Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals (page 8)

Jeffro

Jeremiah 29 is referring to a completely different supposed exile and makes no mention of the 70 years.

Wow. He really doesn't know his topic.

Jeffro

Jeremiah 29 is referring to a completely different supposed exile and makes no mention of the 70 years. Its a weak argument either way. There are two exiles. Proving one started before the 70 year servitude proves squat.

Okay genius. I'll try to dumb it down for you.

Let's say someone turns up to visit you for a few days.

On the third day, you ask them, "so, how long you staying?" They say, "7 days."

Now, you might reasonably conclude that your visitor is staying 7 days from when they first arrived, or you could take it to mean 7 days from the day you asked the question.

What is fairly certain is you would not take it to mean, 7 days starting from some unspecified future time.

Now, I know you're probably confused about the analogy so I'll bring it together for you.

In the JW interpretation (of Jeremiah 29:10 [that's in Jeremiah chapter 29 by the way]), we're expected to believe that Jews already in Babylon since 617 were told in 614 that they would be in Babylon for 70 years, but they're not told that it starts from some unstated point in the future.

In reality, Jews who had been in Babylon since 597 were told in 594 that they wouldn't go home until Babylon had been the dominant power for 70 years (i.e. all the nations served Babylon), which they could reasonably have known started when Assyria was overthrown, the same year Josiah died (609).

AnnOMaly

"Jeremiah 29 ... makes no mention of the 70 years?" Yikes! I don't think he really meant that. I think he's just flustered and not got his head on straight.

Just to add to Jeffro's point: It was never a foregone conclusion that Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed, with (virtually) the remainder of its inhabitants going into exile. The servitude was not optional. It was underway and as long as they obeyed God and served Babylon, they would stay in their land, their city, worship at the temple, etc. However, if they rebelled against that servitude, THEN they would be punished and lose their land, city and temple.

Jeremiah 27:11-13, 16-18 . . .And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.'"'"

12 Even to Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: "Bring YOUR necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. 13 Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon?

. . .And to the priests and to all this people I spoke, saying: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Do not listen to the words of YOUR prophets that are prophesying to YOU, saying: "Look! The utensils of the house of Jehovah are being brought back from Babylon soon now!" For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. 17 Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place? 18 But if they are prophets and if the word of Jehovah does exist with them, let them, please, beseech Jehovah of armies, that the utensils that are remaining over in the house of Jehovah and the house of the king of Judah and in Jerusalem may not come into Babylon.'

So to tell the exiles already in Babylon that the 70 years period was to start at some indeterminate time in the future - maybe, if ever - is just nonsensical.

Jeffro

There are two exiles.

Actually, there were three exiles (597, 587, 582). Not counting captives given as part of tributes.

They just don't make JW apologists like they used to.

Crisis of Conscience

Have we established this douchebag to be Recovery?

Sorry if I missed something but it sure seems like it.

Whoever it is still continually avoids answering his other threads.

tornapart

Ethos.. just answer this.. why is 607BCE so important to JWs? Why do they make such a thing about it? What about other dates in bible history, they don't get nearly so much attention, if any! Why is it that it has to fit at all costs with the 70 years captivity and the intricate explanation as to what it all means? Of what import is it as compared with other bible dates?

Just a simple question... Why is 607BCE SO important to JWs?

Witness My Fury

He cant post until his daily post count allows it again, but we all know why 607 is so important to JWs even if they will deny deny deny that this is the case:

607 is the foundation teaching for arriving at 1914.

The whole of JWdom is based on 1914.

NOTHING can be allowed to undermine that tenuous position because without it they know that their religion becomes meaningless.

JWs will deny this until blue in the face but it is an inescapable fact.

TD

Also its not circular reasoning because the secular evidence used for 539 is not the same as 587.

Could you flesh this out a bit? The secular evidence used by whom?

Londo111

“607 is selected because it the only date of destruction for Jerusalem that will not undermine the prophecied 70 year servitude and exile in Babylon to appease conjectured secular evidence.”

I don’t believe the Bible speaks of a 70-year Exile, only 70-years of Servitude to Babylon, not only for Judah, but for all nations roundabout. From the defeat of Assyria at Harran until the Battle of Opis, history shows a period of exactly 70 years where nations had to serve under Babylon, the dominant world power. This fits with the Bible hand-and-glove.

The secular evidence is far from conjecture. The Neo-Babylonian chronology is firmly established. Was it appeasement to secular evidence for Galileo to say the Earth moved around the Sun? No, it was the Church’s Interpretation that was at fault. Is it appeasement to secular evidence for the Society to say that the Earth was not created in six-days, but they are to be understood figuratively? Do not the Creationists do much damage by adhering to their interpretation? Would these Creationists not accuse the Society of appeasement to ‘conjectured secular evidence’?

At what point does the secular evidence stack up so firmly that one has to admit that one’s Interpretation has been at fault?

I do not believe anything is undermined. The Bible and the established secular evidence are in firm agreement on 587 BC.

Emery

Why can't JW apologist just read the books recommended and prepare a dissertation of it for all the apostates to read? Jeebuz Rice.

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this