Ethos

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 130 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Ethos

• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Final nail in the coffin to Jeffro and his 609 interpretation:

  As if it hadn't been thoroughly transparent that the usage of the verb `abad is repeatedly used in conjunctional relation to the actual deportation of the Jews to a foreign land, I have one solidifying argument that I think will make this point quite clearly. Jeffro admits on page 18, post #7 that the word used for exile in the OT is "galah". Again we will look at how Jeremiah used the word and in what context.

  Lamentations 1:3 "Judah has been led away into captivity (galah), oppressed with cruel (rob) slavery ( abodah). She lives among foreign nations and has no place of rest. Her enemies have chased her down, and she has nowhere to turn. (New Living Translation)

  The word abodah's primitive root word in Hebrew is: abad; which as I stated can mean: "to labor; to serve." Now the adjective "rob" simply means very abundant, copious. So now that we know the literal meanings, let's look at how it is translated the world over. In red I will highlight how the word translated "serve" is phrased, interpreted, and understood in the following passages; underlined (where it is evident) I will highlight the conjunctional causation of the servitude.

  New Living Translation(©2007)
  Judah has been led away into captivity, oppressed with cruel slavery.

  English Standard Version(©2001)
  Judah has gone into exile because ofaffliction and hard servitude;

  New American Standard Bible(©1995)
  Judah has gone into exile under affliction And under harsh servitude;

  King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

  GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
  "Judah has been exiled after [much] suffering and harsh treatment.

  King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
  Judah has gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

  American King James Version
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

  American Standard Version
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

  Douay-Rheims Bible
  Ghimel. Juda hath removed her dwelling place because of her affliction, and the greatness of her bondage:

  Darby Bible Translation
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

  English Revised Version
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

  Webster's Bible Translation
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

  World English Bible
  Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

  Young's Literal Translation
  Removed hath Judah because of affliction, And because of the abundance of her service;

  Now on a strictly causational basis: we adduce that the cause of Judah's exile is 1): affliction 2): great servitude. Now the servitude to Babylon as a world power is not a cause for the Jews to go in exile, anymore than the world's subjugation to the United States as a world power would be a cause for a foreign to go into exile. This makes it servitude definitely NOT a matter of Babylonian servitude (as a world power). So right there the 609 doctrine is dismantled.

  Now on a strictly hermenuetical basis: the word Jeffro tried to point out simply means "serve" is, in this passage, implied as harsh labor and slavery, associated with unusual cruelty and punishment; used in conjunction with the diaspora of the Jews (i.e. the exile); and is written by Jeremiah. Therefore, it is conclusively proven that the servitude DID in fact mean slavery/work in a foreign land as the scriptures repeatedly said. There is no better 'interpreter' than Jeremiah himself, who in his writings has made it clear that the 70 year servitude was not a servitude of subjection as a world power, but THROUGH LABOR. Now Jeffro will try to say these scriptures don't specifically mention the 70 years, but they are all written by Jeremiah, all relate to the servitude to Babylon, and since the servitude of Babylon is said to be for 70 years, then they are all interconnected. Judah does not go into exile because Babylon is the world power. That interpretation doesn't even make any sense, as we examine the usage of the word serve over and over again. I really hope there won't be any more denial at this point but I won't be surprised.

  EDIT: Again, this is a red herring, since Gedaliah was talking about Jews taken to Babylon in 587BCE. The reason they might be afraid is they were being taken to Babylon. It is entirely reasonable that they might think servitude there would be worse than servitude in Judea.

  Thank you for proving my point, that the servitude or subjection to Babylon as a world power was not just something that signified Babylon being the dominant power for 70 years. 'All the nations' were subject to Babylon as a world power for 70 years, yet it is somehow worse to be subservient to Babylon depending on what country you reside in. Hmmm, why is that? Is that because the servitude involved MORE than just a general subjection? You unwittingly admit, that the servitude in Babylon, would be more severe than the servitude in Judea. This is like saying: the servitude to America as a world power is WORSE in Australia, than it is in China. That makes zero sense. But if the servitude implied SLAVERY, LABOR, HARSH TREATMENT, EXILE as Jeremiah so eloquently noted, then of course it would be worse for them in Babylon. You have only solidified my argument with your statement. Thank you.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  No ad hominem attacks from me. Showing someone to be a regurgitator of other peoples arguments who pass them off as their own is not ad hominem. Outlaw wasnt even involved in the discussion, that was nothing more than humorous dialogue. Please show me where I exhibited ad hominem attacks.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  I am not opposed to discussing Daniel 1:1/secular evidence. I just dont see the point as no matter what I say, what references I use, and whatever exegesis I use it will always be said to not be proved. They will say I do not answer questions. They will say in Jeffro's words: You're wrong, the historians are confused, and every source you list is wrong.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  More cut and pastes and red herrings. Daniel 1:1 and VAT4956 will take this discussion into another direction. Jeffro and others keep pretending I havent answered any questions when I already showed several pages back I addressed every on topic question and even a few off topic questions that keep taking this discussion in another direction.

