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.

Ethos

SD-7 said: "There's an interesting example of where 607 becomes a problem. Jeremiah 29:1 shows that the statement about 70 years at/for/whatever Babylon was addressed to Jews already in exile in Babylon, exiled a full 10 or 11 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. By Watchtower chronology, the prophecy would've had to be given in the year, what, 617/618 BC? To tell the exiles to wait 10 years for their exile to begin? That I find confusing.
Either way, I think the question is, why does matter what year Jerusalem was destroyed? What exactly does it prove? That a prophecy about 70 years of servitude is correct, or that the 7 Gentile Times prophecy is correct, or both, or none? There's no reason to debate 607 if this is just about a 70 year prophecy that would in our time just be a historical curiosity or maybe even spiritually uplifting at best.
By debating this issue, you're inviting the inevitable question of whether the motive is to prove 607, or simply to prove 1914." (END OF QUOTE)

This is the same argument also put forth previously by Jeffro and those who maintain 609. However, this argument also lacks stanchion when we assay the historical and situational context of Jeremiah 29. It is allocated directly after the false prophecy of Hannaniah recorded in Jeremiah 28 which occurred early in Zedekiah's reign, his fourth year (V.1). He prophesies that the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar will be broken and that the exiled Jews will return in just two more years.’” (V. 3-4) Jeremiah mentions that Hannaniah prophesied this in the "house of Jehovah" and "before the eyes of all the people" (cf. 28:1); he says "in the ears of all the people" (cf. 28:7); again he says "before the eyes of all the people" (cf. 28:11). Undoubtedly such a prophecy of restoration would indubitably spread like wildfire and the word would get back to the Jews in exile fairly quickly. Now taking this context into account Jehovah sends Jeremiah to the exiled people with a message of restoration but the rumored restoration of just two years is dispelled when Jehovah tells them that only at the conclusion of the seventy years would the Jews be restored to their homeland (cf. 29:10) This is indeed a prophecy of clarification, reiteration, and is served to dispel recent prophetic speculation regarding the return of the exiled Jews. This makes even more sense when we look at the words that precede verse 10: "For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Let not YOUR prophets who are in among YOU and YOUR practicers of divination deceive YOU, and do not YOU listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. For ‘it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to YOU in my name. I have not sent them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.”’”

It is in this context that the scripture reads: "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place." A literal word-for-word translation reads: For thus (koh) says ('amar) Yahweh (Yehovah) when (kiy) seventy (shib`iym) years (shaneh) have been (male') for/at Babylon (Babel) I will visit (paqad) you and fulfill (quwm) my good (towb) word (dabar) to you to bring (shuwb shuwb) to this (zeh) place (maqown). So the scripture is literally saying: at the end of the seventy years the people will be brought back to Judah.

Examining the scripture in context makes the 609 interpretation that this is saying the Jews would be in servitude to the Babylonian world power even more farcical. As the scripture literally reads, at the end of the 70 years (539) the Jews were not brought back to Judah. According to Jeffro the Jews returned more than a year later. However, the 607 chronology synchronizes perfectly. Those in exile (by descendance as well) would return with all the exiled Jews at the end of the 70 years. This is exactly what many scholars have discerned from the context and thus translated Jeremiah 29:10 accordingly:

"This is what the LORD says: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again. - New Living Translation

"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you." - DR Bible

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years shall be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you" - Webster's

"The truth is this: You will be in Babylon for a lifetime. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and bring you home again." - The Living Bible

"quia haec dicit Dominus cum coeperint impleri in Babylone septuaginta anni visitabo vos et suscitabo super vos verbum meum bonum ut reducam vos ad locum istum."—Latin Vulgate (c. 405).

"But thus saith the Lord, That after seuentie yeres be accomplished at Babél, I wil visit you, and performe my good promes toward you, and cause you to returne to this place."—The Geneva Bible (1560).

"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you: and I will perform my good word in your favour, to bring you again to this place."—Douay Version (1609).

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place."—Authorized King James Version (1611, 1769).

"For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place."—New King James Version (1984; based on the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica).

Isn't it interesting when people allude to scriptural arguments that refute their own premises? Amazing. Also I'm debating 607 because I believe it's unjustly perpetrated as an impossible and fictional date for Jerusalem's destruction, when it is the only one I've ever seen that allows for a seventy year desolation. I don't require Jerusalem's destruction to prove 1914. This slippery slope fallacy continues to be asseverated repeatedly as if I've declared that this is how I arrive at the conclusion of 1914.

