Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ethos

  AnnoMoly said: How does arguing 'Cyrus was king of Babylon therefore the Jews continued to serve Babylon after the Persians conquered it' help you with the 70 years question? You see, even after the exiles returned, they were still in servitude, but to to the Persian kingdom. They had to pay tribute to Persia and the Persian king could order them about, as this letter from the inhabitants of the Samaritan kingdom and its reply indicate.

  Because as Jeffro and others tried to argue, "there was no Babylonian King" to call into account, therefore Jeremiah had to be fulfilled in 539 B.C.E. By demonstrating how Cyrus could still be called "king of Babylon" (by both biblical and secular sources) it squashed that argument, as this is all related to the fulfillment of the beginning and end of the 70 years. The rest of your reply was a red herring and unnecessary, as you're not really putting forth something I object to since you obviously didn't understand the point being made.

  1. How can Nebuchadnezzar have been 'called to account' when he was DEAD?

  The scripture does not say 'Neb will be called to account at the end of seventy years'. It simply says 'the king of Babylon' will be called into account. Obviously, it wouldn't be Neb since he wouldn't be alive at the end of 70 years. Strawman argument that shows you didn't understand my argument.

  2. The sense of Jer. 51's OTT warnings: Nebuchadnezzar was the first neo-Babylonian king to start oppressing God's people, but subsequent kings continued after him. Therefore, Babylon and whoever was reigning were going to be punished (Jer. 25:12).

  Jeremiah 51 specifically mentions the vengeance coming upon Babylon (the attack of the Medes) and correlates it with the "vengeance for his temple". (V. 7-12) Although the oppression of the Jews is mentioned, the primary reason for the "vengeance of Jehovah" is for the temple as it so clearly states. Didn't really change anything about my argument though.

  3. The temple was raided of its utensils 3 times - in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when Jehoiachin and several thousands were taken into exile, and when Jerusalem and the temple were finally destroyed (Dan. 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:12,13; 25:13-17).

  What exactly is your point? All looting from the temple occurred under the direction and decree of Nebuchadnezzar. Showing us that this happened on three occasions proves.....? Jeremiah 51 specifically condemns Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans for looting the holy utensils. The false prophecy of Hannaniah in Jeremiah 28 again proves the Jews associated the 'breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon' (the servitude), with the returning of the temple utensils.

  4. Nabonidus and Belshazzar lost possession of the temple utensils when Cyrus took Babylon. The utensils therefore became Persian property in 539 BCE.

  Again, another irrelevant point. The returning of the temple utensils is when the vengeance of the temple (Babylon's calling to account) is fulfilled. Not the loss of possession from Babylon to Persia. That was not my argument.

  How does anything in your response prove your point about when you think the 70 years of servitude ended?

  I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. Get it now? Sheesh.

  You haven't provided one solid rebuttal yet. Are you going to try harder with your 'Response to Premise 3'?

  Likewise regarding your response. You spent most of it refuting arguments/bringing up points that I have no objection to....or that were completely desultory if you're arguing in favor of Jeffro's 609 chronology. Maybe you can try a little harder too.
• 

  Jeffro

  You are committing the fallacy of using Daniel to qualify what Jeremiah meant as a premise for your conclusion. Daniel cannot be used to qualify the prophetic denouncement of Judah and the servitude to Babylon, especially when there are no stelwart lexicographical or hermeneutical justifications for doing so, such as a direct quotation or specific reference to V. 8-12 in Daniel 5 or Daniel 9. Another fallacy you commit is by advertising the use of a cross reference, as another premise to give credence to your argument. For your argument to stand one on one leg, though, the only usage of the NWT-cross references would have to be for references to similar events and prophetic fulfillments. However, as the "All Scripture Inspired" Book explains on p. 324 par. 20 the criteria for a cross reference in the New World Translation includes: "(a) parallel words, (b) parallel thoughts, ideas, and events, (c) biographic information, (d) geographic information, (e) fulfillments of prophecies, and (f) direct quotations in or from other parts of the Bible." The cross-reference also directs you to several passages in Isaiah that in no way relate to the overthrow of Babylon. What a hasty generalization.

  How very tedious. Ethos here acts as though the connection between Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31 is merely something I've 'hastily' come up with. Though I did notice the obvious correlation prior to investigating what others had said on the matter, the connection is indeed quite well established (e.g. see John Gill's Exposition of the Bible). The special pleading for the NWT's own cross-references on the matter is nothing short of pathetic.

  It was the same administration. When Cyrus conquered Babylon there was no immediate reversal of Babylonian policy and the consequent conditions imposed by the Babylonian servitude remained until Cyrus issued his decree and began to change Babylonian policy. Indeed, the Jews continued subservient to Babylon's rules and directives even after Cyrus ascended the throne, and were therefore still subsurvient to the King of Babylon when the supposed servitude terminated.

  Just because all the policies were not immediately changed, it was quite definitely a different administration. The Babylonian king was no longer ruling. When Obama replaced George Bush as president of the US, Bush's administration was replaced by Obama's administration. It did not require a change of all US policies. You are still also ignoring the fact that the 70 years (the period of Babylon's dominance) is not the same as the calamity (the 'cup', which affected different nations at different times). Jeremiah 25 says nothing about the 70 years being a period of Jews in Babylon. Once Babylon's king was dead, the Jews were subservient to the king of Persia. After they returned to Jerusalem, they were still subservient to the king of Persia.

  Yes there is. Both the writers of 2 Chronicles and of Jeremiah make direct reference to the prophetic denunciation foretold in Leviticus 26. We read at Leviticus 26:34 "“‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies.At that time the land will keep sabbath , as it must repay its sabbaths.35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it." ... [until end of post]

  I've already responded in a previous post regarding the selective interpretation in the NWT of 2 Chronicles 36:21 that attempts to associate the exile with the 70 years. I have also previously indicated that the Jews did not associate the exile with the 70 years (e.g. Ezekiel 40:1).

  Though he has not validly responded to anything above, nor has he responded at all to the problems the JW interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 causes, as previously illustrated.
• 

  Ethos

  Btw...Jeffro is you're going to quote Josephus regarding how long the temple was in ruins, you might wanna quote the part where he says 70 years too. Let's not use references when it's convenient. You also might wanna retract this statement:

  The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

  Jeremiah 48:7 "And Che′mosh will certainly go forth into exile, his priests and his princes at the same time.."

  Jeremiah 49:3 "Howl, O Hesh′bon, for A′i has been despoiled! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rab′bah. Gird sackcloth on yourselves. Wail, and rove about among the stone pens, for Mal′cam himself will go even into exile, his priests and his princes, all together. 4 Why do you brag about the low plains, your flowing low plain, O daughter unfaithful, you the one trusting in her treasures, [saying:] “Who will come to me?”’”

  Jeremiah 49:34 "This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning E′lam in the beginning of the kingship of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, saying: 35 “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Here I am breaking the bow of E′lam, the beginning of their mightiness. 36 And I will bring in upon E′lam the four winds from the four extremities of the heavens. And I will scatter them to all these winds, and there will prove to be no nation to which the dispersed ones of E′lam will not come.’ 39 And it will certainly occur in the final part of the days that I shall gather the captive ones of E′lam,”

  Many. many, other scriptures could be quoted, but I think this is sufficient.

  Pterist: the group of exiles, the deportation from Jerusalem's destruction
• 

  Ethos

  New International Version: "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."

  New Living Translation: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled , just as the prophet had said."

  English Standard Version: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

  God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.

  Young's Literal Translation: "to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept sabbath -- to the fulness of seventy years."

  DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."

  "All this was to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah: "Until the land has retrieved its lost sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall have rest while seventy years are fulfilled. ""—The New American Bible.

  "Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah came true, that the land must rest for seventy years to make up for the years when the people refused to observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible

  Notice how the scriptures say it kept its sabbaths until the 70 years were up. Jeffro says the 70 years ended in 539, but the paying off of the sabbaths ended in 538. God's Word Translation says the land rested for 70 years, but Jeffro's interpretation says it only rested for 49 years. DR Bible says the land kept a sabbath until the seventy years expired (539 according to him) but he says the keeping of the sabbaths ended a year later in 538. The Living Bible says the land must rest for 70 years, but Jeffro says it only rested for 49.

  The 609 chronology is wacky and flawed as these other translations so eloquently demonstrated for us. I guess they have the same JW interpretation of the 70 years and are biased and inaccurate translations as well? Oh please.
• 

  Jeffro

  New International Version: "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 ."

  Well, look at that... I can format text as well. Except I can do it in a manner that's actually compatible with the punctuation. And more importantly, compatible with the evidence and other scriptures that discuss the 70 years.

  Jeremiah didn't say anything about Sabbaths or exile when he said that all the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. As stated here at 2 Chronicles 36:21, the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah. Translations that do not take the context into account can be discounted.

  Whereas the Sabbaths were fulfilled during that period, but there is no requirement that it apply throughout that entire period. Similarly, when Josephus refers to seventy years (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 19), he says "our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years". If I spend time in New York during the week, it doesn't mean I am in New York for the entire week.

  Many. many, other scriptures [about exile] could be quoted, but I think this is sufficient.

  Again Ethos distorts the context. The various verses are about some nations that went into exile after the Jews were exiled, after (supposedly) 607BCE. Those other nations therefore were not exiled for 70 years (even in JW chronology), and therefore those other scriptures (or exile in general) are not described at Jeremiah 25:11-12.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Because as Jeffro and others tried to argue, "there was no Babylonian King" to call into account, therefore Jeremiah had to be fulfilled in 539 B.C.E. By demonstrating how Cyrus could still be called "king of Babylon" (by both biblical and secular sources) it squashed that argument, as this is all related to the fulfillment of the beginning and end of the 70 years. The rest of your reply was a red herring and unnecessary, as you're not really putting forth something I object to since you obviously didn't understand the point being made.

  I don't think you understand how your contention about Cyrus being king of Babylon does absolutely nothing for your argument about when the 70 years ended. Think it through.

  What was Cyrus being 'called to account' for? What 'error' did he make? He didn't raid Jerusalem's temple. Why was God going to punish Cyrus 'and his nation'? How did He do so?

  If servitude to the king of Babylon did not end with the city's overthrow, but continued into the Persians' reigns, when did it end? The repatriated Jews continued to serve the (Persian) kings of Babylon for decades afterward - as the Bible shows. Why arbitrarily end the servitude in 537 BCE, in Cyrus' 1st-2nd regnal years?

  Your interpretation of Jer. 25:12 simply doesn't make sense.

  The scripture does not say 'Neb will be called to account at the end of seventy years'. It simply says 'the king of Babylon' will be called into account. Obviously, it wouldn't be Neb since he wouldn't be alive at the end of 70 years. Strawman argument that shows you didn't understand my argument.

  Agreed, the Bible does not say 'Neb will be called to account.' However, YOU did. You said:

  But rather than trying to understand Jeremiah on it's own terms, you appeal to the prophetic riddle mentioned in Daniel 9 (written in a completely different cultural perspective and time period)to substantiate your interpretation of the 'when' and the 'how' of this prophecy's fulfillment. We need to first establish what exactly Nebuchadnezzar was to be called into account for.

  This is why I asked you how Nebuchadnezzar could be called to account when, at the time of Babylon's fall, he was DEAD. You seem to have forgotten what you posted.

  What exactly is your point? All looting from the temple occurred under the direction and decree of Nebuchadnezzar. Showing us that this happened on three occasions proves.....?

  My point was merely to demonstrate that there was more than one temple looting - the most valuable and extensive haul was 10 years before the temple was destroyed. Under WTS chronology, God was ticked off with the Babylonians for raiding the temple and promising vengeance for 80 years (at least). So my question is, how does this have any bearing on when the 70 years servitude to Babylon ended?

  Jeremiah 51 specifically condemns Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans for looting the holy utensils. The false prophecy of Hannaniah in Jeremiah 28 again proves the Jews associated the 'breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon' (the servitude), with the returning of the temple utensils.

  As I said in a later post: So what? How does the timing of the temple utensils' return indicate anything about when the 70 years servitude to Babylon stopped?

  I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. Get it now? Sheesh.

  Now we've gone full circle. See top of post and start again LOL.
• 

  soft+gentle

  ethos' reasoning is quite convincing to me. Enough to ask ethos, as others have done, how the date 1914 can be arrived at without the gentile times?

  edit: just curious
• 

  Pterist

  Ethos **** Pterist: the group of exiles, the deportation from Jerusalem's destruction****

  So, your Saying it 70 years exile from Jerusalem destruction

  Your Conclusions....539 to Jerusalem destruction +70 = 609 let us change that to 607

  Those who went into exile 10 earlier under Jechoniah's group ...619, so that would be 80 years exile

  Those who went into exile from Daniel's group 629, so that would make 90 years exile.

  The glove does not fit, sunshine.

  1. Jeremiah's letter @chaper 29 about the 70 years exile was addressed to Jechoniah's and Daniel's group as Zedekiah was still ruling as king in Jerusalem.

  2. Matthew 1:12-13 states the exile was from Jechoniah's group, in the kingly line.

  3. Jedekiah and his group are the "Bad Figs" .....Jeremiah' letter of restoration is NOT for them as Jehovah said they will NOT be returned.

  Conclusion, it all makes sense when we read Jeremiah 25 in context...its 70 years for Babylon' power to dominate.

  Shalom
• 

  Jeffro

  Ethos:

  Notice how the scriptures say it kept its sabbaths until the 70 years were up.

  Consider the following hypothetical statement:

  1. The whole time I was in Paris, it was cold; it was cold in Paris until the end of November.

  Later someone says:

  2. Jeffro was in Paris during November.

  An earlier hypothetical weather report said:

  3. It will be cold in Paris for all of November.

  I realise I'll probably need to explain the analogy here for Ethos...

  The first statement is analogous to 2 Chronicles 36:21.

  The second statement is analogous to Josephus' statement about 'seventy years' in Against Apion, Book I, chapter 19.

  The third statement is analogous to Jeremiah 25:11.

  According to JW logic, these statements 'prove' I was in Paris for all of November.

  However, in reality, none of the statements indicate for how long I was in Paris. This remains true even if someone - let's call him 'Leviticus' - told me: "It will be cold the whole time you are in Paris."
• 

  cantleave

  What does any of this matter? 1914 is nearly 100 years ago. The generation that was cognizant of world events in 1914 is all dead. There has been no great tribulation, no armageddon and the cult is completely reinventing itself to remain afloat. 1914 will be dropped within a generation and the 607 argument with it.