Why do I get the impression that this Recovery reincarnated?
Because it is Recovery..
Recovering from his beating on this thread..
.............................. 
... OUTLAW
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
OUTLAW
-
Jeffro
Aside from various issues I've raised that he hasn't attempted to properly deal with, it appears that Ethos has also not properly answered (and in some cases completely ignored) the following posters:
- leavingwt
- tornapart
- pterist
- phizzy
- soft+gentle
- annomaly
- TD
Sorry if I've missed anyone.
-
Pterist
Ethos .
Josephus chapter 8....Also say.....
in the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, and in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar: he also burnt the palace, and overthrew the city. Now the temple was burnt four hundred and seventy years, six months, and ten days after it was built....?
Not very credible !
-
Jeffro
Also conveniently ignored by JW apologists is Josephus' statement in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, which refers to "the interval of one hundred and eighty-two years and a half from the captivity of the ten tribes to the first year of Cyrus."
This is yet another thing that doesn't work with JW chronology, but is accurate when the fall of Jerusalem is correctly placed in 587BCE.
Secular historians place the fall of Samaria midway through 722BCE (remembering the year starts in Nisan) following a siege in the summer months.
-721.5* + 182.5 = -539**
*Half way through 722BCE is -721.5.
**Josephus counts accession years in Antiquities of the Jews, evidenced in chapter 6 by his reference to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605BCE) being the year that Nebuchadnezzar became king. Cyrus' first year, counting his accession year, is 539BCE.
-
Pterist
Courtesy of JWFacts if it was not already posted -
Josephus
Josephus is in agreement with archaeological sources and can be used to show the Jewish destruction was in 587 B.C. He states that Jerusalem was desolate for only 50 years in Against Apion Book I, Chapter 21:
"Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty 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,"
Surprisingly the Watchtower tries to use Josephus to prove Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. In the Appendix of the Watchtower publication, Let Your Kingdom Come it quotes Josephus'Antiquities of the Jews Book XI , Chapter 1 (though the quote is actually from Book X):
"all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years,"
and Josephus Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19:
"our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus" (italics theirs).
By emphasising the word desolate the Watchtower Society hides the meaning of the sentence. If the emphasis is shifted to the word during, it shows Josephus may have meant the city was desolate for only part of that period.
Thanks JWFACTS.
The Watchtower reasoning makes Josephus works contradictory. There is no contradiction when understanding these passages to mean that Jerusalem was desolate for a period of 50 years during the 70 year desolation of the nations. This then agrees with Bible prophecy, with the explanation of the 70 years above and also with history. -
Ethos
Leavingwt asked: Have you read "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by COJ?
Yes. This was answered repeatedly when I insinuated Jeffro's pilfering of Carl Jonnson's arguments and chronology which are delineated in his book. I believe the readers could infer that A): This question wasn't of vital import B): Deduce from my statements that I was familiar with the book
tornapart stated a plethora of statements (many of which would be futile to address at the present moment) but his question he says I ignored:
Ethos.. just answer this.. why is 607BCE so important to JWs? Why do they make such a thing about it? What about other dates in bible history, they don't get nearly so much attention, if any! Why is it that it has to fit at all costs with the 70 years captivity and the intricate explanation as to what it all means? Of what import is it as compared with other bible dates?Just a simple question... Why is 607BCE SO important to JWs?
Was answered previously on page #10, post #5 where I said: Isn't it interesting when people allude to scriptural arguments that refute their own premises? Amazing. Also I'm debating 607 because I believe it's unjustly perpetrated as an impossible and fictional date for Jerusalem's destruction, when it is the only one I've ever seen that allows for a seventy year desolation. I don't require Jerusalem's destruction to prove 1914. This slippery slope fallacy continues to be asseverated repeatedly as if I've declared that this is how I arrive at the conclusion of 1914.
TD only asked one question: I still don't know for sure if you believe that concepts like the 360 day 'prophetic year', weeks of years, etc. span the barriers we've both acknowledged. Do you?
