Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals (page 47)

Jeffro

I am bored of this. I have better things to do with my time. He's just going in circles now anyway.

At my discretion, I might return later if I feel any urge to continue refuting his poor arguments.

All of the 609 arguments have been shown to be in error. It got boring quite a while back when it was already shown that every ridiculous assertion for their date caused their own chronology to crumble and contradict itself. No amount of copious cutting and pasting, ad hominem attacks, insults about my argumentation, red herrings/diversionary tactics, or statements like I don't answer questions will change this. Here's a summation of all the arguments that have been refuted in this thread:

There was no Babylonian king to be called into account after 539 BCE, therefore the servitude must have ended in 539.

Scholars agree that Cyrus was a Babylonian King: "His Babylonian regnal years began. . . .accordingly in his first year, in which he made the proclamation, 538/537 B.C." - Handbook of Bible Chronology, p. 170

The Jews viewed Cyrus as a Babylonian King: "Ezra 5:13 states: "Nevertheless, in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon, Cyrus the king put an order through to rebuild this house of God."

Secular chronology agrees that Cyrus was a Babylonian King: "All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Somer and Akkad, bowed to him (Cyrus), jubilant that had he had received the kingship . . . I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad." - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to The Old Testament, p. 316

Thus the argument had no leg to stand on.

Josephus meant to revise his figures of 70 years in his earlier writings to fifty years

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, I states: "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, 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.

Counting 70 years from Cyrus first year means the Jews were exiled from their homeland in 608 BCE. If this figure should be changed to 50 years, this means the Jews were exiled from Jerusalem in 588 BCE. Either way, the chronology refutes 609 and the revision tactic falls flat on its head.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, IX, verse 7 "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."

If this should be changed then Jerusalem and the temple was desolated for 50 years. 587 to 538 is 49 years, and the temple being desolated for fifty years merely refutes their own second 70 year (587 to 515) temple desolation prophecy. Even so, 587 to 515 is almost 72 years, which doesn't fit in the 70 year time frame. Either way, the chronology refutes 609 and the revision tactic falls flat on its head.

Anitiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3 (in part) states: "..and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years."

Jeffro agrees this shouldn't be changed, therefore the figure of 70 years is accurate

Against Apion, Book 1, Chapter 21 states: "in them it is written, that in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in a state of obscurity for fifty years."

Jeffro agrees that this should be 50 years and not 70 years (a supposed revision), but counting 50 years (from Neb's 18th year supposedly 587/576) this takes you to 537/536 BCE as the end of the obscurity of the temple. But Josephus says the temple wasn't rebuilt until Darius' second year (around 515 BCE), therefore their second 70 year temple desolation prophecy from 587 to 515 is refuted.

All usages of seventy years were shown to be accurate, and all of Josephus' statements refuted the 609 chronology.

QUOTE: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.

Argument thus had no leg to stand upon.

There is nothing inherent in the word 'serve' that limits it to service in a foreign land. You cherrypicked the definition of `ebed out of almost 300 usages in the OT that implies nothing about slavery. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

Strawman as I had earlier quoted Strong's concordance which showed a variety of meanings and that the context of `ebed determines it's meaning. The Hebrew experts, unanimously supported my exegesis that showed that the context determined that the usage of 'servitude' in Jeremiah 25:11 implied exile, and slavery.

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)

"Moreover, the Babylonian captivity of the people was considered cruel slavery (Jer. 25:11; 27:7)." - (The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, p. 537)

"His function is to explain what is going on, and in many cases he does this with reference to motifs in earlier prophetic books: the seventy years of exile (Jer. 25:11; 29:10)." (HarperCollins Bible Commentary: Revised Edition p. 487)

There is also historical basis for saying that there was a 70 year exile:

And in the Babylonian banishment (literally means exile to a foreign country) the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

The most famous exile that befell the Hebrews, then—to wit, when they were led captive by Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon—lasted 70 years, as Jeremias had prophesied. Berosus the Babylonian, moreover, makes mention of Nabuchodonosor. And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians . --- Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius

The NWT translation selectively translates 2 Chronicles 36:21 to fit their interpretation:

. .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

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.

“According to 2 Chronicles 36:20, the Exile lasted , just as Jeremiah had predicted before the exile began (Jeremiah 25:1-11); thus the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbaths rests during those years (see Leviticus 26:34)” – The Applied Old Testament

“The people had not allowed the land to enjoy the rest God commanded (Lev. 25:1-7; 26:32-35), so now it would have a seventy-year “Sabbath” (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10-14; Dan. 9:1-3) – The Wiersbe Commentary

“2 Chronicles 36:21 explains the role of the Exile in God’s purpose by interpreting the prophecy of Jeremiah in light of the warning in Lev. 26:34f. Daniel 9 also refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy (v.2); based on the warnings in Lev. 26:18, 34f – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

“ God had commanded Israel to observe a Sabbath for the land, allowing it to rest every seven years (Exodus 23:10-11). The people of Judah had denied the land its Sabbaths over a period of some 490 years, meaning that they “owed” the land 70 Sabbaths, and to fulfill seventy years God took the years back during the Babylonian exile.”—Guzik Bible Commentary

Fact that the Jews returned in 538 BC kills off Chronology:

So Josephus indubitably says Jeremiah prophesied that SEVENTY years after the people were removed out of Judah into Babylon, BEFORE the destruction of the city. Jeffro will try to say this should be revised but as it plainly says this is something Jeremiah prophesied and nowhere does Jeremiah prophesy a servitude or a removal out of Babylon '50 years from the reign of Cyrus'.

But AlanF, Jeffro, AnnoMaly and others will not accept this. In fact, they all maintain that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. Now make a mental note that Cyrus first regnal year is from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537. (Mar/April) Count 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem and this will bring you to 517 BCE. Does not work. If they wish to use the revision tactic of 50 years, count 50 years from the destruction of Jerusalem (Tammuz of 587) and this would take you to the summer (Tammuz) of 537, which extends PAST Cyrus' first regnal year and extends into his second. Therefore, the decree would NOT have been given in the first year of Cyrus as the Bible says, but instead was given in his second year, even if we allow for a ridiculous revision.

Josephus own statements refuted their own chronology. And encyclopedias/secular sources were quoted that show 537 is a possible date.

You distorted my statements/misquoted what I said:

DIRECT quote from AnnoMaly:The servitude of the nations to Babylon would last 70 years. Nations began to serve Babylon in 609 BCE with the overthrow of Assyria. Judah began to serve Babylon after the battle of Carchemish (605 BCE) when Neb. swept through Palestine and took captives from the Jews and other nations."

Yet we all know she maintains that the servitude of all the nations (including Judah) began in 609 BCE. She contradicted her own chronology and then tried to place the blame on me. Which is it, AnnoMaly, does Judah start serving Babylon in 609 BCE or in 605 BCE? Why does "Judah begin serving Babylon" only AFTER some of the Jews are taken captive? Hmmmm.

You have ignored everyone's questions:

On the contrary, I did an entire post a few pages back showing I had answered (despite the overwhelming ratio of at least 15 posters to one, including my restricted posting limit) every single person, except one and his question was not pertinent to the discussion. All the other questions being asked right now have already been answered numerous times over or are red herrings that have nothing to with what we are discussing right now.

And the discussion is pretty much over, as I believe all honest ones who are not biased into believing anything anti-JW, can see the fallacies and how 609 has been thoroughly refuted.

Jeffro

I started replying to some of his drivel, but it's just not worth the effort. Refer to previous posts.

Ok... 1 comment

Against Apion, Book 1, Chapter 21 states: "in them it is written, that in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in a state of obscurity for fifty years."
Jeffro agrees that this should be 50 years and not 70 years (a supposed revision), but counting 50 years (from Neb's 18th year supposedly 587/576) this takes you to 537/536 BCE as the end of the obscurity of the temple.

Here, he employs an equivocation fallacy, claiming that "it [the temple] lay in a state of obscurity for fifty years" supposedly 'must' mean completion of the temple. He then raises a strawman that the temple wasn't completed in 537.

Obviously when reconstruction began the temple was no longer in the state that it had been.

And 587 is the correct year for the fall of Jerusalem. 586 is suggested by some as a result of confusion about the different dating systems, essentially as a result of badly interpreting the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30.

Anyway, better things to do now...

OUTLAW

Scholars agree that.....Ethos

The WBT$ is Wrong and..

You Ignore Anything not WBT$ Approved..

..................... ...OUTLAW

Crisis of Conscience

A lot to chew on, aye there Ethos?

Pterist

Ethos ...You still ignore this question ..

Scriptural reference of who is regarded as the "EXILES" that were promised a return from exile.

Scriptural reference that show these same above "Exiles" decendents were actually returned from Babylon.

I gave you scriptural reference on page 23.

I will assume no reply means you CAN'T show any scriptural reference that shows the "exiles TO BE RETURNED" were Zedekiah's group and you CAN'T show any scriptural reference that shows their decendents were actually returned.

Shalom

Ethos

Oh please Jeffro. You are not fooling anyone with that ridiculous argument. You still have 4 other statements by Josephus which destroy your chronology. You still have renowed scholars like Strong who explicitly state the servitude of Jeremiah 25:11 meant labor/work/slavery and who state Jeremiah predicted an exile of 70 years. All of your arguments about 538 were refuted easily. Nothing left here folks.

BroMac

Jeffro AnnOMaly you've done awesome. Ethos doesn't, cant, wont, musn't, accept any possibility or any slight chance that 607 could in any way be inaccurate.

that is all we have seen here.

Ethos if the evidence presented by any scholars was sound and pointed to 607 as Jerusalems destruction by Nebuchadnezzer in his 18th Regnal year or 19th Accession year, do you think it would be accepted on this forum? I do, if the evidence points in that direction no one here would argue like you have for a date that the evidence just does not support.

so why then do you do this? nobody, no one, who does not 'need' to support any preconceived date can take the evidence, which is voluminous and contemporary and see their are no missing kings in the neo-babylonian lists, between Nabopolassar - Nabonidus. None. (except Labashi -Marduk who lasted just 2mths into his accession year, WT state 9mths.)

here in the UK we had a popular TV and Radio presenter called Jimmy Saville, you may have heard of him, he was Knighted by the Queen as Sir Jimmy, thousands lined the streets for his funeral, a very well liked character. Ran the London Marathon regularly in his 70's for charity, you get the picture. It came out after he had died that he had sexually abused young vunerable boys and girls for years. Some people just wouldn't believe this about Jimmy, but as the evidence came forward, just the sheer volume of it all and with his victims own statements it became clear to ALL that it was true. Jimmy Saville was a paedo!

when the Evidence Is there and we dont want to believe it, then we look foolish.

More foolish when JW's are alone in the world believing, as you have shown, DOGMAtically, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. No matter what the evidence shows otherwise.

why does it matter so much for you?

AnnOMaly

Re: Ethos post #132. All you have done here is repeat your often-repeated contentions which have already repeatedly been answered, explained, countered or refuted. You stalled in this discussion several pages ago and do not have a sufficient handle on the subject to bring anything substantial to the table to further your case. I agree that it looks like the debate has run out of steam ... for now ;-)

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this