by Londo111 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
Londo111:
Daniel 2:1 says, "In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him."
This would be the year 606 BC.
No. The author of Daniel did not use the accession year system. The second year of Nebuchadnezzar by that reckoning was 603BCE (starting from Nisan [March/April]).
See here for an inset of the period from 605 to 600BCE.
Recovery:
11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
You have highlighted this verse in a way that suggests you take it to mean that Jerusalem would be desolate for 70 years. This is not what the statement means at all. The wording of the original text means that the land will become desolate, with no indication of for how long it was desolate, which is a separate statement to the period for which Babylon's kings would be dominant (70 years). This is in agreement with the original-language wording of Daniel 9:2, where the word translated "fulfilling" (Hebrew chareb) means brought to completion, such that the 'devastations' were 'complete' by the end of the 70 years, not that it was desolate for 70 years. Further, none of the words related to the '70 years' say anything at all about exile, or about complete depopulation.
However, the servitude was supposed to have begun in 609 B.C.E., four years earlier.
The servitude begain in 609 when Babylon became the dominant power in the region. However, the Watch Tower Society confuses the matter by implying that the servitude is the same as the "calamity", which affected Jerusalem in 605BCE, as well as other nations at different times during the 70 years. (See Jeremiah 25:32)
Jerusalem could not have been under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar in 609 B.C.E. since he had not yet began ruling.
It is equally valid to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as 'ruling' even earlier than 605BCE in the same manner that Belshazzar is also called 'king' when he was actually only a prince. None of the Bible's fans complain that Balshazzar's father, Nabonidus, goes unmentioned.
If 609 B.C.E. really is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem how is that Jerusalem and the other nations had been in servitude to Nebuchadnezzar when he did not begin ruling until four years later?
No one is saying Jerusalem was destroyed in 609BCE (or at least if anyone is saying that, they're wrong). Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE. The Bible never says that Jerusalem was destroyed at the beginning of the 70 years at all, and Ezekiel 40:1 makes it quite clear that the Jews did not equate the 70 years with their exile.
Also, notice Jeremiah 28. Verse 1 tells us the setting and time: "Then it came about in that year, in the beginning of the kingdom of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month,.." In verse 14 it states: "For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “A yoke of iron I will put upon the neck of all these nations, to serve Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon; and they must serve him. And even the wild beasts of the field I will give him.”’” So the 70 year servitude still had not yet begun in the fourth year of Zedekiah. Both Jeremiah 25 and 28 both show us that these events have not yet taken place.
Incorrect. Jeremiah 28 actually confirms that they were already under a yoke (it should be stated though that the setting for these verses is actually 595BCE), but that it would get worse. Notice verse 13: “Go, and you must say to Han·a·ni′ah, ‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Yoke bars of wood you have broken, and instead of them you will have to make yoke bars of iron.” Jeremiah states that they would come under a heavier yoke, indicating they were already one.
Stupid formatting. Oh well. Insert "under" before last word of last post. Ran out of editing time.
Ezekiel 40:1 makes it quite clear that the Jews did not equate the 70 years with their exile.
This should have said "Ezekiel 40:1 makes it quite clear that the Jews did not equate the fall of Jerusalem with their exile." The 70 years was used in reference to the fall of Jerusalem from according to the (incorrect) JW perspective.
To be clear, the Bible does not correlate the 70 years with the exile or the fall of Jerusalem.
Jeffro: Thanks for the correction! D'oh! My brain must've been totally zonked yesterday afternoon...I think I also subtracted when I should've added. Never post during a brain fart!
http://www.caeno.org/_Feat/index.html
As corroboration of the Bible's Chronology for 587/586 BC (see previous posts where the date is approximated by means of the book of Zechariah), the above is a secular link to resources on Babylonian Astronomical Diaries called Feat of Clay.
In particular, look at the section 'Testing the Diaries', which details Diary No. -567 (aka VAT 4956) which details 40 astronomical observations during Nebuchadnezzar's 37 th year. Thus, fixing that, it is a simple matter of calculating back to his 18 th year, when Jerusalem was destroyed. The combination of astronomical positions repeats only every 40,000 years.
