Can 70 years be symbolic in the Bible?

by Pterist 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • bsmart
    bsmart

    And Jesus said forgive seventy times seven, 40 seems to be only symbolic to me also. Don't get me started on 144,000.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    ROFL! Interesting issue! Note there can be multiple interpretations of this reference. Note, also, how individuals come to their own interpretation and think that's the correct one and then presume others are incorrect. So I'll just offer my take on this as one of the "elect."

    First of all, the 70 years is specific. Others scriptures show the exile and the repayment of sabbaths is exactly 70 years. Note the error for Judah and Israel, 390 years for Israel's 10 tribes, which is 39 years each, and for Judah 40 years, who ruled longer than the 10 tribes. Combine that to arrive at 430 collective years for all 12 tribes. Divided that by the two agri-sabbaths they were to keep and you get the repayment years of 70:

    430 divided by the 7-year sabbaths is: 61.4

    430 divided by the 50-year sabbaths is: 8.6

    Add 62.4 and 8.6 and you get 70!

    Plus you have the historical reference by Josephus that the last deportees who were from Egypt are the ones who fulfilled the specific 70 years in exile. Keep in mind there were other years of deportation, starting with Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II, plus in the 7th, 8th, 11th and 23rd years! Only one group was to serve the 70 years, the last deportees. So the 70 years are specific and is a non-negotiable point.

    Thus the reference to the years of 'ONE king" must be the variable. Or at lest that's the second choice. But that's the point. The reference is not to "A king," but "ONE king." Meaning what? Only that 70 years is the normal lifespan of an indivdual. In other words, 70 years is only the lifetime of one king, not two or three kings or two individuals. So that is an accurate.

    Interesting that some consider the lifespan of 'a" king, being clearly variable, to think that the reference to "70 years" must be a soft reference. But the scriptures do not say "a" king, but "ONE" king. Now that is a true statement, regardless of how long a king might life, 70 years will only cover the life of ONE king of average lifespan, not two or three.

    So the emphasis is not on the life of "a" king but ONE king. The 70 years, thus is specific and absolute. Interesting how many people want to take the opposite position. This is what COJ does in his GTR book, trying to reduce 70 years of Babylonian domination to a mere 56 years. he uses this reference to Tyre to do so.

    BUT... the other interpretation of this is that it is not the days of a king or any king that is the emphasis, but just ONE king. 70 years is the life of only ONE king, that is the emphasis. So see how the interpretations trying to make 70 years a generalized amount of time works when you do the direct quote of "one king" versus "a king."

    Thanks for listening.

    Thanks for this topic.

    "Interpretation belongs to God."

    I respect the interpretations of others, but I have my own interpretation that works for ME!

  • Pterist
    Pterist

    ****Only one group was to serve the 70 years, the last deportees. So the 70 years are specific and is a non-negotiable point.***

    This group you mentioned above, are NOT the group that came back from exile, and RECOGNISED by Matthew @ 1:11-15 as the "official royal line that was exiled in 597, about 10 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, during the KINGLY REIGN of Babylon ie 70 years....but my salvation is not based on dates, it's an interesting subject, would not like to based anything significant on dates. Christ in the royal line of David is the chosen rock and foundation.

    You still never answered Hebrews 9 .... 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

    Shalom Lars

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Witness My Fury:

    Doesn't that quote from the Isaiah book totally demolish all the WTS posturing over 607? Looks like it does to me...

    Indeed, it really illustrates how most JWs can read anything in JW literature, and just accept whatever is written. Even when they're actually interpreting the same fulfilment (nations serving Babylon 70 years) of the same verse (Jeremiah 25:11) in two different ways.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Larsinger58:

    Note, also, how individuals come to their own interpretation and think that's the correct one and then presume others are incorrect. So I'll just offer my take on this as one of the "elect."

    This has got to be one of the worst cases in a long, long time, of the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    The WBTS along will many seem to take a very rigid approach with dates and numbers and apply it to date setting end times etc, ...when it may be just a generalization.

    Both the Bible and secular history allow for Babylon's '70 years' to be a literal period of 70 years of Babylonian dominance from the end of the Assyrian Empire (609 BCE) to the end of the Babylonian Empire (539 BCE).

