Before determining whether Judah began serving the king of Babylon at any time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, or only began to serve upon Jerusalem’s destruction, it is first necessary to understand how Scripture defines the word “serve” or "servitude." Establishing the correct meaning of "servitude" goes a long way toward answering the underlying question of when Judah began its servitude. The Bible provides a straightforward answer which seems to have been lost on the 607-defenders whose failure to mention certain verses, specifically all of Jeremiah 27:11 which is directly on point, is disturbing to say the least. As mentioned above, Judah’s years of vassalage or exile and captivity before Jerusalem’s destruction does not have to satisfy a full seventy-year period under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. The commencement of Judah’s vassalage or earlier exile however is relevant to show that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version of the seventy years of servitude and captivity exceeds seventy years and therefore fails. The Jehovah’s Witnesses' viewpoint set forth in Setting the Record Straight is unequivocal. They contend that to “serve” is limited only to those Jews taken captive when Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah desolated and its inhabitants forced into Babylonian exile, and not before. It does not, they claim, apply to Judah and Jerusalem who served as tribute-paying vassals to the king of Babylon at any time, let alone before Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed. And, it does not apply to the very large number of Jews removed into exile at various intervals starting with, at a minimum, the recorded exile under Jehoiachin years prior to Jerusalem’s destruction. But according to Scripture, nothing could be further from the truth. Though a long quote, relevant provisions taken from Setting the Record Straight are set forth here: First, with respect to what it means to serve under the yoke of Babylon, the 607-defenders strictly limit the definition to forced captivity. Their misunderstanding stems from the fact that they omit all of Jeremiah 27:10 and 11 which specifically defines what that yoke of servitude is, yet, they include the surrounding verses. Jeremiah 27:11 makes it abundantly clear that the yoke of servitude includes vassalage.
Jehovah offered all nations the option of becoming vassals to the Babylonian Empire and thereby rest upon its ground and cultivate it and dwell in it. It was His preferred alternative to annihilation. The nations, including Judah, could exercise this option and become vassals - which coincidentaly also meant that some would become exiles taken peacefully (relatively speaking) to Babylon, or, they would be conquered by the sword and forcibly removed as captives or become dispersed. Either way, peacefully or by force, the nations, including Judah, would serve Babylon. A careful reading of relevant portions of Chapter 27 clarifies this:
Secondly, because serving under the yoke of Babylon included vassalage, Judah began serving the king of Babylon in that capacity years before Jerusalem’s fall, beginning at a minimum in the eighth year of Jehoiakim’s reign. After three years as a vassal Jehoiakim rebelled, and Nebuchadnezzar came up against him, removed to Babylon utensils from the house of Jehovah and according to a literal translation in the Interlinear Bible, “bound him in bronze fetters to take him away to Babylon.” (2 Chronicles 36:5-7). The point is, because Judah's Jews began serving the king of Babylon as vassals at least by Jehoiakim’s eighth year, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' theory fails because it actually amounts to at least 80+ years of servitude even assuming their seventy-year period of servitude ended upon the Jews' return to Judah in 537 B.C.E., which it did not. Third, the 607-defenders in Setting the Record Straight also omitted Jeremiah 29:10 where it was made clear that destruction and captivity was not Jehovah’s preferred method of punishing his people, but a consequence of not submitting as vassals; ie., they would suffer the sword, the famine, pestilence and captivity. Verse 10 also makes it clear that false prophets who pacified the populace by stating they would not serve Babylon did so for the purpose of having Judah destroyed and the people removed from off the ground. Jehovah’s desire on the other hand was for Judah to serve as vassals; he did not “purpose,” as did the false prophets, that his people perish by the plague, sword, famine and captivity. Fourth, even Jeremiah and the false prophet Hananiah believed that the exiles numbering in excess of ten thousand and removed to Babylon during the reign of Jehoiachin served under the yoke of