The 70 years of devastation--as revealed by the Bible

by AddaGirl 73 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bennyk

  "Scholar" writes:

  This period of servitude-desolation and exile wwas brought during the 18th On Nebuchadnezzer's reign and the 11 th of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah withthe destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

  You wrote to me earlier:

  This is simply your opinion and I disagree with this. You cite no scholarly or exegetical support for your opinion so I suggest you demonstrate why your claim is so.

  I would like to suggest that you take a page from your own book. Since you style yourself a scholar, perhaps you would be willing to cite a reputable modern scholar to establish your claim that Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E.

  The WTS interpretation requires the rejection of vast amounts of data indicating that Jerusalem did NOT fall in 607 B.C.E. There is no compelling reason for accepting the WTS doctrine in the face of an interpretation which violates neither the Scriptures nor secular history. The interpretation that the "seventy years" run from 609-539 B.C.E. violates neither the Scriptures, nor secular history. Therefore, the WTS teaching is to be rejected.
• 

  bennyk

  JCanon quotes "scholar" and comments:

  So now you are a linguist in claiming that in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 that the adverbial 'seventy years' modifies only the phrase 'the servitude' and does not modify the phrase' the devastation'. This is simply your opinion and I disagree with this. You cite no scholarly or exegetical support for your opinion so I suggest you demonstrate why your claim is so. I would argue that all of what is said in verse 11 was included in the seventy years which was the land being devastated and servitude to Babylon. That is what the text plainly reads.

  This is absolutely an opinion and it is not academically viable when you factor in Josephus who clearly notes that the servitude of the poor ones last deported off the land were the ones who served seventy years. Now ordinarily you could claim that there were several 70-year periods, one for the nations that began at the beginning of the NB empire. But Josephus specifically links the 70 years served by the poor people deported last with Jeremiah's prophecy! That means Jeremiah directly contradicts any opinions regarding the 70-year period of "servitude" by Jeremiah that is not connected with the last deportation.

  IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus1 which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity

  JC

  [highlighting by bennyk]

  I see nothing in Josephus' account quoted above which substantiates the claim highlighted above. What is recorded at Antiq. 11:1:1 does not require the complete depopulation of Judea, only an exile of Jews to Babylon(of some -- not necessarily all, and not necessarily the last) Jews.

  It does NOT read something like: ' which was the seventieth from the day that the last of our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon', or: 'which was the seventieth from the day that our people were last removed out of their own land into Babylon'.

  Several deportations to Babylon occurred at various times during the seventy years, but the SERVITUDE of Judea as a nation (those poor people!!!) need not begin with any of the deportations as recorded in the Bible.
• 

  scholar

  bennyk

  Post 329

  I cannot a reputable scholar in support of 607 BCE except in the case of Dr Rolf Furuli who is a Sebior Lecture in Semitic Studies, University of Oslo, Norway.

  The interpretationof 607 BCE as proposed by 'celebrated 'WT scholars does not require the rejection of vast amounts of data but rather assigning far greater importance and priority to the Bible which provides sufficient data in order to construct a reliable and accurate biblical chronology. The rest of secular data is of great interest to those scholars and when given due consideration provides strongsupport for the accuracy of 607 BCE inasmuch as it provides evidence of a mere 'twenty year' gap. The biblical account of the 'seventy years serves as a corrective to such secular data thus one arrives at 607 BCE. So whatever methodology one uses, 607 BCE ie embraced by both the biblical and secuklar data.

  The interpretation that the seventy years from 609 -539 BCE is impossible because the seventy years had not ended with the Fall of Babylon and also had not begun in 609 BCE because Judah was not exiled to Babylon at that time and the land was not devastated at that time. So, this opinion fails on numerous grounds so you must try and try again.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  bennyk

  Post 330

  You need to read all of the Josephus' references to the seventy years of which there are several for these show quite clearly that the seventy years in the opinion of Josephus ran from the Fall until the Return. Further, this period was of exile, servitude and desolation of the land, city and temple. These collective references nicely support the understanding of the seventy years according to the Bible and published by the 'celebrated WT scholars.

  scholar JW
• 

  JCanon

  The WTS interpretation requires the rejection of vast amounts of data indicating that Jerusalem did NOT fall in 607 B.C.E. There is no compelling reason for accepting the WTS doctrine in the face of an interpretation which violates neither the Scriptures nor secular history. The interpretation that the "seventy years" run from 609-539 B.C.E. violates neither the Scriptures, nor secular history. Therefore, the WTS teaching is to be rejected.

  This is a mute argument since 511 BCE astronomical references were found in the VAT4956. Essentially the 587 BCE chronology is now proven to be fabricated and anyone not dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar at this point are simply incompetent or uninformed based on the evidence.

