You need to go back and reread..Jeffro specifically stated Jeremiah 25:8-11 and responded to my response to premise one which is also referencing Jeremiah 25. Im not sure if it would be wise to start a thread when I can barely keep up with this one. Maybe when I am alloted more posts, though. I'll respond to everything in the afternoon. Also its not circular reasoning because the secular evidence used for 539 is not the same as 587. As if that red herring holds any weight though...as if JWs dont use secular resourcs in most of their publications.
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Ucantnome
Although it is used as a primary Biblical premise for arriving at the 1914 conclusion, it can still be arrived at with other concrete methods
Ethos I would be interested to know what these are. I think Russel arrived at it by measuring the stone pyramids. Are these concrete methods similar?
-
AnnOMaly
You need to go back and reread..Jeffro specifically stated Jeremiah 25:8-11 and responded to my response to premise one which is also referencing Jeremiah 25.
I did. Granted, he didn't make it clear, but as soon as he mentioned the '70 years for Babylon' being addressed to those already exiled, it was obvious he was talking about Jer. 29.
Also its not circular reasoning because the secular evidence used for 539 is not the same as 587.
Oh dear. You really do need to do some research.
-
Jeffro
(As already alluded to by AnnOmally, Ethos quoted part of my rebuttal, and then offered comments that didn't relate to the quoted section. Either he accidentally copied the wrong section of text, he's trying to confuse readers, or he's just simply confused. But aside from that...)
Incorrect. Your contextual conclusion regarding Jeremiah 25 and to whom it was addressed is completely incorrect.
Ethos then went on to quote Jeremiah 25:1-3 that describe what happened previously, explaining why the calamity ('the cup', which happened to different nations at different times) would also come upon Jerusalem. But verses 8-11 quite clearly indicate that the 70 years (a fixed period that ends when 'Sheshach' [Babylon] 'drinks' from the 'cup' [Jeremiah 25:26]) applied to "all these nations round about" rather than just the Jews.
It is entirely unsurprising that the JW apologist ignores the bulk of my rebuttal and instead attempts tedious misdirection on what he imagines to be a weak link.
-
Jeffro
I did. Granted, he didn't make it clear, but as soon as he mentioned the '70 years for Babylon' being addressed to those already exiled, it was obvious he was talking about Jer. 29.
Sheesh. I shouldn't have to 'make it clear' (though it was pretty clear anyway). I thought this guy (Ethos) is supposed to be familiar with the topic. Sigh.
-
AnnOMaly
One would think so *shrugs*
-
Jeffro
You need to go back and reread..Jeffro specifically stated Jeremiah 25:8-11 and responded to my response to premise one which is also referencing Jeremiah 25.
So what. I quoted various things in my rebuttal that you largely ignored.
You quoted a section of my comments about Jeremiah 29 and then you 'replied' (poorly) by attempting to distort the context of Jeremiah 25:8-11 with misdirection about Jeremiah 25:1-3.
Don't blame others for getting confused about your own error.
-
Ethos
Contradicting yourself now are we? Everyone go back to page 1 and read post 4. You will see that I quoted his entire response save one or two sentences and he's stating I ignored the bulk of his argument. Then he says he's talking about Jeremiah 29 when he is responding to a rebuttal to a premise about Jeremiah 25 and his entire response was defending his interpretation of the 70 years, which is only mentioned in Jeremiah 25. And if you believe the same secular evidence is used for 587 and 539, then it is you who needs to do research. Ok...done replying forreal this time. Out of posts.
So heres a question for Jeffros: Was the argument about Jeremiah 25 or 29? Is the 70 years of servitude, the core of the subject, mentioned in Jeremiah 25 or 29? Were we discussing at any time any reference made in Jeremiah 29? Did I or did I not quote your entire response on page 1 save one or two sentences? Sounds like somebody needs a cop out for their blatantly erroneous errors and shaky conclusions arrived at without premises. Jeremiah 25 is ADDRESSING the entire nation and saying they will serve Neb for70 years. Jeremiah 29 is referring to a completely different supposed exile and mentions the 70 years. So what? Its a weak argument either way. There are two exiles. Proving one started before the 70 year servitude proves squat. Oh, this is such a laughable attempt at defending.one's argument. Jeremiah 29 is about the exile that took place before Jerusalem's destruction.
-
Jeffro
You will see that I quoted his entire response save one or two sentences and he's stating I ignored the bulk of his argument.
Sigh. He's not good at this is he? Of note, he left out the first sentence of my paragraph that established the context of why I made reference to Jeremiah 29 after initially referring to Jeremiah 25.
Aside from the fact that it is quite obvious that "all the nations" weren't all exiled for exactly 70 years, nor were the Jews. When Jeremiah wrote to Jews already in Babylon, he said to them that they would not return to Judea until after Babylon's 70 years, as indicated in most Bible translations*. In JW chronology, this was in 614BCE (594BCE in actual history). It would make no sense to tell exiles already in Babylon (which was most of the Jews) that they will be there for 70 years starting from some unspecified future event.
After the text that he omitted (which I have highlighted in red), I probably should have had a big sign saying: the following details from Jeremiah 29 show that the Jews who were exiled for more than 70 years were told in 594BCE (614 in JW chronology) that Babylon would have 70 years, confirming that Jeremiah's reference to 70 years at 25:12 (and 29:10) did not refer to Jewish exile.
In any case, an 'expert' on the subject should reasonably have known that "when Jeremiah wrote to Jews already in Babylon" was 594BCE (614 in JW land) and not the 4th year of Jehoiakim in 605BCE (625 in JW land).
One day there will be a JW apologist for whom you don't have to explain every little thing. Well, probably not.
-
Jeffro
he's stating I ignored the bulk of his argument
Refer to my post 2785 on page 2.