This is a continuation from part 1 at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118445/2082380/post.ashx#2082380 and part 2 at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118507/2083398/post.ashx#2083398
This section refers to the website starting from http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/mere_servitude.html
Did the 70 years begin in Neb's 1st year?
The section is introduced with a false premise incorrectly presuming that it has been proved that the 70 years began with Jerusalem's destruction. For more information on that false premise, return to part 2. It then postulates that "promotoers of 587" ignore that false premise.
The article then falsely concludes that those proponents seek an event around 607 for their explanation, though the bible clearly indicates that the 70 years ended at Babylon's fall in 539, not at the unsubstantiated dating for the Jews return in 537 (Jeremiah 25:11-12; Daniel 5:26-31).
The article then references Daniel 1:1 and again uses the baseless assumption that Jehoiakim's 3rd year mentioned at that verse was of vassalage rather than his substantive reign.
It then postulates a misleading view of the situation where Jehoiakim's actual 3rd year is meant, framing the 70 years from that event, ignoring the disctinction between the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy and the calamity mentioned in Jeremiah chapter 25. In doing so, it claims that proponents of 587 suggest only a round period of about 70 years.
The article then cites Jeremiah 52:28-30 to imply that captives could not be taken earlier than Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year*. It is thus implied - without basis - that captives could not be taken as part of a booty paid by Jehoaikaim to Nebuchadnezzar at some earlier time without being constituted as an 'exile'.
The nature of the 70 year-supremacy is again distorted to suggest that it could not have begun until Jews were exiled, whereas the account in Jeremiah refers to "all these nations" serving Babylon.
*The article does not bother to mention that those three verses are interpolated from Babylonian sources and do not include accession years, whereas Jeremiah refers to the 8th and 19th years for the first two exiles.)
Only 68 years?
It is again falsely stated that the exile is synonymous with Babylon's 70 years. In doing so, Ezekiel 40:1 is also again ignored, as the Jews regarded their exile as having begun prior to the fall of Jerusalem. The invalid end-point for the 70 years - 537 - is again used, still with no justification for the dogmatic selection of that year for the return of the Jews.
Jeremiah does not mention it in his list of exiles
The article then creates a false dilemma regarding the fact that captives were taken prior to the first exile named by Jeremiah. This is despite the fact that 2 Kings 24:1 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem prior to the siege in 598, and that Jehoiakim capitulated and paid tribute at that time, and that captives were usually included in such booty, and that such is attested to by Berossus. The distinction that these were part of a booty presented to Nebuchadnezzar as a tribute rather than forcibly taken into exile is ignored.
Jeremiah's first account of the King's fourth year
The argument presented in the article in this section is grossly ignorant of basic knowledge required for interpreting biblical regnal years. Jeremiah, living in Jerusalem, counted accession years as part of the regnal period. Daniel on the other hand, trained in Babylon, used the Babylonian accesion-year system, where the accession period was not enumerated. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same year, with the events of Daniel 1:1 occurring after Jeremiah's warning. Jeremiah's reckoning of Jehoiakim's 4th year and Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year are wholly compatible with Daniel's reference to Jehoiakim's 3rd year and unstated year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Additionallly, Jeremiah 25:10 is misquoted by suggesting that the land would be completely devastated at the beginning of the 70 years, rather than as stated in the verse that it would become devastated during that period.
Jeremiah's second account of the King's fourth year
Again the events Jeremiah assigned to Jehoiakim's 4th year are dishonestly stated as having occurred after those of Daniel 1:1, continuing to demonstrate the ignorance of the author of the different regnal systems.
Jeremiah's account of the King's fifth year
The article again falsely implies that Jerusalem should already have been 'desolated' by Jehoiakim's 5th year, again confusing the 70 years with the calamity.
The article then quotes Jeremiah 36:9-10, and then misapplies the verse, suggesting that the people came "to celebrate a religious festival", whereas the verse actually states that a fast was proclaimed. The article falsely states that the cities of Judah would supposedly have been destroyed by this point in time.
Verses 11 and 12 are then quoted, and it is alleged that no captives could yet have been taken because all of the princes who were present were present. Of note, none of those named by Daniel as having been taken to Babylon are mentioned as being in Jerusalem a year later (falsely stated as two years later in the article because of the author's wilful ignorance of the accession-year system).
It is then alleged that no captives must yet have been taken because the princes who were there were in fear of the prophecy that was read to them. In reality, this event was after Jehoiakim had begun paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar which had ceased the siege that Nebuchadnezzar had begun on his return to Babylon in 605, so it is not surprising that the princes were concerned that further attacks would ensue resulting in destruction of their home; nor is it suprising that the king felt comfortable in the tributary arrangement that had been made with Nebuchadnezzar that he imagined might have ensured their safety.
The article continues, suggesting that Jehoiakim was taken away when captives were taken, however a comparison of 2 Kings 24:1 and Daniel 1, which refer to the same event, do not indicate that the king was exiled at that time, but only that he began paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar.