Indeed here is another farcical statement for Jeffro to retract: "Because when it's convenient, it's 'majority rules'. The fact that the vast majority of Bible translations do not support the JWs' selective translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is also conveniently ignored.

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

First I'd like to address Jeffro's argument about 538 BCE. In short he claims the Jews returned in 538 BCE instead of the Watchtower's chronological date of 537 B.C.E. Here are his arguments quoted (which are really just a rehash of Carl Jonnson and AlanF yet again):

Strawman argument. No one says the Jews left Babylon in 539BCE. Many of the Jews didn't leave Babylon at all. Those who left following Cyrus' decree returned in 538BCE, not 537. Comparison of Ezra 3:1,8 with Josephus' Against Apion confirms that the Jews were in their cities by Tishri (October) of 538BCE and that temple construction began in Iyyar (May) of Cyrus' second year. Ethos has already confirmed for us that Cyrus' first regnal year began in 538. October of Cyrus' first regnal year is still 538. Even if the comparison of Josephus with Ezra could not be used for confirming the correct year, there would still be no reason for dogmatically asserting that Cyrus' decree 'must' have been at the end of his first regnal year, or that the Jews 'must' have returned in 537.
Ethos continues his strawman argument. However, Cyrus' first regnal year began in Nisan (April) 538BCE, giving ample time for the Jews to return to Jerusalem by October of the same year. (JW apologists argue this isn't enough time, despite the fact that a) Ezra 7:9 says the journey takes 4 months and b) in their chronology, the Jews take about the same amount of time to return but in a different year)

The entire thrush of Jeffro's argument for a 538 BCE-return is based on an appeal to authority fallacy. He endeavors to synthesize the chronology of Ezra 3 with that of Against Apion. He unwittingly references Josephus (really his only leg to stand on) as a reliable dictum on the matter when in fact the very authority he appeals to can be used to invalidate his 538 and his 609 chronology. Indeed, here's that contextomy fallacy rearing it's ugly head yet again. 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." He selectively quotes Josephus regarding the restoration of the temple when and only when it fits with his chronology. This makes his premises faulty, lacking serious stanchion, and his conclusion regarding 538 BC purely speculative just as he deems the Watchtower's conclusion of 537 BCE 'speculative' and 'dogmatic assertion'. How can you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when the very authority you fallaciously reference can be used to dismantle your own premises and thereby your 538 BCE conclusion?

The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

He continues to asseverate this inherently casuistical statement as if it were indeed fact. If we disregard the Biblical arguments for just a moment, there are secular historians (who have no doctrinaire bias for proving 607) that corroborate that the 70-year servitude applied to Jewish exile. Take a look at the following statements by Josephus in his book "Antiquities of the Jews" (the very author Jeffro previously fallaciously appealed to):

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 "

Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: " All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "

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."

Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "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."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

Hippolytus of Rome said: "When the whole people, then, was transported, and the city made desolate, and the sanctuary destroyed, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which He spake by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, " The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years. "—On Daniel, Chapter I.

As you see there is sufficient secular evidence and thus the claim that 'there is no basis to connect the servitude with the Jewish exile' is inherently false as many historians who have absolutely no preconceived bias towards 587 or any particular date show this. I thus echo the earlier sentiments of Londo when he said: " At what point does the secular evidence stack up so firmly that one has to admit that one’s Interpretation has been at fault?" 609 peddlers have tried to make it seem as if there is no basis for attributing the 70 years to exile when in fact numerous historians did so. Alas, this is not the last of Jeffro's ludicrosy, as I will continue to show.

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

It's a lie to say I don't answer questions. In fact, I've addressed a great number of questions (though off topic) in this thread even with my 10 posts per day posting limit. If I'm not responding, it's because I need more time to pass so I am allotted more posts so I can actually engage in discussion. There's that argument from silence fallacy rearing it's ugly head 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

More ludicrous statements by Jeffro. Outright mistruths actually. I will show this next quite clearly. I will also address AnnoMoly's frivolous and nonsensical questions that show she hasn't grasped the fundamentals of my premises. A quick answer to TD and Jeffro though, obviously the 2520 years are not calculated solely from Daniel. But it is a strawman since I said I establish Revelation on its own premises, as I do Daniel. Thats why I said I teach the Gentile Times last, since I dont need it to establish 1914 and I dont necessarily agree with the biblical exegesis of the Gentile Times for reasons aforementioned.

