Posts by Ethos
-
13Curiosity may have made 'historic' discovery on Mars
by wolfman85 inafter reading this news on the link below i wonder, what do you think could have found curiosity on mars?.
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_curiosity-may-have-made-historic-discovery-on-mars_1767511 .
curiosity may have made 'historic' discovery on mars published: wednesday, nov 21, 2012, 13:54 ist .
-
-
-
13
Curiosity may have made 'historic' discovery on Mars
by wolfman85 inafter reading this news on the link below i wonder, what do you think could have found curiosity on mars?.
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_curiosity-may-have-made-historic-discovery-on-mars_1767511 .
curiosity may have made 'historic' discovery on mars published: wednesday, nov 21, 2012, 13:54 ist .
-
-
-
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
Who's really looking stupid? The reference to the bible dictionary was for the 70 year exile, NOT 607. Please, someone get Outlaw off the stage. How do you say someone else looks dumb, when you cant even follow the argument.
Now Outlaw please exit stage left. Your routine is stale, your jokes are staler, and this conversation is far too intellectually above your dismal IQ.
-
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
Yeah Ive been getting my ass kicked. And you didnt understand something as basic as a Bible dictionary LOL
So while I'm addressing Jeffro's last post of nonsense maybe they can address this fallacy:
AnnoMaly: Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539
2 Chronicles 36:21 "all the days of lying DESOLATED it kept SABBATH."
Jeffro and AnnoMaly: The land kept sabbath for 49 years.
We eagerly await more red herrings, stale humor, and of course more cut and pastes.
-
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
Bible dictionaries SHERLOCK.
You might wanna go look at what the International Standard Bible DICTIONARY said about the sabbaths and the exile.
After reading AnnoMaly and Jeffro's ridiculous argument I'd be trying to find a little humor to detract from their embarrassement as well.
Pterist is reduced to cut and pastes. AnnoMaly and Jeffro are reduced to contradicting their own chronology and their own secular sources. They are reduced to quibbling over when the 70 year exile is said to begin instead of acknowledging many sources INDEED connect the servitude with the 70 year exile regardless of when it started. They've been reduced to ignoring all reliable secular sources that allow for a possible 537 return. It is indeed quite hilarious.
-
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
Ridiculous. Who cares about when they believe the 70 year exile began. The point is they associate the 70 year servitude with the 70 year exile, with the 70 year paying off of sabbaths, which the 70 year desolation of Jerusalem. I've shown that to you from various bible commentaries and translations of 2 Chronicles 36:21. They're all the same and you tenaciously attempt to separate each one of them with ridiculous eisegetical elucidations.
Oh yeah....here's some real humor for you:
AnnoMaly says: "Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539" (70 years)
2 Chronicles 36:21 "ALL the days of lying desolated it KEPT SABBATH."
AnnoMaly and Jeffro say the land kept sabbath for only 49 years. This is getting embarassing.
-
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've been bored. You say I havent brought forth any evidence but the only basis you have for 538 is Josephus writings and pure speculation. No matter what secular source I put forth you want to try to discredit on the silliest of claims because you dont want to accept that there is basis for the JW interpretation. Even the early Church Fathers believed there was a 70 year exile and Jeffro has unwittingly taken the bait and shown himself to be nothing more than a picky quoter, who only wants to use secular sourcrs when it fits his conjured chronology. Its really you and Jeffro who are not good at this.Scholar after scholar, historian after historian, dictionary after dictionary, they have all shown that it was believed to be a 70 year exile.
Denial is a really unhealthy thing.
-
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
609 FOR DUMMIES: THE JEFFRO AND ANNOMALY EDITION
Here's the simplified, abridged, condensed, etc. version of the problems with the 609 chronology and it's gross inconsistency. Now let's see who paid attention in elementary school when the time came for adding and subtracting. Josephus statements are in blue, the fallacies are in red.
Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: "But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "
Jeffro says Josephus meant to revise his figures, so this should say 'Jeremiah prophesied that they should serve him and his posterity FIFTY years.' But wait, Jeffro and AnnoMaly say the servitude was exactly SEVENTY years, but according to Jeffro, Josephus meant to say he read in the Bible that Jeremiah prophesied 50 years.Their words, not mine.
Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "
Jeffro says Josephus meant to revise this to say: "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for FIFTY years." But wait, their second 70 year prophecy maintains that the temple was desolate for SEVENTY YEARS, well, actually, SEVENTY-ONE YEARS AND 7 MONTHS. And AnnoMaly just said Jerusalem was desolated for SEVENTY YEARS, but Jeffro says Josephus meant to say FIFTY. Their words, not mine.
Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: "God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years , he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."