To which I would respond: Yes, many prophecies DO span that barrier and others do not. It depends a lot on the exegesis behind the prophecies and their fulfillment as well as the situational and literary contexts of the individual scriptures used as premises to arrive at the prophetic conclusion.
I gave him a very general reply acknowledging his response, thanking him for his honesty and his reasonableness and non-bias. I didn't think the question was of vital import to the ongoing discussion since it relates to a different topic and I was also being bombarded with responses from other 607-related questions so I did not answer it.
soft+gentle asked: 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?
Which was answered when I said to TD: "Empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation. Other scriptural passages that refer to the refinement of God's people during the time of the end (Daniel 12 to mention just one) as well. All establish 1914 separately."
I'm guessing he wanted me to break down every bit of evidence I would adduce from Revelation and Matthew 24 to prove 1914 but that is for another thread. His question was addressed.
I see no questions from phizzy beyond this:
First of all Ethos, the 2520 days/years method is hardly concrete as a method, it is bordering on crazy, but what other method could give you 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction ? using the Bible I mean. Come to think of it, using whatever you like, but not old discredited arguments that have been dealt with on JWD/JWN.
Or did you mean 1914 can be arrived at by another method, regardless of the incorrectness of 607 ? that you could ditch 607 and still prove 1914?
If so how ?
From my previous statement to TD regarding how 1914 is still arrived at with/without the Gentile Times (607-1914) this question was answered.
pterist asked me to prove that the group of exiles from Zedekiah's reign would return to Judah
I responded: It's in Jeremiah 25. "...which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.." So the 70 year prophecy would apply to all in Judah, regardless of when they were specifically exiled
To which he repeatedly responded: "
"And how do you explain Jeremiah 24 ?
This is what refers to Zedekiah's group Jeremiah 24-NO RESTORATION."
I didn't think it was necessary to reply to this because I believe it was obvious that Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah and his men would be killed and would thus not return (cf. Jeremiah 52). Jeremiah says ", this in fact is what Jehovah has said: “So I shall give Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah and his princes and the remnant of Jerusalem who are remaining over in this land and those who are dwelling in the land of Egypt." This is talking about those who did not go to Babylon after it was besieged. Jeremiah 52:24-27 " . . .Furthermore, the chief of the bodyguard took Se·rai′ah the chief priest and Zeph·a·ni′ah the second priest and the three doorkeepers, 25 and from the city he took one court official that happened to be commissioner over the men of war, and seven men of those having access to the king, who were found in the city, and the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and sixty men of the people of the land, who were found in the midst of the city. 26 So these Neb·u′zar·ad′an the chief of the bodyguard took and conducted them to the king of Babylon at Rib′lah. 27 And these the king of Babylon proceeded to strike down and to put them to death in Rib′lah in the land of Ha′math. (Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the bad figs is fulfilled when the priests are killed) Thus Judah went into exile from off its soil. (those who were removed from Judah are also taken into Babylon, but they are not killed, and thus the entire country is now in exile)
Pterist has made over 30 replies in this thread, and a lot of it were rehashes of what he said previously or cut and paste from websites, so I don't think anyone expects me to address every little minute detail.
AnnoMaly's questions were answered when I wrote a detailed biblical exegesis on Jeremiah 29. All of her questions asked are there. I don't know what you want me to do, but repeat what I've already said?
So thus, no one has been ignored and I have answered all substantiated and vital and painstakingly answered even the most infantile and off-topic questions as well.
Now let me demonstrate the ludicrousness that Jeffro and his cronies continue to spout after they have been proven wrong time and time again:
Jeffro said: "There's no basis for connecting the 70 year exile with the servitude"
I showed him writings from Josephus and two other classical historians as well as Biblical commentaries by modern scholars that connect the paying off of sabbaths to the 70 years.
To which he expectedly replied: "Incorrect. Already stated that whilst Josephus' earlier writings (quoted by Ethos) mentioned the 70 years without regard to the correct context, his later writings correctly indicate both the 50 year period as well as explicit agreement with Berossus' statement of all Neo-Babylonian reigns from Nebuchadnezzar through to Nabonidus. No doubt Ethos would agree that the Watch Tower Society's earlier writings on a great many subjects can be 'ignored' in lieu of 'refinements', and yet he seems to have trouble understanding when other sources actually make corrections."