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

Is There Any Connection Whatsoever Between Jeremiah and Leviticus?:

Jeffro and those who maintain 609 must repeat 'there is no connection between the sabbaths and the 70 years' (even though 2 Chronicles indeed makes that connection). To show a correlation between Jeremiah and Leviticus would conclusively destroy and dismantle all their arbitrary 609 interpretations. So is there a connection between the writings of Jeremiah and Leviticus? Let's see:

Leviticus 26:29 "So YOU will have to eat the flesh of YOUR sons, and YOU will eat the flesh of YOUR daughters."
Jeremiah 19:9 "And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters;"

Leviticus 26:30 "And I shall certainly annihilate YOUR sacred high places"
Jeremiah 19:3 "Here I am bringing a calamity upon this place,...5 And they built the high places"

Leviticus 26:30 " lay YOUR own carcasses upon the carcasses of YOUR dungy idols"
Jeremiah 33:5 "to fill places with the carcasses of the men whom I have struck down in my anger and in my rage,those who are coming to fight against the Chaldeans"

Leviticus 26:31 "And I shall indeed give YOUR cities to the sword "
Jeremiah 20:4 "all Judah I shall give into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will actually take them into exile in Babylon and strike them down with the sword."

Leviticus 26:31 "and lay YOUR sanctuaries desolate"
Jeremiah 9:11 "And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones,

Leviticus 26:32 "And I, for my part, will lay the land desolate,"
Jeremiah 9:11 "and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant."

Leviticus 26:32 "YOUR enemies who are dwelling in it will simply stare in amazement over it"
Jeremiah 18:16 "in order to make their land an object of astonishment, for whistling at to time indefinite. Every last one passing along by it will stare in astonishment and shake his head"

Leviticus 26:33 "And YOU I shall scatter among the nations"
Jeremiah 9:16: "and I will scatter them among the nations"

Leviticus 26:33 " YOUR land must become a desolation"
Jeremiah 4:27 "A desolate waste is what the whole land will become"

Leviticus 26:33 " and YOUR cities will become a desolate ruin"
Jeremiah 9:11 "and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabit"

Leviticus 26:34 "all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies"
Jeremiah 17:4 "you let loose, even of your own accord, from your hereditary possession that I had given you. I also will make you serve your enemies in the land that you have not known"

Leviticus 26:34 "the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths"
Jeremiah 16:18 "I will repay the full amount of their error and of their sin, on account of their profaning my land"

Leviticus 26:35 "All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it"

Jeremiah 17:27 “‘“But if YOU will not obey me by sanctifying the sabbath day and not carrying a load, but there is a coming in [with it] through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, I will also set a fire ablaze in her gates, and it will certainly devour the dwelling towers of Jerusalem and will not be extinguished.”’”

There are verbatim quotes and references from Leviticus 26 to Jeremiah ubiquitously, and this is why Ezra's words at 2 Chronicles 36:21 (in addition to these direct quotes) connect the keeping of the sabbaths to the fulfillment of the 70 years. "21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." Jeffro and others continue to object to the Bible's plain words and even try to object to the NWT's rendering but as we showed previously other translations take even more liberties and give you a clear postulation as to what Ezra meant.

TD: I agree. That is why when I teach my Bible students the 1914 doctrine, the Gentile Times is the last thing I teach them. I establish it based on Revelation's own merit and the empirical evidence that points to it.

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

Jeffro: How very tedious. Ethos here acts as though the connection between Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31 is merely something I've 'hastily' come up with. Though I did notice the obvious correlation prior to investigating what others had said on the matter, the connection is indeed quite well established (e.g. see John Gill's Exposition of the Bible). The special pleading for the NWT's own cross-references on the matter is nothing short of pathetic.

Any biblical exegetical class will catechize you into the habit of understanding scriptural passages and Bible books on their own merit. In other words, you cannot flip back and forth between two books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods and use one to qualify what the other meant. If Daniel 5 or 9 made a direct quote from Jeremiah or vice-versa, then you'd have an argument, but as I showed you the use of a cross-reference signified zilch. Simply put, you must understand Jeremiah on it's own terms. Multiple references from Jeremiah are verbatim reiterations of Leviticus 26, which in no uncertain terms connect the sabbaths to the 70 years (see my next post post). Jeremiah 28 serves as solid evidence that the Jews associated the 'breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon' (the servitude) (V. 2-3) and Jeremiah 51 uses the synonymous drinking of the rage-inducing wine as a metaphor (from Jeremiah 25:15-18) and links the punishing of Babylon (the calling to account mentioned in 25:12-14) with the "vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance for his temple" (cf. 51:12-13) which reiterates the yoke breakage and the utensil association with the servitude to Babylon from Hannaniah's false prophecy in Jeremiah 28. Everything is explained incontrovertibly there in Jeremiah and the hermeneutical links are all there. There is no need, in any way, shape, or form to appeal to Daniel 5 to qualify what Jeremiah 25 meant.

