Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AnnOMaly

  All Ethos's repeated objections have been repeatedly answered, explained, countered or refuted - at length. He still deliberately creates artificial problems and then claims scholars agree with his misconceived notions.

  What Ethos persistently refuses to answer (one of many instances) is how his cited sources apply the 70 years 'exile' or 'captivity.' One of his sources says that the Jews' captivity continued after they returned to their land, thereby further debunking his fantasy idea that servitude to the king of Babylon could only happen while in exile. He won't admit that his sources count the 70 years from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end them in 539 or 538 BCE. He has not noticed that his sources seem to view the 70 years as a rounded number rather than an exact one. His sources do not back up his assertions about what servitude HAD to involve. He will not acknowledge that, before Jerusalem was destroyed, the Judean kings and people 'served' Babylon and were under its yoke while still living in their own land - despite the clear scriptural evidence presented to him.

  The most laughable aspect to Ethos's appeal to scholarly sources to bolster his flawed concept of the 70 years is that, in their discussions about the 70 years, they uphold the very '609' chronology he emphatically insists doesn't work with the 70 years!

  
• 

  BroMac

  Jerusalem, The Temple, Zedekiah and the normal people of Jerusalem would all have remained untouched after Daniels group were exiled by the Babylonian armies if Zedekiah had listened to Jeremiah speak God's word:

  (Jeremiah 38:17, 18) 17 Jeremiah now said to Zed·e·ki′ah: “This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire, and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. 18 But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chal·de′ans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand.’”

  By not submitting to the King of Babylon by continuing to pay the heavy tribute/tax Zedekiah rebelled against King Neb. He rebelled against God too as Jeremiah had told him nothing bad would come upon Jerusalem, instead Zedekiah was frightened of the people who wanted independance from foreign Nations, previously they were under the Assyrian 'yoke'. So because he didn't "go out to the princes of the King of Babylon" the city was "given into the hand of the Chaldeans" and burned with fire. Zedekiah did not escape, he saw his sons killed and then he was blinded.

  Jeremiah said it would be Zedekiah's fault

  (Jeremiah 38:19-23) 19 Then King Zed·e·ki′ah said to Jeremiah: “I am in fright of the Jews that have fallen away to the Chal·de′ans, for fear that they might give me into their hand and they might actually deal abusively with me.” 20 But Jeremiah said: “They will do no such giving. Obey, please, the voice of Jehovah in what I am speaking to you, and it will go well with you, and your soul will continue to live. 21 But if you are refusing to go out, this is the thing that Jehovah has caused me to see: 22 And, look! all the women that have been left remaining in the house of the king of Judah are being brought out to the princes of the king of Babylon, and they are saying, ‘The men at peace with you have allured you and prevailed over you. They have caused your foot to sink down into the very ooze; they have retreated in the opposite direction.’ 23 And all your wives and your sons they are bringing out to the Chal·de′ans, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand, but by the hand of the king of Babylon you will be seized, and because of you this city will be burned with fire.”

  Ethos, what would happen to the 70yrs or the 'Sabbaths' if Zedekiah had actually listened to Gods Word through Jeremiah?
• 

  BroMac

  Roman Empire. the conqured nations served Rome. paid the taxes etc. they were not IN Rome, still lived their own lives in their own Countries and Cities, anyone who thought about not paying the tax soon found out who there masters were.

  Same goes for all Empires inc Babylonian

  King Neb conquered Jerusalem in 597 they paid their taxes they stayed there peacefully, they also got protection if required, but they were not independant, they served the King of Babylon, who God called 'my servant' so he took 3023 Posh Jews back to Babylon.

  The problem was Zedekiah didn't listen to God's Word. If they would have sat it out till 539 when God 'called to account against the King of Babylon' they would have been home free.

  'like a biryed'
• 

  Londo111

  Good points, BroMac!
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  GEEEEEZUS!

  25 pages committed to a Troll.

  JAMES>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you ever start the clock on this one? (I ain't gonna read 25 pages.)

  Is it too early for a drink?

  Doc
• 

  BroMac

  Its worth reading for the input of Jeffro and AnnOMaly. they both put alot into this one. I certainly appreciate their contribution as i'm always learning.

  also worth reading for the repetitive circles that Ethos argues. to be fair Ethos also put alot of effort into this thread. I hope Ethos is thinking on the evidence presented and accepts the possibility that he could be in error.
• 

  Jeffro

  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)

  Another 'fine' example of Ethos' 'logic'.

  Ethos' conclusion in this matter is like taking a statement such as, "Coal mining is considered dangerous work," and insisting that an activity is not work unless it's in a dangerous coal mine.
• 

  jgnat

  I am working on a summary, I really am. I find I need to back up a bit to provide a bit of context. I make sense of things with images, so that is what you are going to get. The image that comes to mind with bible chronology is candles floating in a bowl.

  

  Various texts have a relationship with each other, but none are anchored to an external, verifiable chronology. They float independently.

  Scholars can argue where they are anchored to the external chronology, essentially floating the candles right or left, and also how far apart the candles are from each other.

  At some point, an external source must be referenced to tie it down. It comes down to how reliable is the external connection.

  It is helpful if a text states, for instance, "In the xx year of Nxxx's reign...", for then we have an anchor point. Now what do we anchor it to? The ancients were not helpful in supplying their dates in the Gregorian calendar. So scholars rely on succession and other records, proposing a likely spot on the Gregorian to get a date. Most helpful are observation charts, giving both the reigns of Kings and celestial observations. Stars and planets are very reliable in their courses, and we can predict all the way back where they have been. All we have to doubt then is the skill and accuracy of the observations. If we find a stunning match, we give a virtual high-five to that ancient astronomer.

  As an aside, I value the contribution of the Egibi Tablets, over 1,200 documents covering from 600 BCE to 482 BCE. Rather than a list of succession of Kings (Kings have been known to be boastful and even erase history if it suits them) these tablets document commercial transactions, recording the date according to the year of the King's reign. They therefore provide a useful secondary confirmation of the succession and reign of Kings at that time.

  A appreciate this thread for encouraging me to look at the implications of the astronomical diary VAT 4956.

  Ethos has restricted himself to bible interpretation and hermaneutics (text interpretation) only. In other words, he is arguing how far apart the candles are in the bowl, not where they anchor to secular or astronomical chronology.
• 

  Londo111

  Excellent illustration!

  In regard the said apologist, I was stunned at the self-declaration and self-congratulations of victory. It’s as if a kid leapt from the stands during the Superbowl, ran to the end zone without the football, and demanded the MVP trophy for winning the game.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Ethos has restricted himself to bible interpretation and hermaneutics (text interpretation) only. In other words, he is arguing how far apart the candles are in the bowl, not where they anchor to secular or astronomical chronology.

  Exactly so.

  But Ethos went further than that. He said assumption and conjecture are needed to pinpoint the exact months and years some events happened:

  "537 is solid, but we are never given absolute dates in the Bible so therefore it requires assumption and conjecture to pinpoint what exact month and year some things happened."