I would love to jump into this, except Ethos has made no points worth the effort...basically he has rehashed a few points other apologists have attempted (and been badly refuted on). The only difference is Ethos 'argues' these points with much less competence.
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
Ethos:
As if it hadn't been thoroughly transparent that the usage of the verb `abad is repeatedly used in conjunctional relation to the actual deportation of the Jews to a foreign land,
This is particularly poor argumentation.
It's a bit like insisting that the phrase, "I worked in Spain," means that the verb work is somehow intrinsic to going to a 'foreign land'. Clearly it is not the case, and this remains so even if many people go to work in foreign lands.
And the fact remains that, of the literally hundreds of times the verb abad appears in the Old Testament, only a very small few mention a foreign land, and none of those make any implication about the definition of abad itself.
-
Jeffro
Ethos:
Now notice there is no month stated, simply that it was given in the first year. But in AlanF's chart, I've highlighted in red how he conjectured that the decree was given in the FIRST month of Cyrus' FIRST regnal year. He asks for evidence that 537 is the date for the return, but he can provide no Biblical or secular evidence that the decree HAD to be given in the first month. By proceeding from here, he continues to conjecture, but passes it off as 'fact'. If you start with a shaky and frankly contradictory premise (between his statements and Josephus' statements) your conclusion is likely to be shaky and conjecture as well.
He's not very good at deductive reasoning either. Ethos' claim that the chart is "conjectured", based on presumed doubt about the decree being made in the first month, is a strawman.
The length of the journey is a minimum of four months (Ezra 7:9). They were in their cities by the 7th month. (Ezra 3:1) Do the math. The decree could have been made in the 2nd month of Cyrus' first regnal year, but it is more likely that a significant proclamation was made at Cyrus' formal accession to the throne. This also allows additional preperation time. In either case, the rest of the chart remains unchanged.
Josephus places the temple reconstruction in Cyrus' second year (starting Nisan 537) and Ezra 3:8 places that in the 2nd month, making a return in the 7th month of 537 impossible.
But even without Josephus' information, there is no basis for insisting that the announcement 'must' have been at the end of Cyrus' first regnal year. A natural reading of Ezra chapters 1 to 3 gives no impression other than that the years from which they count their return align with Cyrus' regnal years. Any alternative requires a great deal of conjecture.
Ethos may be astounded to know that I could also calculate the year he was born using only his age and the current date.
-
Ethos
Before I pick apart Jeffro's nonsense I'd like to make it thoroughly and indubitably transparent that my exegesis of what is implied by servitude is in consensus with the real experts. Jeffro continues to maintain that I eclecticly defined "servitude" to support my position and that the implied meaning of the passages in Jeremiah are simply "serving" and not "slavery" or "labor" in reference to Babylon. It never ceases to behoove me that people like him maintain that I'm not good at this when their biblical exegesis is based upon 2 passages and when we examine those passages in light of their context, and other linguistic usage of the grammar and syntax contained therein, their interpretation is simply nonsensical. Once it is established that "servitude" meant "slavery" (exiled servitude), then everything about his interpretation is dismantled with one, easy blow.
"The meaning "to serve" (i.e. as a slave) is indicated in general contexts in Gen. 14:4; 1 Samuel 1:11; 17:9; 1 Kings 4:21; Jer 25:11; 27:6ff." - Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 2005)
1 labour, work, do work: absolute Exodus 20:9 = Exodus 34:21 = Deuteronomy 5:13 (4th word); Exodus 5:18 (E) Ecclesiastes 5:11; with accusative of thing, till the ground Genesis 2:5; Genesis 3:23; Genesis 4:2,12 (J), 2 Samuel 9:10; Isaiah 30:24; Jeremiah 27:11." - (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, entry H5647)
(abad, 5647), “to serve, cultivate, enslave, work.” This root is used widely in Semitic and Canaanite languages. The verb is first used in Gen. 2:5: “… And there was not a man to till the ground.” God gave to man the task “to dress [the ground]” (Gen. 2:15; 3:23; cf. 1:28, NASB). God told Abraham that his descendants would “serve” the people of a strange land 400 years (Gen.15:13), meaning, as in the NIV, “to be enslaved by.” - (Vines Expository Bible Dictionary, p. 353)
"a term in the English Bible often meaning slave as well as a hired attendant, since the English translates several Greek and Hebrew words that range in meaning from a hired servant to a slave bought or taken in war. In the OT "servant" is a frequent translation of the Hebrew ebed, the literal meaning of which is "slave." The English reader, therefore, must bear inmind that the notion of slave often lies behind the translation "servant." - (The HarperCollin's Bible Dictionary, 1996, p. 1049)
"The Hebrew word 'abad, which is usually translated as "till/work the ground", in fact means servitude, slave labor. The same type of work Israel would be forced to do in Egypt later." (Earth Habitat: Eco-Injustice and the Church's Response, p. 54)
"Primary definition of forcing into labor (cf. Ex. 1:13); compel (s. one) to (do sthg) [cf. 2 Ch. 34:33); -take into, keep in servitude, slavery [cf. Exodus 6:8]; make (s. one) do work (cf. Ez. 29:18)" - (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 262)
-
Christ Alone
Ethos, I don't expect you to respond to this. But what fascinates me is that when jehovahs witnesses are backed into a corner they rely on saying how ridiculous it is that we don't agree with them.
But do you realize that you are a laughing stock to every secular (and religious) authority that has studied this? Virtually NO ONE else agrees with you because you are absolutely 100% wrong. If it is so obvious that you are right, why does NO ONE ELSE agree with your group?
Are you somehow more intelligent than every other scholar and historian?
i feel a tad bit sorry for you, actually. You have overwhelming proof that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607, yet you refuse to admit to any evidence that contradicts the WT.
i do have one honest question for you that I hope you have the courage to answer. If tomorrow the WT reversed its position on this date, would you believe them and agree? Would you argue just as hard because Jehovahs organization changed its stance on this date?
-
Ethos
Jeffro: Equivocation fallacy. People can serve from anywhere. Nowhere does the Bible say the Jews would be "in a land that is not theirs" for seventy years. The Jews, like all the nations, were in servitude to Babylon for seventy years. For part of that time, they were in servitude in Babylon. All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years.
Incorrect. The passages aforementioned Jeremiah specifically relate a servitude that is not of Judean locale. Specifically, it denotes a derivation and morphological inflection of advenient realization (i.e. "you will serve in a foreign land that is not yours [cf. 5:19]; "I will hurl you out off from this land and there you will serve other gods day and night" [cf. 16:13]). Jeremiah delineates whatthe servitude encompasses, wherethe servitude will be consummated, and when(i.e. 25:11 being inflective of a future initiation) and they all are at odds with your chronology.
Jeffro: Again, the verse in question makes no mention of 70 years or any other time period, but only that the Jews would be in a foreign land at some point.
It mentions the all-encompassing servitude with regard to the locality of Babylon. Now you attempt to asunder the other usages of `abad (servitude) from the specific 70-year servitude, when the semantic connections are made when the frame of reference is to Babylon. If you say the Jewish servitude began with the rise of Babylon in 609 B.C., you must also accept that at that time the Jews began "serving in a foreign that is not theirs" (cf. 5:19) and that they "served their enemies in a land they have not known." (cf. 17:4) Are there now multiple servitudes Jeffro?
Jeffro: Again, there is no mention of the 70 years at Jeremiah 17:4. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
It has already been explained that the usage of `abad with Babylonian locality is a continual/parallel reference to the seventy years. To say otherwise would be blatantly dishonest and in fact, a recalcitration of standard Biblical exegesis as the connections are easily decipherable from the text.
Jeffro: Again, this is a red herring, since Gedaliah was talking about Jews taken to Babylon in 587BCE. The reason they might be afraid is they were being taken to Babylon. It is entirely reasonable that they might think servitude there would be worse than servitude in Judea.
The following hypothetical scenario is based on Ethos-style 'logic':
- I went to London this month.
- While I was in London I bought food.
- I also bought food last month.
- Therefore, I was also in London last month.
Terrible reasoning. It is obvious that they would be afraid of Babylonian bondage. You are solidifying my argument since Jeremiah 40:3 used the word "abad" (translated as serve, serving) in reference to Babylonian exile.Accordingly, this explicitly defines and affixes the 70-year servitude with exile. Your hypothetical scenario is an accurate as it would be more like the following:
- I will serve in the foreign land of Iraq as a troop for 70 days.
- I will serve the Muslim god of Iraq while I am in the land and after I am hurled out from America.
- Therefore, I could not begin serving in the foreign land of Iraq until after I left America
- Hence, my 70 day servitude cannot begin until I leave off American soil.
No such point has been proven at all. The Bible shows that the opposite is the case.
On the contrary, it has. As the linguistic experts have brought to our attention precisely how the Bible uses the word "servitude" in reference to foreign nations and on a contextual basis, regarding foreign nations.
""The meaning "to serve" (i.e. as a slave) is indicated in general contexts in Gen. 14:4; 1 Samuel 1:11; 17:9; 1 Kings 4:21; Jer 25:11; 27:6ff." - Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 2005)
God told Abraham that his descendants would “serve” the people of a strange land 400 years (Gen.15:13), meaning, as in the NIV, “to be enslaved by.” - (Vines Expository Bible Dictionary, p. 353)
Jeffro: Jeremiah 25:8-11 states unequivocally that all the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But whilst all the nations were in servitude, things were worse for those that did not submit to that servitude.
But even if the 'servitude' worsened for specific countries, the country would still be considered to be in servitude to Babylon. Therefore, what makes the servitude WORSE for one country and BETTER for another? The CONDITIONS and EXTENT of that servitude (i.e. the harshness of labor/slavery in contrast). The servitude in one country would be worse than another, because that servitude would encompass harsh treatment, and not merely a general subjection to Babylon as a world power.
Jeremiah 27:8 indicates that (during the 70 years), nations that don't submit to Babylon's 'yoke' would suffer more than those that did. Jeremiah 27:11 indicates that the nations that submit (e.g. by paying the required tributes) would be allowed to "rest upon its ground", so their servitude to Babylon would be relatively light.
Yes, so if they did not submit, their servitude would no longer be "relatively light" but instead harsh and difficult. What would make their servitude particularly heavy and the other nations not? If they submitted, then as you say "they would be allowed to rest upon their ground", but if they did not the servitude would encompass banishment from their land and thus slavery. And we know the Jews didn't, in fact, submit, therefore their servitude encompassed a period of banishment and slavery in a foreign land.
-
Witness My Fury
DJeggnog anyone?
-
Ucantnome
I find reading this thread interesting. I'm not the best with dates and names. I read something on here and thing 'yep, sounds good to me' then I read the rebuttal and think 'yep, that sounds good too'
I've read the book The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology and Christ's Return by Carl Olof Jonsson and as a witness I could explain our belief.
I find it interesting that the autumn of 1914 saw the Great War and wonder what are the odds that Pastor Russell was pointing to this year. In the book Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (WTB&TS 1959) on page 52/53 it quotes an article from the New York newspaper of August 30 1914. A small portion of the quote reads.
"The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the 'International Bible Students' best known as 'Millennial Dawners,' have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914."
"But to say that the trouble must culminate in 1914 - that was peculiar."
On the other hand I read Matthew 24: 23,24. Where it says.
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Christ , or 'There!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones."
I understand from the same book Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose on page 37 Russell believed 'that the glorified Jesus became invisibly present in 1874'
It also quotes from the Watchtower of May 1881 where it says.
"So here the gospel church has been God's recognized channel of truth, or mouthpiece, but are such, we believe, no longer. Truth will now come through other channels. Since 1878 (and never before that) we have felt at liberty to call God's children out of the nominal churches to a position of freedom and liberty,
In the last paragraph the question is posed,
'Why would anyone who claimed to serve God want to fight against a message to the effect that the time had come for the Messiah to present himself a second time and bring to faithful mankind the blessings that he had promised when he was here before?'
I think it is a good question. One thing that bothers me is that it is being asked some 40 years later regarding a belief that Christ had become invisibly present in 1874. I think I ask myself the same question regarding 607/1914 when I read threads like this. The answer I come up with is Matthew 24:23,24.
-
Witness My Fury
WTS loves spin, they are among the best spin doctors out there... Ethos on the other hand, is not.
-