by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
'scholar':
Sorry, not one of these verses shows the expression '70 years of Babylonish servitude or domination' just as you have argued that there is no such expression '70 years of Exile'.
Jeremiah 25:11 directly states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years" and you still claim the Bible doesn't refer to '70 years of Babylonish servitude'. Everyone can see how dishonest you are. Don't you understand people are laughing at you?
Jeremiah 25:11 clearly says that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years" and that clearly means that the verse is saying those nations must become in servitude to Babylon for 70 years. Verses 2-9 along with verses 15-18 indicates that the kingdom of Judah was included in those called "these nations". It is not necessary that the Bible use the specific wording of "70 years of Babylonish domination or servitude" in order convey that idea, provided an expression with the meaning is clearly indicated.
scholar, since you believe the Book of Daniel describes the experiences of an actual person named Daniel, notice what Daniel 1:11-12. There is says that Daniel (in the court king of Babylon) referred himself as a servant of his guardian and the chapter indicates that the guardian was employed by "Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon", thus making Daniel also a servant of the king. Daniel 2:48-49 also indicates (according to the Book of Daniel) that Daniel was an employee of the Babylonian king.
But Jeremiah 25:12 is also relevant to helping us to see that the book of Jeremiah says the people of Judah (at least of Jerusalem) were to be exiled for 70 years in Babylon. My first clue to that was the heading of "70 years' exile in Babylon foretold" in the 1984 (bi12-E) edition of the NWT, on page 999 which includes Jeremiah 25:5 -19. In Jeremiah 25:12 the 1984 NWT has a scripture cross reference pertaining to when "seventy years have been fulfilled". The cross reference is to three verses of which one is Jeremiah 29:10. The heading for the page which has Jeremiah 29:10 says in part "Exiled 70 years.". The verse on that page says the following.
' “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people,+ and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ ' For context, note also that verse 4 of the same chapter says the following. ' “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile+ from Jerusalem to Babylon'. Jeremiah chapter 29 is thus very clearly saying that the Jewish people of Jerusalem (the main city of the kingdom of Judah) were to be released from exile in Babylon after 70 years. In case you wondering what "place" (to which the people were return to, according to the Bible) was referred to in verse 10, see verse 1 of the same chapter (chapter 29). That verse says the place was Jerusalem, for it says the following.
"And these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the older men of the exiled people and to the priests and to the prophets and to all the people, whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon".
Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 and its reference to the exile being foretold to end after 70 years, it should be noted what The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible says. It says the following. "29:10-14. This passage is probably a later insertion, coming from an editor who knew that from the battle of Carchemish in 605 (cf. 46:2) to the Persian capture of Babylon in 539 was roughly seventy years. The intention is to encourage restoration hopes."
The New Oxford New Annotated Bible (a study Bible) says the following regarding Jeremiah 11-12. "Seventy years (cf. 29.10). The period from 605 BCE until the defeat of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian in 539 BCE is sixty-six years. Seventy, however, is likely a symbolic number, representing the length of a lifetime (Ps. 90.10)."
Regarding the WT saying that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE (instead of in 587/586 BCE), the WT originally said it was in 606 BC. That year is only one year earlier than the 605 BCE date of the first siege upon Jerusalem (at least according to the Bible, see Daniel 1:1-2, and other sources). According to the Bible some captives, including Jehoiakim the king of Judah, were taken at that time into exile. The gentiles can thus be said to have begun trampling Jerusalem at 605 BCE, though Jerusalem was not desolated at that time (though it likely experienced some damage at that time). If the society were to adjust their 607 BCE teaching to 605 BCE and focus upon what happened in that year and if they also said that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE or 586 BCE, then they would be much more in harmony with secular scholars. Doing such would entail a minor adjustment of their 1914 date to 1916 (or so, depending in which month the siege in 605 BCE took place in), but that would be no more a problem than their existing 1914 date. They might even wish to link it with a comment of Russell having died in 1916. Perhaps they also might go back to saying that Russell spiritually ascended to heaven in 1916 and say he began ruling with Christ in 1916, and say that the timing is highly significant. Doing that would likely require an adjustment to what they say happened in 1918 in regards to their scriptural claims.
Correction: In my prior post I meant to say "The New Oxford Annotated Bible (a study Bible) says the following regarding Jeremiah 25:11-12" instead of "The New Oxford New Annotated Bible (a study Bible) says the following regarding Jeremiah 11-12", but I ran out of time in correcting my typos.
Further information: The same study Bible says the following regarding Jeremiah 29:8-10. "In contrast to the early return from exile predicted by the other prophets, Jeremiah says the exile will last an entire lifetime (seventy years, 25.11; 27.7)."
By the way, the edition of the study Bible I am referring to is the "Augmented Third Edition", and it is for the "New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha".
It looks like the first siege on Jerusalem might have been in 597 BCE instead of 605 BCE, though the battle at Carchemish was in 605 BCE. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nebuchadnezzar-II . That article does also say the following, however. "On expeditions in Syria and Palestine from June to December of 604, Nebuchadnezzar received the submission of local states, including Judah, and captured the city of Ashkelon." But note though that https://www.rationalchristianity.net/jeremiah.html says the following.
