The "Seventy Years" explained

by Doug Mason 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Post 1560

  The letter of Jeremiah 29 was sent to those exiles in Babylon who had to remain there until a complete period of seventy years was fulfiiled for all of those people who would become exiled and in servitude to Babylon. At the time of writing that letter Jeremiah was in Jerusalem as the captivity had not then commenced. It is as simple as that. Jeremiah 29:10 does not refer to some partial or previous exile but to that exilic 'seventy years' where by the all of Judah was exiled, forced to serve Babylon leaving a devastated and depopulated land. A complete reading of Jeremiah proves this to be the case as there was more than one exile for the Jews.

  It is not a matter of me making bold claims as you put it but that of simply reading God's Word and being faithful to it. We do not want to imitate those false prophets such as Hananiah but accept the prophecy of Jeremiah who clearly taught that the seventy years was a period sexile-servitude and desolation.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Post 1561

  I do not idolize Jonsson but I feel for those who have been victims of his false teachings are regarding chronology and he has certainly deluded you.

  My arguments are Bible-based and can withstand any foolish objection because we do not have to protect NB chronology which has a twenty-year gap and cannot account for Jeremiah's seventy years either in its chronology or its history.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Lady Liberty

  Post 1959

  My use of Josephus is cautious as his writings like all ancient historians are uninspired and fallible. Clearly, where his account contradicts the Bible then I accept God's Word over that of any man including Josephus. I use Josephus only where his testimony supports the Bible or is in harmony with it. For example, this debate is about the seventy years and there is much interpretation as to how this period should be interpreted. Apostates argue that this period refers only to domination of Babylon in order to harmonize the period with NB chronology. Celebrated WT scholars argue the period is of exile, servitude and desolation and refers to Judah. Josephus' testimony conforms to the latter point of view and this is why I use Josephus.

  Josephus has been considered by some to use flawed data but those who wish to ignore Josephus are rather dishonest because the main pillar for NB chronology is Berossus and the sole source of Berossus is Josephus so you cannot have it both ways.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 249

  My agenda is simply to defend our biblical chronology produced by the celebrated WT scholars. Our biblical chronology has been the subject of criticism forthe last few decades especially from the time of Jonsson publishing his Gentile Times Reconsidered.

  My methodology is to present the facts based on the Bible and to compare those fact with interpretation from all sides of the debate/controversy from WTS, opposers and the scholarly community- Catholic-Protestant-Jewish.

  I am flatterered that you put me at the 'extreme' end of the scholarly spectrum for it is rather lonely out there but scholar loves solitude as it revitalizes his intellectual juices and deepens his contemplative practice. Rather mystical is it not?

  scholar JW
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi Scholar,
  
  I am pleased you feel flattered. Which appears to confirm my analysis.
  
  I think you are mistaken in limiting the discussion on the WTS's neo-Babylonian chronology to the times since Carl Jonsson's book. I have material that was written in a similar vein in the early 1960s, and I am certain that CTR ran across similar objections in his own time.
  
  The advantages that Carl has includes his multi-lingual ability and his immediate access to good source material, such as at the museums in Europe and England.
  
  When you say that your method is "to present the facts based on the Bible and to compare those fact with interpretation from all sides", to me this means that you start with the WTS's interpretation of the Scriptures. I would have preferred a more objective approach, but that approach does appear to confirm my previous analysis.
  
  Doug
• 

  scholar

  Doug Mason

  Post 250

  Thanks for the compliment. My comment on the recent criticism of WT chronology was not to be historical but rather to focus on the major or more recent criticism which has been spawned by Jonsson's material. I am aware that SDA's have been publishing material on chronology since the fifties based upon the research of Thiele and others. I acknowledge your research and that of Hatton who also began his criticism from the sixties.

  I try to be objective but any scholar usually begins his or her methodology with a set of assumptions or influences, it is hardly the case that one would work from a vacuum but would have a set of preconceived ideas so as to approach the subject carefully. In any event an apologist or critic would have a set of assumptions or bias and that is simply human nature. In any event, being loyal to the Bible and the Bible alone is what really counts.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  I do not idolize Jonsson but I feel for those who have been victims of his false teachings are regarding chronology and he has certainly deluded you.

  Are you illiterate or just plain stupid? I have told you previously that I arrived at the biblically consistent interpretation I have presented, before I had even heard of Jonsson. Furthermore, you have never pointed out any flaws in what I have presented, only asserting that it is wrong because it conflicts with your interpretation, which itself has been proven to contradict the bible. You cannot point to a single quote from the bible that I have contradicted, and you cannot justify your own interpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 without completely ignoring the actual wording of the verse itself.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Post 1564

  I plead guilty. I am illiterate and plain stupid. So, why do you bother with me? I am aware of your protestations that you have acted independently in your research of chronology be that as it may because the simple fact is that your interpretation is identical to that of Jonsson and others. So, such a coincidence of so-called independent research is unbelievable so you have been influenced by other sources.

  I have debated the flaws in your arguments numerous times but you choose to ignore my responses. For example, you completely ignore what Jeremiah 25:12 says directly and contextually. You have failed to examine commentaries and journal articles discussing this verse and more importantly you ignore the whole book of Jeremiah as well as the rest of the OT that deals with seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  I plead guilty. I am illiterate and plain stupid. So, why do you bother with me? I am aware of your protestations that you have acted independently in your research of chronology be that as it may because the simple fact is that your interpretation is identical to that of Jonsson and others. So, such a coincidence of so-called independent research is unbelievable so you have been influenced by other sources.

  I bother with you so that others can see through your lies. As for your claim that I must have copied Jonsson because my results are similar, perhaps an illustration might help... Bill says that 2 + 2 = 4. Jane also says that 2 + 2 = 4. Surely Jane must have copied Bill. Or maybe it's just that they can both add up.

  I have debated the flaws in your arguments numerous times but you choose to ignore my responses. For example, you completely ignore what Jeremiah 25:12 says directly and contextually. You have failed to examine commentaries and journal articles discussing this verse and more importantly you ignore the whole book of Jeremiah as well as the rest of the OT that deals with seventy years.

  LOL. That is a funny one! Perhaps more than any on this thread, I have very frequently provided refutation on almost every single sentence that you have offered. You can't actually provide the text of Jeremiah 25:12 and point to the bits of the text that support your argument, because it just doesn't work, so you just make the claim that your view is supported. Directly, it says that "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call account against the king of Babylon." - to which the context of Daniel 5:26-31 directly applies, explicitly indicating that Babylon's king, whose days had been "numbered" and "finished", was being "called to account" at that time. The context is that nations would be subservient to Babylon for 70 years - "I will take all the families of the north", "against all these nations round about", "devote them to destruction" (all references to 'them'/'they'/'these' in the passage are defined by the context as 'all those nations'), "prophesied against all the nations", "you must make all the nations to whom I am sending you drink it".
  
  I am on record as having consistently applied all relevant scriptures relating to the 70 years, with not a single contradiction in what I have presented. You on the other hand, work by taking a single verse at a time, claiming that it says soemthing that it doesn't, without taking into account the words themselves, the immediate context, the OT context, or known secular history. When presented with evidence to the contrary, instead of examining it you say it is wrong because it is inconsistent with what the WTS has fed you, and then repeat the same tired sound bites that furnish no proof. You claim that I cannot validly comment for not having read as many scholarly journals, yet you have read them, but ignore them. You are a pawn and a sham.
• 

  ellderwho

  Jeffro

  Post 1564

  I plead guilty. I am illiterate and plain stupid.

  scholar JW

  Neil, I agree, and here I thought it was basic math skills that stumbled you when trying to assemble a kings list.