Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

scholar

Jeffro
Jeremiah's clear words in chapter 25 indicate quite clearly that what marked the end of the seventy years would be the end of the exile, servitude and more specifically the end of the desolation which were all achieved by the Return of the exiles to Judah according to Ezra.
Yes you have a chronology but it conflicts with the biblical seventy years and is just another interpretation and methodology. Have I not said repeatedly to you, instructed you that Chronology = Methodology + Interpretation? If you love what you have made then Rejoice and be happy, You have your chronology and we have ours.
The Society relates the seventy years of Tyre to Jeremiah's seventy years because both these periods were of servitude to Babylon and that is one of the three principal caracteristics of the seventy years = Servitude+Exile+Desolation.
The twenty year gap exists when one compares chronologies that salvishly follow secular records with chronologies that follow God's Word and its seventy years as a period of servitude, exile, desolation of the land. The Bible particularly Ezra in Chroniclers states that the seventy years ended with the Return, he does not mention the Fall of Babylon in that context as a marker for that event of the end of the seventy years.
Why should not I give a measure of credence to Thiele? He is regarded by many scholars as the most able in matters of chronology of the 20th century. His opinion on such matters must be given some weight and attention as his observations on the value of Ptolemy's Canon.
scholar JW
Jeffro

Jeremiah's clear words in chapter 25 indicate quite clearly that what marked the end of the seventy years would be the end of the exile, servitude and more specifically the end of the desolation which were all achieved by the Return of the exiles to Judah according to Ezra.

That is a bold faced lie. The consistent use of the word "them" is applied to the scope of the seventy years during which Babylon would have domination over the entire area encompassing all of the nations in the region, and it is clearly indicated that Babylon's king would be called to account when the period had ended.
Yes you have a chronology but it conflicts with the biblical seventy years and is just another interpretation and methodology. Have I not said repeatedly to you, instructed you that Chronology = Methodology + Interpretation? If you love what you have made then Rejoice and be happy, You have your chronology and we have ours.
You keep saying I have a conflict, but the only conflict you can point to is with your interpretation, not the actual scriptures. Repetition seems to be your forté, but you haven't 'instructed' me anything. In this context, 'rejoice' is a bit flouncy a word, though yes, I can be happy to an extent that I know I have the correct interpretation. But that is tempered by the sorrow I feel for those who have allowed themselves to be fooled by the Society's lies. You still haven't found that dictionary, have you? Within the field of 'chronology', 'interpretation' is part of the 'methodology', so your little formula is erroneous.
The Society relates the seventy years of Tyre to Jeremiah's seventy years because both these periods were of servitude to Babylon and that is one of the three principal caracteristics of the seventy years = Servitude+Exile+Desolation.
Another one of your magic little formulae... The bible simply doesn't say that the return of the exiles marks the end of the seventy years. The events that explicitly provide a timeframe for the end of the seventy years are that when the seventy years were fulfilled, Babylon's king would be called to account, and after that, the exiles would return. Your interpretation ignores the facts and minimizes the significance of Babylon's overthrow in 539.
The twenty year gap exists when one compares chronologies that salvishly follow secular records with chronologies that follow God's Word and its seventy years as a period of servitude, exile, desolation of the land. The Bible particularly Ezra in Chroniclers states that the seventy years ended with the Return, he does not mention the Fall of Babylon in that context as a marker for that event of the end of the seventy years.
Ezra didn't need to mention the fall of Babylon for it to have been the end point of the seventy years. His point was that the exiles were going to return. It doesn't change the fact that seventy years was a period of nations serving Babylon. The 20-year gap simply serves to indicate that the Society's dogmatic interpretations in support of 1914 are wrong.
Why should not I give a measure of credence to Thiele? He is regarded by many scholars as the most able in matters of chronology of the 20th century. His opinion on such matters must be given some weight and attention as his observations on the value of Ptolemy's Canon.
Another example of the Society and its servile minions selectively accepting some of what professionals say when it suits them, while rejecting most of their work because it indicates the Society's interpretations to be flawed.
scholar

