by Doug Mason 72 Replies latest watchtower bible
The historical judgement described by Jeremiah was not here fall in 539 BCE but her destruction which happened only after the fulfilling of the seventy years besides Daniel confirmed that the seventy years had not then finished at the time of Darius whose reign began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
I see that you have thought of nothing since I have been away. You have presented nothing new, and nothing factual. The points above have previously been dealt with.
The Bible most definitely describes the seventy years as exilic. Jeremiah 29:10 was written to the captives in Babylon. Jeremiah25:11 states that the Jews had to serve Babylon for seventy years and read the whole book of Lamentations describes their exile in Babylon and the restoration.The seventy years was also a period servitude and desolation as confiremed by the testimony of Josephus.
Jeremiah 29:10 was part of a letter sent to exiles in Babylon prior to the fall of Jerusalem before the alleged 70-year exile had begun. Telling them they would be in exile for 70 years would be a lie. It was to counteract false claims made by Hananiah that they would be going home in 3 years. What is more, the NWT mistranslates the verse to suit their own needs. Most translations of the bible honestly translate the 70 years in that verse as pertaining to nations serving Babylon, consistent with Jeremiah 25:12, because they recognize that any other interpretation makes no sense.
Jeremiah 25:11 does not say at all that the Jews had to serve Babylon 70 years, but that "these nations", that is, "all the families of the north" and "all these nations round about" had to serve Babylon 70 years. If it meant complete exile, then it meant that for all of those nations, and that is a historical absurdity. Furthermore, of the Jews, verse 11 says only that Jerusalem will become 1) a devastated place, and 2) an object astonishment, but the 70 years is directly explicitly to "all" those nations. You are a liar.
Jeffro
Post 1558
Ditto?
Again you repeat the rehashed arguments of the Jonsson hypothesis, argumenst that I have skilfully didposed of on this board numerous times.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Post 1559
Nonsense, Jeremiah 1:1 clearly shows that this letter was sent to an already exiled people and that all of the people in exile had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years finished. The context proves that their servitude was located in Babylon and was not for Babylon which could be argued that their servitude was not the case but they were simply under Babylon's domination. Therefore, the translation 'at Babylon' is the more accurate rendering rather than the apostate 'for Babylon'.
Jeremiah 25:11 definitely states that the seventy years was a period of servitude of Judah along with the nations, was a period of desolation of the land and a period of exile. This verse and the context proves all the principal factors namely: exile-servitude-desolation were of the seventy years. The nations merely had to serve Babylon during the course of Judah's seventy years of exile-servitude and desolation of the land.
You need to be more thorough and use careful research. Read more widely, deeply and thoroughly!
scholar JW
scholar quipped: "Again you repeat the rehashed arguments of the Jonsson hypothesis, argumenst that I have skilfully didposed of on this board numerous times."
You know Dude, I'm really gonna miss your comedy after the September KM is employed by you.
steve
'scholar' lied:
Nonsense, Jeremiah 1:1 clearly shows that this letter was sent to an already exiled people and that all of the people in exile had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years finished.
Jeremiah 1:1 shows no such thing:
1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hil·ki'ah, one of the priests that were in An'a·thoth in the land of Benjamin;
Additionally, Jeremiah 29:1 proves your statement to be a lie, because if there was no one living in Jerusalem after they were all exiled, Jeremiah could not have sent his letter from Jerusalem. Obviously, Jeremiah 29:10 refers to a period prior to a complete exile of Jerusalem, and there is no mention in the bible anywhere whatsoever about the Jews remaining in Babylon for 70 years. This was the exile that included Ezekiel, and telling that bunch that they would only be in Babylon 70 years would be a cruel lie.
The context proves that their servitude was located in Babylon and was not for Babylon which could be argued that their servitude was not the case but they were simply under Babylon's domination. Therefore, the translation 'at Babylon' is the more accurate rendering rather than the apostate 'for Babylon'.
The context proves no such thing. The context was in reply to claims by Hananiah that "the yoke of Babylon" would be destroyed in 2 years, but Jeremiah points out that Babylon would be in power for a total of 70 years, in harmony with Jeremiah 25:12. Nothing in the context specifies the 70 years as referring to a period of exile, and to do so would be to invalidate the response to Hananiah's claim and Jeremiah's own words at 25:12, and would require a period that ended prior to the actual fall of Babylon in 539 or the subsequent return of the Jews in 538, because the alleged 70 years, if it began from Jerusalem's destruction, had not yet even started.
Jeremiah 25:11 definitely states that the seventy years was a period of servitude of Judah along with the nations, was a period of desolation of the land and a period of exile. This verse and the context proves all the principal factors namely: exile-servitude-desolation were of the seventy years. The nations merely had to serve Babylon during the course of Judah's seventy years of exile-servitude and desolation of the land.
You can make all the bold claims you like. The scriptures say no such thing. They say that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years"; there is no mention of exile, and no implication of special application to the Jews.
You can make all the bold claims you like. The scriptures say no such thing. They say that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years"; there is no mention of exile, and no implication of special application to the Jews.
Nice work Jeffro, I showed this to my elder stepdad when we studied, his response " I know it says that, but thats not what it means"
Yet another instance where the Jw will gladly spout off WT nonsense.
I always wondered why the WT apologist will not consider contradictions such as; who will be ressurected from Sodom? If the WT cannot clarify a simple question such as this, how can a witness trust the WT explanation for the complex issue of the fall of Babylon?
One has to consider if Yahweh wants to tell the FDS in Brooklyn a truth "back in the day" did Yahweh change his mind or was he not sure?
Again you repeat the rehashed arguments of the Jonsson hypothesis, argumenst that I have skilfully didposed of on this board numerous times.
You really do idolise Jonsson don't you? He's like your own Nemo. As previously explained, I didn't need to even know about Jonsson when I came up with the model that is compatible with the scriptures. Whether you imagine you have dealt with Jonsson's work is irrelevant to me. Your arguments always fall down when compared with what the scriptures actually say, and you are forced to resort to your own (or WT) paraphrases in your weak efforts to defend your point of view, because quoting scriptures such as Jeremiah 25:12 verbatim makes your view look stupid.
Scholar,
I hesitated to jump in the middle of this debate, but feel it only fair to lurkers to point out that it appears that you are putting an aweful lot of weight upon Josephus's writings, when it has been proven his writings often (not always, but often) contradicts the Bible, and because of this one fact alone, we would be wise to reconsider putting much weight into anything he has recorded. Would you not agree?
Using such flawed data to support such lines of reasoning to support your arguement is certainly not what one would expect from someone who calls themself a "scholar". Certainly would it not be wise to take some time and study the flaws in this ancient historians writings, and then perhaps revisit the 607 issue, as it may be only then, that you will see that this date infact holds no water when compared to the Bible as well as Archeology.
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
P.S. I have no intrest in a debate with you, so I will not be adding anything further. I posted because I felt it only fair to those who are doing sincere research to check out Josephus's writings and to see how they often conflict with the scriptures.
The difficulty in having a meaningful discussion with "Scholar" is that he and we have different agendas.
Our desire is to examine the facts but his agenda is to defend the WTBTS. That is why he always falls back to their "scholarly ability" rather than to examine the evidences.
JWs believe the WTS because of WHOM it claims to be, regardless of WHAT it is saying ("wait for Jehovah" the questioning JW is told).
As with any population distribution, there are those at the extreme ends. Scholar sits at the very extreme end of the extreme end, which colours his "reasoning".
Doug