"605 First attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem (2 Ki 24:1-2)
597 Reign of Jehoiachin (3 months) (2 Ki 24:8-17, 25:27-30, 2 Chr 36:9-10)
597 Second attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem (2 Ki 24:8-17)
597-586 Reign of Zedekiah (2 Ki 24:17-25:7, 2 Chr 36:10-20)
586 Third attack on Jerusalem; Jerusalem destroyed (2 Ki 25:1-21)"
2 Kings 24:1-2 (1984 NWT) says Jehoiakim became the "servant" of "Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon", but that after three years Jehoiakim rebelled and that as a result "Jehovah began to send against" Jehoiakim "marauder bands of Chaldeans" and others, and "against Judah to destroy it".
Regarding what happened in 605 BCE regarding Judah https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/2-kings-24/ says the following.
"i. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem because the Pharaoh of Egypt invaded Babylon. In response the young prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Charchemish, and then he pursued their fleeing army all the way down to the Sinai. Along the way (or on the way back), he subdued Jerusalem, who had been loyal to the Pharaoh of Egypt.
ii. This happened in 605 b.c. and it was the first (but not the last) encounter between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. There would be two later invasions (597 and 587 b.c.).
iii. This specific attack is documented by the Babylonian Chronicles, a collection of tablets discovered as early as 1887, held in the British Museum. In them, Nebuchadnezzar’s 605 b.c. presence in Judah is documented and clarified. When the Babylonian chronicles were finally published in 1956, they gave us first-rate, detailed political and military information about the first 10 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. L.W. King prepared these tablets in 1919; he then died, and they were neglected for four decades."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity says the following.
"After the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem, which resulted in tribute being paid by the Judean king Jehoiakim.[1] In the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign, Jehoiakim refused to pay further tribute, which led to another siege of the city in Nebuchadnezzar II's seventh year (598/597 BCE) that culminated in the death of Jehoiakim and the exile to Babylonia of his successor Jeconiah, his court, and many others; Jeconiah's successor Zedekiah and others were exiled when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year
(587 BCE), and a later deportation occurred in Nebuchadnezzar II's 23rd
year (582 BCE). "
The above confirms to me that the first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar really was in 605 BCE instead of in 597 BCE.
DJW - very interesting research - thanks! As for WTC readjusting their 1914 doctrine, I suspect that would upset the whole apple cart. Numerology is great fun but WTC actually takes it serious. It might be compared to living your life using a pack of Tarot cards in your back pocket..
Jeffro
Jeremiah 25:11 directly states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years" and you still claim the Bible doesn't refer to '70 years of Babylonish servitude'. Everyone can see how dishonest you are. Don't you understand people are laughing at you?
---
Again you pay no attention for nowhere in the OT does the exact expression of' Babylonian servitude or domination' occur for it is only interpreted by the many texts that you cite. Just as in the case you ignore the reality of the Jewish Exile which I believe as do all other scholars is plainly understood or interpreted then one can apply the same rule to the notion of servitude.
The texts that you cite to prove servitude also prove Exile and that is why I have long argued that the seventy years was a period of Jewish Exile at and for Babylon- Servitude to Babylon -Desolation of Jerusalem and Judah from the Fall of Jerusalem in the reigns of Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzer in 607 BCE until the Return under Cyrus in 537 BCE.
Got it?
scholar JW
DJW:
It looks like the first siege on Jerusalem might have been in 597 BCE instead of 605 BCE,
The above confirms to me that the first siegeof Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar really was in 605 BCE instead of in 597 BCE.
It’s good that you’re researching but it sounds like your opinion is very easily swayed. In general, I would not be so hasty to prefer what is stated in Christian commentaries about the period (because they tend to cling to traditions, such as the outdated and incorrect belief that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 rather than 587 BCE), though they shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.
Consistent with what is stated in Daniel, 2 Kings and Jeremiah, BM 21946 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar led a campaign through the Hatti region (including Judea) in his accession year and comparison with the Bible suggests that whilst Nebuchadnezzar may have intended to besiege Jerusalem then, Jehoiakim averted the siege by paying tribute. However, the Babylonian chronicle indicates that this was in January-February of 604 rather than on his return from Egypt in the summer of 605 (when he was going home to claim the throne). Jehoiakim’s capitulation begins the 3 full years of him paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, but he refused to pay after Egypt defeated Babylon in a battle in 601. Various marauders were subsequently sent against Jerusalem while Nebuchadnezzar regrouped his army, and then besieged Jerusalem in 597 BCE.
Regarding 586 BCE rather than 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem, I have seen scholarly sources for both years and I have seen scholarly sources which say "587/586" BCE (in the case of the latter I sometimes get the impression that the sources are saying the siege/destruction began in 587 BCE and was completed in 586 BCE). As a result, I don't know which precise year the destruction was completed in. Furthermore, it is not important to me know whether it was in 587 BCE instead of 586 BCE, or vice versa. I am not quibbling about a difference of only one year about a historical event which took place more than 2,500 years ago.
My opinion in very many matters unfortunately is probably very easily swayed. For example when I read a science article making a claim, such as in regards to cosmology, physics, and the scientific assessment of fossils pertaining to evolution (including the dating of fossils), I tend to readily believe/accept what the article says. Such is typically the case (unless the science article contradicts some other scientific source I read, or contradicts something which I already strongly consider to true and/or unless something seems suspicious to me in the article) until I read a different science article which contradicts something the other article said. [After all, I am no scientist and no expert in science (nor in virtually all other subjects and fields of study). I thus consider the scientists to be far more qualified in their fields than I am in those same fields.] When I discover competing views of scientists on a particular matter/topic, I then reevaulate my former conclusion on that particular matter/topic. Often times as a result of such I become uncertain as to what to believe on the details of the topic.