Josephus was but one of the several historians I showed that connected the 70 years to exile. So even if you discredit Josephus' writings (which you haven't) you still have several scholars who prove there is basis for connecting the two; their connection between the 70 years and the sabbath also showed your 49-year sabbath interpretation to be erroneous. Now it's time for you address the following:
Who threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible
Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12. " -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.
The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version
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.
I showed you thoroughly how the alleged 50 year revision would create a COPIOUS AMOUNT of problems with your chronology (which you failed to address). I will repost them and explain to you the fallacies in your reasoning once again since 'I'm not very good at this':
Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: "But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "
If Josephus meant to 'revise' this to 50 years as Jeffro contends, it still wouldn't make sense, since Jeffro contends the Jews served Babylon for seventy years, not fifty. The 'revision' tactic fails and so does your 609 chronology.
Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "
No; according to Jeffro, Jerusalem was never a desert for 70 years. According to him the Jews returned in 538, city was desolated in 587. Even if Josephus should revise this, this gives you 49 years not 50.
Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: "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."
Again the servitude connected directly with the exile and the restoration of God's people to their homeland. Too bad it says Jeremiah foretells the 'captivity' and thus the 'servitude' BEFORE the destruction of the city, which indicates that the servitude began AFTER the city's destruction. Jeremiah can't foretell something that had already 'started'. 609 just doesn't work here even if it said 50 years. If this should be revised to 50 years, your chronology falls flat.
Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.
Do you know what the word 'banishment' means? Banish: to expel from or relegate to a country or place by authoritative decree; condemn to exile : so yes, the Jews were in exile for 70 years according to this historian
The people spent 70 years in Babylon AFTER the destruction of the temple. Again the seventy year banishment starts AFTER the destruction of the temple. 609 just doesn't work here. Another secular source that proves your 609 chronology wrong, provides basis for connecting the exile and the 70 years, and no, you can't play the revision card or the 607 bias card this time.
Wrong again. Apart from the sad fact that he's repeatedly resorted to argument from fallacy (which he's not very good at because he gets some of the fallacies wrong), he continues to not actually show any evidence for his assertions, and then provides a short list of translations despite the fact that I have already explicitly demonstrated that the majority of translations do not support his view. He continues to ignore the fact that the context of Jeremiah 29:10 invalidates his (the JW) interpretation of the verse and the chapter that contains it. So he simply resorts to copy-and-pasting the same verses (in the minority) that he's already asserted, still without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Similarly, he asserts an interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 that contradicts Jeremiah 25:12, while also ignoring the chiastic structure of 2 Chronicles 36:21 itself.
Is that the best you can come up with? He says I have provided no evidence but I have provided a list with over 20 translations, scholars, and secular references that support every assertion I've made: namely that the NWT translation of both Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 is not biased, unique, selective in the least. Jeffro tried to insinuate that the NWT 'selectively' translates these scriptures to support the 607 chronology, but it was shown that numerous other scholars and bible translators translate and interpret accordingly and thus (even if he appeals to the argument from consensus fallacy) his argument was dispelled. All he can say is I ignored the context (the context according to him) when I presented a thorough biblical exegesis on the situational, literary, and even a linguistic context as I translated the scripture word-for-word from Hebrew to English. He's now reduced to repeating like he has with the secular historians, the Catholic Encyclopedia, over 20 Bible translators/scholars, that everyone else is wrong and he is right. Infantile argumentation at best.
And, wrong again. Ethos continues to paste assertions from other sources with no supporting evidence. The fact that other editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia actually indicate the correct years is also conveniently ignored. He is yet to provide anything to indicate how it is 'likely' or even possible for the Jews to have returned in 537 to the exclusion of 538, despite explicit testimony from Josephus as well as various modern sources that specifically indicate 538 as the correct year for the return. Even while pretending to acknowledge that secular sources variously suggest either 538 or 537 as possibilities (though those that suggest 537 do not take into account all the available information), Ethos actually dogmatically sticks to his baseless selection of 537 in order to prop up his a priori beliefs about 607 and 1914.
