scholar pretendus said to AuldSoul:
: I answered your five questions on my own behalf
Actually you merely made numbered replies. Those replies contained no answers, but merely your usual subterfuges and lies.
: but evidently you are still not satisfied which of course comes as no surprise.
Lies should satisfy no one who has integrity to facts.
: There are scholars who do not ;support the Jonsson nonsense that Jeremiah 25:12 applies only to the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE,
Who? You have yet to support this claim that you've lately been making. If you think that your stupid argument about a mysterious 1997 paper supports this, see below.
: but I have long argued against this perverted interpretation
For no reason other than the Watchtower organization logically collapses if it's true.
: maintaining the opinion
Good choice of words!
: that the prophecy of judgement againt Babylon would only be fulfilled after the seventy years ended which was not 539 but 537 BCE and this judgement was not the demise of Babylon but its desolation.
You have yet to set forth an iota of proof that 537 is the correct date. You've merely set forth you personal opinion, and that of the Society, about it.
Your statement that "this judgement was not the demise of Babylon but its desolation" is ridiculous on its face, and a perfect example of special pleading. The demise of Babylon -- which you correctly distinguish from its later desolation -- occurred when the Babylonian empire ended in 539 B.C. Jer. 25:12 explicitly mentions the king of Babylon's "punishment" or "calling to account", and there can hardly be a better example of such punishment than the demise of the empire headed by the kings of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. To claim that such demise was not the punishment mentioned by Jeremiah, but that a desolation occurring at least 800 years later, after the 4th century A.D., is pure special pleading.
: An article dealing on the subject of the seventy years examining all of the principal texts was published in 1997
Like Mommy, you've failed to provide source references. Like Mommy, you're afraid that critics will examine your sources.
: and is the most recent and exhaustive study on the subject unbeknown to the laziness and incompetence of Jonsson and his 'phantom' editors.
If you ever provide a source reference, I have no doubt that you're going to eat your words.
I also have no doubt that your words also show "the laziness and incompetence" of "celebrated WT scholars", since they will not have referenced your source anywhere.
: On page 92 the scholar stated "In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years"
This is perfectly consistent with a punishment in 539, where the death of Belshazzar and the dethroning of Nabonidus, along with the overthrow of Babylon itself, mark the end of the 70 years of Babylonian domination over the Middle East. So your reference is meaningless as to proving your claims.
: followed by the observation on page 96 " 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years".
Ditto. The statement allows that such punishment and desolation can take place anytime after Babylon's demise as ruler of the Middle East.
: Nowhere in this study is an application of 539 BCE in reference to Jeremiah 25:12
And I'm sure that there is no mention of 537, either. Otherwise you'd be crowing loudly about trouncing "apostate higher criticism". This again illustrates your dishonesty and double standards.
: so the interpretation of matters as presented by the celebrated ones and yours truly has at last been vindicated.
LOL! Not at all. And if you actually manage to set out a source reference for this article, it will be carefully examined by the various amateur scholars on this board, and again I have no doubt that it will contain information that blows away your claims. My statement is based on long experience with your dishonest "scholarship" and quoting practices.
: This ground-breaking article was cited in a recent bibliography on Jeremiah in a recenly published reference work on the Old Testament, 2005.
This being in the public arena, you should have no qualms about posting full source references. But I won't hold my breath.
AlanF