If an interpretation of the scriptures regarding the 70 years is to be viewed as correct, it has to be supported by ALL of the relevant scriptures.
The Society's interpretation contradicts Jeremiah 25:12 without doubt, and is therefore wrong. Unless they are saying the bible is wrong. Daniel's comments regarding the 70 years MUST be viewed in the context of Jeremiah's original words.
As for 2 Chronicles, the following suggested punctuation makes it wholly consistent with 587 (wording as per New World Translation): "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, to fulfil 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 fulfil seventy years, in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia..."
They came to be servants to babylon (609) until the royalty of persia began to reign. (539) to fulfil Jehovah's word to Jeremiah (70 years)
They were carried away captive to Babylon (587) ... until the land had paid off it's Sabbaths. (possibly 537/6)
(Surely the Society would not object to adjusting punctuation to make a verse consistent with the rest of the scriptures. <grin>)
When viewed this way, no specific duration of time is allocated to the Sabbaths, and it is consistent with Jeremiah 25:12. Any other viewpoint contradicts Jeremiah and is therefore wrong.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Jeffro
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus said:
: I repeat the fact that the Bible clearly indicates that the land of Judah was to remain desolate, without and inhabitant, to be an object of astonishment for seventy years
You can repeat nonsense all you want -- but repetition for emphasis does not make it true.
The fact that you refuse to provide proof for even one of your stupid claims proves that you know you have no proof. Which shows that your following statement is transparently idiotic:
: which utterly cripples the Jonsson hypothesis.
The Bible nowhere states or even implies that Judea would be completely devoid of inhabitants. Indeed, I and others have provided explicit biblical passages proving that it was inhabited during the exile. Your ignoring the Bible's statements shows your scholastic dishonesty.
The Bible does not give enough information to decide on 537 versus 538 B.C. for the date of the return of the Jews to Judea. The fact that you and the Society refuse to acknowledge what the Bible says proves your religious dishonesty.
The Bible explicitly states that the royalty of Persia began reigning after the end of Jeremiah's 70 years, and you and the Society ignore the Bible, proves your intellectual dishonesty.
The fact that the Bible explicitly states that the king of Babylon would be punished after the 70 years ended, and would be a member of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, and you people reject the Bible, proves your scholastic incompetence and dedication to a sectarian agenda.
That fact that you and your fellow cultists do not hesitate to blatantly lie, and commit every manner of misrepresentation of source references -- including the Bible itself -- proves your sectarian, cultish agenda, and shows that you're among the crappiest claimed Christians on the planet.
The fact that secular history proves beyond any doubt that Watchtower chronology is wrong, and secular history, Bible history and many Bible statements harmonize perfectly, whereas it conflicts greatly with Watchtower claims, proves to all honest people that you and Jehovah's Witnesses are thoroughly dishonest because you reject unassailable truth.
AlanF
-
toreador
Geez, I leave you guys alone for 3 days and all heck breaks loose. Is this going to be the end all of all threads about 607 vice 587?
-
scholar
Leolaia
That is what I am saing or rather that is what God's Word says that the land of Judah was desolate, without an inhabitant, an object of astonishment for seventy years. Ezra 3:3; 4:4 refers to 'the peoples of the land or people of the land' which refers to those people of neighbouring places outside the territory of Judah who of course would be Israelites and Samaritans. Upon the resettlement by the Jewish exiles in Judah so attracting the attention of such enemies who entered Judah from Israel for the purpose of upsetting the restoration of pure worship.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Alan F
There is not one single text that supports the Jonsson hypothesis that land was not desolate for seventy years. There are multiple texts which refer to this subject proving that those prophecies were made and came true Do you really want to make a list of such prophecies? Why not use a good Bible concordance and follow such words as desolation- inhabitant-land-whistle etc. This is why the Jonsson hypothesis completely fails because it neglects the theology of the land and its sabbaths. I know that you are not interested in this subject but the plain facts are that Jeremiah spoke about and described the condition of the land during the exile as a desolate waste.
scholar JW
-
Jeffro
Why does scholar ignore my posts?
It is not necessary that 2 Chronicles applies the Sabbaths to the fulfilling of the 70 years. To say that the paying off of the Sabbaths covered the 70 years is excessive. Specifically, the Sabbaths were to be repaid for those years that the Sabbath resting of the land had not taken place. (The land was supposed to be allowed to rest every 7 years. (Leviticus 25:1-7)) 490 years (70*7) dates back to before David was king and it is very unlikely that the Sabbath was not followed at all for the entire time.
Excuse my ignorance, but I am not familiar with the 'Jonsson hypothesis'. I did my own research on the 607 issue using a Strong's bible dictionary, the Insight volumes and the bible.
See my previous post for more information on the passage from 2 Chronicles.
Scholar, please indicate how Jeremiah 25:12 is consistent with the Society's views. -
AlanF
scholar pretendus wrote:
: There is not one single text that supports the Jonsson hypothesis that land was not desolate for seventy years.
Actually, all of the texts that the Society has cited do that.
: There are multiple texts which refer to this subject proving that those prophecies were made and came true Do you really want to make a list of such prophecies?
That's what I've asked you to do the past several posts, you dimwit. The point is that when you do, the Society's misrepresentations will become obvious. You know it, and that is precisely why you do not want to list them.
: Why not use a good Bible concordance and follow such words as desolation- inhabitant-land-whistle etc.
I've already done that, and that is why I make my claim. Now, it might be possible that I have missed something, so you have an excellent opportunity to straighten out this wiley old poztate -- if, of course, you're not afraid of the challenge. But I think you are. You've already proved your fear by ignoring every specific point that I, Jeffro and almost every other poster have brought up.
: This is why the Jonsson hypothesis completely fails because it neglects the theology of the land and its sabbaths. I know that you are not interested in this subject but the plain facts are that Jeremiah spoke about and described the condition of the land during the exile as a desolate waste.
Wrong. Put your money where your mouth is.
Remember as a simple point of logic: you claim that something exists; I claim it doesn't. The onus is on you to prove the positive claim. You should have learned this in elementary coursework.
AlanF
-
Jeffro
if, of course, you're not afraid of the challenge
I don't think scholar is afraid.
He says that God was lying when he inspired Jeremiah to write that the king of Babylon would be "called to account" after the 70 years ended.
If he's not afraid of calling God a liar then he's not afraid of anything.
Scholar, you go to great lengths to assert interpretations of 'desolation' and so forth, for verses that on their own may be subject to more than one interpretation.
Why not start with the simple black-and-white statement made in Jeremiah 25:12? Starting with the very simplest facts of the scriptural account, the 70 years ended in 539, when the king was called to account - they can't end after that unless Jeremiah 25:12 is outright wrong. Any interpretation you give to the other passages that mention 70 years, as well as the significance attributed to those 70 years MUST be consistent with that.
And a word on Ezekiel 21:26 that is used by the Society as a proof text for the break in the royal lineage. It is addressed to Israel not Judah. Zedekiah was a Judean king, therefore the removal of the turban does not refer to him. That Israel and Judah were not used synonymously by Ezekiel is emphasized by Ezekiel 37:15-23, indicating that only after returning from Babylon they would later become reunited as one nation. -
Leolaia
Jerusalem still desolated 92 years after 537 BC:
"How could my face be other than sad when the city where the tombs of my ancestors are lies in ruins, and its gates have been burnt down" (Nehemiah 2:3).
"I examined the walls of Jerusalem with their gaps and burnt-out gates....Jerusalem is in ruins, its gates have been burnt down" (Nehemiah 2:13, 17).
-
Jeffro
Jerusalem still desolated 92 years after 537 BC
Nehemiah used the Hebrew word chareb (Strong's 02720, 'ruined'). Jerusalem was populated at the time, indicating that the word does not mean completely uninhabited. The word is directly related to the Hebrew noun chorbah (Strong's 02723, 'a ruin') which is used at Daniel 9:2 and Jeremiah 25:11, indicating that it is not necessary that Jerusalem was completely uninhabited for the entire 70 years (which is of course not a problem since the 70 years refers to Babylon's supremacy, not Jerusalem's exile).