'No supporting evidence'? "He has yet to provide anything to indicate how it is likely or even possible for the Jews to have returned in 537". I hope onlookers are laughing as hard as I am at these delusional, farcical statements. I provided several, respected, scholarly encyclopedias that support 537, and now he continues to insinuate that somehow I still haven't even proved that it was possible for the Jews to return. I don't know of anything more reliable and well-researched and documented than the information contained in the world's most respected encyclopedias. All I had to do was prove that 537 is indeed possible. He is dogmatically asserting that the Jews returned in 538 based on Josephus' writings when Josephus' own writings have thoroughly intimated that Jeffro has contradictory premises leading to his 609 conclusion, and therefore it is a fallacious appeal to authority that does not fit in this case. I have never dogmatically asserted the 537 date, as I stated, the burden of proof merely requires me to prove that such a date is indeed possible. The burden of proof is on you to definitively prove that the Jews returned in 538 B.C., which you cannot do. Secular sources are by no means dogmatic on 538 or 537.
And, surprise surprise... Ethos is wrong again. He apparently still does not understand the meaning of the word during, so he simply asserts over again with his emphasis on a different part of the sentence.
Let's change it for fifty years. 'Our city was desolate during the fifty year interval'. But there is no 50 year interval. 587 to 538 isn't 50 years. Be a little consistent. Does Josephus' mean to say 70 or 50 in his statement here? Because according to you, he meant to revise this and thus it should say 50. So when was the 50 year interval? Again you have no answer.
The first of the false 'problems' seems to be based on something AnnOMaly posted. In any case, the 70 years mentioned at Zechariah 1:12 ended after “the fourth year of Darius” (518 BCE), 70 years after 587 BCE, the year established in history that Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed. Sharezer and Regem-melech were then sent to ask if the weeping and fasting (that commemorated the destruction of the temple and the death of governor Gedaliah in the fifth and seventh months, respectively) should stop, because the angel had said that the denunciation would last 70 years. They asked about the fasts in the ninth month, after the annual fasts had already been held for the seventieth year, 518BCE.
Well I think you and AnnoMaly need to get it together, because your 587 to 515 interpretation simply does not work. As she so eloquently pointed out for us: the starting point (587) to (515) is 71 years, 7 months (almost 2 years) after the supposed 'exact' 70 year prophecy was fulfilled. You didn't address any of the chronological issues but merely summarized your interpretation of what transpired. You also didn't address why the Bible says Jehovah roused Cyrus spirit to rebuild a temple he had purposely prophesied would be desolate long after Cyrus death and why Daniel asked Jehovah to not delay in blessing Israel (with the completion of the temple building) when he discerned that it was to be desolate for 70 years (long after his death as well). Lastly, you failed to address how Daniel does not say "The sanctuary shall lay desolate for 70 years", he merely says "Jerusalem" which he connects the 70 years mentioned in Jeremiah (your supposed 609 chronological starting point) which is a totally different reference and prophecy, that has nothing to do with your wacky 70 year temple interpretation. BTW, since you quoted Josephus, don't forget to mention how he says the temple was desolated for 50 years, or should we leave it as 70 years to fit your interpretation?
-
Zagor Almanah
PROPHECIES OF the REIGN OF GENTILE KINGDOMS
Daniel 2
The IMAGE
The EVENTS
Fulfilled
in?HISTORY
The CHALDEAN EMPIRE
(Babylon)
625-539 B.C.