  Scholars and universities are manipulated by those who provide money to keep them going. Ultimately what the Catholic Church wants suppressed remains suppressed. I caught prominent scholars Sachs/Hunger lying about the data in the VAT4956! Do you think the British Museum is going to call them on the carpet? Absolutely not. The British Museum is just as much a propagandist entity parading as an educational tool as any. So scholars are not to be trusted, especially those doing lots of Bible bashing, or ignoring evidence that leaked out they were not able to suppress first, like the VAT4956.

  So yes, 607 BCE is a bogus date for the fall of Jerusalem, but so is 587 BCE. The best reference secular date based on the 511 BCE dating in the VAT4956, which replaces the 587 BCE dating is 529 BCE for year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. That is the academically correct date now for the fall of Jerusalem. The fact that you can extract this precise dating from cryptic Jewish rabbinical timelines proves the chronology was not lost, but it's just not politically correct, likely to optionally claim Jesus Christ did not fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy I imagine. But too late now. The VAT4956 changes all that completely. It's quite amazing.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Hi bennyK

  You say...

  I see nothing in Josephus' account quoted above which substantiates the claim highlighted above. What is recorded at Antiq. 11:1:1 does not require the complete depopulation of Judea, only an exile of Jews to Babylon(of some -- not necessarily all, and not necessarily the last) Jews.

  The complete depopulation is synonymous with "our people removed out of the land." If there was anyone left, then he couldn't make this statement that our people were "REMOVED OUT OF THE LAND." So if you don't see... you're not looking.

  It does NOT read something like: ' which was the seventieth from the day that the last of our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon', or: 'which was the seventieth from the day that our people were last removed out of their own land into Babylon'.

  Several deportations to Babylon occurred at various times during the seventy years, but the SERVITUDE of Judea as a nation (those poor people!!!) need not begin with any of the deportations as recorded in the Bible.

  Now this is quite clear in another reference to the 70 years, which you must not be aware of.... Ant. 11.1.1 is in the context of this further reference:

  ANT 10.9. the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Celesyria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned (16) and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews, as it hath been delivered down to us, it having twice gone beyond Euphrates; for the people of the ten tribes were carried out of Samaria by the Assyrians, in the days of king Hoshea; after which the people of the two tribes that remained after Jerusalem was taken [were carried away] by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and Chaldea. Now as to Shalmanezer, he removed the Israelites out of their country, and placed therein the nation of the Cutheans, who had formerly belonged to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but were then called Samaritans, by taking the name of the country to which they were removed; but the king of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, (17) placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years

  The above context explains the removal of the nation of the 10-tribe and 2-tribe kingdom. Those last deported from Egypt were the last ones of the Jews in the land. When they were deported the land became a "desert". There were no people after this. It was a desolate waste for 70 years. The only difference between Josephus and the WTS is that the WTS wants the desolation to be the same year Jerusalem falls, but Josephus doesn't begin the desolation until the last deportation, when the people were "removed out of the land."

  "Removed out of the land" means removed out of the land. Everybody.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  SCHOLAR. This is not true!!

  You need to read all of the Josephus' references to the seventy years of which there are several for these show quite clearly that the seventy years in the opinion of Josephus ran from the Fall until the Return. Further, this period was of exile, servitude and desolation of the land, city and temple. These collective references nicely support the understanding of the seventy years according to the Bible and published by the 'celebrated WT scholars.

  scholar JW

  It does not run from the "fall" of Jerusalem, but the last deportation. Josephus describes specifically a last compaign into the region where the Jews were deported from Egypt in year 23. It is at that point that the 70 years begins in connection with when the people were "removed out of their land."

  So you need to correct your statement here as far as when Josephus is claiming the 70 years begins. It is with the last deportation.

  On that note, where do you think the Jews came from for the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar? There were still Jews in the land up to year 23. The Bible clearly says in Jer. 44:14,28 that those who were left "remaining from the sword" from Egypt would return to Judea. Oh, sorry, let me quote those scriptures for you:

  14 And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”

  28 And as for the ones escaping from the sword, they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, few in number; and all those of the remnant of Judah, who are coming into the land of Egypt to reside there as aliens, will certainly know whose word comes true, that from me or that from them.”’”

  Now stop thinking about yourself for just one second and think about ME! I have to try and harmonize this with everything. WHEN did these people actually return to Judea? Did God also have Nebuchadnezzar kill Jeremiah and Baruch? We know better!

  Now the easy explanation, factoring Josephus' account that the last deportation was in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar from Egypt is that those of the last deportation did include Jeremiah and Baruch and on their way to Babylon that very year they did trek through Judea again, meaning the land was not desolated until after that final deportation. This is the reference by Josephus for the seventy years, when the people were "removed out of their land" not the fall of Jerusalem!

  Let's again consider Ant. 11.1.1 with my highlights...

  IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land [not the fall of Jerusalem] into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity.

  Note that the context of this reference is not to the fall of Jerusalem but when they were "removed out of their own land." This is just a reference to the final deportation which was from Judea since those who were rescued from Egypt did indeed return to Judea. That proves the land was not desolated completely until the last deportation, year 23.

  So, Scholar, you can't keep saying these 70 years are from the "fall" of Jerusalem and include Josephus in that reference. Josephus is not dating the 70 years from the fall, but from the last deportation from Egypt.

  If this is not your understanding or you think this does not contradict your position, could you please explain how I'm getting this detail wrong? Thanks. Otherwise, it just looks like you're uninformed about Josephus' reference to the 70 years.

  JC
• 

  bennyk

  Scholar writes:

  I cannot [cite] a reputable scholar in support of 607 BCE except in the case of Dr Rolf Furuli who is a Sebior Lecture in Semitic Studies, University of Oslo, Norway.

  Yes; I am aware of no modern scholars who agree with Furuli's conjecture.

  The interpretationof 607 BCE as proposed by 'celebrated 'WT scholars does not require the rejection of vast amounts of data but rather assigning far greater importance and priority to the Bible which provides sufficient data in order to construct a reliable and accurate biblical chronology.

  Yet the WTS interpretation does reject the vast historical data which establish the fall of Jerusalem twenty years later than the WTS teaches.

  The rest of secular data is of great interest to those scholars and when given due consideration provides strongsupport for the accuracy of 607 BCE inasmuch as it provides evidence of a mere 'twenty year' gap.

  The vast historical data provide no evidence of the WTS conjectured "twenty year gap" -- the data refute the myth.

  The biblical account of the 'seventy years serves as a corrective to such secular data thus one arrives at 607 BCE.

  The biblical account does nothing of the kind. The WTS conjecture denies the secular data.

  So whatever methodology one uses, 607 BCE ie embraced by both the biblical and secuklar data.

  The above is obvious hyperbole! As far as you know, and as admitted in your post, with the exception of Furuli, all reputable modern scholars reject 607 B.C.E. as the date for the fall of Jerusalem.

  The interpretation that the seventy years from 609 -539 BCE is impossible because the seventy years had not ended with the Fall of Babylon and also had not begun in 609 BCE because Judah was not exiled to Babylon at that time and the land was not devastated at that time.

  Neither Jer. 25:11f nor Jer. 29:10 (reading "for Babylon") state that the nation of Judah would be exiled to Babylon for seventy years.

  Judah was already in servitude under Babylonian hegemony following the defeat of Assyria at Haran in 609 B.C.E., where Babylon became the legitimate succesor to the Assyrian Empire. The fact that Josiah was already a vassal of Babylon explains why Josiah attempted to check King Necho's advance to Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (2 Kings 23:29; Chr. 35:20-22).
• 

  bennyk

  bennyk

  Post 330

  You need to read all of the Josephus' references to the seventy years of which there are several for these show quite clearly that the seventy years in the opinion of Josephus ran from the Fall until the Return.

  I will willingly consider whatever references to the seventy years that you may cite from Josephus. Hitherto, I have only noted Antiquities 11:1:1, Apion 1:19, and Apion 1:21.

  Further, this period was of exile, servitude and desolation of the land, city and temple. These collective references nicely support the understanding of the seventy years according to the Bible and published by the 'celebrated WT scholars.

  Apion 1:21 reads: These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth ["nineteenth" in other copies] year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity forfifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

  This account from Josephus does not "nicely support the understanding of the seventy years according to the Bible and published by the 'celebrated WT scholars" -- it refutes it.

  I shall look forward to seeing your response, but do not know if I shall be back tomorrow.
• 

  scholar

  bennyk

  Post 331

  Well you asked me name of a reputable scholar who supports 607 BCE and I fulfilled your request.

  The vast amount of data does indeed prove a twenty gap between secular and biblical chronology. Do the maths!

  The biblical chronology a spromoted by celebrated WT scholars does indeed provide a corrective to the traditional chronology because of the intervention of the seventy years which is ignored by traditional chronology.

  Most modern scholars may reject our biblical chronology and the date for the Fall of Jerusalem but such scholars also reject the Bible as the inspired Word of God and would accept man's wisdom. Further, they cannot agree on any one specific date for the Fall of Jerusalem. So there!

  Oh yes they do. Both Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10 explicitly state or infer the state of exile or an address to the exileees.

  Judah was not in servitude to Babylon until the reign of Jehoiakim who was made a vassal king by Nebuchadnezzer and this was not in 609 BCE.

  There is nothing in the Bible record that proves Josiah's vassalage to Babylon for in last stage of his reign he was in conflict with Egypt not Babylon. You need to get the history right as poor history means poor chronology.

  Too easy

  scholar JW