Babylon years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Jeremiah described the mass exodus as follows: The 607-defenders in Setting the Record Straight argue that none of these exiles, including craftsmen and artisans, peacefully removed from off their soil served the king of Babylon in accordance with the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11. Furthermore, they contend that the false prophets of Zedekiah’s time, years later, did not believe that any Jews had begun to serve Babylon even though all of Jerusalem was exiled during the previous king Jehoiachin’s reign. They argue that the yoke of servitude lay in the future. Scripture proves otherwise. The answer can be found in large part in chapter 28 of the book of Jeremiah, likewise omitted by the 607-defenders. The 607-defenders are entirely correct in stating that the yoke of servitude includes “captivity.” Where they have gone astray in their understanding is limiting it to “forced” captivity applicable to only those removed at Jerusalem’s destruction when chapter 28 makes it very clear that it applies to captives peacefully removed as well; they are the basket of “good figs” referenced in chapter 24. Chapter 28 chronicles the acrimonious dual between Jeremiah and Hananiah over the current and future status of Jews already serving in exile under the Babylonian yoke in the fourth year of the kingdom of Zedekiah, in addition to all other nations who were serving and would continue to serve under the yoke of the Babylonian king. Hananiah falsely prophesied that Jehovah said that he would break the yoke of the king of Babylon and within two years bring back the utensils of the house of Jehovah which Nebuchadnezzar had carted off, and return the many thousands of exiles removed to Babylon. Hananiah went on to claim that Jehovah would within two full years more break the yoke from off the neck of all the nations. And to make his point, Hananiah took the symbolic wooden yoke off the neck of Jeremiah and broke it. Please note that Jeremiah never disagreed that the exiles were serving under the yoke of Babylon and he wholeheartedly embraced the idea that the utensils should be returned. But he vehemently disagreed that the yoke of servitude on exiled Judah or all the other nations would be broken. Rather, the wooden yoke would become in reality a much more onerous yoke of iron which would saddle the Jews for years to come, which it did. A significant point of departure exists in verse 14 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Bible, the New World Translation, which attempts to push the yoke of servitude into the future by stating that Jehovah “will” put a yoke of iron on the neck of all these nations. A literal translation of that same verse in the Interlinear Bible uses the past tense: “I have put a yoke of iron on the neck of all these nations.” The difference is very important; “have” instead of “will” completely undermines the Jehovah's Witnesses’ position that the yoke of servitude was a future event, but a simple unbiased reading of chapter 28 shows that Judah had already been serving under Babylon’s yoke. Jeremiah said that instead of a wooden yoke there is an iron yoke, indicating an increase in the intensity and length of servitude which had been ongoing, and which in fact happened when Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed and the remaining nations also fell to Babylon. Jeremiah never stated, and it cannot be implied, that Judah had not been serving under the Babylonian yoke or that a yoke would rest on the neck of Judah for the first time beginning with Jerusalem’s destruction even though all of Jerusalem had already been taken into exile under Jehoiachin. Do not be distracted by the fact that Hananiah was a false prophet. His falsehood dealt specifically with whether or not the yoke of servitude would be broken off the exiles and the nations, not whether they were serving under the yoke in the first place. Jeremiah and Hananiah were in accord in this regard. Hananiah, being a false prophet, had deceived the people and caused them to trust in falsehood and lies. By building a foundation of trust, he, and other false prophets, were able to sell the lie for the truth, the falsehood being what the people wanted to hear. Fifth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ statement therefore in Setting the Record Straight, that “Even in the minds of the false prophets of Zedekiah’s day, it was clear that the inhabitants of Judah were not yet bound by servitude to Babylon,” is manifestly false and a gross mischaracterization of the events surrounding the false prophetic statements and the context within which they were spoken. The false prophetic warning to Zedekiah that “You will not serve the king of Babylon” at Jeremiah 