Daniel 7
The?FOUR BEASTS
(State) (Church)
meaning
of
Symbols
1st HEAD
of prophetic
BABYLON
2nd HEAD
of prophetic
BABYLON
7th HEAD
of prophetic
BABYLON,
with
10 HORNS
3rd, 4th, 5th,
6th HEADS of
prophetic
BABYLON
Daniel 8
The RAM
and GOAT
Revelation 17
BABYLON
and BEAST
Revelation 13
The BEAST and IMAGE
(State) (Church)
3rd BEAST
(LEOPARD)
4 heads
verse 6
4th BEAST
strong like
IRON with
10 HORNS
verses 7, 23, 24
Head of GOLD
verses 32, 38
RAM with
2 horns
vv. 3, 4, 20
HE GOAT with
great horn and
4 notable ones
vv. 5-8, 21, 22
2nd HORN
rooted up
2nd BEAST
(BEAR)
verse 5
Legs as
IRON
verses 33,
40-43
1st HORN
plucked by roots
3rd HORN
rooted up
The OSTROGOTHS
A.D. 493-554
The HERULI,
Odoacer’s government,
A.D. 476-493
The VANDALS
A.D. 429-533
Fall of the ROMAN EMPIRE
A.D. 476
The ROMAN EMPIRE
in two divisions,
West and East
31 B.C.-A.D. 476
GREECE, under
Alexander the Great,
and four divisions,
began 333 B.C.
The PERSIAN EMPIRE
(Medo-Persia)
558-330 B.C.
1st BEAST
like LION
verse 4
Breast & arms
of SILVER
verses 32, 39
Belly &
thighs of
BRASS
verses 32, 39
The BEAST
with 7 HEADS
and 10 HORNS
verses 1, 2
The DEADLY
WOUND verse 3
1st HORN
2nd HORN
3rd HORN
These three
horns,
destroyed at
behest of pope,
fill the
“Transition
Age” (Myers)
Ruled the beast,
so-called
BABYLON the
GREAT
Since the
“great whore”
never rode any
of the
7 heads
of the 1st
4 beasts, but
did mount
and ride the
last 7 horns
of Daniel’s 4th
beast it follows
that the last 7
horns of
Dan. 7 and Rev.
13 are the 7
HEADS of Rev.
17 (5 fallen at
collapse of
Napoleon).
LITTLE
HORN
among 10
verses 8,
20-22, 24-27
6th
HORN
5th
HORN
7th
HORN
8th
HORN
In 1814, 1,260 years after its “deadly wound” was healed, the “HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE” was dissolved.
“So closed a government that dated from Augustus Caesar” (West, p. 377).
The Ten
TOES
9th
HORN
10th
HORN
ITALY, under Garibaldi,
1870, to the fascist
REGIMES, 1945
Revived ROMAN EMPIRE,
10 rulers under one leader.
NAPOLEON’S KINGDOM
(French head), crowned
1805
HAPSBURG dynasty
(Austrian head),
Charles V crowned 1520
HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
(German head), Otto the
Great crowned 962
FRANKISH KINGDOM
Began A.D. 774.
Charlemagne crowned
A.D. 800
FALSE CHRISTIANITY
and church government,
or “image” of Roman
Empire government
“IMPERIAL
RESTORATION” of empire
by Justinian, A.D. 554.
He recognized supremacy of
this world’s Christianity.
Beast ascends
out of pit
4th
HORN
(One yet to
come)
(One IS)
Rev. 17:10
1st HEAD
of BEAST
(healed)
ridden by
scarlet-clothed
woman
SCARLET
WOMAN who
rode the
BEAST vv. 1, 2
5th HEAD
ridden by
woman
6th head
ridden by
woman
7th head and
10 HORNS
4th HEAD
ridden by
woman
3rd HEAD
ridden by
woman
2nd HEAD
ridden by
woman
2-horned
“LAMB
DRAGON” and
“IMAGE”
verses 11-18
1st of remaining
7 horns—
DEADLY
WOUND
HEALED (to
continue 1,260
years) verse 5
2nd of
remaining
7 HORNS
3rd of
remaining
7 HORNS
4th of
remaining
7 HORNS
5th of
remaining
7 HORNS
6th of
remaining7 HORNS
7th and lastHORN
554-1814=1,260 years beast continued for a short time. A short time of 1260 days is 3 and a half years. The period of great tribulation.
-
Zagor Almanah
Can you please delete my double post. I tried to insert a diagram, that would explain it more correctly, but it doesn't seem to work...