Just because all the policies were not immediately changed, it was quite definitely a different administration. The Babylonian king was no longer ruling. When Obama replaced George Bush as president of the US, Bush's administration was replaced by Obama's administration. It did not require a change of all US policies. You are still also ignoring the fact that the 70 years (the period of Babylon's dominance) is not the same as the calamity (the 'cup', which affected different nations at different times). Jeremiah 25 says nothing about the 70 years being a period of Jews in Babylon. Once Babylon's king was dead, the Jews were subservient to the king of Persia. After they returned to Jerusalem, they were still subservient to the king of Persia.

I never asserted that all the policies must have been changed in order for a new administration to begin ruling. I merely asserted that some policies should have. Can you provide us with any evidence that a significant number of Babylonian policies were changed before Cyrus' decree? Your presidential illustration is your strawman and it is nothing I have ever put forth. The day Obama is re-elected (Medes become the world power) and Bush loses office (Babylon is overthrown), there has no been no change or significant change in Bush's administrational policy. Barack Obama (Medes) has no execution of office until he is sworn into office several months later. He has no authority or abilityto change the previous administration's policy untilhe is sworn into office. Therefore, the nation continues subject to Bush's administration even though he is no longer president. Even when he is granted executional authority, he does not immediately make changes in policy. It takes considerable time to change an administration's policy (even in minor areas). Your illustration failed and only gave credence to what I have said previously. They were subservient to the king of Babylon because they were still under Babylon's policy and Cyrus (by both secular AND biblical sources) is appropriately titled 'king of Babylon'.

I've already responded in a previous post regarding the selective interpretation in the NWT of 2 Chronicles 36:21 that attempts to associate the exile with the 70 years. I have also previously indicated that the Jews did not associate the exile with the 70 years (e.g. Ezekiel 40:1).
Though he has not validly responded to anything above, nor has he responded at all to the problems the JW interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 causes, as previously illustrated.

Are these selective interpretations?

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.

All this was to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah: "Until the land has retrieved its lost sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall have rest while seventy years are fulfilled. ""—The New American Bible.

"Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah came true, that the land must rest for seventy years to make up for the years when the people refused to observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible

DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."

As if this weren't conclusive and clear enough, in my next post I will show you on a strictly lexicographical and hermenutical basis why the NWT and all these other 'biased scholars' render the passage this way. By referencing Ezekiel 40:1 you only show us that Ezekiel is counting his own exile from the time it started and not from the time the city was struck down. Well, duh. Obviously if there was an earlier exile those in that exile would count from the commencement of their exile, and not from a later one. That proves nothing. The Jeremiah 29 argument is also forthcoming.

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

New International Version: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."

New Living Translation: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled , just as the prophet had said."

English Standard Version: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

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.

Young's Literal Translation: "to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept sabbath -- to the fulness of seventy years."

DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."

"All this was to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah: "Until the land has retrieved its lost sabbaths, during all the time it lies waste it shall have rest while seventy years are fulfilled. ""—The New American Bible.

"Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah came true, that the land must rest for seventy years to make up for the years when the people refused to observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible

Notice how the scriptures say it kept its sabbaths until the 70 years were up. Jeffro says the 70 years ended in 539, but the paying off of the sabbaths ended in 538. God's Word Translation says the land rested for 70 years, but Jeffro's interpretation says it only rested for 49 years. DR Bible says the land kept a sabbath until the seventy years expired (539 according to him) but he says the keeping of the sabbaths ended a year later in 538. The Living Bible says the land must rest for 70 years, but Jeffro says it only rested for 49.

The 609 chronology is wacky and flawed as these other translations so eloquently demonstrated for us. I guess they have the same JW interpretation of the 70 years and are biased and inaccurate translations as well? Oh please.

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

Btw...Jeffro is you're going to quote Josephus regarding how long the temple was in ruins, you might wanna quote the part where he says 70 years too. Let's not use references when it's convenient. You also might wanna retract this statement:

The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

Jeremiah 48:7 "And Che′mosh will certainly go forth into exile, his priests and his princes at the same time.."

Jeremiah 49:3 "Howl, O Hesh′bon, for A′i has been despoiled! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rab′bah. Gird sackcloth on yourselves. Wail, and rove about among the stone pens, for Mal′cam himself will go even into exile, his priests and his princes, all together. 4 Why do you brag about the low plains, your flowing low plain, O daughter unfaithful, you the one trusting in her treasures, [saying:] “Who will come to me?”’”

