Hellrider is absolutely correct, the WT explanation does not work.
who the 70 years applied to and the diffrence it makes on what we beleave
by PMJ 19 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
PMJ....Daniel has an altogether different understanding of the 70 years of Jeremiah than Jeremiah himself. The author of Daniel construes it in terms of the sabbatical years and jubilees in Leviticus, such that the nation's fortunes would not be restored fully until the "sevenfold curse" is completed, multiplying the 70 years of Jeremiah into 490 years or 10 jubilees. This period however is subdivided into an initial period of 7 weeks (corresponding to a jubilee in Leviticus), terminating in the arrival of an anointed one during whose time the Temple and city would be rebuilt (i.e. Jeshua of Ezra and Zechariah). The 49 years of slavery in the jubilee period is followed by a release on the 50th year; this corresponds nicely to the 50 years of Babylonian captivity. Of course, the 70 years of Jeremiah did not begin with the final destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC; this period was already ongoing at the time of the first deportation (i.e. 597 BC) as the letter to the exiles in Jeremiah indicates.
-
scholar
PMJ
The seventy years of Jeremiah applied to Judah and Judah alone as proven by the opening verses of Ch. 25 and the following verses. This judgement upon Judah also involved the foreign nations who as with Judah would come under Babylon's domination but their repective periods of servitude are not specified unlike Judahs' which amounted to a pre-determined 'seventy years'.
A cursory and a more detailed of this chapter incicates that the seventy years would be a duration of exile, servitude and desolation of the land and began with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 until their Return in 537 according to Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Zechariah and Josephus.
The seventy years has been discussed in the scholarly journals and remains a problematic for scholars who cannot agree as to its nature or its chronology. Apostates such as Carl Jonsson in his GTR, 4th edn devotes some 44 pages in order to refute the interpretation by 'celebrated WT scholars' for over a century. Many of the arguments already posted on this topic thus far and that willow my reponse are lifted from Jonsson's critique. I am fully able and keen to show that the Jonsson hypothesis distorts secular history and destroys faith in Scripture as God's Word of Truth by making room for higher criticism. Jonsson's view on the matter is dead wrong and we are dead right.
scholar JW
-
Hellrider
A ha ha, and there he is: Welcome Scholar. Someone said "607" and it didn`t take you long. Now spew your celebrated WT-Scholar crap, and get on with it.
-
jeanniebeanz
Hands Hellrider a barf bag... lol
-
Hellrider
To late...
I lost my dinner...
Happy new year everyone! (it`s past 12 here)
-
PMJ
SO WHEN GODS PEOPLE THE JEWS GOT THINGS WRONG IN THE PAST DOES THIS MEAN THEY WERE NOT GODS PEOPLE.YOU NEED TO STOP LOOKING FOR PERFECTION YOU WILL NOT FIND IT.NOR DO THE GOVERNING BODY CLAME TO BE PERFECT AND INFALIBLE
-
jeanniebeanz
Wow... personality switch. Is this PMJ's wife we are speaking to now??
-
Jeffro
The seventy years of Jeremiah applied to Judah and Judah alone as proven by the opening verses of Ch. 25 and the following verses. This judgement upon Judah also involved the foreign nations who as with Judah would come under Babylon's domination but their repective periods of servitude are not specified unlike Judahs' which amounted to a pre-determined 'seventy years'.
A cursory and a more detailed of this chapter incicates that the seventy years would be a duration of exile, servitude and desolation of the land and began with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 until their Return in 537 according to Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Zechariah and Josephus.It is dishonest in the absolutest sense to assert that the 70 years in Jeremiah chapter 25 applied only to Judah, and to do so is to blatantly contradict what is plainly stated by Jeremiah in chapter 25 in connection with the seventy years. From a strictly linguistic point of view, the 70 years can be validly interpreted as either a literal 70-year period, or a less-specific figurative period. However, in either case, Jeremiah specifically identifies the defining event for the end of that period to be the judgement of Babylon's king, which is clearly indicated by Daniel (chapter 5) to be the fall of Babylon in 539. For the bible record to be consistent, all other references to the 70 years must be interpreted in this context, and to say that the period ended after 539 is to say the bible contradicts itself.
The seventy years has been discussed in the scholarly journals and remains a problematic for scholars who cannot agree as to its nature or its chronology. Apostates such as Carl Jonsson in his GTR, 4th edn devotes some 44 pages in order to refute the interpretation by 'celebrated WT scholars' for over a century. Many of the arguments already posted on this topic thus far and that willow my reponse are lifted from Jonsson's critique. I am fully able and keen to show that the Jonsson hypothesis distorts secular history and destroys faith in Scripture as God's Word of Truth by making room for higher criticism. Jonsson's view on the matter is dead wrong and we are dead right.
Scholar claims that any response to the flawed 607 interpretation is "lifted from Jonsson's critique" (as if that somehow automatically discredits it). He does this because he cannot admit that other honest individuals arrive at some of the same conclusions when examining the biblical record.
I think 'scholar' had some trouble with his punctuation. I am not saying I necessarily agree with everything Jonsson says, but for purely comedic value, I think 'scholar's' last statement was badly punctuated and should have read: "Jonsson's view on the matter is dead? Wrong! And we are dead, right."
-
Sunspot
Wow... personality switch. Is this PMJ's wife we are speaking to now??
Holy Barfbag! Quite a difference, huh?
Another poster had suggested (somewhere) that PMJ may be an MPD victim.....and I shrugged it off! On second thought...he may very well have been right!
Annie