  Why all the distractions? Is it because my exegesis of Jeremiah's usage of the word abad proved the silly 609 interpretation wrong? I think so.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Nabonidus is not Neb's actual son, neither is Belshazzar. This is the same thing Jeremiah said: "they will have to serve him and his son and his grandson." The usage of son in reference to a descendant of the throne is well documented in this time period. They continued to be servants to everyone who inherited the Babylonian throne UNTIL Cyrus began reigning and fulfilled the word of Jeremiah by letting the Jews return. In any case, the scripture makes it clear that they were servants until AT LEAST 538 BCE (Cyrus first year) and therefore the servitude couldnt have ended in 539. Your interpretations have been shown to be in error time and time again and you refuse to acknowledge it.

  AnnoMaly's questions have been answered many times over yet they both continue to act as if I've established nothing, not even remotely from all the quotes and translations to support my position. Absurd. I am content with waiting until I can post again since this is the best they can come up with: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Scholars, historians, commentaries, bible translations, secular Jewish websites, encyclopedias, bible dictionaries, and a plain exegesis of abad DOES not count.

  EDIT: Jeffro: the Jews were no longer servants when Nabonidus died

  Bible: they came to be servants to him and his sons (throne descendants as Jeffro admitted) UNTIL Cyrus began to reign (which he admits is 538 BCE

  HILARIOUS.

  I guess all the scholars just came out of nowhere and decided that there was a 70 year exile that correlated to the servitude and paying off of sabbaths. Maybe the writers were on drugs and they said look herr, lets just make something up for no reason and have something not proven repeated in encyclopedias and bible comentaries the world over.

  Excuse me while I go laugh.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Answer the questions. Also please answer this in reference to Jeremiah 40:9: Why would the Jews be afraid of "serving" the king of Babylon? Since this refers to the dominion of Babylon and nothing but. Notice I never said the word means exile, but that it means to labor. Therefore, even AFTER Nabonidus was killed they continued to labor until Cyrus excercised his decree in his first regnal year, as the scripture says. It is adduced from the context and the usage that a): they would realize this 70 year servitude or labor in a foreign land and b): they came to be "servants" only after being exiled to Babylon.

  "Serving in a foreign land" is the same as "banishment" which correlates to the exile. Poor, poor arguments.

  Yes, you can try to discredit the historians, but you can not discredit the credentials of the MODERN scholars, translations, and commentaries/dictionaries I ALSO quoted. I think the true meaning of servitude has been explained thoroughly and clearly to anyone without prejudice. All other objections raised (of actual merit) will be answered when I'm able to post,sce I am 1 away from my limit.

  EDIT: Jeffro will continue to say I have provided no evidence, but would anyone reasonable the most respected scholars and their quoted statements can not be used as evidencem That the views of the early church fathers is not evidence? That a delineated outline of the usage of the word serve is not evidence? If you will not accept any of the aforementioned references and sources as even MINUTE supporting evidence for what I've stated, then its clear to all thinking persons you're being obstinate and absurdly unreasonable.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Okay, I will try to make this as simple and as easy to understand as possible.

  It has been said by many that the servitude has nothing to do with the "exile". Many who adhere to the 609 chronology maintain this viewpoint, that there exile, the paying off of sabbaths, and the servitude are all separate, unrelated events. I have shown you various Bible commentaries and scholars whose credentials and exegetical expertise far exceed that of my own and that of Jeffro's and likely everyone on this forum, but this has still not been sufficient proof for some. So, I will again examine the "servitude" but in an afresh manner, one of strict relation to exegetical methods that can be deciphered from the text and the text alone.

  Jeremiah 25:11 "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve (`abad) the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

  In Strong's exhaustive concordance, entry H5647 it delineates an outline of the Biblical usage of the word used in Jeremiah 25:11 as the following:

  1) to work, serve

  a) (Qal)

  1) to labour, work, do work

  2) to work for another, serve another by labour

  3) to serve as subjects

  4) to serve (God)

  5) to serve (with Levitical service)

  b) (Niphal)

  1) to be worked, be tilled (of land)

  2) to make oneself a servant

  c) (Pual) to be worked

  d) (Hiphil)

  1) to compel to labour or work, cause to labour, cause to serve

  2) to cause to serve as subjects

  e) (Hophal) to be led or enticed to serve

  So how are we to arrive at an accurate understanding of what is implied by servitude here? Simple: we look at other usages of this verb in parallel passages that relate to the 70-year servitude when it a): is specifically referenced in Jeremiah b): in relation to the nation of Judah c): in relation to the nation of Babylon d): how it is understood by the Jews of this epoch

  Here are a few:

  Jeremiah 5:19 “ And you must say to them, ‘Just as YOU have left me and have gone serving ( `abad) a foreign god in YOUR land, so YOU will serve ( `abad) strangers in a land that is not YOURS.’”