-
Ethos
Oh yeah let's not forget how Jeffro had no answer for this tidbit:
Let's look at Jeremiah 27:6 again "And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’
The statement they must serve even him and his son and his grandson is simply saying that all those who ascend Neb's throne must also be served by the nations. Using the term "son" to refer to successive kings is not uncommon as the Assyrians did this and the word used here is also translated "descendant" or "relative". In either case, the all important starting point of this all important 70-year prophecy is never, ever mentioned in the Bible, not even once. Why is there so much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar, but never the person who is crucial in the starting point of the entire prophecy? It is not illogical to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected byseveral OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.
It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocations B): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar
I wonder what it will take for Jeffro to realize how ridiculous it is that the most important link in his chronology just happens to be missing...
-
AnnOMaly
Ethos #91
Indeed, him and AnnoMaly can do nothing more but poorly try to discredit the secular sources and even show evidence the Jews came back in 538 BC (which is a strawman since he only asked for some proof that the Jews returned in 537)
You have yet to provide evidence for the 537 BCE date. I suspect you're having trouble doing so or you would have provided something concrete by now.
Josephus was wrong, the historians were wrong, all those Bible translations are wrong, and your interpretation is wrong. Everyone's interpretations are wrong, the historians are confused, Josephus meant to revise, the Catholic Encyclopedia is just an assertion and not proof, and so on and so forth.
You are not taking into account scholarship as a whole. You're ignoring the statements by Josephus, historians, other expositors and primary testimonies that do not confirm your pre-conceived notions.
There is no need for you to repeat what Josephus said. The selected quotes you used have been rebutted.
Theophilus' statement cannot be used to bolster your argument because, as was demonstrated, he ends the same period of 70 years in two different kings' reigns. And it's Book III - not Book I (unless you're using another edition).
It's pointless to re-quote the mostly-antiquated or loosely paraphrased renderings "in/at Babylon." These have been countered with citations or quotes from other translations - two of which are from the NWT! Besides, you said yourself that it doesn't matter, it doesn't alter anything, so why are you intent on flogging this dead horse?
You still ignore the fact that Jeremiah did not mention a 70 year long Sabbath for the land or a 70 year long rest for the land. Jeffro well illustrated how the wording in 2 Chron. 36:21 was to be properly understood. You are just repeating your default position rather than arguing against the points put to you.
You are ignoring the 'plethora' of secular sites that say the Jews returned in 538 BCE (in reality 5 sites to match your 'plethora' of 5 sites stating 537 BCE). You have yet to provide ANY reasoning to support your preferred year. Will you ever do so?
All your colors and big bold fonts are merely a written way of shouting "La la la la" while having your fingers in your ears. You came here wanting to "engage in discussion" but it looks like you only want a platform to promote your own views without really taking on board any contrary evidence.
So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.
We were talking about how long the temple remained desolated, remember? Don't conflate the period of the temple's ruin with the period of Babylonian domination. The two periods are not the same.
Regarding precision, haven't you ever considered that 70 years can be a rounded number? Are the days of one king only ever 70? ( Isa. 23:15) You're already acquainted with the WTS's view that the 70 years for Tyre is figurative, right? (Isaiah's Prophecy I, p. 253) And do you think biblical edict means man lives literally 70 years, perhaps 80 due to special mightiness (Ps. 90:10) - no other numbers near it allowed?
If you take the WTS time-line, the temple remained desolate for 91 years 7 months (Month V, 607 BCE to Month XII, 515 BCE).
Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months.
And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah.
You were quoting Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel as support for YOUR argument, remember? Hence my response.
And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong:
"in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, 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."
Have you ever wondered why 'devastations' is in the plural?
The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period ...
Wrong. During the 70 years for Babylon or the nations' servitude to Babylon, Jerusalem was desolated. Why the misrepresentation of our position, Ethos?
... and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. ...
That's true. The temple remained 'waste' until 515 BCE (Scripture texts quoted in previous post), and the city remained devastated until Artaxerxes I gave the OK to rebuild in 445 BCE (Neh. 2:3, 17).
... So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated and if so who prophesied it?
Jeremiah's 70 years relate to Babylon's domination over the nations. Zechariah's 70 years relate to how long the temple had still remained a ruin at the time (he wrote 520-518 BCE).