Doug Mason
Post 237
Your hypothesis on the seventy years is not new to me as it is simply replication of Jonsson's view of matters and I have critically examined this matter over the last few years hence my emotive language due to my passion for this subject.
The expression 'precise historic period' is my phrase but nicely represents current scholarship and the manner in which Josephus treats the subject in his Antiquities. The collective 'seventy year' texts in the Bible prove this as I will demonstsrate. Your thesis is that the 'seventy years' pertains to servitude to Babylon and are Babylon's alone which is plainly impossible as Jeremiah shows. You must read the entire book of Jeremiah and also you need to ezegete Jeremiah 25:11 carefully and not distort that text. The comment by Josephus in Against Apion wherein he refers to a 'fifty year' period simply refers to the state of the Temple iwithin the overall context of the alreadycommencement of the destruction of Temple, City and Land of Judah.
You say garbage to the my statement that the seventy years could only have began at the time from or at which the land was devastated and depopulated but that is how Ezra presents the matter along with Jeremiah and Daniel. You defy common sense by trying to superimpose a mythical beginning for the seventy years by means of some abstract beginning. This is your biggest dilemna in trying to find the beginning point of that period: Was it the Fall of ASSYRIA in 609 BCE or Neb's reign from 605 BCE? Jonsson continues to grapple with this with no solution thus far.
My formula is akin to that of the 'celebrated ones' excepting my simple presentation of it. It alone is faithful to all thos Bible writers who wrote of the seventy years and is defensible, your model is simply impossible for it is based upon a single preposition which has many meanings. That is no place you want to be/ You say you have studied and explained the relevants texts, I say baloney to that, your research is biased, the exegesis is forced to a pre-conceived notion, shows no evidenc eof familiarity of commentaries or past and current scholarship even of Adventist scholars.
I am more than happy to walk through your thesis page by page offering my criticism/commendation as we walk through together hand in hand in the pursuit of truth.
I have every right to cite 537 BCE for the Return because in my view it is clearly established beyond all reasonable doubt. Granted I will be researching this matter more deeply and widely but I am confident that the date will remai unchanged.
My simply formula involves servitude to Babylon but foolishly does not ignore the other exile and desolation which Jeremiah and others clearly link with that period. The facts palinly state the matter.
Your comment that the 70 years could have passed without the destruction of the land and Temple is simply rubbish and is disproven by the Bible and Josephus. The seventy years was for Judah and Judah alone but nations round about were also servitude to Babylon but their judgements are not as specifically defined historically as was the cased were Judah. So, the consequence for Judah spilled over to those surrounding nations.
I am well aware of your interest in relation to Jonsson but your views are identical and Jonsson has researched the subject more deeply and widely than you or Hatton and has the greater influence outside Australia. So he is the major guru of chronology as far as apostates are concerned.
I am happy to discuss the principal texts of the seventy years and to supply the calendation of the period but I would ask you those same four questions/
scholar JW