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

AnnOMaly:

It's been pointed out to you already that, under WT chronology and interpretation of Jer. 29:10, the vast majority of the exiles will be "at Babylon" 80 years rather than 70.

JW's are well aware that there were people exiled longer than 70 years since there were exiles prior to Jerusalem's destruction. Nothing of substance here.

It has already been brought to your attention, using Scripture, that Jerusalem may never have been destroyed at all,that Zedekiah and the people could have lived peacefully in their land had they obeyed Jehovah and not tried to throw off the Babylonian yoke.

This could be used for every prophecy of destruction and punishment in the Bible. The ten-tribe kingdom could have repented. The Egyptians could have repented. All the nations would be subservient to the world power of the time anyway. What is so special about that event that Jehovah has to use prophets over and over again to tell them that the nations will have to serve the world power at the time. Nothing of substance here.

It's already been put to you that it is nonsensical to believe God meant the exiles of 617 BCE (WT time) to understand that a 70 year period "at Babylon" could, but might not, start at an indeterminate time in the future when more exiles could possibly, but may never, end up joining them there.

No, as I proved thoroughly using the actual context and the verses before 10, the purpose of the prophecy was to dispel rumors that they would return in 2 years. The reiteration of the 70 year prophecy they had already heard dispelled all those rumors that only at the conclusion of the 70 year period (regardless of when it started) would they return. Nothing of substance here.

But all this has gone whoosh over your head and you're churning out the same old, ill-conceived twaddle.

Likewise.

Here are some more translation comparisons on Jer. 29:10. Both say "for Babylon":

I have no objection towards the term "for Babylon". I only showed the translations of "at Babylon" to dispel another untrue statement Jeffro made that the vast majority of Bible translations used it as such. Either way, the seventy years being FOR the Babylonian exile, the servitude to Babylon, it makes no difference in the interpretation whatsoever and several scholars who do not support 607 showed that such a conclusion and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is reasonable when examining the context.

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

Pterist: "Please give ONE scripture that points to Zedekiah group being brought back after 70 years !!!"

Is this a serious question? So you are asking me to prove to you that those in the third exile (the one that took place during Zedekiah's reign) would return to Judah?

Jeremiah 25 is addressed to all of the nation of Judah, including those who went into exile during Zedekiah's reign. Verse 1 "which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.." So the 70 year prophecy of restoration affected all in Judah, not just the first two exiles.

Londo: The “empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation”clearly point to events in the first century. When Jesus said, “This generation will by no means pass away”, he meant it. A plain reading of Matthew 24 shows the generation he was speaking with did not pass away until everything he spoke in the Olivet discourse was fulfilled. He either spoke those words in 30 or 33. In less than 40 years, it all came true. The Bible shows the last days began in the time of Jesus and he became King upon his Resurrection, not 1914.

This is an entirely different subject for an entirely different thread. I'm guessing this is the preterist view you are advocating. Well I suppose we'll all just keep wondering how death and tears and pain were done away with in the first century and how Christ's thousand year reign has already ended since it's been 2,000 years but still hasn't brought peace and eternal life to those on the earth and how Hades gave up all those in it and was thrown into the lake of fire. Oh yeah let's not forget Daniel 2:44 "“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms.." Well, Christ's thousand year reign, coming, and parousia have already come to pass and still hasn't crushed these earthly governments. How absurd this interpretation is.

AnnoMaly: No it isn't. Provide evidence that Cyrus' decree HAD to have been toward the end of his 1st regnal year.

I guess you missed Jeffro's entire biblical elucidation with his time table in which he establishes that the Jews were in their cities in the seventh month of Cyrus first year, based on Against Apion. I guess you also missed how Josephus own words dismantle his own "theories" about 538. I never said Cyrus HAD to give his decree toward the end of his first year, I only showed how Jeffro's interpretation that it occurred in 538 was weak and a poor argument.