Taking the 70 years figuratively is a valid approach and some scholars interpret it that way. The 70 years for Tyre is a case in point. But you know I was just being playful with you.
Regarding the WTS quote on Tyre, the point I was hoping you'd go away with was that the 70 years represented Babylon's greatest domination with different nations coming under that domination at different times. Just as the WTS/GB see it that way because Tyre only came under Babylonian domination sometime AFTER Jerusalem's destruction and their starting point for the 70 years, it can also be understood the same way with the conventional chronology and a starting point of 609 BCE.
Okay, well my point is it is too late in the argument to try to say the 70 years are figurative. The original argument was that the 70 years of servitude was from 609 BCE to 539 BCE. When this was proven to be impossible since Nebuchadnezzar had not yet begun reigning when the supposed 70 year servitude had begun, you took the 'maybe it's a figurative servitude' route. I am not debating if it was figurative or literal. I am debating that the author's statement that the 70 years were from 609 to 539 is inaccurate and unscriptural.
Because when the prophecy was given, Nabopolassar was already dead and Jeremiah was warning the people of the time about how they should behave toward the Babylonian power.
The prophecy occurred to Jeremiah during the first year of the reign of Neb. The prophecy could not have had reference to his father since his father was 'dead' as you say and thus no longer the king of Babylon. At the very least, since the prophecy occurred to Jeremiah in the first year of Neb (605 BCE), it would have started at the earliest then. But the 609 chronology requires that it start during the reign of Neb's father and that is not what the Bible says. The scriptures also say Jehovah gave the nations into the hand of Neb. Jehovah could not give Neb something he would have already inherited as the successor of the previous Babylonian king. You cannot assume the prophecy began with a different Babylonian King when the prophecy occured during the reign of Neb, thus 'the king of Babylon' could only be in reference to the now living, now reigning, Neb.
By the way, there is an issue with which king Jeremiah was addressing (see 27:3 and the continuation of the prophecy in 28:1).
Whether he was addressing Zedekiah or Jehoiakim either way it crushes your 609 BCE argument. If the passage described happened in 608 BCE (the first year of Jehoiakim according to secular chronology) or the fourth year of Jehoiakim (594 BCE), the scriptures show us that the Babylonian yoke and servitude of the nations had still not begun at that time. So 608 BCE or 594 BCE, both cause your argument to contradict scripture.
Certainly, Nabopolassar was long dead by Zedekiah's reign and Jeremiah needed to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations trying to throw off or break the Babylonian yoke. They could not be attempting to break a yoke that didn't yet exist for them.
I'm sorry this does not make any sense. Can you please show me the scripture that tells us Jeremiah went and preached a message of servitude to the surrounding nations. I've never ever read a scripture that says so. Jeremiah warned the Jews only. So how could Jeremiah be attempting to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations?
No I didn't admit that. See above. The context shows that the nations were wanting to throw off that yoke of servitude they were under. Jeremiah is urging them to put it on and submit.
Yes, the 70 year servitude had not yet begun since Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. We are not discussing the regular yoke of servitude that all nations had since Babylon was the world power. There is nothing extraordinary about all nations being in subjection to a world power hence the Bible's reference to it as a broken yoke of wood. A broken yoke of iron would be much heavier, and this corresponds with the desolation of the specific nations mentioned in chapter 27 and it is this 70 year servitude that would begin after calamity was brought upon Jerusalem.
I don't see how the timing of Jehoiakim's accession to the throne contradicts the timing of Assyria's defeat and the beginning of the 70 year servitude. A non-sequitur. Anyway, Jehoiakim began to reign about the Fall of 609 BCE.
Read your own words. "The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc.
The destruction and desolation of these nations is not something that had already taken place during the events of Jeremiah 27 (the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign). If the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign was 608 BCE (not 609 BCE, according to secular chronology), and Jerusalem had not yet received the 'severe punishment' (the calamity of the destruction of the temple) which started the 70 year servitude for the nations, then it is impossible for the 70 years to have already started, at the very least, one year earlier. Also you failed to address Jeremiah 25 which showed us how in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the king of Babylon had not yet came against Jerusalem and the nations had not begun the 70 year servitude
You can't seem to get past this fallacy. The 70 years servitude of the nations was not dependant on Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed. Jerusalem and its temple could have continued on quite happily until Persia came along and the nations would still have served Babylon 70 years, thus fulfilling prophecy.