Jeremiah 49:34 "This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning E′lam in the beginning of the kingship of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, saying: 35 “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Here I am breaking the bow of E′lam, the beginning of their mightiness. 36 And I will bring in upon E′lam the four winds from the four extremities of the heavens. And I will scatter them to all these winds, and there will prove to be no nation to which the dispersed ones of E′lam will not come.’ 39 And it will certainly occur in the final part of the days that I shall gather the captive ones of E′lam,”

Many. many, other scriptures could be quoted, but I think this is sufficient.

Pterist: the group of exiles, the deportation from Jerusalem's destruction

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

AnnoMoly said: How does arguing 'Cyrus was king of Babylon therefore the Jews continued to serve Babylon after the Persians conquered it' help you with the 70 years question? You see, even after the exiles returned, they were still in servitude, but to to the Persian kingdom. They had to pay tribute to Persia and the Persian king could order them about, as this letter from the inhabitants of the Samaritan kingdom and its reply indicate.

Because as Jeffro and others tried to argue, "there was no Babylonian King" to call into account, therefore Jeremiah had to be fulfilled in 539 B.C.E. By demonstrating how Cyrus could still be called "king of Babylon" (by both biblical and secular sources) it squashed that argument, as this is all related to the fulfillment of the beginning and end of the 70 years. The rest of your reply was a red herring and unnecessary, as you're not really putting forth something I object to since you obviously didn't understand the point being made.

1. How can Nebuchadnezzar have been 'called to account' when he was DEAD?

The scripture does not say 'Neb will be called to account at the end of seventy years'. It simply says 'the king of Babylon' will be called into account. Obviously, it wouldn't be Neb since he wouldn't be alive at the end of 70 years. Strawman argument that shows you didn't understand my argument.

2. The sense of Jer. 51's OTT warnings: Nebuchadnezzar was the first neo-Babylonian king to start oppressing God's people, but subsequent kings continued after him. Therefore, Babylon and whoever was reigning were going to be punished (Jer. 25:12).

Jeremiah 51 specifically mentions the vengeance coming upon Babylon (the attack of the Medes) and correlates it with the "vengeance for his temple". (V. 7-12) Although the oppression of the Jews is mentioned, the primary reason for the "vengeance of Jehovah" is for the temple as it so clearly states. Didn't really change anything about my argument though.

3. The temple was raided of its utensils 3 times - in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when Jehoiachin and several thousands were taken into exile, and when Jerusalem and the temple were finally destroyed (Dan. 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:12,13; 25:13-17).

What exactly is your point? All looting from the temple occurred under the direction and decree of Nebuchadnezzar. Showing us that this happened on three occasions proves.....? Jeremiah 51 specifically condemns Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans for looting the holy utensils. The false prophecy of Hannaniah in Jeremiah 28 again proves the Jews associated the 'breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon' (the servitude), with the returning of the temple utensils.

4. Nabonidus and Belshazzar lost possession of the temple utensils when Cyrus took Babylon. The utensils therefore became Persian property in 539 BCE.

Again, another irrelevant point. The returning of the temple utensils is when the vengeance of the temple (Babylon's calling to account) is fulfilled. Not the loss of possession from Babylon to Persia. That was not my argument.

How does anything in your response prove your point about when you think the 70 years of servitude ended?

I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. Get it now? Sheesh.

You haven't provided one solid rebuttal yet. Are you going to try harder with your 'Response to Premise 3'?

Likewise regarding your response. You spent most of it refuting arguments/bringing up points that I have no objection to....or that were completely desultory if you're arguing in favor of Jeffro's 609 chronology. Maybe you can try a little harder too.

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

New International Version: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."

New Living Translation: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled, just as the prophet had said."

English Standard Version: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

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.

Young's Literal Translation: "to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept sabbath -- to the fulness of seventy years."

DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."

Just a bunch of hogwash intended to make onlookers think the NWT has sullied the translation of 2 Chronicles, when in fact, every translation quoted linked the fulfillment of the 70 years with the keeping sabbath. Some even said "she kept a sabbath TILL the seventy years expired." (contradicting Jeffro's 587 to 538 chronology). Another said "While it lay in ruins, the land had its 70 years of rest." (contradicting the 609 to 539 chronology) again. Another says "The land finally enjoyed its sabbath rest, lying desolate UNTIL the 70 years were fulfilled." (contradicting the 587 to 538 chronology yet again).

Hilarious.