Jeffro says Josephus meant to revise this to say: "that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude FIFTY years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers." So Josephus meant to say Jeremiah prophesied that after FIFTY years the Jews would return to their homeland. Counting FIFTY years from when Jeffro says they returned we arrive at 588 B.C.E. But the city was destroyed in 587, so that can't work. 587 to 538 is 49 years, not fifty, so that can't work. But Jeffro maintains that the servitude was seventy years (609 to 539) but here he says Josephus directly stated that Jeremiah prophesied a 50-year servitude. Their words, not mine.
In Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19 §132 Josephus states: " [The Babylonians] set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."
Jeffro says Josephus meant to revise this to say: "our city was desolate during the interval of FIFTY years until the days of Cyrus the king of Persia." Counting 50 years back from 539 this takes us to 589 B.C.E. But wait, AnnoMaly just said the city was desolated for SEVENTY years (609 to 539), an interval of SEVENTY years.
Lastly, AnnoMaly and Jeffro maintain that the second prophesied 70 year desolation (for the temple) spanned from 587 to 515.
But this is a span of SEVENTY-ONE YEARS, SEVEN MONTHS. Well, since this interpretation goes almost 2 years 'off the mark' I suppose it's time to use a figurative or a rounded number. We could round it up to 72 years, but that would be inaccurate. Rounding it down to 70 years is still inaccurate, so I guess we'll go the Watchtower's figurative 70-year route. Nobody will notice that this is inconsistent with our previous 70-year interpretation, the writings of many historians (like Josephus regarding the temple), and that we can't even give you one single scripture that shows Jeremiah prophesied about a 70 year temple desolation. Nobody will notice how we completely discredit the writings of Josephus and but later appeal to them for supporting regarding our 538 BC return for the Jews. We will come up with a whole bunch of reasons why 2 Chronicles 36:21 means something else, and blame it's rendering in the NWT on doctrinal bias, even after a list of over 20 scholars, bible translations, and commentaries have been listed that show that it does indeed connect the 70 years with the paying off the sabbaths which also kills off our 587 to 538 chronology for the repaying off the sabbaths. And we will never, under any circumstances, admit that 537 is even possible, even after being shown a number of respected scholarly resources that say it is indeed possibly, and lastly: we will repeat over and over again what a terrible poster Ethos is. How he hasn't proved a single thing and how all his references are discredited, false, and the historians are 'confused' since our interpretation is the right one.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done.
-
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
AnnoMaly: You have yet to provide evidence for the 537 BCE date. I suspect you're having trouble doing so or you would have provided something concrete by now.
I have given you a minimum of 4 secular websites that support 537 for the year the Jews returned from exile. The most respected of which, the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you don't take one of the world's most respected and esteemed religious encyclopedias as 'evidence' then there is nothing I will ever be able to say that will 'prove' 537. I will however list more that show that it is possible the Jews returned in 537 B.C.
"When the first group of exiles arrived back in Jerusalem, circa 537 B.C. they found things were even worse than expected." 1 -- J.R. Hyland's "What the Bible Really Says: Ethnic Purge or Ethnic Cleansing"
"537 BCE. - Cyrus allowed Shesbazzar, a prince from the tribe of Judah, to bring Babylonian Jews back to Jerusalem. Jews were allowed to return with the Temple vessels that the Babylonians had taken. Construction of the Second Temple began."-- Ancient Worlds
"The decree of Cyrus would allow the Jews to return home in 538/ 537 , a deliverance that prefigured the greater salvation from sin through Christ." 3 -- New International Version Study Bible
"In 537 the Jews return from Babylon and rebuild the Second Temple." 4 -- The Key of Knowledge: A Study in the Hebraic Roots of Messianic Faith
"537 - The first group of Jews arrived back in Jerusalem (Ezra 2:68) 5 -- Returning, Rebuilding, Repenting by Paul B Coulter
"But the return of about fifty thousand people (2:64-65) in 538-537 B.C. didn't completely fulfill the promises in Ezekiel." 6 -- The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament by Dr. Warren W Wiersbe
"537 - About 50,000 Jews return to the land, led by Zerrubabel and Joshua." 7 -- Berean Fellowship: Outline of Ezra 1
"In 537 B.C. the first Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon." 8 -- What the Bible Is All About
"The phase of the dual centres, Palestine and Mesopotamia, from the first 'Return from Babylon' (537 BC) until about AD 500. 9 --- Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years
"The actual return must have gotten underway by 537 or 536." 10 - Archaeology and Bible History
There you have 10 secular references that support or assert that a 537 return possible in addition to the several encyclopedias and websites I referenced earlier. If you repeat I haven't even demonstrated how 537 is possible after this, I think it's obvious you are being deceitful.
You are not taking into account scholarship as a whole. You're ignoring the statements by Josephus, historians, other expositors and primary testimonies that do not confirm your pre-conceived notions.
There is no need for you to repeat what Josephus said. The selected quotes you used have been rebutted.
FALSE, FALSE, FALSE!!!! I've shown on numerous occassions that Jeffro's supposed revision of Josephus' mention of the 70 years only deprecates his own 609 chronology and that even if he did discredit Josephus' writings (which he hasn't in the least) it still does not take away from the fact that a historian associated the servitude with the exile. That is the central thrust of the argument: WHAT basis is there for connecting the exile to the seventy year servitude? Josephus showed that there was basis no matter how much you poorly attempt to discredit his writings and then later use them as attestation of your 538 B.C. return. The only person who has ignored statements by 'Josephus, historians, and other expositors' would be Jeffro since he flambouyantly said that the historians were 'confused' because they did not examine the scriptures in context and that their interpretation is incorrect; exhibiting a chain of a priori assumptionssince these historians do not agree with his flawed chronology.
Theophilus' statement cannot be used to bolster your argument because, as was demonstrated, he ends the same period of 70 years in two different kings' reigns. And it's Book III - not Book I (unless you're using another edition).
Immaterial to his statement. He still provides a basis for connecting the 70 years to the exile. The veracity of the sources is not in question, it is simply a matter of any precedence whatsoever for connecting the two. My edition says Book I, so let's read exactly what Theophilus' states: " And after these kings, the people, continuing in their sins, and not repenting, the king of Babylon, named Nebuchadnezzar, came up into Judæa, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years. Until the sojourning in the land of Babylon, there are therefore, in all, 4954 years 6 months and 10 days. And according as God had, by the prophet Jeremiah, foretold that the people should be led captive to Babylon, in like manner He signified beforehand that they should also return into their own land after 70 years. These 70 years then being accomplished.."
Here's another secular source that provides basis for connecting the exile to the 70 year servitude.
"The most famous exile that befell the Hebrews, then—to wit, when they were led captive by Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon— lasted 70years, as Jeremias had prophesied. Berosus the Babylonian, moreover, makes mention of Nabuchodonosor. And after the 70years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecæ of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. For the date is a matter of agreement among them all. And Cyrus then, in the first year of his reign, which was the first year of the 55th Olympiad, effected the first partial restoration of the people by the hand of Zorobabel, with whom also was Jesus the son of Josedec, since the period of 70years was now fulfilled, as is narrated in Esdr a the Hebrew historian. --- Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius
It's pointless to re-quote the mostly-antiquated or loosely paraphrased renderings "in/at Babylon." These have been countered with citations or quotes from other translations - two of which are from the NWT! Besides, you said yourself that it doesn't matter, it doesn't alter anything, so why are you intent on flogging this dead horse?
Jeffro has stated that the NWT's translation is 'biased' and 'selective' and by quoting several other translations I am demonstrating that the translation is not selective in the least. It is a false statement and simply a matter of quibbling over a phrase or two. Whether or not it changes the 70 year interpretation, is immaterial, since we are discussing the NWT's linguistic accuracy. Please TRY to keep up with the conversation and what is being refuted/discussed.
You still ignore the fact that Jeremiah did not mention a 70 year long Sabbath for the land or a 70 year long rest for the land. Jeffro well illustrated how the wording in 2 Chron. 36:21 was to be properly understood. You are just repeating your default position rather than arguing against the points put to you.
Jeremiah mentions 70 years of desolation, inactivity, emptiness of the land. This is the same thing as a sabbath, when no work is taking place. I think that is pretty obvious to anyone who has a basic understanding of Hebrew text and who reads 2 Chronicles 36:21 directly from the original language. Jeremiah quotes Leviticus 26 verbatim which tells us the land will rest and keep sabbaths "while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies." (cf. 26:34). 2 Chronicles reiterates this and many, many Bible translators who do not support 607 have agreed that the 70 years are connected to the paying off of sabbaths. No matter how you try to spin it, the basis is there. Whether you agree with the interpretation is an entirely different matter. Again, we are discussing the NWT's linguistic accuracy. The following translations/scholars give credence to the NWT's interpretation and translation (which dismantles Jeffro's argument that the NWT is selective and biased)
.... threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible (basis thus provided for connecting the 70 year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12. " -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (basis thus provided for connecting the 70 year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV. (basis thus provided for connecting the 70 year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version (basis thus provided for connecting the 70 year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest. (basis thus provided for connecting the 70-year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
“According to 2 Chronicles 36:20, the Exile lasted , just as Jeremiah had predicted before the exile began (Jeremiah 25:1-11); thus the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbaths rests during those years (see Leviticus 26:34)” – The Applied Old Testament (thus there is basis for connecting the 70-year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
“The people had not allowed the land to enjoy the rest God commanded (Lev. 25:1-7; 26:32-35), so now it would have a seventy-year “Sabbath” (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10-14; Dan. 9:1-3) – The Wiersbe Commentary (thus there is basis for connecting the 70-year servitude to the exile to the paying off of Sabbaths)
“2 Chronicles 36:21 explains the role of the Exile in God’s purpose by interpreting the prophecy of Jeremiah in light of the warning in Lev. 26:34f. Daniel 9 also refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy (v.2); based on the warnings in Lev. 26:18, 34f – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (thus there is basis for connecting the 70-year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
“ God had commanded Israel to observe a Sabbath for the land, allowing it to rest every seven years (Exodus 23:10-11). The people of Judah had denied the land its Sabbaths over a period of some 490 years, meaning that they “owed” the land 70 Sabbaths, and to fulfill seventy years God took the years back during the Babylonian exile.”—Guzik Bible Commentary (thus there is basis for connecting the 70-year servitude to the exile to the paying off of sabbaths)
So Jeffro is here again at odds with all the world's biggest Bible scholars and exegetical experts. Funny how he appealed to the 'argument from consensus' fallacy but now once his interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 is shown to be a minority viewpoint he still holds to it.
