Posts by Ethos

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Jeffro: Equivocation fallacy. People can serve from anywhere. Nowhere does the Bible say the Jews would be "in a land that is not theirs" for seventy years. The Jews, like all the nations, were in servitude to Babylon for seventy years. For part of that time, they were in servitude in Babylon. All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years.

Incorrect. The passages aforementioned Jeremiah specifically relate a servitude that is not of Judean locale. Specifically, it denotes a derivation and morphological inflection of advenient realization (i.e. "you will serve in a foreign land that is not yours [cf. 5:19]; "I will hurl you out off from this land and there you will serve other gods day and night" [cf. 16:13]). Jeremiah delineates whatthe servitude encompasses, wherethe servitude will be consummated, and when(i.e. 25:11 being inflective of a future initiation) and they all are at odds with your chronology.

Jeffro: Again, the verse in question makes no mention of 70 years or any other time period, but only that the Jews would be in a foreign land at some point.

It mentions the all-encompassing servitude with regard to the locality of Babylon. Now you attempt to asunder the other usages of `abad (servitude) from the specific 70-year servitude, when the semantic connections are made when the frame of reference is to Babylon. If you say the Jewish servitude began with the rise of Babylon in 609 B.C., you must also accept that at that time the Jews began "serving in a foreign that is not theirs" (cf. 5:19) and that they "served their enemies in a land they have not known." (cf. 17:4) Are there now multiple servitudes Jeffro?

Jeffro: Again, there is no mention of the 70 years at Jeremiah 17:4. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.

It has already been explained that the usage of `abad with Babylonian locality is a continual/parallel reference to the seventy years. To say otherwise would be blatantly dishonest and in fact, a recalcitration of standard Biblical exegesis as the connections are easily decipherable from the text.

Jeffro: Again, this is a red herring, since Gedaliah was talking about Jews taken to Babylon in 587BCE. The reason they might be afraid is they were being taken to Babylon. It is entirely reasonable that they might think servitude there would be worse than servitude in Judea.

The following hypothetical scenario is based on Ethos-style 'logic':

I went to London this month.
While I was in London I bought food.
I also bought food last month.
Therefore, I was also in London last month.

Terrible reasoning. It is obvious that they would be afraid of Babylonian bondage. You are solidifying my argument since Jeremiah 40:3 used the word "abad" (translated as serve, serving) in reference to Babylonian exile.Accordingly, this explicitly defines and affixes the 70-year servitude with exile. Your hypothetical scenario is an accurate as it would be more like the following:

I will serve in the foreign land of Iraq as a troop for 70 days.
I will serve the Muslim god of Iraq while I am in the land and after I am hurled out from America.
Therefore, I could not begin serving in the foreign land of Iraq until after I left America
Hence, my 70 day servitude cannot begin until I leave off American soil.

No such point has been proven at all. The Bible shows that the opposite is the case.

On the contrary, it has. As the linguistic experts have brought to our attention precisely how the Bible uses the word "servitude" in reference to foreign nations and on a contextual basis, regarding foreign nations.

""The meaning "to serve" (i.e. as a slave) is indicated in general contexts in Gen. 14:4; 1 Samuel 1:11; 17:9; 1 Kings 4:21; Jer 25:11; 27:6ff." - Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 2005)

God told Abraham that his descendants would “serve” the people of a strange land 400 years (Gen.15:13), meaning, as in the NIV, “to be enslaved by.” - (Vines Expository Bible Dictionary, p. 353)

Jeffro: Jeremiah 25:8-11 states unequivocally that all the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But whilst all the nations were in servitude, things were worse for those that did not submit to that servitude.

But even if the 'servitude' worsened for specific countries, the country would still be considered to be in servitude to Babylon. Therefore, what makes the servitude WORSE for one country and BETTER for another? The CONDITIONS and EXTENT of that servitude (i.e. the harshness of labor/slavery in contrast). The servitude in one country would be worse than another, because that servitude would encompass harsh treatment, and not merely a general subjection to Babylon as a world power.

Jeremiah 27:8 indicates that (during the 70 years), nations that don't submit to Babylon's 'yoke' would suffer more than those that did. Jeremiah 27:11 indicates that the nations that submit (e.g. by paying the required tributes) would be allowed to "rest upon its ground", so their servitude to Babylon would be relatively light.

Yes, so if they did not submit, their servitude would no longer be "relatively light" but instead harsh and difficult. What would make their servitude particularly heavy and the other nations not? If they submitted, then as you say "they would be allowed to rest upon their ground", but if they did not the servitude would encompass banishment from their land and thus slavery. And we know the Jews didn't, in fact, submit, therefore their servitude encompassed a period of banishment and slavery in a foreign land.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

Before I pick apart Jeffro's nonsense I'd like to make it thoroughly and indubitably transparent that my exegesis of what is implied by servitude is in consensus with the real experts. Jeffro continues to maintain that I eclecticly defined "servitude" to support my position and that the implied meaning of the passages in Jeremiah are simply "serving" and not "slavery" or "labor" in reference to Babylon. It never ceases to behoove me that people like him maintain that I'm not good at this when their biblical exegesis is based upon 2 passages and when we examine those passages in light of their context, and other linguistic usage of the grammar and syntax contained therein, their interpretation is simply nonsensical. Once it is established that "servitude" meant "slavery" (exiled servitude), then everything about his interpretation is dismantled with one, easy blow.

"The meaning "to serve" (i.e. as a slave) is indicated in general contexts in Gen. 14:4; 1 Samuel 1:11; 17:9; 1 Kings 4:21; Jer 25:11; 27:6ff." - Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 2005)

1 labour, work, do work: absolute Exodus 20:9 = Exodus 34:21 = Deuteronomy 5:13 (4th word); Exodus 5:18 (E) Ecclesiastes 5:11; with accusative of thing, till the ground Genesis 2:5; Genesis 3:23; Genesis 4:2,12 (J), 2 Samuel 9:10; Isaiah 30:24; Jeremiah 27:11." - (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, entry H5647)

(abad, 5647), “to serve, cultivate, enslave, work.” This root is used widely in Semitic and Canaanite languages. The verb is first used in Gen. 2:5: “… And there was not a man to till the ground.” God gave to man the task “to dress [the ground]” (Gen. 2:15; 3:23; cf. 1:28, NASB). God told Abraham that his descendants would “serve” the people of a strange land 400 years (Gen.15:13), meaning, as in the NIV, “to be enslaved by.” - (Vines Expository Bible Dictionary, p. 353)

"a term in the English Bible often meaning slave as well as a hired attendant, since the English translates several Greek and Hebrew words that range in meaning from a hired servant to a slave bought or taken in war. In the OT "servant" is a frequent translation of the Hebrew ebed, the literal meaning of which is "slave." The English reader, therefore, must bear inmind that the notion of slave often lies behind the translation "servant." - (The HarperCollin's Bible Dictionary, 1996, p. 1049)

"The Hebrew word 'abad, which is usually translated as "till/work the ground", in fact means servitude, slave labor. The same type of work Israel would be forced to do in Egypt later." (Earth Habitat: Eco-Injustice and the Church's Response, p. 54)

"Primary definition of forcing into labor (cf. Ex. 1:13); compel (s. one) to (do sthg) [cf. 2 Ch. 34:33); -take into, keep in servitude, slavery [cf. Exodus 6:8]; make (s. one) do work (cf. Ez. 29:18)" - (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 262)

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

Whats really hilarious is how its not even funny. Its so hilarious how all Biblical dates involve conjecture. And they say I'm not good at this LOL

EDIT:Well I only have one post left for the next 8 hours. Hopefully the mods can give me more posts because I am sooooo not good at this LOL

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

Your Josephus revision argument has already been examined and it doesnt work and makes your own chronology fail, so your appeal to Josephus is fallacious. The 181.2 year argument is immaterial since I dont hold Josephus to be infallible. ALL dates in the Bible require conjecture since we must use secular data. The depth of solidity depends on the EXTENT of conjecture required. AlanF's date requires too much conjecture AND it contradicts his primary source. Notice I've only argued 537 is a possible date, as all my sources show it is not something as definite as the fall of Babylon. I cannot believe I have to qualify this statement for people who have been debating chronology for years. 537 is solid, but we are never given absolute dates in the Bible so therefore it requires assumption and conjecture to pinpoint what exact month and year some things happened. 537 is not all important to me, why would it be?

You can continue all the strawmen you want. 538 BC has been shown to be in error. Context has made it thorougly obvious what was implied by servitude. Ezra and Jeremiah's plain interpretations contradict your 49 year sabbath and faux devastation time interval. Numerous historians and scholars agree that the Bible says 70 years of exile. And 537 is not something the JWs came up with, many many scholars agree its a possible date. Maybe you shouldnt copy people's argunents blindly and you wouldnt have to be shown erroneous time and time again.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

Black Sheep:http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/118291/3/Fact-Jews-Returned-In-538-BC-Kills-Off-Watchtower-Chronology

and ...... there is no attempt to refute anything in the OP. If you really want to impress us, take up the challenge in the OP and present us with a tabulated form that clearly demonstrates the mistake/s.

Challenge will now be met. AlanF/Jeffro has made the error of trying to substantiate his own dogmatic assertion that it is a fact that the Jews returned in 538 B.C. by one shaky, decrepit, and not in any way authoritative evidence and then he resorted to CONJECTURED ASSERTIONS regarding when Cyrus issued his decree and when the Jews returned (month by month), when his source in the first place was by no means the final authority on the subject.

Error #1: "In other words, Josephus has provided the crucial information to decide between 538 and 537 B.C." --Alan F

If we are to hold Josephus as the authoritative say on the matter then we should examine everything he said in conjunction to the 70 year servitude (since this related to the timing of the release of the Jewish exiles):

Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, I states: "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, 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.

So Josephus indubitably says Jeremiah prophesied that SEVENTY years after the people were removed out of Judah into Babylon, BEFORE the destruction of the city. Jeffro will try to say this should be revised but as it plainly says this is something Jeremiah prophesied and nowhere does Jeremiah prophesy a servitude or a removal out of Babylon '50 years from the reign of Cyrus'.

But AlanF, Jeffro, AnnoMaly and others will not accept this. In fact, they all maintain that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. Now make a mental note that Cyrus first regnal year is from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537. (Mar/April) Count 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem and this will bring you to 517 BCE. Does not work. If they wish to use the revision tactic of 50 years, count 50 years from the destruction of Jerusalem (Tammuz of 587) and this would take you to the summer (Tammuz) of 537, which extends PAST Cyrus' first regnal year and extends into his second. Therefore, the decree would NOT have been given in the first year of Cyrus as the Bible says, but instead was given in his second year, even if we allow for a ridiculous revision.

Now also notice Ezra 1:1 "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus."

Now notice there is no month stated, simply that it was given in the first year. But in AlanF's chart, I've highlighted in red how he conjectured that the decree was given in the FIRST month of Cyrus' FIRST regnal year. He asks for evidence that 537 is the date for the return, but he can provide no Biblical or secular evidence that the decree HAD to be given in the first month. By proceeding from here, he continues to conjecture, but passes it off as 'fact'. If you start with a shaky and frankly contradictory premise (between his statements and Josephus' statements) your conclusion is likely to be shaky and conjecture as well.

Josephus also states in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, IX, verse 7 "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."

Now I know some will say that this should be revised to 50. Even though Josephus already connected the 70 year exile to the 70 year captivity, I will assume this should say 50. Now counting 50 years from Tammuz of 587 takes us to Tammuz of 537. This means all of Judea and Jerusalem were desolated until at the earliest Tammuz of 537. But AlanF/Jeffro dogmatically proclaim that the Jews returned in Elul 538 B.C. Josephus is either saying the city was completely desolate for 70 years or 50. Which is it? The Jews couldn't have returned in 538, if Josephus' numbers tell us the city was desolated until at LEAST the summer of 537. Here, again, his dependence of Josephus crumbles and causes his conjectures to become even more ridiculous.

I think it can be conclusively said that this table is incorrect. AlanF/Jeffro have also repeatedly asked for evidence supporting 537.

"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

After Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon,he allowed the exiles to return in 537 B.C.E 3 ---- New World Encyclopedia

After the Persians conquered Babylonia, Cyrus granted the Jews permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple in 537 B.C.E. 4 --- Jews and Joes (A Secular Jewish History Website)

"...and assist in the Jews return, since the return was made in Cyrus' first year (539-537 B.C.E.)." - The Macarthur Bible Commentary

So, yes, there is solid evidence for 537 even if it not's conclusive, it's still a possible date, and many scholars/Bible experts agree.

Table of Cyrus' Early Years As King of Babylon, With Important Events

539___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 7__Babylon falls, Cyrus' accession year

539___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 8

539___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 9

539/8_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 10

538___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 11

538___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 12

538___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1__Cyrus' 1st year; issues his famous decree (pure conjecture)

538___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

538___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

538___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

538___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

538___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6__Jews arrive in Judah (conjecture, not fact)

538___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7___Jews are settled in their cities (conjecture, not fact)

538___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

538___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

538/7_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

537___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

537___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

537___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

537___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2__Temple foundations are laid (conjecture, not fact)

537___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

537___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

537___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

537___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

537___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7

537___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

537___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

537/6_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

536___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

536___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

536___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

536___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

I will address Outlaw's ridiculous red herring post once again. Apparently he does not know the definition of an ad hominem attack.

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."

Now if you go back to page 15, particularly posts #15 and #19 by Outlaw you will see that he stated nothing of serious argumentation, but ratherhoration satire and even his ridiculous claim about the definition of a "dictionary" and 607 BC was answered when I quoted the ISBI. No ad hominem there.

Jeffro: I've already demonstrated the flaws in your 'analysis' of the Hebrew word abad. It doesn't mean exile. A person can be serving (abad) irrespective of whether they are or are not in exile (galah).

Did you know? Let's assay your response.

Ethos next attempts to imply that the Hebrew abad means exile , which is simply not the case.

No, I specifically stated as I quoted from Strong's dictionary: that `abad literally means to "serve" or "to be forced into labor." (cf. post #4 on page 18)

The term appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament, and it means labour or to serve. It never means exile.

Strawman continues.

Ethos selects a smattering of verses (such as Jeremiah 5:19) where it is used in reference to Jews 'serving in a foreign land', but in those verses, it only ever means serve, and the foreign land part is always from entirely separate Hebrew words.

There was no smattering of verses. It was simple methodical exegesis of comparative and parallel usage of the specific Hebrew verb `abad in context. In those verses more than simply "serving" was implied, as it was shown to always be connected with a banishment or deportation from the soil of Judah. Stating that the "foreign land part is always from entirely separate Hebrew words" does not imply that the usage of `abad is not associated with the diaspora of the Jews. It's amazing how you've insinuated that I've selectively smattered these verses (on the basis of superficial knowledge) when your oratory for dismissing the synthesis I made between the two is on a simple basis of separate Hebrew words,when this is not merely an argument of phonology but emphatically an argument of context and hermeneutics. I will again point out to you the context of these verses; particularly the utilization of `abad in conjunction with the Babylonian vicinity.

Jeremiah 5:19 “And you must say to them, ‘Just as YOU have left me and have gone serving (`abad) a foreign god in YOUR land, so YOU will serve (`abad) strangers in a land that is not YOURS.’”

Simple question: Where will the Babylonians be served? In a land that is not theirs. Therefore, the servitude cannot begin in 609 BCE while all the Jews remain comfortably abided in Judah.

Jeremiah 16:13 “And I will hurl YOU out from off this land into the land that YOU yourselves have not known, neither YOUR fathers, and there YOU will have to serve (`abad) other gods day and night, because I shall not give YOU any favor.”’

Simple question: Where will the Babylonian gods be served? In a land that they have not known. I also don't see how they could serve Babylonian gods before they had any contact with Babylon whatsoever, even in 609 BCE. Therefore, the servitude cannot begin in 609 BCE, while all the Jews remain comfortably abided in Judea.

Jeremiah 17:4 “ And you let loose, even of your own accord, from your hereditary possession that I had given you. I also will make you serve (`abad) your enemies in the land that you have not known; for as a fire YOU people have been ignited in my anger.

Simple question: Where does Jehovah say he will make the Jews serve their enemies? In a land they have not known. Therefore, the servitude cannot begin in 609 BCE, while all the Jews remain comfortably abided in Judea.

Jeremiah 40:9 “And Ged·a·li′ah the son of A·hi′kam the son of Sha′phan proceeded to swear to them and to their men, saying: “Do not be afraid of serving (`abad) the Chal·de′ans.Continue dwelling in the land and serve (`abad) the king of Babylon, and it will go well with YOU."

Simple question: Where will the Jews serve the king of Babylon? In the land of the Chaldeans.
Another question: Why would the Jews be afraid of being in servitude to Babylon as a world power? What is there to be afraid of since it's just Babylon's dominion and power that is being prophesied here?

As we can see from all four Jeremaic passages, every time the word "serve" is used it is used in direct conjunction with the diaspora of the Jews in a foreign land. Of course, serve is used in other senses, like worshipping and keeping the sabbaths, but from the context that is obviously not the usage of the verb abad here.

Leviticus 26:34 "“‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies.At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath."

Only while the Jews were in the land of Babylon, while the land was desolate could the sabbaths be payed off. Ezra says the 70 year prophecy found fulfillment in the paying off of sabbaths. But 587 to 539 will never ever give you 70 years. Jeffro's interpretation simply does not work.

Indeed, "a seventy-year figure is used for the Exile" - HarperCollin's Bible Dictionary page 315

As for those who wish to discuss Daniel 1:1 and VAT, I will do so once when we can get some honesty or at least acknowledgement of the evidence I've provided for my conclusions.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

Final nail in the coffin to Jeffro and his 609 interpretation:

As if it hadn't been thoroughly transparent that the usage of the verb `abad is repeatedly used in conjunctional relation to the actual deportation of the Jews to a foreign land, I have one solidifying argument that I think will make this point quite clearly. Jeffro admits on page 18, post #7 that the word used for exile in the OT is "galah". Again we will look at how Jeremiah used the word and in what context.

Lamentations 1:3 "Judah has been led away into captivity (galah), oppressed with cruel (rob) slavery ( abodah). She lives among foreign nations and has no place of rest. Her enemies have chased her down, and she has nowhere to turn. (New Living Translation)

The word abodah's primitive root word in Hebrew is: abad; which as I stated can mean: "to labor; to serve." Now the adjective "rob" simply means very abundant, copious. So now that we know the literal meanings, let's look at how it is translated the world over. In red I will highlight how the word translated "serve" is phrased, interpreted, and understood in the following passages; underlined (where it is evident) I will highlight the conjunctional causation of the servitude.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Judah has gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

American King James Version
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

American Standard Version
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Ghimel. Juda hath removed her dwelling place because of her affliction, and the greatness of her bondage:

Darby Bible Translation
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

English Revised Version
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

Webster's Bible Translation
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude:

World English Bible
Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude;

Young's Literal Translation
Removed hath Judah because of affliction, And because of the abundance of her service;

Now on a strictly causational basis: we adduce that the cause of Judah's exile is 1): affliction 2): great servitude. Now the servitude to Babylon as a world power is not a cause for the Jews to go in exile, anymore than the world's subjugation to the United States as a world power would be a cause for a foreign to go into exile. This makes it servitude definitely NOT a matter of Babylonian servitude (as a world power). So right there the 609 doctrine is dismantled.

Now on a strictly hermenuetical basis: the word Jeffro tried to point out simply means "serve" is, in this passage, implied as harsh labor and slavery, associated with unusual cruelty and punishment; used in conjunction with the diaspora of the Jews (i.e. the exile); and is written by Jeremiah. Therefore, it is conclusively proven that the servitude DID in fact mean slavery/work in a foreign land as the scriptures repeatedly said. There is no better 'interpreter' than Jeremiah himself, who in his writings has made it clear that the 70 year servitude was not a servitude of subjection as a world power, but THROUGH LABOR. Now Jeffro will try to say these scriptures don't specifically mention the 70 years, but they are all written by Jeremiah, all relate to the servitude to Babylon, and since the servitude of Babylon is said to be for 70 years, then they are all interconnected. Judah does not go into exile because Babylon is the world power. That interpretation doesn't even make any sense, as we examine the usage of the word serve over and over again. I really hope there won't be any more denial at this point but I won't be surprised.

EDIT: Again, this is a red herring, since Gedaliah was talking about Jews taken to Babylon in 587BCE. The reason they might be afraid is they were being taken to Babylon. It is entirely reasonable that they might think servitude there would be worse than servitude in Judea.

Thank you for proving my point, that the servitude or subjection to Babylon as a world power was not just something that signified Babylon being the dominant power for 70 years. 'All the nations' were subject to Babylon as a world power for 70 years, yet it is somehow worse to be subservient to Babylon depending on what country you reside in. Hmmm, why is that? Is that because the servitude involved MORE than just a general subjection? You unwittingly admit, that the servitude in Babylon, would be more severe than the servitude in Judea. This is like saying: the servitude to America as a world power is WORSE in Australia, than it is in China. That makes zero sense. But if the servitude implied SLAVERY, LABOR, HARSH TREATMENT, EXILE as Jeremiah so eloquently noted, then of course it would be worse for them in Babylon. You have only solidified my argument with your statement. Thank you.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

No ad hominem attacks from me. Showing someone to be a regurgitator of other peoples arguments who pass them off as their own is not ad hominem. Outlaw wasnt even involved in the discussion, that was nothing more than humorous dialogue. Please show me where I exhibited ad hominem attacks.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

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.

Ethos

I am not opposed to discussing Daniel 1:1/secular evidence. I just dont see the point as no matter what I say, what references I use, and whatever exegesis I use it will always be said to not be proved. They will say I do not answer questions. They will say in Jeffro's words: You're wrong, the historians are confused, and every source you list is wrong.