    However, there is also nothing that prevents the 70 years from referring to either a rounded or figurative period.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Greetings Pterest:

    Regarding the 70 years: In this case, it is out of our hands. Some want to somehow make this "symbolic" and then they go from there to find connections. But this is a historical reference. Josephus links these 70 years to the "poor people" who were last deported. Another issue is that I see no one realizing that the deportation is totally secondary and incidental to the land paying back its sabbaths. That was the main issue. The entire land, both Northern and Southern kingdoms had not paid attention to keeping up with the agri-sabbaths and so God caused the Babylonians to empty that land and make it a desolate waste for 70 years. Every city is not a perfect tell, where you find layer after later that tells a complete story of an ancient city. But excavations at Ashkelon is a good city that shows a desolation of up to "80 years" per archaeological estimates with destruction clearly by the Babylonians and ending with the Persian Period. So the archaeology in some cities mentioned confirm the desolation of the 70 years mentioned in the Bible.

    Now you mention the kingship and 587 BCE. Realize, we can't get there because of the historical reference for these particular "70 years." Now, I'm not presuming you are confusing anything, that is, you may have a specific point about the 70 years and the royal kingship, but in my mind, the royal kingship is related to the "7 times" prophecy primarily, not the "70 years." The two are completely separate. The "7 times" is seven years, 360 days each, that the WTS and others apply the "day for a year" formula to in order to get 2520 years! That's the direct link to the KINGSHIP. As I casually ponder the significance of the "70 years" of exile, I don't have any sense of a direct link to that. So maybe you can confirm for me that you are not mixing or confusing the "70 years of exile" to the "7 times" prophecy.

    Even so, there is no "historical" way around this. 2 Chronicles 36 clearly notes those deported last who serve the 70 years while the land is paying back its sabbaths were those who "escaped from the sword" which is a direct reference to the deportees who had ran down to Egypt. Now in passing, it is good to ask just what happened to Jeremiah and Baruch! They ran down there! So what eventually happened to them? The Biblical context suggests they were among the few who "escaped the sword" who were deported in year 23, but who did go via Judah and Jerusalem. Historically, the war campaigns cccurred in the summer and fall, and the prisoners who were to be deported, wintered in the land rather than travel in the winter. But when Spring came, they made the 5-month journey to Babylon. That is a consistent routine we know from historical records from the Babylonians and one confirmed by the Bible.

    So in other words, when Carl Jonsson starts a long debate on "at" Babylon or "for" Babylon vs. what the WTS translates, it's a moot point. His arguments hing entirely on that optional concept, when in fact, it presumes this is a pivotal point, when it is not. We have to deal with the secular record of Josephus who clearly mentions the 70 years and links them to those deported from Egypt in year 23. So before you getto debating "for Babylon" vs. "at Babylon", you've got to claim Josephus is a lunatic, and a crazy and lying historian whom we have to totally ignore in this case. COJ takes the easy way out of trusting that the average person won't know about this reference just as the WTS does. But now that it is here, there's no choice. Any "symbolic" 70 years comes after the historical reference. Of course, Josephus and the Bible totally agree that those who serve the 70 years, those specific 70 years, are those deported last, and return 70 years later after the land pays back it's sabbaths.

    So, again, maybe you need to explain further or confirm for me that you are not mixing the "7 times" up with the "70 years."

    Thanks PT!

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    PT: You still never answered Hebrews 9 .... 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

    Sorry I missed this. When it looks like I haven't seen something, please bring it up again as you have; it's not intentional.

    THIS IS A WONDERFUL SCRIPTURE!

    Now, context this with the first and second coming wave offerings! The first wave offering is without leaven, meaning without sin. That links to Jesus being a sacrifice for sin at the first coming. Thus the first coming is to "bear sin." But the 2nd wave offering, which is linked to the 2nd coming, is not one "to bear sin" and because Christ's sacrifice is "once for all time" it simply is not necessary for Christ to be born again in the flesh in a perfect body. Secondly, that first perfect body is not available to him as he gives it up in sacrifice. So that leaves the dilemma of how is Christ going to return in the flesh and rule for 1000 years? The answer is that Jehovah arranges for him to use an adult body of one of his followers. That's why in Revelation you see the woman who is fleeing from Satan, which means she is on the earth (i.e. "woe to the earth"), giving birth to the messiah. We know Christ is already in heaven as Michael the archangel, having just kicked Satan out of heaven.

    So how is it that you have two messiahs? One up in heaven and one being born from Christ's followers? Well, it's very obvious and very simple. This simply symbolizes that the physical body of Christ at the second coming comes from the elect who are part of this woman who represents Christ's secret followers who do not meet in public in any formal wal, but dwell in the "wilderness" "away from the face of the dragon."

    Hebrews simply reflects. What Hebrews is saying is that Christ the first time comes to "bear sin" and be a sacrifice, but he doesn't do that the second time. He doesn't have to. That sacrifice was good for all time. So when he returns, he's in a regular body; he's not in a perfect body. This is clear from Revelation showing the messiah comes from his followers and as well the wave offering at the second coming being one with leaven. Let me quote that:

    LEVITICUS 23: 15 “‘And YOU must count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day of YOUR bringing the sheaf of the wave offering, seven sabbaths. They should prove to be complete. 16 To the day after the seventh sabbath YOU should count, fifty days, and YOU must present a new grain offering to Jehovah. 17 Out of YOUR dwelling places YOU should bring two loaves as a wave offering. Of two tenths of an e´phah of fine flour they should prove to be. They should be baked leavened, as first ripe fruits to Jehovah."

    Now if you just stand back and look at this simply, it is quite direct and clear. Once you know that Pentecost is linked to the second coming wave offering of the first fruits, you immediately see that the second wave offering is WITH leaven, but the first is not. Hebrews is emphasing the first wave offering, though, connected with unleavened bread, has to do with Jesus needing to be a perfect man, a perfect sacrifice. But he doesn't need to be perfect at the second coming. Revelation shows the messiah coming from among his followers and being caught up to the throne of God, where Christ already is. So at one point you have two messiahs. But they combine into one when Christ manifests himself back into the flesh again. Only it is clear he is an imperfect man!

    Now I'm talking to you and I know you're rejecting this because it is too shocking. But the Governing Body knows exactly what I'm talking about. They understand the harmony of scripture in this understanding.

    So getting back to Hebrews, it is simply saying Christ comes for the sake of sin the first time, but not the second. That expands to two critical points: 1) He doesn't have to be perfect at the second coming to return in the flesh, and 2) He can't use his first perfect body any more when he returns in the flesh. Now that reflects why Christ never used his own original appearance after his resurrection. He kept everybody guessing who he was by changing his appearance again and again. That reflected that he would not use that original body again, but would be in someone else's body at the second coming.

    So your question or challenge is this:

    1) You have to make sure from Scripture that christ is not returning in a physical body. You can't because the unleavened bread to clearly represents Christ's perfect physical body. No one will argue with that. So if unleavened bread = a perfect body. Then leavened bread represents an imperfect physical body. That's simple and direct. If the second wave offering is with leaven, then someone who says Christ is returning in an imperfect body is supported by Scripture. That is, it makes two clear points: 1) Christ returns in a physical body, and 2) That physical body is "with leaven", meaning imperfect. Other scriptures in the Bible is consistent in this point, including Revelation which clearly shows the messiah is taken from Christ's secret followers, the woman fleeing from Satan when he is cast down to the earth.

    2) CHRONOLOGY: After you realize Christ is going to be in an imprefect body at the second coming, and there are lots of indicators of that if you are paying attention, then you have to deal with the CHRONOLOGY. Now with all due respect to you, 587 BCE is bogus date. It was the result of the second revision of the Persian Period with the help of the Greek historian and writer, Xenoophon. Xenophon, in turn, employed Plato, Aristotle and Plato's students to do some writings to help corroborate the revisions. But they left dozens of "loose ends" in the history that don't work. Just examples are linked to Plato, himself: 1) He was consulted in the 2nd year of the Peloponnesian War to help stop a plague that broke out. It became a historical anecdote to solving how to calculate the inside volume of a cube. But the PPW was moved back in time 28 years from 403 BCE to 431 BCE, so that now the second year of the war occurs in 430 BCE, whereas Plato wasn't born until 428 BCE. So you have a situation where he is being consulted before he was born. Doesn't work. But that's what revisionism does when you expand the timeline. 2) His younger brother, Glaucon, who couldn't have been born before 427 BCE, is recorded to have served in the 7th year of the PPW. When the revised date of 431 BCE is used, the 7th year of the war falls in 424 BCE, which would have meant his brother was about 3 years old when he enlisted. No way. But when the true date for that war is corrected to 403 BCE, then Plato would have been around 25 years of age in the 2nd year of the war, and his brother would have been just over 30 years of age in the 7th year of the war. So these two references work out just fine, historically, once you correct the timeline. So the historical references don't work with the current, revised timeline, but when the timeline is corrected, these references make perfect sense.

    Now, you can use this reference, based on an eclipse to date the PPW in 403 BCE. Now this is real. There is no choice at this point but to realize the Greek timeline has been revised. No biggee. And we know who revised it: Xenophon. Keep in mind that revisionism is not that mysterious. That's because the last historian leaving the record is the revisionist! Xenophon wrote Greek history, Persian history, and published Thucydides! That just means he revised Thucydides. So it is too obvious he was employed by the Persians to write the revised history of Cyrus in his Cyropaedia.

    But having noted the above, please respect that I've researshed this. You can't resolve the chronology by just debating terms in the Bible or trying to dismiss Josephus. You have to study Persian history, Persian archaeology plus Greek history to put all this together. But the date of the PPW can be linked directly to the Biblical timeline, very simply. The 10th year of the war ends a 30-year pace that was negotiated when Xerxes invaded Greece to punish the Athenians for beheading his father, instigating the Battle of Marathon. So the date for the Battle of Marathon is the same date for the death of Darius I. The 10th year of PPW occurs in 394 BCE so the original date of Xerxes' invasion was 424 BCE. But we get lucky here. Herodotus records an eclipse in the beginning of Spring. That is a month-specific reference. That means the eclipse must occur in the first month of Spring over Persia. Indeed, a solar eclipse does occur on March 21, 424 BCE, confirming this to be the correct year. The revised year, 480 BCE has no such eclipse. That means the Battle of Marathon, 10 years earlier, occurs in 434 BCE. If so, that is the year the temple was completed and that must be the 6th year of Darius per the Bible (Ezra 6:14,15). It took 21 years to complete the temple beginning the 1st of Cyrus. Add 21 to 434 BCE and what do you get? You get 455 BCE, that's what you get.

    So TRUST ME -- it's OVER. 587 BCE is a result of Jews adopting the phony timeline much later! When you mention 587 BCE, it's just a JOKE! It's not real. Besides that, the Bible's "relative chronology" does not accommodate it. Which brings us back to the 70 years. The 70 years are specifically served by the last deportees. THINK! It has to be specific! Why? Because there were many deportations! Everybody except the last deportees spent more than 70 years in Babylon. Daniel was deported during the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar II; by year 19, the fall of Jerusalem, he had already been in exile for 20 years! Ezekiel was deported in year 7. Jehoiachin was deported in year 8. There was also a deportation in year 18. The last deportation occurred in year 23, connected with the land paying back its sabbaths for 70 years.

    So there is no SYMBOLISM here! The inquiry and research gives us the direct reference to precisely when those 70 years took place and who served them. So "symbolic" 70 years doesn't get to even come up. That's why COJ's galant efforts and arguments of "at Babylon" vs. "for Babylon" is a total JOKE. Josephus let's us know, if there is any question when the 70 years occurs, just when the Jews themselves traditionally apply those 70 years. Now if you want to label Josephus invalid, a lier and a secret cross-dresser and keep the phony 587 BCE secular dating, then that's up to YOU. But it's not real. Anyone who knows the details knows not only who revised the timeline, but when. And that is beyond the VAT4956 which confirms that 511 BCE was the original year 37 of Neb2. When that happens, year 23 falls in 525 BCE and 70 years later is also 455 BCE; the same date you get by correcting the date for the PPW.

    So at this point, it is a matter of being informed and then after that, being HONEST. Plus there is no basis for disbelief since the pagans revised their history all the time. Darius I started writing his own history at Behistun on a sheer cliff face in three different languages, one of which was already extinct! Why? Because historical revisionism was pandemic! Anybody could write anything in stone or papyrus and it could zero truth to it. It was propaganda. Now that's the reality. You can't presume the Jews revised the Bible and then not look at 6the pagans and their revisions! Be fair. Let's check out both! But it is clear the Bible's NB period is 26 years longer than the surviving records we have about Babylon. Problem is, the key documents about Babylon call come from the Persian Period after the death of Artaxerxes I! That is, the "Nabonidus Chronicle," the "Babylonian Chronicle," and the "Cyrus Cylinder" are all dated to the Persian Period because of their identifiable writing style. So we know who needed to revise the history.

    So when you bring up "587 BCE" it just means you are not well informed about all the issues of the chronology for this period.

    BUT...leaping forward from this point, after having seen how the Bible shows Christ's second coming is not regarding sin, that is not for the sake sin in the way of a sacrifice, and you see he must return in the flesh to rule for 1000 years on the earth, then you have a big problem. That's because the Christ you are supposed to be looking for is in the body of an imperfect man.

    But once you get to that point, you scour the scriptures to see if there are any clues about WHEN he will come and perhaps WHERE, and what he will look like.

    The Bible says he will arrive in the "north" and thus in the land of the "king of the north" and thus America.

    His physical description is found at Isa 53, which shows he will be thin-build, averaging looking, definitely not very attractive in body or face, a man of many deformities and one which "men" avoid, reflecting that he's rather openly effeminate and gay. Most men feel uncomfortable around a very effeminate male. But since the Ethipoian eunuch reads from Isa 53, there's a link that implies he has the appearance of an Ethipian eunuch, that is, a gay black male.

    AT THIS POINT, since you have an opportunity to correct the timeline, you have to deal with the chronology. Now let's just say you feel school is still out about the revisions during the Persian Period. Even so, the span of revision is less than 100 years. You have basically three critical dates: You can follow 607 BCE or 587 BCE, both of which are based on 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon, which itself is a revised date. Or, you can follow the VAT4956 or the redating based on the corrected PPW date of 403 BCE and arrive at 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus, which fulfills the "70 weeks" prophecy based on Christ's baptism in 29 CE. At that point, ultimately, both the Bible and secular history point to the same timeline and date year 19 to 529 BCE, which means you have a third and more reliable 2nd coming date of 1992, which is 2520 years after 529 BCE!

    See? So at some point, after paying attention and knowing enough detail, you will have to face that Christ is going to appear "like a thief in the night" in the body of a gay black male.

    But guess what? The five foolish virgins come to that conclusion, EVENTUALLY! They arrive with their lamps burning all right! They finally realize and recognize the truth and understand Christ is in an imperfect body and arrived in 1992. No problem. It's all right there in scripture and NOW they understand it. Their lamps are now burning brightly. BUT... they arrive too late. By the time they understand and accept the truth, it's TOO LATE! The door has been closed. The elect have been sealed and their seats have been taken by others.

    So eventually, everybody will get around to realizing this is REAL and I'm the true Christ. I'm the only hope for mankind as far as the Bible's proomises are concerned, because once the true timeline has been established, and 529 BCE is the true date for the fall of Jerusalem, then more will realize Christ must arrive in 1992 or else the Bible is not true.

    The irony here, though, the bitterness, is that when the world in general realize the truth, it will be too late.

    So I'm not worried about being rejected as the Christ at first at all! I know eventually there will be no choice in the matter. I see my own followers all the time. I know I'm the Christ. The WTS knows I'm the true Christ. I'm just seeing how soon the "foolish virgins" will get enough information to see clearly that I am, even though it will be too late.

    Unfortunately, many will want to get into my kingdom once they see the truth, or they see the world moving toward Armageddon. But the time to have paid attention was yesterday. Remember, once it started raining, I'm sure lots of people wanted to congratuate and celebrate with Noah, claiming he was a true prophet -- amazing! They were so wrong. But tuess what. Once that clear ice canopy over the earth was superheated and converted to thick rain clouds, it was totally dark over the surface of the earth. As soon as the rains started pouring down, all those lamps and torches were doused immediately, so it was nothing but darkness and wetness. Their death was in darkness. But they believed. They knew the TRUTH in the end, just before their death. It will be the same today. Armageddon will get everybody onto the same page. All the jive about 587 BCE will vanish totally.

    I'm only a false Christ to the ignorant of scripture.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Both the Bible and secular history allow for Babylon's '70 years' to be a literal period of 70 years of Babylonian dominance from the end of the Assyrian Empire (609 BCE) to the end of the Babylonian Empire (539 BCE).

    However, there is also nothing that prevents the 70 years from referring to either a rounded or figurative period.

    JEFFRO! Focus, brother, focus!!! There is NO CHOICE here. Josephus tells us precisely when the 70 years of Jeremiah occur. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

    That is, if we read in the Bible and were wondering just when the 70 years occurred based on say ambiguous reference. What do we do? Well, the FIRST thing we do, even before looking at the original Hebrew words, is check and see what Josephus says, if he says anything. He's the secular Jewish historian. Maybe he can clarify when the Jews think the 70 years occurred. I mean, it could reflect Babylonian domination or something else! Keeping in mind there were many deportations! Everybody can't serve 70 years! Even if 609-539 BCE is a 70-year period, is that really the 70 years the Bible is speaking of? Or is it some other 70 years? You can't ignore what the Jews themselves say, right? And you have to deal with them long before you start to twist Hebrew words around. So here is what Josephus says about the 70 years in connection with Jeremiah's prophecy:

    Ant. 11.1.1:1. 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."

    Now this is very basic. We're just covering the bases and doing our research and looking at how the JEWS interpret their own Bible. Now this is a near paraphrase of 2 Chronicles 36, which says:

    2 Chronicles 36:20 "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

    Now what have we here? What we have is Josephus understanding that the "poor people" are the ones deported for these 70 years. The Bible says that after Jerusalem was destroyed, some of the poor people will left in the land. We know these eventually ran down to Egypt and refused to return. God said he would send Nebuchadnezzar to kill them. He did! He killed them all except a "few escaped ones" (Jer. 44:14,28), who would then return to Judea as a testimony for how many had been killed of that original company of Jewiish remnants. The WTS avoids this detail like a plague! They don't want the average witness realizing that the last deportation was out of Egypt! The above agrees with Josephus' previous reference that those down in Egypt were deported to Babylon in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible confirms that the last deportation was in year 23.

    So there's just no conflict here or any confusion as to WHO was deported, WHEN they were deported, and HOW LONG they were deported. This is a historical reference, with ZERO SYMBOLISM. You only get to think it must be symbolic when you ignore these two references. That's why as convincing or coincidental as some other 70-year reference works, it never gets on the table. You have to deal with this reference by Josephus which tells us how the Jews themselves interpret their own Bible.

    Now, are we going to listen to COJ rather than a Jewish historian about how to interpret a verse in Hebrew? I don't think so! Plus, when there is a clear contradiction between the Bible and Josephus vs. secular history, you're not going to investigate whether or not the pagans revised their timeline. OH PLEASE!

    Now ou can still believe the secular references are just too hard to overturn, even though the VAT4956 does that, but you can't harmonize Josephus with the concept of 609-539 BCE, because per him, the last deportees are the ones who served the 70 years while the land was desolated 70 years. Again, this is a JEW interpreting his own Jewish writings, so that we don't have to.

    So at this point, anybody still thinking 587 BCE for year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar is even remotely Biblical or even real, I'm just going to start laughing and calling them names, like "false prophet," "crazy," "idiot," "moron," a "stupid Freemason" and all other kinds of names, only it will be difficult because I'll be crying from laughing so hard!

    BOTTOM LINE IS: Josephus and the Bible represent a 26-year longer NB Period than the Persian "copies" of the Babylonian historical documents. You've got to begin there.

    So just being HONEST, here, Jeffro. Josephus thinks the 70 years of servitude were served by those last deported in year 23. Do you have a comment about that? That's my problem here. I have no problem whatsoever that 609-537 BCE is 70 years. That's a coincidence or whatever. But elsewhere, the land has to serve 70 years which is the focus of Jeremiah's prophecy, more than the servitude of any people. The land is emptied and the Bible just tells us where the people went during those 70 years. It's about the LAND, then the people, who incidentally are in "servitude" to Babylon for that period.

    COJ is trying to shift the focus for those who don't know better, to make it seem the 70 years in the Bible does work with that revised timeline, instead of facing directly that the Bible's NB is 26 years longer than the current NB Period. Given that confrontation and contradiction, issues of revisionism come up and that must be avoided at ALL COSTS! Because once you start looking into revisionism by the pagans, you realize quite quickly there is no archaeologial support for that, and Greek history is easily corrected by eclipse references, which is what they intended. Funny to me, though, now the VAT4956 which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE, dates year 23 to 525 BCE which dates the 1st of Cyhrus to 455 BCE. So even though biblicists who long ago dated the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE (like Martin Anstey), now we have a direct secular reference to that chronology.

    But really, the only grounds you have of dismissing this notion is the claim that the pagans never, ever, ever revised their history but the Jews did. That's totally unfounded. As an unbiased researcher, you presume the same about the Jews as well as the pagans. You know. You investigate to see which has the better history! It's okay to presume the Jews revised their timeline, which is exactly what some claim, like Doug Mason does. But does he ever question revisionism by the pagans? No! But why not? What makes their history so sacred? See? It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be biased and deceptive.

    But let me tell you. I can tell someone who is really biased and dishonest. Once you show them that Plato wasn't born when he was consulted by a plague during the 2nd year of a war 2 years earlier and they start to explain why that works, then you know they are incapable of honesty or objectivity. No matter what, "revisionism" has to be one of the optional explanations here and that's all that has to be established. You may not agree with that, but if you don't even consider it, then its a moot point. It's clear immediately if someone has their own agenda here and want to cover and deny the obvious. There's little I can do for someone who wants to close their eyes and remain selectively ignorant. They'll see the light when Armageddon begins...

  • 2+2=5
    2+2=5

    Thanks for the divine education Lars, your rewards in heaven will be rich indeed.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit