by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia
You are simply quoting a translations that provides a paraphrase or interpretative rendering "Babylon's seventy years" which is your choice. My choice is a literal rendering 'at Babylon' which simply places the end of the seventy years locatively speaking. Apart from this one controversial text there are no others that connect the seventy years with Babylon but rather Judah, ther land and the people.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Yes, you believe that your presentation of the seventy years from 609 to 539 is a definite period but that is not the way that I see the matter because according to the Jonsson hypothesis there is a certain fuzziness about whether the seventy years should begin at 605 or 609. And if the matter is so definite that it should be so readily apparent then why is it that many other scholars do not agree with you as to when the seventy years. In addition, there is no consensus as to when the Assyria Empire fell because one only gas to read normal everyday reference works as not that may date the end of Assyria with fall of Nineveh in 612.
The history of that period is simply to ambiguous to select a pivotal date for that period as you can select from a range of dates to 612 through to 605. Further the seventy yeras have nothing at all to do with Babylon but Judah and so they at most can only begin from the year in which a Judean king became a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer. So at the earliest one can only consider a date in the reign of Jehoiakim which is far removed from 605 or 609. In short, your hypothesis of the seventy years impossible because you date that from Babylon's power if this is the case then why not select a date prior to 609 and go back to Nabopolassar's period.
WT scholars's interpretation of the seventy years is the only possible view that harmonizes the events of secular and biblical history and prophecy.
scholar JW
Most bible translations say "for Babylon" in this verse, many of them are not merely paraphrases. The Hebrew grammar for the verse in question, together with a comparison of the other relevant scriptures, has already been demonstrated in this thread to fully ratify the rendering "for Babylon" as being more consistent than "at Babylon".
Although the Society has mentioned many times the erroneous nature of the King James Version, in the verse in question, the Society chooses to accept its rendering rather than the rendering of almost all bibles that disagree with the rendering "at Babylon".
And if the matter is so definite that it should be so readily apparent then why is it that many other scholars do not agree with you as to when the seventy years.
That is funny. You support the 'Society hypothesis', which is backed by no scholars, and then state that my model is wrong because it is not supported by all scholars. Your logic here is extremely flawed. My model is based on the bible. As you would agree, it is therefore not important that there is agreement from secular dating. The fact that my model harmonizes with dates of any scholars at all without even trying to, make it superior to the 'Society hypothesis'.
Aniron,
It is interesting to note that the Danish NWT of 1985 reads 'for Babylon' at this point, and the new revised Swedish NWT of 2003 now reads 'for Babylon' instead of the earlier 'in Babylon'.
Could you (or anybody else) post the Swedish and/or Danish current NWT of Jeremiah 29:10?
your tabulation and ours outranks the others by a long shot despite the fact that your methodology is similar to that of those six scholars
My methodology for all of the data for the Divided kingdom (but not the Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian kings) is taken directly, and only, from the bible rather than relying on secular dates for those rulers. For that reason, the total numbers of years is similar to the Society. It should be noted that there are some elements in the bible record that do cause confusion, such as the entries I have listed in red in my model, so it is to be expected that scholars would also find confusing elements from other sources that may seem to conflict with other data.
The (new) Swedish version of the NWT has "för" ('for'); the Danish version has "for" ('for') in Jer 29:10. Interestingly, the Norwegian version still has "i" ('in') corresponding to the "original" NWT: "at". Perhaps Rolf Furuli had a saying when the Norwegian version was made?
The Norwegian version was made after the Danish, but before the new version of the Swedish edition. (One should note that the three Scandinavian languages are closely related; one should expect the same preposition used: Danish/Norwegian/Swedish: "i" ('in") or Danish/Norwegian "for" ('for') / Swedish "för" ('for').
Thanks Augustin,
Apparently the WT has never argued for the NWT of Jeremiah 29:10. Are they slowly moving back from the old assertions (as the wording of the Isaiah book also suggests)?