  Jeremiah 16:13 “ And I will hurl YOU out from off this land into the land that YOU yourselves have not known, neither YOUR fathers, and there YOU will have to serve ( `abad ) other gods day and night, because I shall not give YOU any favor. ”’

  Jeremiah 17:4 “ And you let loose, even of your own accord, from your hereditary possession that I had given you. I also will make you serve ( `abad) your enemies in the land that you have not known; for as a fire YOU people have been ignited in my anger. To time indefinite it will keep kindled.”

  Jeremiah 40:9 “ And Ged·a·li′ah the son of A·hi′kam the son of Sha′phan proceeded to swear to them and to their men, saying: “Do not be afraid of serving ( `abad) the Chal·de′ans. Continue dwelling in the land and serve ( `abad) the king of Babylon, and it will go well with YOU

  I believe this has made it abundantly clear that such a servitude will be realized “in a land that is not yours” (cf. 5:19); after the Judeans are “hurled out from off this lead then they will will “serve” other gods day and night (cf. 6:13); Jehovah says “I also will make you serve your enemies in a land that you have not known” (cf. 17:14) And lastly, the connected to the “dwelling in the land of the Chaldeans where they will “serve the king of Babylon” (cf. 40:9)

  A form of the very Hebrew word used in all these passages is used in, you guessed it, 2 Chronicles 36:20 which says “Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants ( `ebed a form of ` abad) to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign.”

  We can use the passages in 2 Chronicles 36 since they specifically attribute these events to the prophecies contained therein Jeremiah. So after reading and looking at all the usages of the Hebrew word translated “serve” would you maintain that this was simply a servitude referencing the world power/dominion of Babylon over all the nations?

  Lastly, notice when the Judeans “came to be servants” to the king Babylon. Not in 609 BCE, the supposed starting point of the entire servitude, but only after they had been carried into Babylon as exiles. From the usage of the word translated “serve” and the context as well as our ability to reason, infer, and adduce I agree that the primary definition of “slave; to force by labor”, is what is applied here.

  So here’s some quick questions for Jeffro and AnnoMaly:

  1): With regard to what locality is the Hebrew word “abad” used throughout the book of Jeremiah in specific relation to Babylon and the 70 year servitude?

  2): When does Ezra, who references the passages in Jeremiah, say that the Judeans “came to be servants in Babylon”?

  3: Since the passage says they were servants UNTIL Cyrus began to reign, can you please explain to us when did the first regnal year of Cyrus commence, and if this time interval does or does not fit within the supposed ending point of 539 B.C.E.?

  4: Do you disregard the precedent and therefore the basis for the 70 year servitude being linked to exile by the following scholars, Bible translators, historians, and the like?

  Who threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible

  Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12." -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version

  God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.

  He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years. And according as God had, by the prophet Jeremiah, foretold that the people should be led captive to Babylon, in like manner He signified beforehand that they should also return into their own land after 70 years.These 70 years then being accomplished.." "—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

  Do you know what the word 'banishment' means? Banish: to expel from or relegate to a country or place by authoritative decree; condemn to exile: so yes, the Jews were in exile for 70 years according to this historian

  "The most famous exile that befell the Hebrews , then—to wit, when they were led captive by Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon— lasted 70 years , as Jeremias had prophesied. Berosus the Babylonian, moreover, makes mention of Nabuchodonosor. And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecæ of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. For the date is a matter of agreement among them all. And Cyrus then, in the first year of his reign, which was the first year of the 55th Olympiad, effected the first partial restoration of the people by the hand of Zorobabel, with whom also was Jesus the son of Josedec, since the period of 70 years was now fulfilled, as is narrated in Esdra the Hebrew historian. --- Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius

  “The people had not allowed the land to enjoy the rest God commanded (Lev. 25:1-7; 26:32-35), so now it would have a seventy-year “Sabbath” (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10-14; Dan. 9:1-3) – The Wiersbe Commentary

  “God had commanded Israel to observe a Sabbath for the land, allowing it to rest every seven years (Exodus 23:10-11). The people of Judah had denied the land its Sabbaths over a period of some 490 years, meaning that they “owed” the land 70 Sabbaths, and to fulfill seventy years God took the years back during the Babylonian exil e .”—Guzik Bible

  “2 Chronicles 36:21 explains the role of the Exile in God’s purpose by interpreting the prophecy of Jeremiah in light of the warning in Lev. 26:34f. Daniel 9 also refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy (v.2); based on the warnings in Lev. 26:18, 34f – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Alas, I will now prove what I have said conclusively.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Cant help but wonder why it requires two to three posts of cut and paste every page if this is supposed to be a discussion. Stop the red herrings and simply discuss information like normal people. Geez. Havent responded lately because I expected to receive more posts once I surpassed 100. Guess not.
• 
  529

  Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

  by Ethos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

  i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

  therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Ethos

  Its already been shown to be in error. But I will again point out the fallacies.