27:9 and 14 was delivered in the beginning of the kingdom of Zedekiah in his fourth year (Jeremiah 27:1). The warning delivered to him at that time in verse 12 was limited to him: He was the last king to rule Judah before Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed. Zedekiah had steadfastly refused to continue as vassal to Babylon. Chapter 27 explains how Jeremiah was commissioned as early as the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign to warn other nations to submit to the yoke of Babylon. That warning, and offer to serve as vassal, was repeated to Zedekiah in the beginning of his reign as well. He preferred the lie, the counsel of the false prophets who said he would not serve. He stubbornly refused and rebelled. Eventually Jehovah’s generous offer of serving as a vassal was taken off the table. Judah was dismantled and suffered the sword, pestilence, famine and the yoke of captivity. Judah ended up serving the hard way as symbolized by the basket of bad figs of Jeremiah chapters 24 and 29:17. Nowhere in chapter 27 does it read or can it be implied that the false prophets believed that Judah had not already started to serve under Judah's previous kings. The above discussions prove the exact opposite, that servitude had been a long ongoing-affair. The false prophets’ warning to Zedekiah in verse 12 was directed to him and was not a sweeping historical statement of the Jewish condition from the days of Jehoiakim onward. Jeremiah chapter 27 puts the false prophets' statements into proper context. Sixth, Jeremiah’s letter to those earlier exiles unequivocally corroborates the fact that the seventy years of servitude of Jeremiah 25:11 had already begun long before Jerusalem’s destruction seven or eleven years later. In his letter at Jeremiah 29:4-18, written before Jerusalem was destroyed, Jehovah, through Jeremiah, informed the exiles they were in for a long stay, and they should settle in, build houses, plant gardens and raise families. Then, at the end of seventy years, when seventy years had been fulfilled - that is, when the seventy year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11 ended at the fall of Babylon while the exiles were still in Babylon, Jehovah would turn his attention to the exiles and bring them back to Judah. It is simply not reasonable to believe that the seventy-year period mentioned in his letter had not yet begun. It was unmistakably already in progress. Otherwise, why bother mentioning it in the first place? Why insert it between the admonition to settle in and the promise of their return? The seventy years was directly connected to those earlier exiles and not later exiles who arrived in the wake of Jerusalem’s destruction eleven, or seven, years in the future. Jeremiah’s reminder that they were in for a long stay was not directed to those later exiles captured under Zedekiah’s rule, but he directed the letter specifically to the Jehoiachin exiles who were also included in the group of captives that Jehovah caused to return. He did not state that when seventy years had been fulfilled “81 years from now, beginning eleven years in the future” he would turn his attention to the Jehoiachin exiles. He did not tell them the seventy years he was referring to applied only to a future generation of exiles, for if that was his intent he surely would have told them to wait the full 81 or 77 years, which is what their stay would have amounted to. No credible inference to the contrary can be drawn. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, or any other theory for that matter which recognizes that Judah’s exiles began serving Babylon years before the final destruction of Zedekiah’s Jerusalem, the seventy-year period of servitude was already in progress. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to point out Jeremiah 29:10 in support of their position:
A cursory reading of the phrase “In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon …” might suggest that the seventy years entailed the entire nation being exiled at Babylon seventy years which could only happen if the period began at Jerusalem’s destruction. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, “at Babylon” is more properly rendered “for Babylon.” The difference is significant. Either rendering is linguistically permissible, but only “for Babylon” is probable and proper, and is the translation employed by nearly every other Bible including a literal translation in the Interlinear Bible. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) and the King James Bible (KJV) - routinely vilified by the Jehovah’s Witnesses for its lack of credibility - use “at Babylon.” In other words, the Hebrew word “le” can be rendered “at” or “for.” Please keep this in mind during the course of reading this paper.
