Quick answer...Jeremiah 28:3 is a false prophecy by Hannaniah. Read verse 1. The connections are there, reread my post carefully. I'll in detail explain the connection in my next post. Have to go to work now. Good night.
Posts by Ethos
-
529Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
-
529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
Ethos
Let me break it down for you castthefirststone. A premise is defined as " a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion." In Londo's 607-thread and Jeffro's blog these scriptures are used as a basis for the conclusion of the beginning and ending time periods for the 70-year servitude. Therefore, scripture or not, they can be said to be 'premises' for their conclusion of 609 to 539 as the period of servitude. If you disagree with their premises regarding the end of the servitude in 539 B.C.E., then there is no argument from my side.
Your response about the King of Babylon being called into account has been addressed at the bottom of my response to premise 2.
Jeremiah 25:11 mentions the servitude of 70 years. Verse 12 mentions that he will be called into account after the 70 years. Jeremiah 51 which is a continuation of what was described in verses 12-18, qualify that the calling into account involved the returning of the temple utensils. Simple enough?
I've already examined your website Jeffro, no need to peddle your blog. Are you going to respond to the points or just talk about how wrong I am without haven proven a thing besides that you can name logical fallacies which you yourself have committed?
-
529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
Ethos
Well why comment and say the arguments are wrong if you are unwilling to argue your case? Imagine if I showed up in a 607 thread and started spouting about how wrong the anti-607 arguments were but proved nothing. I'd be laughed at and looked at as a nonsensical troll who can't substantiate his viewpoint.
Really...the fitting statement is: "put up or shut up", with all due respect.
Finkelstein, that is a totally different argument. I have not missed a point about an argument that is not being discussed/analyzed. This is specifically for the 609 to 539 servitude peddlers.
-
529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
Ethos
I honestly doubt you even read it, for anyone with honesty and reasonableness can see that the word usage of Jeremiah 51 is parallel with what is described in Jeremiah 25. Here's a suggestion for everyone who has a problem with anything I've asserted: prove it.
You used a similar 'assocation fallacy' when you connected the "calling into account of Babylon" with the dividing of the Kingdom mentioned in Daniel. However, Jeremiah himself, qualifies what will happen when the King is called into account. He specifically links the vengeance of Jehovah with the temple. You can ignore it/not 'respond' all you want, the arguments are clear and there for all to see.
-
529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
Ethos
Response to Premise 2: This premise insinuates that the "calling to account" of the King of Babylon was realized during the overthrow of Babylon and the division of the Babylonian governance by the Medes and the Persians. But rather than trying to understand Jeremiah on it's own terms, you appeal to the prophetic riddle mentioned in Daniel 9 (written in a completely different cultural perspective and time period)to substantiate your interpretation of the 'when' and the 'how' of this prophecy's fulfillment. We need to first establish what exactly Nebuchadnezzar was to be called into account for.
The denouncement of Babylon is described in detail in Jeremiah 51:6-11 " 6 “FLEE out of the midst of Babylon, and provide escape each one for his own soul. Do not be rendered inanimate through her error. For it is the time of vengeance belonging to Jehovah. There is treatment that he is paying back to her. 7 Babylon has been a golden cup in the hand of Jehovah, she making all the earth drunk. From her wine the nations have drunk. That is why the nations keep acting crazed...11 “Polish the arrows. Fill the circular shields, O men. Jehovah has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because it is against Babylon that his idea is, in order to bring her to ruin. For it is the vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance for his temple...34 “Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon has eaten me up; he has thrown me into confusion. He has set me as an empty vessel.He has swallowed me down like a big snake; he has filled his abdomen with my pleasant things. He has rinsed me away."