Yes it was. Notice how the calamity is described in more detail a few verses down "“A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. And those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth.” Now notice verse 29 "For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU (THE NATIONS) yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’
“‘YOU will not go free of punishment, for there is a sword that I am calling against all the inhabitants of the earth,’ is the utterance of Jehovah of armies."
As if that wasn't plain enough, Ezekiel has a vision that tells us exactly what's the beginning of the calamity of the nations. “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem... Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion... from my sanctuary you should start.” The sanctuary is the temple as 1 Ch 28:10 tells us.
So we can choose to believe your unscriptural interpretation of Jeremiah's words, or what the scriptures plainly state? That Jehovah is starting off with the city (Jerusalem), and it's sanctuary (the temple), and then the calamity (from nation to nation) would begin.
'Calamity' is not limited to razing a city to the ground. According to the Bible's dating, and piecing in what we know from history, we can deduce that the battle of Carchemish occurred before the Jer. 25 prophecy, right? Then, was not the crippling defeat of Egypt a calamity?
Of course. But this is not the specific calamity referred to in the Bible. The prophecy of Jeremiah 25 is very specific: "Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE NORTH,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] TO NEBUCHADREZZAR THE KING OF BABYLON, my servant, and I will bring THEM (the families of the north, the king of Babylon and his military force) against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’ It is in this context (in reference to Neb) that the statement: "29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU (the nations) yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”" The calamity will be brought upon the nations after calamity has been brought upon Jerusalem. Therefore your argument: It can be argued, therefore, that Egypt felt the full force of God's wrath before Jerusalem did. is proven to be misleading and inaccurate since this is not the calamity of God's wrath prophecied in Jeremiah 25.
And what about the siege of 597 BCE, where Jehoiachin and the royal family were forced to surrender and, along with "all Jerusalem," were taken into exile - 18,000 according to 2 Kings 24 - as well as having the temple virtually stripped of its sacred treasures? Was that not a calamity?
Yes, but that is not the specific calamity mentioned in Jeremiah 25. Verse 32 describes this: "This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Look! A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. 33 And those slain by Jehovah (people of the nations by Nebuchadnezzar) will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth."
Moreover, does not the fact that Nebuchadnezzar himself appointed a puppet king of his own choosing further demonstrate that the kingdom of Judah was already in servitude to Babylon BEFORE the city was destroyed 11 years later?
No it does not. The calamity of Neb that would be brought upon Jerusalem had still not occurred during the time of Jer 25. Verse 1 tells us this was the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It would be the year 608 BCE according to your chronology. And the calamity against the nations and Jerusalem was being prophecied as a future event in that year. This again proves that the 70 year servitude of the nations had not yet begun since the servitude and thus the calamity was supposed to have started in 609 BCE.
Dan. 1:1f indicates that Judah's servitude to Babylon began in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when he besieged the city, took some temple treasures and some nice, young nobles back to Babylon. This would have been when Nebuchadnezzar swept through Palestine after Carchemish.
No it does not. As I just showed you from Jeremiah 25, the calamity of Jerusalem and the nations was being prophecied as a future event during the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which would be a year after the event described in Daniel 1 took place. So the calamity had not yet started during Jehoiakim's 3rd year, since Jer 25 tells us how in his fourth year the calamity had not yet been brought upon Jerusalem and the nations.
It's also worth noting that Ashkelon was reduced to rubble at the end of 604 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year (Babylonian Chronicles). That city's calamity began long before the same fate befell Jerusalem.
The prophecy never stated anything about Ashkelon being one of the nations that would be in servitude to Neb for the 70 years. Of course Neb plundered and destroyed other nations. We are talking about the specific nations mentioned in the 70 year servitude prophecy. Read Jeremiah 25, 27, and 29 to refresh your memory. Showing us how other nations were plundered before Jerusalem's destruction does not disprove my argument. If you could prove that the specific nations mentioned were desolated before Jerusalem's destruction, then you'd have a point.
So can you see how your insistence that 'calamity' = 'Jerusalem's destruction' = 'the start of the nations' 70 year servitude' doesn't fit with the scriptural and historical facts?
Nope. It is your argument that requires so much twisting and contradiction of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Jeremiah says the calamity had not yet happened and yet your argument requires that it already has. You take the prophecy out of Jeremiah and making it nothing more than a statement of facts, presented as prophecy, which doesn't add up since he tells us what specific year he made these prophecies.
You have highlighted this verse in a way that suggests you take it to mean that Jerusalem would be desolate for 70 years.
Correct.
This is not what the statement means at all. The wording of the original text means that the land will become desolate, with no indication of for how long it was desolate, which is a separate statement to the period for which Babylon's kings would be dominant (70 years). This is in agreement with the original-language wording of Daniel 9:2, where the word translated "fulfilling" (Hebrew chareb) means brought to completion, such that the 'devastations' were 'complete' by the end of the 70 years, not that it was desolate for 70 years. Further, none of the words related to the '70 years' say anything at all about exile, or about complete depopulation.
That's funny. I think 2 Chronicles 36:20 is quite clear: "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land HAD PAID OFF ITS SABBATHS. ALL THE DAYS OF LYING DESOLATED IT KEPT SABBATH, TO FULFILL SEVENTY YEARS.
The servitude begain in 609 when Babylon became the dominant power in the region.
Actually, Babylon became the dominant power when it crushed Assyria three years earlier. 609 BCE was just the crushing blow. That is like saying the Union's military force was not the dominant one during the last two days of the Civil War since the confederates had not yet surrended. That is ridiculous reasoning. Babylon became the dominant power when it was obvious they were not going to be defeated and overpowered Assyria.
However, the Watch Tower Society confuses the matter by implying that the servitude is the same as the "calamity", which affected Jerusalem in 605BCE, as well as other nations at different times during the 70 years. (See Jeremiah 25:32)
It is the Bible who links the servitude to the calamity. After describing how Neb will come against the nations and Jerusalem, Jeremiah 25:11 says: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations WILL HAVE TO SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
Notice how other translations render the later part of verse 11
21st Century KJV: "and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
ASV: " these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
New Living Translation: " Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years."
Jeremiah tells us that these words occurred to him "the first year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon." This indicates that the prophecy had not yet started in Neb's first year since that is when the prophecy occurred to Jeremiah.
It is equally valid to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as 'ruling' even earlier than 605BCE in the same manner that Belshazzar is also called 'king' when he was actually only a prince. None of the Bible's fans complain that Balshazzar's father, Nabonidus, goes unmentioned.
The difference is, in many cases Belshazzar acted on behalf of his father and thus can rightly be referred to as a king. Is there any record of Neb acting on behalf of his father as ruling in command of his military force or something of a similar nature? No. Nebuchadnezzar was a prince, but he had his own separate army and thus could not have acted on behalf of his father when he was in command of his own military chain. Even if this were true, however, it still proves nothing, as the scriptures indicate that Jeremiah 25 had still yet to be fulfilled during Neb's first year (605) which is 4 years after the supposed servitude began.
No one is saying Jerusalem was destroyed in 609BCE (or at least if anyone is saying that, they're wrong). Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE. The Bible never says that Jerusalem was destroyed at the beginning of the 70 years at all, and Ezekiel 40:1 makes it quite clear that the Jews did not equate the 70 years with their exile.
How does Ezekiel 40:1 prove this? All it tells us is what was going on in the 25th year of Ezekiel's exile. Not the exile that took place in the year of Jerusalem's destruction. Of course they would not equate the 70 years with their exile, since their exile was entirely different from the exile that take place at the beginning of the seventy year desolation.
2 Chronicles 36:20 "to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
Daniel 9:2 "discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years"
The land of Judah had to lie desolate for 70 years. If Jerusalem was destroyed/desolated in 587 this takes us to the year 517 which we know cannot possibly be the time when the Jews were released since Cyrus released them in his first year of ruling.
