Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3790

    scholar is not very bright. I have joined the dots but have come up blank.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3786

    1. Jehovah God is the Great Timekeeper

    2. Jehovah God spoke the truth by means of Jeremiah when addressing the first exiles in Babylon for an accurate time frame was given in 25:11,12 and 29:10.

    3. 'At Babylon' has equal status with 'For Babylon' sayin much the same thing with varying degree of emphasis. One rendering conveys location an dthe other conveys purpose. Both renderings are linguistically possible and both were realized historically and contextually.

    scholar is going for thes three options.

    scholar JW

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty ...

    You agreed the letter addressed the captives already in Babylon, the ones taken 10 years before Jerusalem's fall. You agreed that v. 10 was not addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem but to the captives "at Babylon." So we're back to God being misleading or not being able to count.

    ... because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE.

    Now you're repeating your previous (ridiculous) idea that the '617' exile didn't count as a 'real' exile, that the exile could only be counted from an indeterminate time in their future, which may never have happened, of people who were not yet exiled in Babylon but who were still living in Jerusalem.

    In fact we do not know how long that group lived in Babylon for nor do we have the demography of both groups in Babylon. Ezra of course does provide some demographics for the Returnees just prior to the Return in 537BCE.

    So you're saying we don't know how long the Jews stayed in Babylon now. Not 70 years; not 80 years. Pfft.

    Wriggling like a fish on a hook, aren't you, Neil?

    scholar is not very bright. I have joined the dots but have come up blank.

    Amen to that! LOL.

    3. 'At Babylon' has equal status with 'For Babylon' sayin much the same thing with varying degree of emphasis. One rendering conveys location an dthe other conveys purpose. Both renderings are linguistically possible and both were realized historically and contextually.

    Jeffro and I have already demonstrated that is not the case at all. There was a faint glimmer of progress with you but you've scurried back behind your mental shutters again. OK. So be it.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE. In fact we do not know how long that group lived in Babylon for nor do we have the demography of both groups in Babylon. Ezra of course does provide some demographics for the Returnees just prior to the Return in 537BCE. I hope this helps as you seem to be stuck on the figure '80'.

    'scholar' likes to make broad sweeping claims about what the Bible supposedly says about the '70 years'. But I have already provided the specific scriptures (including Jeremiah 25:8-11 and 27:6-11) that clearly indicate that serving Babylon did not mean exile and that exile would be a consequence for nations that would not submit to Babylon. Of course, I have the advantage here, because the Bible never says there was a 70-year exile. It just doesn't. Never. Not once. There's nothing scriptural that 'scholar' can actually use to back up Watch Tower Society dogma.

    However, the 'sting in the tail' is how the audience changes from verse 16 whereupon Jeremiah now turns his attention to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and gives similar warnings with consequences then in verse 20 it appears that he now addresses the entire nation as Exiles which of course would include both groups.

    Once again, 'scholar' tries to claim the Bible says something it doesn't actually say. Verses 16-19 don't say anything about those still in Jerusalem being exiled to Babylon (which isn't the same as saying that wouldn't happen—it just isn't the context). The context of those verses about those still in Jerusalem is in response to the false claims by Hananiah (and the 'prophets in Babylon' at Jeremiah 29:15) about what would happen in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 28:2-4). It states that they would die or be dispersed among all the nations. It gives no indication at all that those exiled later would indicate a 'starting point' for the 70 years previously mentioned in verse 10. Verse 20 returns to addressing the people who are already exiled in Babylon, and says nothing about 'including both groups'.

    'At Babylon' has equal status with 'For Babylon' sayin much the same thing with varying degree of emphasis. One rendering conveys location an dthe other conveys purpose. Both renderings are linguistically possible and both were realized historically and contextually.

    It doesn't help your case that both renderings are 'linguistically possible' because the rendering you prefer is not contextually possible. 1) The alleged period from October 607 to October 537 in JW dogma includes travel time, so the Jews would be 'at Babylon' for less than 70 years. 2) Jeremiah 29:10-14 clearly indicates that the Jews would repent and then return only after the 70 years had already finished, so it would make no sense for attention to be turned to the Jews' return after that same period had already ended. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon, and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah 29:10-14 quite straightforwardly indicates that 1) Babylon's 70 years would end (verse 10), 2) the Jews would repent (verse 13; compare Daniel 9:2-19), 3) the Jews would be allowed to return to Jerusalem (verse 14).