A solid connection between this and the servitude mentioned in Jeremiah 25 are the verses that delineate the "golden cup", the figurative insanity-inducing "wine" that the nations must drink (v. 12-19 which denounce Babylon); these very events are described just after the "servitude" prophecy is stated in chapter 25. Also, note that the vengeance described here is described as 'the vengeance for his temple'. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar had raided the temple and stolen the holy utensils and even at the time of Babylon's overthrow they were being used at a drunken party in celebration to pagan dieties (Daniel 5). So when vengeance was repayed for the temple, then it could be said that the King of Babylonia was called into account.
When were the pleasant things, the temple's utensils removed from Neb's 'abdomen'? In the first regnal year (as previously established) of Cyrus II, Ezra 1:7 says "Also, King Cyrus himself brought forth the utensils of the house of Jehovah, which Neb·u·chad·nez′zar had brought out from Jerusalem and then put in the house of his god."
This is another conclusive reason why the servitude had not yet ended by 539 B.C.E. Now some will object and say "Cyrus" is not the King of Babylon. But both historians and the Bible agrees that he could rightfully be considered such. The Handbook of Bible Chronology states: "His Babylonian regnal years began. . . .accordingly in his first year, in which he made the proclamation, 538/537 B.C."
Cyrus proclaimed himself as king of Babylonia and at first did not alter Babylonian policy regarding exiles. Ezra 5:13 even states: "Nevertheless, in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon, Cyrus the king put an order through to rebuild this house of God." A contemporary inscription confirms the validity of this usage: "All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Somer and Akkad, bowed to him (Cyrus), jubilant that had he had received the kingship . . . I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad." - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to The Old Testament, p. 316.
So the 70 year servitude fits perfectly as Cyrus is still considered "King of Babylon". However if you relied on the 609-chronology, there are problems, since the error that was to be called into account had not been atoned for until Cyrus' first regnal year with the returning of the temple utensils.
-
529
Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals
by Ethos ini agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.
i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.
therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.
-
-
Ethos
I agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic. I've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly. Therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine. I only mention this since I'd like to keep this thread (unlike the many other 607 threads) clean cut, concise, and clear since this subject can easily become quite complicated and extend into various constituents that can be difficult to follow for onlookers.
Premise 1:Jeremiah 25:12, says "And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite."
Premise 2:When was the king of Babylon called into account? Daniel 9:26-28 says, "ME´NE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and has finished it. TE´KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. PE´RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians."
Premise 3: Regarding Jeremiah 29:10,other modern translations, like the ESV, says, “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."
Professor Ernst Jenni, a Hebrew scholar says, "The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directionalonly in certain adverbial expressions (e.g. Num. 11, 10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151)."
Conclusion: So the ending point of the 70 years is 539 BCE.
539 BCE - 70 years = 609 BCE
What happened in 609 BCE? "The Babylonians defeat the Assyrian army of Ashur-uballit II and capture Harran. Ashur-uballit, the last Assyrian king, disappears from history." So logically the 70 year period that Jeremiah foretells is the period of Babylon's Dominance of the region and the lands roundabout, from the time Assyria's last stronghold was captured, until Babylon fell to Cyrus.
Response to Premise 1: The premise seems to insinuate that the servitude ended in 539 B.C.E. and uses this as a basis for adding the seventy years and arriving at 609 BCE when Babylon defeated Assyria. But 539 BCE cannot possibly be the end of the 70-year servitude. A czar's death does not signify the end of servitude to those under that administration's yoke. Admittedly, scholars hold in general consensus that the Jews did not leave Babylon in 539 B.C.E. Therefore, their servitude, included in the nations aforementioned in Jeremiah 25, had not yet ended at the supposed ending point of 539 B.C.E. Cyrus had not yet changed Babylonian policy when he ascended the Babylonian throne. They continued as exiled servants until Cyrus issued his decree at Ezra 1:1, permitting the Jews to hark back to Jerusalem. This decree was issued, not in Cyrus' ascension year but in his first regnal year. Ezra says "in the first year of the King of Persia", and not "his first year becoming king". Jewish historian Flavius Josephus corroborates this by referencing this as "the first year of the reign of Cyrus" - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter XI, Chapter I. Many secular sources further corroborate this statement, for example:
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Page 748 states: "Already in his first regnal year (538 B.C.) Cyrus issued a decree by which exiled Jews were allowed to return to their homeland."
