See how the apologist needs to get vague about referring to the exile to try to associate it with the 70 years, because the fact is that the Bible never refers to 70 years of exile. Most of the Jews were exiled (early 597BCE) about 11 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction, and Jeremiah wrote to them (594BCE) about Babylon's 70 years several years before Jerusalem was destroyed (587BCE). It would be entirely meaningless to tell those people that the exile would end 70 years after some unstated future starting point. 'scholar' can't get around that fact, so he will continue to flounder, jeer and misdirect.
The said scholar has no need of being vague for the Exile is not only a blatant biblical fact but is a historic fact in terms of Neb's invasion of Judah and its aftermath as a conquering World Power The Exile is a perfect descriptor of the 70 years just as it is of servitude to Babylon for both terms are mutually inclusive. Jews were exiled to Babylon prior to Jerusalem's Fall and were also exiled at the time of its Fall so two deportations are subsumed as one Jewish or Babylonian Exile as treated by most historians.
There are no meaningless, vagueness or fuzzy bits associated with the Exile for its nature and chronology are clearly defined as to when it began with the Fal of Jerusalem in 607 BCE and with the Return from Exile of the Jews in 537 BCE. For example, Daniel was able to discern the near completion of the 70 years as recorded in Dan. 9:1-2.
Complete nonsense. Jeremiah 29:10 is very clear that Babylon's 70 years would end, and then attention would be given to the Jews' return from Babylon after that. The authors of 2 Chronicles and of Daniel understood that the 'calling to account' of Babylon's king quite definitely referred to the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539BCE. No 'judgement' befell either Babylon or Cyrus in 537BCE.
Not at all. Jer. 29:10 simply addresses the fact of their imminent release from Babylon having been exiled for 70 years thus in anticipation of their Return- release from Exile. Ezra and Daniel discuss the 70 years and understood that Jeremiah's judgement against Babylon would only occur after the 70 years had ended or been fulfilled which can only mean that the descriptors or elements of the 70 years -servitude, desolation and exile would be fulfilled and that could only occur at the Return in 537 BCE. Jeremiah described the 'judgement' in terms of the king, city and land of Chaldea and this did not happen synchronistically in 539BCE
Further, if it argued that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon then that would mean that the beginning was in 609 BCE wherein nothing of consequence marked that year and that is why COJ in his 'masterful deception' -GTR considered an alternative date of 605 BCE.
Stern's article supports the fact that much of Judea was desolate during the Neo-Babylonian period. Specifically, Stern's article refers to the period from Nebuchadnezzar’s first regnal year (604BCE) until Cyrus’ first regnal year in Babylon (538BCE), which is not 70 years. But even if he had said it matched a period of 70 years exactly, it would hardly matter, because it would remain the fact that Babylon's 70 years was not a period of exile. Additionally, Stern actually says "not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled", indicating that the towns that were destroyed remained desolate until the Persian period, which is quite different to the JW claim that all the towns of Judea were uninhabited.
Stern's article had some facts right but relied on an inaccurate Chronology so no surprises there. Stern's description of the state of the cities in unoccupied Judah matches perfectly Jeremeiah's prophecy. and agrees perfectly with our interpretation of the 70 years of desolation.