Jeffro
Scholar does not lie. The fact of the matter is that in the course of Judah's 'seventy years' which included servitude to Babylon other foreign nations would also have to serve that same King of Babylon but their periods of servitude are not specified. Judah had to serve Babylon for a pre-determined 'seventy years' marked by her exile in Babylon and the land remaining ttally desolate for that same period.
Well chronology is about interpretation of scripture and history, you have your opinion of the facts and the 'celebrated' have theirs. It is all very simple. I did not say that interpretation is part of methodology but the two procedures so combined form a chronology.
Yes it does. Ezra particularly as with Josephus most definitely show or prove that the Return ended the seventy years becuse that is the only event in context discussed in 2 Chronicles 36 and by numerous times by Josephus. The seventy years were to be fulfilled and that could only be done by the Return and not by an event namely the Fall of Babylon which was its precursor. This view in facts highlights the importance of the Return becuse it created the ciruimstances for the Decree of Cyrus by the assumption of the new World Power. These two historic events caused the Fall:
1. Fall of Babylon in 539
2. Decree of Cyrus
3. Return of Exiles to Jerusalem in 537
These three events in their totality were the fulfillment of the seventy years in 537.
After 537 then the oracle against Babylon according to Jeremiah whereupon the king of Babylon, its city and land would also like Judah become a devasted place not for seventy years but to times indefinite. It was now Babylon's turn for judgement as a 'calling to account'.
If Ezra did not need to mention the Fall of Babylon for it to mean the end of the seventy years then how is it the case that Ezra mentioned only the Decree of Cyrus followed by their Return at that point of history and following on immediately after his mention of the seventy years? No other opinion can be admitted other than the fact that Ezra described a specific event to close the seventy yeras and that was the Return.
Yes and Thiel admitted that Ptolemy's Canon was primarliy designed for historical purposes only and not for chronology.
Enjoy my classic formulas
scholar JW
Jeffro

Scholar does not lie. The fact of the matter is that in the course of Judah's 'seventy years' which included servitude to Babylon other foreign nations would also have to serve that same King of Babylon but their periods of servitude are not specified. Judah had to serve Babylon for a pre-determined 'seventy years' marked by her exile in Babylon and the land remaining ttally desolate for that same period.

'Scholar' does indeed lie. The only question is whether 'scholar' actually believes his own lies. Jeremiah 25:11 say plainly and explicitly that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years". Jeremiah 25:12 says that Babylon's king could be "called to account" only when the seventy years had been fulfilled. Daniel 5:26-31 describes the king of Babylon being called to account.
Well chronology is about interpretation of scripture and history, you have your opinion of the facts and the 'celebrated' have theirs. It is all very simple. I did not say that interpretation is part of methodology but the two procedures so combined form a chronology.
No, you didn't say that interpretation is part of methodology, but you should have. 'Methodology' is not a procedure; a 'methodology' includes procedures.
Yes it does. Ezra particularly as with Josephus most definitely show or prove that the Return ended the seventy years becuse that is the only event in context discussed in 2 Chronicles 36 and by numerous times by Josephus. The seventy years were to be fulfilled and that could only be done by the Return and not by an event namely the Fall of Babylon which was its precursor. This view in facts highlights the importance of the Return becuse it created the ciruimstances for the Decree of Cyrus by the assumption of the new World Power. These two historic events caused the Fall:

1. Fall of Babylon in 539
2. Decree of Cyrus
3. Return of Exiles to Jerusalem in 537

These three events in their totality were the fulfillment of the seventy years in 537.
You here suggest here, in classic circular reasoning, that the fall of Babylon is only a factor of the fall of Babylon. The simple fact is that the fall in 539 was the beginning of Babylon's judgement, which is clearly pointed out in Daniel chapter 5, and which is explicitly defined by Jeremiah as an event that would only begin after the seventy years had ended. You may also like to look up the word "two" in your dictionary.
After 537 then the oracle against Babylon according to Jeremiah whereupon the king of Babylon, its city and land would also like Judah become a devasted place not for seventy years but to times indefinite. It was now Babylon's turn for judgement as a 'calling to account'.
There was no king of Babylon who was called to account in 537 or any time thereafter.
If Ezra did not need to mention the Fall of Babylon for it to mean the end of the seventy years then how is it the case that Ezra mentioned only the Decree of Cyrus followed by their Return at that point of history and following on immediately after his mention of the seventy years? No other opinion can be admitted other than the fact that Ezra described a specific event to close the seventy yeras and that was the Return.
Ezra was concerned with the return of the exiles, and that was what he was describing in connection with the seventy years, but he does not say that the end of the seventy years was marked by the Jews' return, and to do so would have directly contradicted Jeremiah.
Yes and Thiel admitted that Ptolemy's Canon was primarliy designed for historical purposes only and not for chronology.
In that case, we'll use the dates for the Neo-Babylonian period agreed on by the superior Thiele instead... which are the same as those assigned by Ptolemy. Your point is meaningless.
Enjoy my classic formulas
You have not presented any "classic formulas". The pseudo-formulae that you have presented indicate poor logic-processing skills and a misunderstanding of several English words.
scholar

Jeffro
Scholar does not lie for he needs not to lie. Jeremiah 25:11 states that the nations would serve Babylon for seventy years but you only quoted half of the text. Why did you also not quote the first half wherein Jeremiah also sated that the land would be desolate for seventy years? Your deception in this matter is clear evidence that you only see what you want to and that you twist the Scripture to conform to your adherence to the Jonsson hypothesis. The next verse 12 also sates that the king of Babylon would be called to account when the seventy years are fulfilled but again you omit the fact that the other half of the text explains for the reader the manner of this 'callong to account' which was the desolation of Babylon. Why do you do things by halves? Why is your chronology half-baked?
I did not say that the Fall of Babylon was a factor in the Fall of Babylon but that the Fall of Babylon was a factor of the Return of the Exiles. The Fall of that great city was predicted and explained by Daniel in his fifth chapter. Jeremiah also foretold the end of Babylon but did not end the seventy years with this event but with the Return when the seventy years were fulfilled. Jeremiah 29:10.
The king of Babylon would represent those rulers in Babylon or rulership in Babylon whatever their ethnicity so it was that afer 537, Babylons rulership, the city and the land woul all be consumed by the sands of history for times indefinite.
Yes Ezra did connect the end of those seventy years with the Return which you finally agree but now you insist on exact phrasing to support your outlandish theory well I can play that game . You show me in the Bible where it exactly says that THE SEVENTY YEARS ENDED WITH THE FALL OF BABYLON.
Neo-Babylonian chronology is derived from Ptolemy's canon but Thiele said that it was useless for chronology. So let us follow Thiele's caution and use now the Bible rather than Ptolemy. Can you do it?
scholar JW
ps: Who keeps Jethro on his toes despite faulty English, poor logic and reasoning, and the IQ of a retard.
Jeffro

Scholar does not lie for he needs not to lie. Jeremiah 25:11 states that the nations would serve Babylon for seventy years but you only quoted half of the text. Why did you also not quote the first half wherein Jeremiah also sated that the land would be desolate for seventy years? Your deception in this matter is clear evidence that you only see what you want to and that you twist the Scripture to conform to your adherence to the Jonsson hypothesis. The next verse 12 also sates that the king of Babylon would be called to account when the seventy years are fulfilled but again you omit the fact that the other half of the text explains for the reader the manner of this 'callong to account' which was the desolation of Babylon. Why do you do things by halves? Why is your chronology half-baked?