Servitude is not limited to exile. This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings. The Judean kingdom had to serve Babylon irrespective of whether exiles were taken or not.

Josephus' later figures in Against Apion, based on further information, revised his earlier ones. Why dismiss his revised figures and use his old ones instead as support?

I only used the quotes to show that there is basis for connecting the servitude to Babylon with the 70 years of exile, which Jeffro so flagrantly asseverated over and over again as if it were true. Josephus' revision is of no consequence to the information I presented as it thoroughly debunked Jeffro's false argumentation.

Theophilus of Antioch - you omit to mention that, as well as placing the end of the 70 years in Cyrus' 2nd year (537/6 BCE), he ALSO places it in Darius' 2nd year (520/519 BCE). Hardly a solid source.

There are also obvious contradictions in Josephus' writings and among some of the most respected historians from this time period and earlier epochs. Pointing out that the source isn't 'solid' is again an irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with the claim presented as my response was showing any basis that connects the 70 years with the exile.

The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months.

Irrelevant, nonsensical response. Theophilus states: "And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."

Maybe you should try a littler harder to deprecate my sources.

Now of what Christ does he speak, but of Jesus the son of Josedech, who returned at that time along with the people, and offered sacrifice according to the law, in the seventieth year, when the sanctuary was built?" (ANF05, II.14)

But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months."

So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.

Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months.

And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah.

And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong:

"in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."

The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated for 70 years according to........

And also why would Jehovah rouse Cyrus spirit to build the new temple when he allegedly prophesied that the temple would be desolate long after Cyrus would die? Why was Daniel dissapointed and confused that the temple had not yet been rebuilt when he allegedly discerned that the sanctuary would be desolate for 70 years?

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

TD said: You would need a nominative statement, erroneous either on its own (lack of) merit or because it does not follow from the premises used to support it before an assertion like the one captioned above is justified. . .To that end, I've simply asked you some polite questions and have drawn no conclusion from them that would qualify as a strawman fallacy.

Okay let me elaborate on where the strawman fallacy is asseverated and then explain why I identified it as such. You stated the following:

Humor a non-JW here. Jumping back and forth between Daniel and Revelation to establish the length of seven 'prophetic' times (Without which this discussion would probably be unnecessary..) has always struck me as dubious. These two books are certainly of different literary genres, languages, historical periods and origins.

Without going off on a tangent, if a valid case can be made that esoteric concepts do in fact span those type of barriers, then I would question the strength of your objection above. ---END OF QUOTE

And Jeffro also stated: " Well, no it can't. And it's hilarious. Apparently Ethos is happy to give it an exemption - he's probably not even aware of the gaping contradiction. It is not clear why it is 'acceptable' to "flip back and forth between" not two but several "books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods" of entirely unrelated scriptures together in order to reach 1914. But 'apparently' it is a 'ridiculous' notion to associate events spoken of by Jeremiah and Daniel (whom JWs believe to becontemporaries - or at the very least, the same 'generation') in describing the same period." (END OF QUOTE)

As I stated on several occasions the biblical exegesis of deciphering The Gentile Times is not something I wholeheartedly agree with in the least. That is why I stated that it is the absolute last thing I teach, since I don't believe it necessary to establish 1914 as the commencement of Christ's parousia. You and Jeffro both made the hasty generalization that because I am a JW, that I hang on the Governing Body's scriptural elucidations for every doctrine, when that is simply not the case. Then you both proceeded to point out obviously questionable fallacies in my statement (if I indeed agreed with the Gentile Times doctrine), as a way (not necessarily you but Jeffro) to show a short of doctrinal hypocrisy on my behalf. All of the responses to my quoted statement were then appropriatedly cognominated "strawmen" as they were attempts to deprecate my previous statement regarding proper Biblical exegesis.

TD: " How is 1914 established without 607?"

Empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation. Other scriptural passages that refer to the refinement of God's people during the time of the end (Daniel 12 to mention just one) as well. All establish 1914 separately.

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.