Incorrect. Jeremiah 28 actually confirms that they were already under a yoke (it should be stated though that the setting for these verses is actually 595BCE), but that it would get worse. Notice verse 13: “Go, and you must say to Han·a·ni′ah, ‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Yoke bars of wood you have broken, and instead of them you will have to make yoke bars of iron.” Jeremiah states that they would come under a heavier yoke, indicating they were already one.
Notice that the yoke bars were broken. Did Judah and the nations somehow overpower Babylon in 595 BCE (your year)? How did they break the yoke of the mighty Babylonian power? Since they broke the yoke bar, this means the 70 years would had to have been interrupted at some point. Thus pushes the possibility of the 70 year servitude being exactly 70 years even further back, if this yoke was interrupted until another one was placed on. Question: What was the heavier yoke of iron put on the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
That's funny. I think 2 Chronicles 36:20 is quite clear: "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land HAD PAID OFF ITS SABBATHS. ALL THE DAYS OF LYING DESOLATED IT KEPT SABBATH, TO FULFILL SEVENTY YEARS.
The "word by the mouth of Jeremiah" didn't mention Sabbaths. Various translations (e.g. the New International Version quoted further down) correctly link the seventy years with the word of Jeremiah, and indicate as a separate clause that the Jews were in Babylon until Persia began to reign.
Actually, Babylon became the dominant power when it crushed Assyria three years earlier. 609 BCE was just the crushing blow. That is like saying the Union's military force was not the dominant one during the last two days of the Civil War since the confederates had not yet surrended. That is ridiculous reasoning. Babylon became the dominant power when it was obvious they were not going to be defeated and overpowered Assyria.
The Bible isn't magic. It is entirely possible that the Bible is simply wrong. However, it is known that the Neo-Babylonian empire's dominance definitely ended in 539BCE. It is also known that something relevant to the Neo-Babylonian empire happened 70 years earlier in 609BCE.
It is the Bible who links the servitude to the calamity. After describing how Neb will come against the nations and Jerusalem, Jeremiah 25:11 says: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations WILL HAVE TO SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
Notice how other translations render the later part of verse 11
21st Century KJV: "and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
ASV: "these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
New Living Translation: "Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years."
Jeremiah tells us that these words occurred to him "the first year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon." This indicates that the prophecy had not yet started in Neb's first year since that is when the prophecy occurred to Jeremiah.
The Bible isn't a 'who'. The 'prophecy' said that Jerusalem would feel the effects of Babylon's power, and that a calamity would go from nation to nation. It is evident that not all of the nations experienced the calamity (attacks by Babylon) at exactly the same time. Nor did each nation experience calamity for exactly 70 years. However, Babylon was dominant in the region throughout the 70 year period.
Additionally, serve the king of Babylon does not mean 'exiled to Babylon'. Aside from the fact that it didn't happen, it is not even remotely plausible for everyone in all the surrounding nations to be exiled to Babylon.
The difference is, in many cases Belshazzar acted on behalf of his father and thus can rightly be referred to as a king. Is there any record of Neb acting on behalf of his father as ruling in command of his military force or something of a similar nature? No. Nebuchadnezzar was a prince, but he had his own separate army and thus could not have acted on behalf of his father when he was in command of his own military chain. Even if this were true, however, it still proves nothing, as the scriptures indicate that Jeremiah 25 had still yet to be fulfilled during Neb's first year (605) which is 4 years after the supposed servitude began.
I'm not aware of any source that suggests that Nebuchadnezzar necessarily had a separate army to Naboplossar, or that he was not sent to Carchemish by Nabopolassar. Feel free to present one.
How does Ezekiel 40:1 prove this? All it tells us is what was going on in the 25th year of Ezekiel's exile. Not the exile that took place in the year of Jerusalem's destruction. Of course they would not equate the 70 years with their exile, since their exile was entirely different from the exile that take place at the beginning of the seventy year desolation.
This argument is similar to the mis-application by the JWs of Jeremiah 29:10, which was addressed to exiles (including Ezekiel) taken in 597BCE. If it were only the Jews from some unspecified later exile who would be in Babylon 'for' 70 years, there would be no point telling Ezekiel and others already in Babylon that they would be in Babylon 'for' 70 years, because it would mean they would actually have to be there 82 years. The fact is that the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon, not Jewish exile. And especially not an exile that would not even startuntil another 12 years later. Most translations indicate at Jeremiah 29:10 that the 70 years were "for Babylon", not "in Babylon". American Standard, Amplified, Basic English, Complete Jewish (“Bavel’s seventy years are over”), Contemporary English (“After Babylonia has been the strongest nation for seventy years”), Darby, English Standard, God’s Word (“Babylon’s 70 years are over”), Good News (“Babylonia’s seventy years are over”), Green’s Literal, Hebrew Names, Holman Christian Standard, Modern King James, New American Standard, New Century (“Babylon will be powerful for seventy years”), New International, New Life, New Revised Standard, Revised Standard, The Message (“Babylon’s seventy years are up”), Today’s New International, Weymouth New International, World English, Young’s Literal (“the fullness of Babylon – seventy years”) support “for Babylon”.
2 Chronicles 36:20 "to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
Again, the "word by the mouth of Jeremiah" never mentioned Sabbaths. The '70 years by the word of the mouth of Jeremiah' were of all the surrounding nations serving Babylon.
2 Chronicles 36:19, 20 (NIV): "He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."
Daniel 9:2 "discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years"
The word translated "fulfilling" (Strong' 4390) means "full", "completed". The desolation of Jerusalem was completedby the end of the 70 years. It does not require that it was desolatefor 70 years.
The land of Judah had to lie desolate for 70 years.
No, it did not 'have to' "lie desolate for 70 years" (even if it was a 'real' 'prophecy'). Its desolation was complete by by the end of the 70 years.
If Jerusalem was destroyed/desolated in 587 this takes us to the year 517 which we know cannot possibly be the time when the Jews were released since Cyrus released them in his first year of ruling.
Conclusion is based on a false premise.
Notice that the yoke bars were broken. Did Judah and the nations somehow overpower Babylon in 595 BCE (your year)? How did they break the yoke of the mighty Babylonian power? Since they broke the yoke bar, this means the 70 years would had to have been interrupted at some point. Thus pushes the possibility of the 70 year servitude being exactly 70 years even further back, if this yoke was interrupted until another one was placed on. Question: What was the heavier yoke of iron put on the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
You've ignored the context. Notice that the yoke bars were broken by the 'false prophet'Hananiah.
OK, Recovery, I've countered your assertions that the yoke of servitude could only have started with Jerusalem's destruction by using scriptural and historical references, but rather than addressing those counter-arguments and the questions they raise, you're just repeating your original understanding of Jer. 25 and claiming that I'm contradicting and twisting Scripture! This discussion will only go around in circles if you fail to take on board the arguments against your interpretation.
These are the facts:
Jer. 27 and 28 show that the nations and Judah were wanting to throw off, even break, the Babylonian yoke. Read the passage carefully and you'll see where Jeremiah was instructed to give the visiting foreign delegates the message about submitting to Babylon. In the middle of Zedekiah's reign (the same year as the message in ch. 27), Hananiah was falsely prophesying that the Babylonian yoke would be broken off the nations' necks within two years. Ergo, the nations were already bearing the Babylonian yoke before Jerusalem's destruction. Whether the yoke was one of wood or one of iron, the nations were under the chafing yoke of the Babylonians and they didn't like it.
Nebuchadnezzar was taking tribute and demanding vassalage from Judah from early in Jehoiakim's reign, continuing through to a far more severe siege which resulted in stripping Jerusalem of much of its wealth, military power and ruling class, through to Neb's own choice of replacement king, and beyond. Dan. 1 and 2 Kings 24 bear that out.
The calamity of Neb that would be brought upon Jerusalem had still not occurred during the time of Jer 25. Verse 1 tells us this was the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It would be the year 608 BCE according to your chronology.