If 'scholar' does not realise he is lying, than the situation is sadder than I thought. I did not need to quote the rest as it was not relevant to the point being discussed, which was regarding when Babylon and its king began to be judged. However, I'm glad you raised the issue. Your accusation of my being deceptive simply highlights your own twisting of the bible's use of the word 'desolated' (which does not in actuality require depopulation), and the fact that you errantly apply it to only Judea, though the passage clearly applies it to "all these nations round about". Verse 12 indicates the calling to account of the king and the land, however the verses indicate that both occur after the seventy years is fulfilled.
I did not say that the Fall of Babylon was a factor in the Fall of Babylon but that the Fall of Babylon was a factor of the Return of the Exiles. The Fall of that great city was predicted and explained by Daniel in his fifth chapter. Jeremiah also foretold the end of Babylon but did not end the seventy years with this event but with the Return when the seventy years were fulfilled. Jeremiah 29:10.
You specifically said that two events caused the "Fall", after which you listed three factors, one of which was the Fall of Babylon. Apart from the mistranslation of the NWT of Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah only states that the Jews would be allowed to return "in accord with" the end of the seventy years, not that the event marks the end of the period. To do so would have been to contradict himself at Jeremiah 25:11-12.
The king of Babylon would represent those rulers in Babylon or rulership in Babylon whatever their ethnicity so it was that afer 537, Babylons rulership, the city and the land woul all be consumed by the sands of history for times indefinite.
The Medo-Persian kingship was not judged in 537. Conversely, the wording of Daniel 5:26-29 strongly indicates that it is specifically discussing the calling to account of Babylon's king.
Yes Ezra did connect the end of those seventy years with the Return which you finally agree but now you insist on exact phrasing to support your outlandish theory well I can play that game . You show me in the Bible where it exactly says that THE SEVENTY YEARS ENDED WITH THE FALL OF BABYLON.
Jeremiah 25:12 specifically says that when the 70 years had been fulfilled, only then would the king of Babylon be called to account. Everything else has to fit in with that. That sets a physical limit on when the 70 years could end, and Daniel chapter 5 describes that physical event, placing it in what is universally agreed as being 539BC. Therefore all of the other scriptures that mention the 70 years can only be validly interpreted in a manner that is consistent therewith.
Neo-Babylonian chronology is derived from Ptolemy's canon but Thiele said that it was useless for chronology. So let us follow Thiele's caution and use now the Bible rather than Ptolemy. Can you do it?
We both know that I have already done so.
ps: Who keeps Jethro on his toes despite faulty English, poor logic and reasoning, and the IQ of a retard.
You hardly keep me 'on my toes'. Your posts are repetitive and just a little mind numbing. It is only a little logic that is required, and it isn't hard to see the flaws in your posts. It is interesting and amusing that you acknowledge your "faulty English, poor logic and reasoning, and the IQ of a retard." And why have you started typing with a lisp?
scholar

Jeffro
The word 'desolation' requires the meaning of total depopulation because Jeremiah enlarged the meaning of the Hebrew word by means of the phrase 'without an inhabitant'. Jeremiah 25 is primarily addressed to Judah alon as proven by the opening verses and context, the mention of the nations is simply a side issue as a consequence of the the events that befell Judah. There is nothing in verse 12 that requires an application immediately after 539 and this is the opinion of most commentators including the 'celebrated'.
There is no mistranslation of Jeremiah 29:10 according to the brilliant NWT but rather an alternative rendering and a more superior one to boot. Jeremiah 29:10 and Jeremiah 25:10-12 are in perfect harmony in proving that the seventy years was a period of exile-servitude-desolation from the FALL in 607 until the RETURN in 537.
Jeremiah 25:12 did not have a fulfillment with a Babylonian king in 539 as most commentators show that this verse was fulfilled after the seventy years was fulfilled and was meant as a desolation of Babylon. Your theory on this matter is not supported biblically or recognized by other commentators and scholars. The new king of Babylon namely Medo-Persia also in time suffered defeat and Babylon remains no more.
We both know that you reject the Bible as an authority and rely on secular records such as Ptolemy's Canon. I find your posts boring and unimaginative, relying on the warped exegesis of others such as the Jonsson hypothesis but please do not go way because the longer we do battle then others can see through your foolishness.
scholar JW
ackack

Scholar, you lost me there. I thought the scope Jer 25:12 was not strictly limited to the city of Babylon.
Jeremiah 25:12 did not have a fulfillment with a Babylonian king in 539 as most commentators show that this verse was fulfilled after the seventy years was fulfilled and was meant as a desolation of Babylon. Your theory on this matter is not supported biblically or recognized by other commentators and scholars. The new king of Babylon namely Medo-Persia also in time suffered defeat and Babylon remains no more.
So are you saying Babylon was desolated in 537 instead? Or did the desolating of Babylon have an indefinite time frame?
ackack
Jeffro

The word 'desolation' requires the meaning of total depopulation because Jeremiah enlarged the meaning of the Hebrew word by means of the phrase 'without an inhabitant'. Jeremiah 25 is primarily addressed to Judah alon as proven by the opening verses and context, the mention of the nations is simply a side issue as a consequence of the the events that befell Judah. There is nothing in verse 12 that requires an application immediately after 539 and this is the opinion of most commentators including the 'celebrated'.

