scholiar:
There is no obvious error in our interpretation of this verse and the entire chapter and the entire book of Jeremiah. You have your interpretation of matters and we have ours so let us agree to disagree.
There are many obvious errors. I've pointed out just a few of them in this thread. As usual, you're unable to focus on specific texts.
When obvious questions are put to you then you run and hide only shaping when it suits you. It is simply a joke to argue that the first deportation was a greater Exile to that of the second deportation when the Monarchy had not yet been removed and Jerusalem was a going concern.
'What is the population of Jersualem at the time of the fall?' is not an 'obvious question'. It's a stupid and irrelevant question. Firstly, you don't know what the population of Jerusalem was in 587. Secondly, many of the people were killed, and the number deported is indicated in the Bible to be less than in the exile of 597.
Have you read Ephraim Stern's article? Do you have it to hand? Are you up to date with the latest findings of archaeology for Judah during the Neo-Babylonian Period? The WT article on this subject was correct in quoting Stern and if memory serves me coreetly there was another source quoted that you fail to mention.
Stern makes reference to the period from Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year until Cyrus's first regnal year in Babylon; however, the Watch Tower Society dishonestly quoted him out of context to imply that Stern 'actually' was referring to the '70 years' as used in JW dogma. Further, Stern actually states (but the Watch Tower Society omits), "I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period." As I previously indicated elsewhere, Stern has stated that he was misquoted in the article.
The Bible says that Judah was emptied of its population 'without an inhabitant' so that is good enough for me so if you are so pedantic about Jeremiah then how about being faithful in connection with these many clear statements about the future state of the land of Judah.
Jeremiah also says that Babylon would be without an inhabitant. The use of the phrase is clearly hyperbole. Babylon remained populated not only after it was conquered in 539BCE, but it is still populated. Additionally, Jeremiah 44:14 indicates that there would be some inhabitants of Judah who would return their from Egypt.
If you agree that there was a Jewish Exile then please describe how many if more than one and the time period for such an Exile/s?
Sigh. Aren't you supposed to know this stuff already?? There were exilic deportations in 597BCE, 587BCE and 582BCE. (This does not include slaves given in tribute.) According to the Bible, by far the majority were taken in the first deportation. Many people were killed in 587BCE, but that has no bearing on exiles.
I have never said that the Bible says that there was a seventy year exile for it does not in using that statement. What I have and do say that the Bible when it describes the seventy years its description is of Exile along with servitude and desolation in keeping with the expanation of all the other 'seventy year texts and the historical circumstances. In short, the Bible implicitly means Exile.
The Bible explicitly indicates that serving Babylon was how nations could avoid exile. An interpretation that asserts that the Bible 'implies' something that it explicitly contradicts is obviously wrong.
You are being 'fast and loose' with Josephus for it galls you to admit that Josephus and WT are on the same page when it comes to the seventy years and you should be honest and leave it at that.
You continue to ignore what Josephus actually says. Ho hum. Still waiting for your explanation of the 182.5 years indicated by Josephus. The number is very specific, and I've shown it to be correct. The error in the Watch Tower Society's chronology also cannot explain it away by just 'adding 20' either, because the 2.5 years would remain a problem.
Don't you think that Jeremiah was able to source Leviticus in reference to land paying off its sabbaths if in fact Ezra did not directly quote Leviticus.
Jeremiah might have been 'able to source' any number of things. He probably knew the price of sheep and how to make good matzo too. The fact remains that he didn't mention them in his book. It is absolutely 100% certain that Ezra could not quote something from the book of Jeremiah that does not appear in the book of Jeremiah. It is extremely obvious that the phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (NWT) at 2 Chronicles 36:21 is in reference to Leviticus 26:34, which says, "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated". Jeremiah never says anything remotely similar.
What we do know that Ezra directly quoted Jeremiah who quoted Leviticus or Ezra quoted both of them . What does it matter?
Paying off sabbaths is not 'the word of Jeremiah'. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. There's nothing from Jeremiah for Ezra to quote that statement. It isn't there. But then again, honesty and context have never really mattered much to you.
The fact of the matter is that both Ezra and Jeremiah were concerned about the land paying offits sabbaths and it did over the period of seventy years.
Jeremiah never mentions 'the land paying off its sabbaths'. There is no basis for your claim that he was 'very concerned' about it. Jeremiah is extremely clear that the '70 years' were a period of all the nations serving Babylon, which they should do in order to avoid exile.
All that you seem able to do is start small brush fires everywhere which are simply minor distractions so that you can bash WT chronology and publicize your pretty charts and website.
What you call 'small brush fires' are actually many problems with the superstitious JW numerology, none of which have the likes of you or other Watch Tower cronies been able to 'extinguish'. It's certainly true that I've collected useful information to show some of the many errors in JW dogma, however my site is by far not the only source for completely disproving the Watch Tower Society's lies.
Its all huffing and puffing with you with smoke and mirrors.
It's funny how you regard direct quotations in their original context as 'smoke and mirrors'. As I've stated previously, you really are an interesting case-study into the mind of a thoroughly deluded victim of a religious sect.
Yes I agree that the seventy years was a period wherein the bible explicitly states that all of the nations would serve Babylon and that the Exile was a punishment that refused to serve Babylon. However, you miss the obvious and explicit fact that the Bible also in these very same verse states explicitly that Judah would be devastated also for seventy years.
The Bible actually indicates that Jerusalem would become devastated by the end of Babylon's 70 years. The Bible does not say that there would be 70 years of devastation. Even worse, the Watch Tower Society's claim that the 'repentance' offered in Daniel 9 is set before the end of the 70 years contradicts the order of events indicated at Jeremiah 29:10-14: 70 years ends, then the Jews repent, then they're allowed to go home.
Hence, one can easily note that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation. What the Bible does not say explicitly as how the nations apart from Judah were punished, there are no specific details nor specific timeframe for any other nation apart from Judah.
The Bible very explicitly states that all the nations were subject to Babylon for seventy years. The Bible also explicitly states that exile would only be a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon, which they could do in their own land. Jeremiah chapter 25 is quite clear that whilst the seventy years would have a definite end point, the calamity would go from nation to nation, which obviously affected different nations at different times. The calamity, which would include exile for nations that resisted, is therefore not the same as the seventy years.
Isaiah did make reference to Tyre in respect of a seventy year period but its actuality in history is not fully expalined in the context of a seventy year period.
The Watch Tower Society's very own Isaiah's Prophecy publication (page 253) states: "True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination" It's bleedingly obvious that the seventy years ended in 539BCE. The '70 years for Tyre' and the '40 years for Egypt' have been bones of contention for JW apologists (particularly the apparently silent individual calling himself 'thirdwitness' who ventures 'explanations' that contradict even the Watch Tower Society's own teachings) , but I've correctly indicated these periods in my chart along with the correct explanations in the associated article.
Constructing a chronology for Neo-Babylonian Period that is compatible with WT chronology is possible but according to Furuli's research it would be somewhat problematic so as the saying goes:'Houston, We have a problem'.
I have constructed a detailed chart (for my own use) of the Watch Tower Society's chronology based only on its claims. I have included the weasley 'explanations' they attempt for 'resolving' some of the conflict, though some still remain. The internal anomalies present in their chronology are bad enough, but once they're compared with the contemporaneous history of other nations, the Watch Tower Society's chronology is a sheer embarrassment. It's little wonder that the Watch Tower Society is not willing to assign definite years to Assyrian, Babylonian or Egyptian kings. As it is, they have to devote the great majority of Insight's section on Chronology to (poorly) raising 'doubt' about 'secular history' that shows Watch Tower dogma to be impossible. Furuli has been thoroughly debunked by his peers.
If you argue that from 605 BCE the seventy years had already commence which constituted by your definition 'serving Babylon' then what would be th point of Jeremiah as recorded in chapter 27 pleading the Jews to avoid punishment by serving Babylon when in fact they were already in servitude so their punishment had already begun? This does not make sense at all for it is obvious that a far greater punishment with far greater consequences such as exile, deportation awaited them.
Huh? It sounds like you still haven't read it?! Jeremiah chapter 27 doesn't plead with them to avoid serving Babylon. He tells them to serve Babylon specifically so they could avoid exile and remain in their own land. It's blatantly obvious that serving Babylon in their own land was presented as an alternative to exile. Interestingly, Jeremiah 27:1 introduces the context of serving Babylon by indicating that Babylon's 'yoke' was first imposed in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign. This is viewed by some as a copyist's error, but various commentaries suggest that the prophecy was indeed dated to the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but that it was sent out during Zedekiah's reign. Either way, the chapter lends no support for the Watch Tower Society's view. Jeremiah 28:12-14 further indicates that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under the 'yoke' of Babylon, but that it would get worse.
Your pleadings about your interpetations being this or that is simply gibberish because I can simply reply in kind.
I've replied with specifics. You continue with vague assertions and outright lies.
