scholar:
Do not worry I will dispose of Jeffro's arguments
LOL. Still waiting...
There is no problem with the context or contents of Jeremiah 29 for WT chronology or the rendering 'at Babylon' in preference to 'for Babylon'.
I have already clearly shown that to be false. Especially in view of the revised NWT's translation of 29:10, replacing the more ambiguous "in accord with the fulfilling of" with "when 70 years are fulfilled" (a more accurate translation, but wholly detrimental to the JW interpretation). It's a fairly minor Bible character ('Jehovah') who contradicts the JW view, so I'll quote here what he said: "‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’"
In the flawed JW interpretation, once the 70 years "are fulfilled", the Jews are already in Jerusalem, invalidating the rest of the very same sentence about 'turning attention to bringing you back to this place' after they're already there. Back in reality, Babylon's 70 years ended, and then 'attention' could be given to the Jews' return (after they repented). See Jeremiah 29:10-14, Daniel 9:1-19.
You argue that the first deportation with the first group of exilees was greater but this may be true in some sense.
"but"? If you believe the Bible (as you claim), then it is definitely true that the first exile was greater. It is greater in the sense that there were more people exiled.
But did it constitute the beginning of the 'seventy years' is the issue at hand.
Of course not. The seventy years were not a period of exile at all. I have already very clearly shown that exile was a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.
Ezra did not think so when he wrote the history of the period in his second book of Chronicles he linked the passage of the seventy years with the land paying off its sabbaths and of course Jeremiah linked the passage of the seventy years with the land lying desolate without an inhabitant.
It's unfortunate that you don't properly understand the reference to Leviticus to which 2 Chronicles alludes. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. The phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (or as the New International Version puts it, "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested") is a parenthetical remark quoting almost verbatim (changed only for past tense) from the statement at Leviticus 26:34, "At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths". Leviticus 25:8 gives the period of 'paying sabbaths' as forty-nine years, which is also the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. However, Babylon's 70 years lasted, as Ezra says, until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the original context of the 70 years, which Jeremiah explicitly stated were of all the nations serving Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-11) which they should do to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:6-11, which you continue to ignore).
Clearly, those two factors could only commence with the Fall with e destruction of the Temple, the city and the forced evacuation of the population of Judah in 607 BE.
Since paying off sabbaths isn't the same thing as nations serving Babylon, you're just wrong.
Josephus when he reviewed the history of this period and referred to the passage of the seventy years expressed a similar view.
In his later work, Against Apion, Josephus correctly indicates the period was fifty years. Additionally, Josephus explicitly states that the period from the exile of Israel until the rule of Cyrus was 182.5 years (which you also continue to ignore), which is not at all compatible with flawed JW chronology.
WT Dogma as you put is reconciliable with the Bible.
I have already clearly shown that it is not.
We simply have a different interpretation of Jeremiah so why cannot you grant us the right and freedom to have a different point of view and labour so vigously to ram your point of view down the throats of others. We simply agree to disagree.
The Watch Tower Society doesn't 'agree to disagree'. The entire foundation of JW eschatology is based on their dishonest 'interpretation', which JWs are expected to not only accept themselves, but also to infect others with their teachings. Additionally, JWs are told to shun people who disagree.
"It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion."—The Watchtower, 15 November 1963, page 688
You and Jeffro do not have any more facts than I in respect to the rendering of this verse. Neither of us are Hebrew scholars therfore we need to rely on the scholarship of others. There are other Bibles that render this verse similar to us and despite the passage of time the current revised NWT has decided to continue with the orthodox rendering of this verse along the lines of the hallowed King James Bible.
Any interpretation that is not compatible with the original context of the 70 years is wrong regardless of how popular it may appear. Jeremiah very clearly indicated that submitting to Babylon was a way to avoid exile.