Neither Jeremiah nor any other bible writer makes any reference to Jerusalem being "without an inhabitant" for 70 years. Of the 9 times that "without an inhabitant" appears in the bible, 6 pertain to Judah and/or Jerusalem, and none make reference to the 70 years. Something cannot be primarily addressed to something alone. Either it is solely addressed to something alone, or it is primarily, but not uniquely, addressed to something. Jeremiah does not simply make insignificant references to other nations in verses 8 to 11; the explicit focus of "them" is "all the families of the north", "all these nations round about", and those nations are listed in verses 17 to 26. If the other nations were only a minor aspect of the application, there would be no reason to exhaustively list them. You are quite correct (a rare feat for you) in saying that verse 12 does not require an application after 539, because the events of Babylon's fall with the calling to account of its king in 539 inherently mark the end of the 70 years, as explicitly defined by Jeremiah.
There is no mistranslation of Jeremiah 29:10 according to the brilliant NWT but rather an alternative rendering and a more superior one to boot. Jeremiah 29:10 and Jeremiah 25:10-12 are in perfect harmony in proving that the seventy years was a period of exile-servitude-desolation from the FALL in 607 until the RETURN in 537.
"more superior"? Your relative comparison to a superlative is invalid. Anyway... the (according to you) "brilliant" NWT simply borrows the translation from the King James Version, of which the Society has often expressed the inaccurateness. In light of Jeremiah chapter 25, the Society's translation is shown to be invalid and contradictory, as reflected in most bible translations.
Jeremiah 25:12 did not have a fulfillment with a Babylonian king in 539 as most commentators show that this verse was fulfilled after the seventy years was fulfilled and was meant as a desolation of Babylon. Your theory on this matter is not supported biblically or recognized by other commentators and scholars. The new king of Babylon namely Medo-Persia also in time suffered defeat and Babylon remains no more.
Most commentators say that verse 12 was fulfilled after the 70 years because the bible explicitly says so, and that was indicated by the calling to account of Babylon's king. You continue to ignore the specific wording of Daniel 5:26-29 that specifically indicates the event at which Babylon's king was called to account, which is inextricably linked to the end of the 70 years. It is ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that it was the Medo-Persian king (who was specifically used to bring judgement against Babylon's king in 539) was the recipient of the judgement against the king of Babylon despite the fact that Daniel explicitly defines the judgement of Babylon's king, indicating (at verse 26) that God had numbered Babylon's days (70 years) and finished it in 539. (Ironically, even the NWT has a marginal reference to Jeremiah 25:12 at this verse.)
We both know that you reject the Bible as an authority and rely on secular records such as Ptolemy's Canon. I find your posts boring and unimaginative, relying on the warped exegesis of others such as the Jonsson hypothesis but please do not go way because the longer we do battle then others can see through your foolishness.
What you arrogantly presume to know about me is irrelevant. I have received commendation from a number of readers for my clear argumentation against your flawed posts. I welcome any readers to indicate whether it is the content of my or scholar's post that they find foolish. (I am aware of the concept that it may seem I am wasting my time bothering with 'scholar' at all, and some may see that as 'foolish', however I do so for my amusement, to expose his lies to readers, and to keep up my typing speed.)
Jeffro

ackack
So are you saying Babylon was desolated in 537 instead? Or did the desolating of Babylon have an indefinite time frame?
Yes, 'scholar' does believe that the desolating of Babylon had an indefinite time frame, because the bible says it would be "desolate wastes to time indefinite". However, the flaw in 'scholar's' view is that the judgement of Babylon and its king began in 539.

Desolation of Jerusalem

Share this