The article links to a chart with the caption "Some have claimed that the 607-based chronology does not add up when considering the reigns of the Judean Kings." Notably, the chart states that "Judah becomes a vassal Kingdom to Babylon," therefore by their interpretation, the 70 years of servitude to Babylon should be reckoned from 620 rather than 607 (Jeremiah 25:11).
Josephus's [sic] account
The article then states that Josephus "confirms that there was no exiles [sic] taken in Jehoaikim's 3rd year". It then provides a paraphrased account of Josephus that suits their intentions, though they do provide the actual text in an Appendix.
The article dishonestly states that the events of Daniel 1:1 and the entire 24 th chapter of 2 Kings all happened in one year, however a comparison of 2 Kings 24:1 with Daniel indicates that those events happened an absolute minimum of 3 years prior to the siege of Jerusalem in 598, and is fully compatible with the events of Daniel 1:1 occurring in 605. Notably, Josephus indicates that Judea was not conquered at that time, as Jehoiakim averted such an eventuality at that time by paying a tribute.
Secular history agrees that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho in 605BC, which is attested by Josephus to be "the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim".
(Though Josephus does indeed place the events of 2 Kings 24:1 these events in “the eighth of Jehoiakim’s government over the Hebrews”, he also states the reason for which Jehoiakim didn’t pay tribute “on the third year”, specifically: “upon hearing that the king of the Babylonians made an expedition against the Egyptians.” According to Babylonian chronicles, that expedition occurred in 601BC. A comparison of 2 Kings 24:1 and Josephus indicates that this was after 3 years of paying tribute, and is completely harmonious with the events of Daniel 1:1 occurring in late 605BC or early 604BC. Josephus’ interpretation in this instance implies that the “expedition against the Egyptians” refers to the battle with Necho in 605BC. However, it is illogical to suggest that the expedition that specifically caused Jehoiakim to stop paying tribute began prior to when he had even started paying it.)
Why did everyone forget about the 1st exile?
Again, the article attempts to raise doubt about captives being taken in 605BC by claiming that it must have been an “exile”, and that such an exile is not mentioned in other historical accounts. However, the captives that included Daniel in 605BC were given as part of a tribute, not taken as part of a forced exile.
The article lies, claiming that the first exile is supposed to mark the beginning of the 70 years, again indicating the author’s misunderstanding of Jeremiah 25:11-12, and the context of the 70 years as distinct from the calamity.
More ignorance is shown when it is suggested that the 1st year would have to be indicated for an exile in addition to the 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. Of course, using those accession-year references, the year referred to as 1 st would really be 0 th (or year of accession).
The article mentions Ezekiel’s reference to “our exile”, then immediately says that Ezekiel mentions Daniel in his writings as if to imply that Daniel was included in the same exile. However, each of Ezekiel’s 3 references to Daniel (14:14; 14:20; 28:3) are character references and specify neither the time at which Daniel was taken, nor do they correlate Ezekiel’s time of exile with Daniel’s capture.
The article repeats again that it is strange that an exile is not mentioned, again ignoring the fact that Daniel was taken as part of a tribute given to Nebuchadnezzar.
The third year of his vassal Kingship
The article next claims that Daniel 1:1 is “obviously speaking from the perspective of Babylon’s control over the Jews”, though there is no reason to suggest that such a conclusion is even plausible, let alone “obvious”.
It then attempts to make a false conclusion about 2 Kings 24:1, stating “that is why” that verse refers to Jehoiakim serving Nebuchadnezzar, as if Daniel’s perspective in his own writings were the cause of the wording used at 2 Kings 24:1. However Daniel 1:1 makes no reference to vassalship or to being a servant, and there is no implication in the original-language rendering of the verse that the period refers to anything other than the plain reading of Jehoiakim’s third year (not counting his accession year).
The article then pleads its case for this interpretation, stating that Daniel always wrote from the perspective of Babylonian officials because he does so with Cyrus. However, the comparison is flawed, as at the time of Cyrus, there was no Judean king for whom to cite a year of reign, which is completely different to the situation in Daniel 1:1. The reality is that Daniel, in his references to any king, consistently refers to the year of the kings’ reigns in context of the place or people being ruled over.
Conclusion
The article then sums up its false conclusions. It again claims that captives being taken must have been an exile, and from that claim, falsely concludes that Jeremiah contradicts it. It makes irrelevant mention to “cities of Judah” as if they must have been affected by those taken as part of the tribute given by Jehoiakim, and that the princes who were present were present, though none named as present were those named as taken to Babylon. It states that the “king … seems to scoff” at the idea of Babylon attacking, but ignores the reason for that, being that he had begun paying tribute to Babylon at the time to specifically stave off attack.
It then draws on an inconsistency of Josephus to suggest that he agrees with their conclusion.
It then uses naïve reasoning to infer that a reference to Jehoiakim’s third year must be his 3rd year of paying tribute because both mention the number 3.
The article then claims that the taking of captives in 605 “causes nothing but problems and bizarre inconsistencies”, however no such inconsistencies exist when it is recognized that Daniel and others were given as tribute, not taken by force as part of an exile.
It then again erroneously correlates the 70 years with the calamity.