Or did the Scandinavian translators really read the Hebrew text (or some literal translation) and "forgot" to check on Mommy's?
Interesting in any case.
Scholar
All that you have posted has already been discussed on this board and I have responded fully to those seventy year texts. In fact, your post is simply a summary of the Jonsson hypothesis set out in his Gentile Times Resconsidered.
...And all you have done is to blindly parrot what he WTS tells you to parrot, ignoring the reams of evidence presented from numerous sources that clearly indicates the fatal flaw in their theology.
What you fail to realize is that the seventy years referred to by Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra is that this period is one of desolation of Judah, exile of the Jews and servitude of the Jews to Babylon. The scriptures affirm quite clearly that the seventy years do not belong to Babylon but to the Judah and its people
What you fail to realize is that holding to this position puts the WTS at odds with all the reconcilable evidence available. We have patiently, over the past two years, Jeffro being the latest candidate, shown how the secular and Biblical evidence can be reconciled but you have chosen to ignore this in favor of the WTS agenda. When you mention that 'the scriptures affirm quite clearly that the seventy years do not belong to Babylon but to Judah and its people', you should be honest enough to admit that by 'scriptures' you mean the NWT, and not all editions of it at that! You once asked for the Danish and Swedish versions of the NWT to be quoted, but then claimed that as you have no knowledge of those languages, you could not comment. Are you prepared to comment now?
Scholar, the WTS has a huge problem here. The GB knows this as I can evidence from my own conversation with a member of the GB about this issue some years ago, and I suspect that at this stage it has even dawned on you what is at stake here. I am very sure that for many years the GB has been trying to find some way of standing back from its 607BCE stance, and as ever it will do so with some clever twist of cunning, one that will have yourself and other cult devotees purring and fawning like some animal on heat.
You need the WTS to survive Scholar, not because it holds the keys of truth, but because you are symbiotically attached to it by an emotional dependence. We all understand this, as once we were similarly held fast by this system, but you need to drop once and for all your claim to respect scholarly methodologies. You clearly do not.
I have to admit that my heart goes out to you. I am sure that you are a very decent person, who like the rest of us just wants a little peace and a measure of happiness in our lives. I can well understand your stubborn resistance in accepting the information presented to you, but that you have to stoop to such intellectual dishonesty to maintain the status quo in your life is actually very sad.
Best regards - HS
you believe that your presentation of the seventy years from 609 to 539 is a definite period but that is not the way that I see the matter because according to the Jonsson hypothesis there is a certain fuzziness about whether the seventy years should begin at 605 or 609.
Your perception of the so-called 'Jonsson hypothesis' is irrelevant. I determined the 70-year period based on Babylon's fall in 539BC. It is the simple addition of the number 70 to the number 539 that gives me the year 609. I arrived at that result before I even knew that scholars agreed that the Assyrian world power ended in that year. My authority for that date is the bible.
Further the seventy yeras have nothing at all to do with Babylon
Contrast Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-30, 2 Chronicles 36:20.
they at most can only begin from the year in which a Judean king became a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer.
The Society's explanation of the timing of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar is incorrect and is improperly used to explain an alleged discrepancy between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 (Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, page 18). The supposed discrepancy is actually an issue of Daniel using the accession year system and Jeremiah not, and both verses refer to the same point in Jehoiakim's rule; neither refers to vassalage and the event was about 605BC in Nebuchadnezzar's first year. (Note that Daniel does not say which year of Nebuchadnezzar as he considered it to be Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.) The bible does not specify a point at which Jehoiakim became a 'servant' of Nebuchadnezzar, only stating that it was "in his days".
why not select a date prior to 609 and go back to Nabopolassar's period.
Because 539 plus 70 equals 609.
WT scholars's interpretation of the seventy years is the only possible view that harmonizes the events of secular and biblical history and prophecy.
Several problems with the 'Society hypothesis' have been identified by myself and others on this thread.