So, in light of Jeremiah’s detailed explanation in chapter 25 and elsewhere that the seventy years of servitude applied to the nations of the earth that came under the domination of Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, what did he intend to convey in his letter to the exiles at Jeremiah 29:10? Did he mean that after the nations collectively finished serving Babylon seventy years when the empire fell he would turn his attention to the exiles and return them home? Or did he mean, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, that after the exiles returned home to Judah after having served at Babylon seventy years, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem, he would turn his attention to them and bring them home from Babylon? That doesn't make sense, but that is precisely what they are arguing, even though on its face it is obviously illogical. None-the-less, even assuming that their interpretation is correct it fails repeatedly under a simple test. Under the test, if the seventy-year period ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell and the Persians and Medes began to reign while the exiles were still in Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Return theory fails in three significant ways: a) the seventy years obviously did not end upon their return in 537 B.C.E., b) their seventy-year period amounts to only 68 years from 607 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., and c) from the fall of Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. to the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. there was no king of Babylon to serve. So when exactly did the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 end, whereby “these nations” would stop serving the king of Babylon seventy years? It ended in October, 539 B.C.E., not upon their return in 537 B.C.E. First, nowhere in the Bible does it state that the return of the Jews marked the end of the seventy years. Second, Leviticus 26:32-35 whereby Moses prophesied the pending curse and punishment that befell the Jews states that Jehovah would scatter them among the nations and that the land would become a desolation, and Judah would pay off its Sabbaths all the days of its lying desolate while the exiles were in the land of their enemies, Babylon, and not after they returned. So even though the exiles had not reoccupied the desolated lands and were still in Babylon, the seventy-year prophetic curse ended. Third, Jeremiah 25:12 states that only after the seventy years had ended, or been fulfilled, Jehovah would call to account against the king of Babylon, which he did beginning with its fall to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., one date the Jehovah’s Witnesses and everyone else seem to agree on. The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah. Fourth, Jeremiah 29:10 likewise concludes the end of the seventy-year period of servitude while the Jews were in Babylon, not after they returned. After the seventy years ended Jehovah would turn his attention to his people and bring them back. The seventy years had to end first in 539 B.C.E., in Babylon, and only then would his people be gathered together and brought back. Fifth, 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that the captives removed to Babylon would be servants to the king “until the royalty of Persia began to reign,” which began October 539 B.C.E. and not until the exiles physically returned to Judah two years later. Both sides agree that Babylon fell to the Persians in October 539 B.C.E. That fall signaled the beginning of Persia’s reign. The prophet Daniel foretold its sudden collapse when he interpreted the writing on the wall for Babylon’s king Belshazzer,“This is the interpretation of the word: MENE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and finished it.” And he did in 539 B.C.E. Sixth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses at page 24 contradict themselves because they also claim that Ezra wrote that the seventy years ran until the first year of Cyrus which they submit was his first regnal year, which would actually be his second year of having power. This statement is false. The inspired Bible writer Ezra never said that, and furthermore, their position contradicts the Jehovah’s Witnesses' own claim under its Return theory that the seventy years ran until the exiles returned to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E., long after the decree setting them free was issued, and after Cyrus began to reign. Not only is it a contradiction, but it is not correct. In the first place it contravenes 2 Chronicles 36:22 just quoted which pegs the end of the 70 years at the inception of the reign of Persian royalty, which began immediately when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E., not one year later beginning with the second, or ‘regnal’ year of Cyrus’ rule. Again, common sense is in order. Setting the Record Straight at 24 claims “the first year of Cyrus” was his first regnal year which would be his second actual year of ruling Babylon. However that would create a one-year gap between Babylon’s fall and the Persians’ reign, and surely no one could suggest that when Cyrus made his triumphant entry 16 days after Babylon’s fall in October 539 B.C.E. to his army that the reign of Persia had not yet begun or that the Babylonian Empire was still ruling and in control. Daniel said that the Babylonian kingdom was finished. Read Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:21-23 carefully. Ezra did not state that the seventy years ran until the first regnal (or second actual) year of Cyrus the Persian’s reign. Ezra did not say that in order for the seventy years to come to an end Cyrus had to issue his decree setting them free which was long after Persia began to rule. One of their contradictions ends in Babylon, the other in Judah, and it is strategically and scripturally not feasible to occur at the exact same time or in the same year. So what basis do the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim supports their belief that the seventy-year prophecy ended upon the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. and not earlier when Babylon fell to Persia in 539 B.C.E.? Nothing, as it turns out, although they allude to their reasoning in Setting the Record Straight at p. 25, 26: All that this vague and convoluted assertion attempts to state is that the seventy-year period allegedly ended when the Jews returned in 537 B.C.E. and not when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.; that the Jews’ return had not happened by the time Babylon fell. Well, of course it hadn’t, but more importantly, it wasn’t a requirement because the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., not on their return. Because their return happened two years after Persia conquered Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory fails, they claim, because Babylon was conquered two years before their return. This false and distorted piece of logic begs the essential question: “When did the seventy years end?” Had they been forthcoming and actually quoted Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah rather than force the reader to hunt for its meaning it would have been self-evident, but more importantly, it would have proven them wrong which is perhaps why they did not wish to bring it to the readers' attention in the first place. We can determine what Jehovah’s word was by reference to Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 which they quote in support of their position. And even though neither one of these verses specify what the word of Jehovah was either, the context and subject matter of these Scriptures indicates that it referres to Jehovah’s promise to return the Jews and Cyrus’ decree setting them free. Jehovah’s word related to the return of the Jews and is found at Jeremiah 29:10. But only after the seventy years had ended would he turn his attention to returning the Jews.