You are ignoring the 'plethora' of secular sites that say the Jews returned in 538 BCE (in reality 5 sites to match your 'plethora' of 5 sites stating 537 BCE). You have yet to provide ANY reasoning to support your preferred year. Will you ever do so?
All your colors and big bold fonts are merely a written way of shouting "La la la la" while having your fingers in your ears. You came here wanting to "engage in discussion" but it looks like you only want a platform to promote your own views without really taking on board any contrary evidence.
No ignorance on my part. I only said it was possible the Jews returned in 537. It is possible they returned in 538 and some in 536 too. All I had to do was prove it was possible that they returned in 537, which I indeed by showing you secular source after secular source.
We were talking about how long the temple remained desolated, remember? Don't conflate the period of the temple's ruin with the period of Babylonian domination. The two periods are not the same.
I know you were referring to the temple desolation. The point of referencing the 609 chronology was to ask why the 609 chronology had to be exactly 70 years but the second 'seventy year prophecy' is almost two years off the mark.
Regarding precision, haven't you ever considered that 70 years can be a rounded number? Are the days of one king only ever 70? ( Isa. 23:15) You're already acquainted with the WTS's view that the 70 years for Tyre is figurative, right? (Isaiah's Prophecy I, p. 253) And do you think biblical edict means man lives literally 70 years, perhaps 80 due to special mightiness (Ps. 90:10) - no other numbers near it allowed?
Red herrings and non sequitir statements. You cannot appeal to a passage in Psalms or an interpretation regarding something of a totally different subject to justify your conflicting numbers. In your 609 chronology the 70 years are exact, however, in the second 70 year prophecy, the numbers are nearly 2 years off and now by insinuating a 'figurative' or 'rounded number' you are being inconsistent.
Wrong. During the 70 years for Babylon or the nations' servitude to Babylon, Jerusalem was desolated. Why the misrepresentation of our position, Ethos?
So from Nabopolassar's 16th year to the rule of Nabonidus Jerusalem was desolated? I wonder how that happened when in your chronology Judah hadn't even been attacked yet.
Jeremiah's 70 years relate to Babylon's domination over the nations. Zechariah's 70 years relate to how long the temple had still remained a ruin at the time (he wrote 520-518 BCE).
Maybe you should change that to 71 years, 7 months. Or maybe round it up to the nearest number, 72. Or maybe say it's figurative since your chronology is inconsistent.
Reference 1: http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/what-11.htm
Reference 2: http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/339183
Reference 3: http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/
Reference 5: http://www.paulcoulter.net/Teaching/Returning,%20Repenting,%20Rebuilding.pdf
Reference 7: http://www.bereanav.org/outlines/Ezra%201-outline.pdf
-
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
Oh yeah let's not forget how Jeffro had no answer for this tidbit:
Let's look at Jeremiah 27:6 again "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.’
The statement they must serve even him and his son and his grandson is simply saying that all those who ascend Neb's throne must also be served by the nations. Using the term "son" to refer to successive kings is not uncommon as the Assyrians did this and the word used here is also translated "descendant" or "relative". In either case, the all important starting point of this all important 70-year prophecy is never, ever mentioned in the Bible, not even once. Why is there so much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar, but never the person who is crucial in the starting point of the entire prophecy? It is not illogical to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected byseveral OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.
It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocations B): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar
I wonder what it will take for Jeffro to realize how ridiculous it is that the most important link in his chronology just happens to be missing...