The Handbook of Bible Chronology, page 170 states: "The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem are presumably stated in terms of his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. His Babylonian regnal years began. . . .accordingly in his first year, in which he made the proclamation, 538/537 B.C."
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army, and a few weeks later the great conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus, made his triumphal entry into the fallen city. One of the official acts of the new ruler in Babylon was to give to the exiled Jews full liberty to return to Judah.."
Jeremiah 27:6, 7 state: "And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’ Undoubtedly, if the servitude began with Nabopolassar, there would have been no need for Jehovah to "give these lands" into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. 'These lands' would have been an inheritance for Nebuchadnezzar at his ascension to the Babylonian throne. The nations must serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson but the father, who would be the *pivotal* starting point of this all-important 70 year prophecy is not mentioned, nor is there any scriptural basis to assume the servitude commenced with his rule. This again, clearly, shows that the 70 year-servitude could not have begun in 609 BCE, and therefore could not have ended in 539 B.C.E.
(END OF RESPONSE TO PREMISE 1)
-
107
How do you keep your hopes up while in this doomed existence?
by sabastious incoming from aguest's thread where she showed us the article that describes a "brain drain" that has been occuring for centuries do to "mutations" i can't help but be a little fed up with how much negativity comes from the land of science.
sure, facts are facts and they do not set out to sound good or bad, but instead of identifying the problems of doom, like our brains are devolving, why not focus on the solutions to those problems?
where are the hopes and dreams that our culture so desperately holds onto which actually provides the drive to progress towards them.
-
-
Ethos
So sebastious it seems you have reached a distinct period of life where it all begins to seem so devoid of purpose and abiding satisfaction. I have been exactly where you are, in my own life, actually. Science seems to answer so many questions, yet this deluge of knowledge mesmerizes our intellect and nothing more. Science is well-esteemed for answering the "how" but almost never answers (satisfactorily) "why". Have you lost all belief in the Bible and/or religion as a whole Seb?
My best recommendation to you would be to study human anatomy & physiology and definitely biology. Everything is designed to repair, to reproduce itself , to function, to harmoniously intertwine so profoundly and endlessly....that if we never aged we would live forever. Our body's were designed (whether by evolution or creation) so beautifully that this is what should be the case. But for some unexplained reason, these perfect, precise homeostatic and biological functions that renew and sustain us day-to-day, stop working. Think about it, seb.
-
67
Question?
by Ethos infirst of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.
i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.
i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.
-
-
Ethos
Yes...it's true. My posting is still restricted (this is my 1st of only 3 more allotted posts in the next 12 hours), and I am unable to start a new topic for about 1 more hour. I intended to discuss and engage in conversation....but this way is just kind of draining and frustrating to be honest. Profuse apologies.
-
67
Question?
by Ethos infirst of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.
i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.
i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.
-
-
Ethos
Thanks for all the responses. To try to address everything with this one post (the last one I have for 12 more hours) would be tedious and extremely cluttered. New thread addressing everything Jeffro said about 607/1914 and everything ChristAlone said about the name Jehovah tomorrow. Going thru all the 607 threads and collecting information right now actually. I'll leave out the sattire this time. Haha.
-
67
Question?
by Ethos infirst of all i'd like to apologize on behalf of my "college dropout" thread.
i intimated it as a humorous and somewhat true form of sattire.
i didn't think people here would take it so seriously and literally.
-
-
Ethos
Hanks talesin. Its refreshing to at least have someone notice my sincerity.
My purpose?: "I cannot long be in solitude, and to devote my working hours to a monotonous labour wholly devoid of stimulus: anymore than I can be content with my faculties, paralysed, made useless." - Jane Eyre
Take from that what you will.