    It's little wonder that 'scholar' doesn't regard arithmetic to be particularly important in regard to chronology.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Notice also that 'scholar' has simply ignored the fact that Anstey does not support JW dogma for the period involving Ahaz and Hoshea.

  • cha ching
    cha ching

    At? Schmat! FOR? what a Bore!

    The only reason at/for was ever included in the “discussion” was to give the WTBS a way out, if they evidently ever needed a “get out of jail free card” .. right?

    Those 'soon to be' old quotes do / willcome in handy, don’t/ won't they?

    Meanwhile, “these nations”, “all the nations”, “all these lands”, "many nations" let’s list the nations, (Jer 25:17-26) “will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”….. ALL of them…. Period….

    Con men always get you to doubt your own eyes.....

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    cha ching:

    Meanwhile, “these nations”, “all the nations”, “all these lands”, "many nations" let’s list the nations, (Jer 25:17-26) “will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”….. ALL of them…. Period….

    Poor 'scholar' simply ignores the verses that are too problematic for the Watch Tower Society's dogma. Even when I quoted Jeremiah 27:6-11 and highlighted the part about how serving Babylon is an alternative to exile, he still sides with the lying Watch Tower Society against what the Bible actually says.

  • cha ching
    cha ching

    "These," "Many," "All" witnesses will soon dutifully "just love the new teaching" when it is revealed by the Holy Spirit...

    I mean.... the "GB"

    cha ching

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation

    'scholar' apparently imagines that it is technical that an event that starts earlier than another event is longer if both events end at the same time. No, 'scholar', that not technical. It's fundamentally obvious. No wonder he's scared of arithmetic.

    but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty

    Wrong. The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile. Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'. The Bible does not explicitly provide the total length of the exile (it is given implicitly as about 60 years, from February 597BCE until October 538BCE, including travel time). However, the Bible does indicate the length of the period of paying off the 'sabbaths' at Leviticus 25:8 (to which 2 Chronicles 36:21 alludes) which is synonymous with the '7 weeks' of Daniel 9:25. According to the Bible, that period—49 years—ran from October 587BCE (2 Kings 25:26-28) until October 538BCE (Ezra 1:1; 3:1).

    because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon

    Wrong. At the risk of repeating myself... Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'.

    and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE.

    Wrong. The 'desolation of the land' was when it 'rested', which was the period of 49 years already indicated above. The beginning of that period aligns with 587BCE—the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed, however the exile was counted from 597BCE (specifically, the exile is enumerated from the year that began Nisan 598, because the exile began prior to Nisan of 597).

    In fact we do not know how long that group lived in Babylon for nor do we have the demography of both groups in Babylon. Ezra of course does provide some demographics for the Returnees just prior to the Return in 537BCE.

    Many Jews remained in Babylon, with no special distinction of either group (though most people from both initial groups would have been already dead). The only meaningful period of return relevant to the context of Jeremiah 29 is when the Jews were first allowed to return to Jerusalem.

    I hope this helps as you seem to be stuck on the figure '80'.

    AnnOMaly is stuck in reality. This obviously makes 'scholar' uncomfortable. (Of course, AnnOMaly doesn't believe the exile lasted for 80 years, because she recognises that the year assigned by the Watch Tower Society for the main deportation to Babylon is wrong.)

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Your argument for the beginning and ending of the seventy years was and is always 'fuzzy' as I have repeatedly told you in the past.

    You consider the date for the capture of Babylon in 539BCE to be 'fuzzy'?! You really don't know the subject very well, do you?!

    That date is one of many well attested dates for the Neo-Babylonian period (though it's not as well attested as 587BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem). And it's a date your 'precious' Watch Tower Society agrees with. How the hell is that date 'fuzzy'?

    Yet the end-point for 'your' 70 years is based entirely on speculation that has no basis in scripture, and actually contradicts scripture upon comparison of Ezra with Josephus.

    There is also no doubt about the Babylonian defeat of Assyria in 609BCE. The final battle for Harran was in Elul (September) per BM 21901. Incidentally, Babylon also fell to Darius in September of 539BCE.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit