VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter 271 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  It’s also worth pointing out that the Septuagint version of Ezekiel doesn’t mention 390 days. Instead, it refers to a total duration of 190 days in verses 5 and 9, comprising separate periods of 150 days for Israel (verse 4) and 40 days for Judah (verse 6). The ‘150 days for Israel’ in the Septuagint likely refers to the period from the exile of Israelites by Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BCE until the exile in 582 BCE alluded to at Jeremiah 52:30.

  The reference to ‘390 days’ was most likely introduced to the original text because there was never a notable return from Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom so it was edited to instead focus on the descendants of Israelites who avoided Assyrian exile and fled to Judah in the 8th century BCE, whose descendants were later exiled to Babylon with the Jews.

  Ezekiel 37:16 identifies those Israelites among the people of Judah at the time of the exile, distinguishing between ‘Judah and the people of Israel who are with him’ from ‘Joseph and the house of Israel who are with him’.
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro it doesn't matter that Gill died in 1771. That is a fallacy you are resorting to. Are we supposed to only listen to those people alive today. How absurd. You have no idea of his chronology is the consensus of scholars as that is another fallacy. Whether or not Gill supports my position of the destruction of Jerusalem occurring in 530 BCE has nothing to do with whether Gill believes there was 390 years of Chronology to that point in time after the death of Solomon. Again, another fallacy.

  Jeffro:

  Additionally, the Bible never once mentions ‘70 years of exile’, and it instead explicitly identifies Babylon’s 70 years as a period that ends when Babylon is called to account, not the subsequent return from exile.
  

  This is too easy. Jer_29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. Yes, but you say that Ezekiels 390 years includes the 70 years. That is nonsense and indeed refuted by the statements I've already made. So Jethro continues his/her barrage of fallacies and a bad understanding of the scriptures in their attempt to penetrate the solid timeline I put forward. Those efforts are proving futile. FACTS are causing Jethro to stumble. So much so that now Jethro is attacking the chronological facts of the reigns of the House of Judah and the 70 captivity.
• 

  Jeffro

  Good grief. Already covered here and here. Your interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is nonsensical. Like the JW position, your interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10-14 requires that people who were already in exile were told about a period of 70 years that hadn’t started yet, and that attention was given to the Jews’ return only after they were already there, which is clearly absurd
• 

  jwposter

  See now Jeffro is trying to change his timeline to get stuff to fit better by using the Septuagint when he/she already was using 390 years in their rebuttal. Apparently that failed so bad as I called it out and now they are looking for an out.

  Jeffro:

  Good grief. Already covered here. Your interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is nonsensical. Like the JW position, your interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10-14 requires that attention was given to the Jews’ return only after they were already there, which is clearly absurd
  

  
  

  See the desperation in trying to get out of your position. Let me school you more. The 70 years of captivity were a year for each year that the land didn't lay fallow. Therefore, if the Jews didn't return to the land after the 70 years then the punishment would have been longer because the land would still be laying fallow as long as the Jews did not have the land. Therefore, the Jews 70 years of captivity had to result in the immediate return to the land. Therefore, your absurd remarks are showing how deep the crater of your ignorance is.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  Jeffro it doesn't matter that Gill died in 1771. That is a fallacy you are resorting to. Are we supposed to only listen to those people alive today.

  It’s not a matter of being alive. The information is thoroughly outdated, not to mention theologically biased.
• 

  Jeffro

  jwposter:

  See now Jeffro is trying to change his timeline

  Blatant lie. I haven’t changed the timeline, and haven’t needed to. I instead referred you to existing documents, which account for the 390 years, and also the period in the Septuagint version.

  The 70 years of captivity were a year for each year that the land didn't lay fallow.

  They really weren’t. The land was fallow for 49 years as (retroactively) prescribed in Leviticus (though in reality parts of Judea remained populated throughout the entire period), from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE until the return in 538 BCE. See also Leviticus 25:8; 26:28, 32-35.
  
• 

  jwposter

  Jeffro:

  It’s not a matter of being alive. The information is thoroughly outdated, not to mention theologically biased.
  

  The information is outdated? Well are you now saying that you can't count the reigns of the House of Judah because you need some some updated counting? Did the length of their reigns change? Do you suspect they changed? How ridiculous. And yes, you did change your timeline. You were at one point supporting your position with 390 years of the chronology of House of Judah with somehow an overlapping 70 years of captivity and then you wanted to support your position using a Septuagint shorter rendering of the Chronology.

  Now we have this from Jethro:

  They really weren’t. The land was fallow for 49 years as (retroactively) prescribed in Leviticus (though in reality parts of Judea remained populated through the entire period), from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE until the return in 538 BCE. See also Leviticus 25:8; 26:28, 32-35.
  

  I can keep schooling you as it appears you want me to do. The land is to lay fallow for Sabbatical and Jubilee years.

  1Es 1:56 And as for her glorious things, they never ceased till they had consumed and brought them all to nought: and the people that were not slain with the sword he carried unto Babylon:

  1Es 1:57 Who became servants to him and his children, till the Persians reigned, to fulfil the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremy:

  1Es 1:58 Until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths, the whole time of her desolation shall she rest, until the full term of seventy years.
• 

  Jeffro

  The doofus doesn’t understand cogencies or modern understanding beyond the 18th century regarding the chronology of the divided kingdom. Not my problem.

  You were at one point supporting your position with 390 years of the chronology of House of Judah with somehow an overlapping 70 years of captivity and then you wanted to support your position using a Septuagint shorter rendering of the Chronology.

  No, you’re a liar. The timeline notes both periods for both the MSS and Septuagint renderings of Ezekiel chapter 4, and has done for several years.

  1Es 1:58

  Not sure why doofus feels the need to quote 1 Esdras rather than the equivalent passage from 2 Chronicles. In either case, it’s a misreading as Babylon’s 70 years is a separate period to the period of paying off sabbaths, which Leviticus (quoted in 1 Esdras and 2 Chronicles) specifically indicates to be 49 years. Jeremiah (‘Jeremy’ in doofus’ chosen translation) never mentioned ‘paying off sabbaths’, which is a separate period to what Jeremiah said about Babylon’s 70 years. See also here.
  

  You’ve been wrong at absolutely every juncture for this entire thread and you have the gall to say you’ve ‘schooled’ me. Just go away with your stupid superstitious nonsense.

  Come back when your rewrite of antiquity is peer reviewed.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Leviticus 25:8: “‘You will count off seven sabbath years, seven times seven years, and the days of the seven sabbath years will amount to 49 years.

  Leviticus 26:28, 34–35: I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. … 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it.
• 

  jwposter

  LOL, Jeffo, you can easily settle this. Go read the Bible and count the years of the Reigns. Its there. Go count it. It is 390 years AFTER the reign of Solomon.

  Again, lets look at the facts, YOU stated that 959 BCE was the time of the completion of the Temple.

  Regardless of when you think the 70 years occurred, your problem is still the following:

  959 - 28 (remaining years of Solomon) = 931 BCE

  931 BCE - 390 = 541 BCE. So that would mean that the 19th year is right at or around 541BCE. And that would again mean that 18 years later would be 523 BCE for the 37th year. So your support of -567 (568 BCE) for VAT4956 is sunk.

  You obviously don't know enough to argue against a Bible timeline. But will me schooling you here, you may be able to in the future.