Jeffro: All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
Actually they were. Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer to "many nations". Why? Because "all the nations round about" were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:10-12, 27:7, 28:10-11; cf. BM 21946), and the king composed his army of their military forces (cf. Jeremiah 35:11, 2 Kings 24:1). Ezekiel says: "Then the nations came against him, those from regions round about. They spread their net for him and he was trapped in their pit. With hooks they pulled him into a cage and brought him to the king of Babylon." (Ezekiel 19:8-9). The "many nations" are the foreigners that embodied Nebuchadnezzar's military force. As Jeremiah himself says, Nebuchadnezzar brought against this city the Chaldeans, the Syrians (cf. Jeremiah 35:11; 2 Kings 24:2), the Moabites, and Ammonites (cf. 2 Kings 24:2). These nations in fact, came from Babylon and therefore were in Babylon before and during the time interval of the 70 years, "serving" Nebuchadnezzar, just as there were Jews exiled in Babylon before the specific 70-year prophecy began.
Jeffro: Ethos continues to rely on figures that Josephus' provided earlier in his writings, despite the fact that Josephus later wrote that fifty years is actually correct, and that "[Berossus' accounts which are consistent with the modern Neo-Babylonian chronology] agree with the true histories in our books."
Ethos also continues to ignore the fact that Josephus also specifically indicated a period of 182.5 years from the fall of Israel (722BCE) until the first year of Cyrus (539BCE).
(Josephus counts accession years. Further detail in an earlier post)
It's hilarious, and a little sad, that Ethos' entire world view relies on a "possible" date that's "not conclusive", particularly since the date he needs is wrong.
Josephus' later writings still mention a period of seventy years, and therefore your 'revision argument' does not work, as Against Apion is not one of Josephus' earlier writings. I showed you, that even if a revision to 50 years is made "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth (to fifty) from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon" you would make Josephus' chronology place the decree in Cyrus' second regnal year, not his first one. I also showed you how if the figure in the following quote was changed to fifty: ""All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years" under your a priori assumptions of revision, cause an internal contradiction in both Josephus' statements AND your chronology. Either this should be revised to 50 or it should not. If it should not, then Jerusalem and all of Judea were desolated for 70 years which does not fit within your 609 chronology. If it should, the temple was desolated only50 years, and therefore your second "70 year" temple desolation fulfillment does not work. Your bias casts doubt on the veracity of Josephus' historicity as it precludes and produces a causation of many internal contradictions.
Outlaw continues to quote this statement: "this conversation is far too intellectually above your dismal IQ" as an ad hominem when there was no argument for me to ignore and proceed to insult him in place of addressing what he said. Hilarious.
Jeffro: 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.
Terrible analogy. It's more like the statement: "When I go to Spain I will serve as a naval officer for 70 days and there I will serve all the military commanders while I am dwelling in the country." Therefore, I couldn't begin my servitude until I had gone to Spain and my servitude is directly associated with my foreign locality.
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.
ABSURDLY FALSE!!! I will let the experts continue to correct your lack of apperception regarding Hebrew verb usage in it's specific contexts in the OT once more:
"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)
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.
If your starting point provides the basis for the chronological subsequence of other events, then your superceded dates will be incorrect. If you say the Jews returned in 535, and then proceed to place the laying of the temple foundations 2 years after, all of your subsequent chronology will be erroneous because of your incorrect initiation. Therefore, my deductive reasoning is correct and not in the least fallacious.
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.
FALSE, FALSE, FALSE!! How many times do I have you to tell you this. This is merely a fallacious appeal to Josephus' authority as if he was the final authority on the matter and as if Josephus' own statements can corroborate the 609 chronology, which was thoroughly shown to cause numerous chronological contradictions and errors (on the part of Josephus' historical reliability) AND if you take Josephus' as the final authority on the matter you must also disregard your 70 year 587 to 515 temple chronology as well. Talk about 'not being good at this'.
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.
There's also no reason why it could nothave been at the end of Cyrus' first regnal year either. You are confusing the difference between positive evidenceand absence of evidence.There is no positive evidence that Cyrus' could not have given his decree late in his regnal year as there is no specificity in the Biblical account regarding the month. To disprove 537, you must present positive evidencein favor of 538, and your only foot to stand on is Josephus, whose statements and chronology utterly dismantle your 609 to 539 and your 587 to 515 chronology. Therefore, there is an absence of positive evidenceand you cannot factually assert that 538 MUST have been the date the Jews returned, and doing so, 'requires a great deal of conjecture.'
Jeffro has been thoroughly debunked. Now on to Christ Alone's emotional appeal:
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?
No I am not arguing in favor of 'Jehovah's organization' or any entity. I am arguing in behalf of my own conclusions regarding the Biblical account of a seventy year exile. If the date is changed, for me it would make no difference, as I do not hold the Watchtower or the Governing Body to be incapable of making wrong statements.
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?
This is exactly what you should be asking all who maintain the 609 chronology regarding the use of `abad and it's significance. It's not even a matter of interpretation, it's what the word literally means, slavery. Thanks for phrasing it so beautifully Christ Alone. And also nice use of the bandwagon fallacy to solidify your point.
You really have lost your grip on reality!