This, in actuality, is unimpeachable evidence that the seventy years of servitude came to an end first in 539 B.C.E. and only later, in 537 B.C.E. would the Jews return. Accordingly, it is not necessary or even possible that the ‘return’ occur before Babylon fell and the seventy years ended. Even with their improper rendering that the seventy years would be accomplished at Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory lacks merit. Jeremiah 29:10 supports the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory and disproves the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory. |
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pterist
-
Jeffro
Another example of Ethos' poor argumentation.
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
It is hardly surprising that some translations (a small minority) have wording at Jeremiah 29:10 similar to the NWT. More accurately, a few translations based on the King James Version include the incorrect wording. ( This includes the NWT itself which, front to back, is essentially a re-hash of the KJV with some more modern words, awkward re-rephrasing of many verbs, and a bit of theological bias.)
Regardless of which translations still translate it incorrectly, the context doesn't support a 70-year exile starting from a future unspecificed event. Notably, even the Modern King James Version fixes the error. (The same problems of context apply for 2 Chronicles 36:21.)
-
Jeffro
Pterist:
F. The servitude referred to at Jeremiah 25:11 whereby the nations which fell under the domination of the Babylonian Empire would serve the king of Babylon seventy years included a) vassalage, b) willing exile, and/or c) forced captivity and exile.
...The post probably would have been better as a link with a summary rather than the lengthy copy-and-paste.
-
Witness My Fury
The thought stopping is strong with this one ......
Basically I think this is true, Ethos has become too proud to acknowledge that he may be mistaken or that he may have misunderstood or overlooked something and instead believes and trusts that he is right (typical JW behaviour, ..we've all done it)
To make headway on this Ethos, you need to crank up the Humilty dial to 11 and start listening.
It is useful to have you here shouting your head off though, as tedious as it is to have to read through it it does however serve the useful function of allowing those with more knowledge than you to clearly demonstrate the errors of the 607 line.
Your proof bar is set way too low buddy, it's time you woke up and realised it.
-
Pterist
Jeffro *** The post probably would have been better as a link with a summary rather than the lengthy copy-and-paste.***
Agreed...however, it is obvious that debating with Ethos is futile, as he also agrees that both sides have taken their stand. So we are "playing" NOW, to those who don't participate, but may read the latest posts. In this case I bumped his "Josephus" non Bibical post to counter his WTS propaganda and also to escape his font size on the page, that screwed up my iPad rendering....
Shalom.
-
tornapart
You accept the few secular references for 537BCE... yet you won't accept the many secular references for 587BCE?
where have I seen all this before?
-
notjustyet
Poor, Poor dead horse.
NJY
-
Pterist
Last post from me on this thread -
Where the Watchtower differs with history is that it says Nebuchadnezzar gave up the throne in 581 B.C. History shows it was in 562 B.C. Therefore the two timelines are:
For the Watchtower timeline to be correct Nabonidus needs to have ruled for 36 years, yet the Society admits archaeology shows he only ruled for 17 years.
"Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 [Footnotes]"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day,17th year of Nabonidus' reign. (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus." Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 491
"Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion. Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2 p.457 NabonidusThere is a further problem created by the Watchtower timeline. The following quote goes on to say that there were two Nabonidus' due to tablets showing that Nabonidus was ruling over a city in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The reason the Watchtower Society has be forced to create an unattested second Nabonidus is due to their claim that Nebuchadnezzar started ruling in 624 B.C., making Nabonidus too young to rule at that time. However, since archaeology shows Nebuchadnezzar started ruling in 605 B.C. it is perfectly acceptable for Nabonidus to have been ruling a city in 597 B.C., and still been alive in 539 B.C.
-
AnnOMaly
I have given you a minimum of 4 secular websites that support 537 for the year the Jews returned from exile. The most respected of which, the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you don't take one of the world's most respected and esteemed religious encyclopedias as 'evidence' then there is nothing I will ever be able to say that will 'prove' 537.
That's not evidence, you klutz. That's quoting assertions from other sources who likewise do not explain how they arrived at the date. I provided references that asserted 538 BCE. I'm asking for your reasoning behind your preferred date. To walk you through it:
We know Ezra said that Cyrus' decree was in his first year. We also know that after the decree was made the Jews left and arrived in their homeland in the 7th month.
Which was Cyrus' first year? How did Ezra count it? Does Cyrus' first year correspond to 539-8 BCE? Or 538-7 BCE? What is the reason for your choice?
In which month or time of year did Cyrus issue his decree? What is the reason for your answer?
Now do you see what we mean by 'provide evidence'?
Immaterial to [Theophilus'] statement. He still provides a basis for connecting the 70 years to the exile. The veracity of the sources is not in question, it is simply a matter of any precedence whatsoever for connecting the two.
If a source is confused about when the 70 year exile ended, how can you use it as a buttress for your argument? Are you that desperate? Anyway, there are enough primary sources to use without resorting to secondary and tertiary material from times when they had less reliable evidence to go on. Julius Africanus (who you also quoted) has Cyrus' becoming king in the 55th Olympiad (560/559 BCE) - a little out, don't you think?
Jeremiah mentions 70 years of desolation, inactivity, emptiness of the land.
WRONG with a capital WR. Your following Jeremiah citations do not equate a period of 70 years with the duration of the land's inactivity or emptiness. It is very dishonest to suggest otherwise and re-posting quotes from antiquated, paraphrased or interpretive sources does nothing to magically make it true.
Moreover, you are pulling out these quotes without really understanding how the authors are counting the 70 years! For example, your quote from the Applied Old Testament ignores the other passages where the commentator(s) view the period of exile as starting from Daniel's (and his fellow nobles') exile in 605 BCE - the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar! See pp. 738 note 1 and 1198. The same goes for The Wiersbe Bible Commentary (see p. 1381), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and also Guzik's Commentary (see under 2 Chronicles 36 - B.3.b, and Daniel 9 - A.1.c)! Sloppy, Ethos.
In your 609 chronology the 70 years are exact
Actually, no they're not. They are approximate or rounded. If we begin the 70 year period of Babylonian dominance from the sack of Harran very early in 609 BCE to when the Persians conquered Babylon, we get about 70 years, 8 months+. If we begin the 70 year period from the battle between the Babylonians and Assyrian-Egyptian alliance in Month VI, 608 BCE, after which the last Assyrian king was never heard of again, we get 69 years, 1 month. With WTS time, if you count from Jerusalem's destruction (Month V, 607 BCE) to the Persians' conquest of Babylon, you get 68 years, 2 months.
So from Nabopolassar's 16th year to the rule of Nabonidus Jerusalem was desolated? I wonder how that happened when in your chronology Judah hadn't even been attacked yet.
You're being obtuse. 13 pages of our showing you what Jeremiah's 70 years refer to and you're still creating strawmen.
I agree with Jeffro. You're not very good at this, and like him, I'm getting bored.
-
Ethos
I've been bored. You say I havent brought forth any evidence but the only basis you have for 538 is Josephus writings and pure speculation. No matter what secular source I put forth you want to try to discredit on the silliest of claims because you dont want to accept that there is basis for the JW interpretation. Even the early Church Fathers believed there was a 70 year exile and Jeffro has unwittingly taken the bait and shown himself to be nothing more than a picky quoter, who only wants to use secular sourcrs when it fits his conjured chronology. Its really you and Jeffro who are not good at this.Scholar after scholar, historian after historian, dictionary after dictionary, they have all shown that it was believed to be a 70 year exile.
Denial is a really unhealthy thing.