No, Jehoiakim began to reign in the fall of 609 BCE. His 4th year according to Jeremiah's counting (non-accession, Tishri-Tishri years) was 606-605 BCE. His 5th year would begin Tishri (October) 605 BCE. The battle of Carchemish and Neb's subsequent sweep through the country occurred in the summer and fall of 605 BCE. And Jehoiakim's 4th year in Jeremiah corresponds with Jehoiakim's 3rd year in Daniel. Daniel obviously counted using the accession method. It refers to the same year, 605 BCE.
We know from Berossus (through Josephus) that captives had been taken from the Jews and other nations when Nebuchadnezzar heard about his father's death (Against Apion, I, 19 (137)). We know from the Babylonian Chronicle that Nabopolassar died in August 605 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in the September. We also know that as soon as Neb. had secured the throne, he quickly returned to Palestine and took "heavy tribute" from the territory.
The prophecy never stated anything about Ashkelon being one of the nations that would be in servitude to Neb for the 70 years.
(Jeremiah 25:17, 19, 20) . . .And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink . . . Phar′aoh the king of Egypt and his servants and his princes and all his people; and all the mixed company, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Phi·lis′tines and Ash′ke·lon and Ga′za and Ek′ron and the remnant of Ash′dod ...
Ashkelon was destroyed at the end of 604 BCE, so yes, I do have a point.
Jeffro has adeptly covered many of your other repeated objections already.
For the sake of argument, say that the 70 years were for Jerusalem's Destruction and complete exile of Judah to Babylon. There is no way that 607 BC comes from this as a natural consequence.
Again, Jeremiah 25:12 gives events that give a definite endpoint to the 70 years, 539 BC. The 70 years would end FIRST--and NEXT the king of Babylon (Nabonidus and Belshazzar) would be called into account, along with nation of Babylon as a world power. As Daniel says to Belsharzzar, "God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it."
Therefore, 539 BC ends the 70 years with this event and not the Jew's returning to Jerusalem. We would still have to subtract 70 years from 539 BC and derive 609 BC.
But for the sake of argument, let us go on step further, and say that the 70 years do end with the Jew's returning to Jerusalem. Read Ezra chapters 1 through 3.
Ezra 1:1 says "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia…"
Ezra 3:1 says "When the seventh month arrived the sons of Israel were in [their] cities. And the people began to gather themselves as one man to Jerusalem."
The first year of Cyrus would be Nissan 538 BC. The next point in time says the initial returnees arrived by the seventh month, Tishri 538 BC. There is NO indication that the Proclamation of Cyrus came late in the year. There is no other year mentioned between Ezra 1:1 and 3:1, therefore the same year is assumed by Ezra. If this had been Tishri 537 BC, Ezra would have said, "In the second year of Cyrus, in the seventh month…" But he did not. By the plain reading of the text, he is referring to Tishri 538 BC.
Therefore, if we subtract 70 years from 538 BC, we derive 608 BC.
In neither scenario, do we arrive at 607 BC.
To be honest, we all know the real reason as to how this date is derived. It starts with the year World War I happened to begin and 2520 years are subtracted from it--thus 607 BC as the start of the 70 years, with 537 BC being calculated as the end.
Originally, Russell taught that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BC and that the end of the 70 years ended in 536 BC. Eventually it was discovered a miscalculation had been made in regard there being no zero year, but 1914 was still help on to as an end date, primarily because Jesus invisible Presence was believed to have started in 1874, and that there would be a 40 year Harvest culminating in 1914. Russell died sticking to 606 to 536 BC and apparently Rutherford as well. I think it was only in 1949 that the current chronology of 607 BC to 537 BC was taught.
Everything has been held to since then to keep 1914 in play, which is the last date of Russell's Chronology still held to. All his other dates 1799, 1874, 1878, 1881, and so forth have been discarded entirely. Eventually 1914...as well as dates derived after Russell: 607 BC, 537 BC, 1914, 1918/19 will have to be let go of, even as 1925, 1975, and the teaching that the generation that saw 1914 would be alive to see Armageddon, had to be dropped. With all those wrong Chronologies and Predications in view, why should 607 BC be any different?
