to hold no ground whatsoever, and FTF dishonest reasonings are again exposed.

  Hoffnung
• 

  Hoffnung

  sorry, double post
• 

  cedars

  Looks like FaceTheFacts/Ethos/Recovery/StillRecovery is getting a four-page feast.

  

  Cedars
• 

  Londo111

  Nobody said that the 70-year servitude applied only to the surrounding nations, but not Judah. Rather, the 70 year of servitude was for both Judah and the surrounding nations, the entire region. Not all came under the yoke at the same time, but when it was their turn they faced a choice of either submitting or facing the consequences.

  The period from the end of Neo-Assyrian Empire to the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire was 70 years (609 to 539). That is one viewpoint presented. Another common view is that the 70 years are a rounded figure from the Battle of Carchemish to the fall of Babylon (605 to 539). Both views are presented in the book in question and neither are unique to the author, so that he can lay claim to either chronology.

  Nonetheless, verse 12 points to the endpoint of the 70 Years, which shows it could not exceed October 539 BC. Verse 12 cannot be ignored in this discussion.
• 

  Hoffnung

  So, a summary of FTF's arguments:

  • 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. it is documented that many nations had to pay the Babylonians quite heavy spoils in Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4
  • 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". It is demonstrated by C.O.Jonsson in a long footnote on page 195, that the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective. The context of the quotes FTF uses disprove his very argument. There is most certainly no reason at all to reject the Masoretic Text and use the LXX instead, unless you collect errors. Furthermore, the Insight book concurs with C.O.Jonsson on this point.
  • There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations. The 70 years in Jeremiah 25 specifically refers in the verses to Babylon, and its period as regional superpower, and not to the exact lenght of Judah's servitude. the very Fact this point is brought up, shows FTF does not understand what he reads, or does not want to understand what he reads in Jeremiah 25:11, 12
  • 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. in view of point 2 and 3 above, considering what shady reasonings and faulty translations you are willing to abuse to score a point, to find the exact limits in the verbal conjugaison that Jeremiah might have used in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 is a very weak foundation to build any conclusion upon.

  FTF thank you for showing to the many lurkers how dishonest your reasonings are.

  PS: apologies for my earlier double post.

  Hoffnung
• 

  sd-7

  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.

  Having read just about all of 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered', I think you're mistaken in portraying C.O. Jonsson as trying to put forth 609-539 B.C. as an absolute chronology for the 70 years. If I recall correctly, he puts it forth as one possibility. The fact is, there's a lot of uncertainty in trying to piece all of this stuff together precisely in terms of the dates. If anything, one of the first points he brings out is that anything written in the Bible is a relative chronology, that needs secular history to be able to relate any date to our calendar.

  I can't honestly speak of any proof of vassalage starting in 609 B.C.; seems more like that sort of thing started more around 605 B.C., with Nebuchadnezzar's first year. But I'm no expert on the history. My understanding was that 609 was when Babylon defeated Assyria with finality, so as the big power in the area, everybody was now vulnerable to Babylon as a result.

  I think considering Jeremiah 25 without considering other verses to put the pieces together (which, by the way, you brought in other verses in your argument, thus doing the very thing you didn't want others to do in rebuttal) is only going to result in an incomplete argument with an insufficient conclusion. Let's suppose you have proven there was no vassalage of any nation in 609 B.C. What now? I don't know what that would prove or disprove beyond itself. Is there a specific conclusion you would like to put forth other than 'Carl Jonsson is wrong'?

  --sd-7
• 

  QC

  FTF, I’m secure in my Christian belief. I’m looking forward to your post. JWs taught me an important lesson:

  Don’t waste your life being a lemming; ALWAYS accept the challenge of well

  conceived thoughts. Core beliefs affirmed or cognitive dissonance lessons

  is all good—either way it’s a win-win.

  EVERYONE should want to know under testing as to whether their beliefs are fact or fiction. Spiritual truth and proven science alongside empirical archeology and history data is all compatible.

  What would happen if you grilled your GB, as is your habit, over any of their untenable positions? It is just a matter of time; you WILL drop into your interrogation mode correcting some “truth”, heard by a Praetorian Guard elder, and you’ll be gone (per Franz/Dunlap).

  The JW Rutherford’s model of Christianity is not where you want to be. The Beorean openness suits you more. Christianity’s greatness is due to “faithful” individuals. Earthly organizations have all been failures. Join those of us stamped as “faithful.” We will be appointed over much.