Edit by Rotherham: Continued from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=706&p=5755#p5755You said
Did you even look at the original Hebrew in both Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 25:11? If you did you would not have to ask this question. Look again, and remember, Hebrew is read from right to left, Right in front the word for "fulfilled" you see the KEC, the backward capital C. This is the same prefix that occurs in Daniel 5:31. Please look and see. All you are dealing with is the root word and that is not going to help you see the point. Go look at the text itself in the Hebrew. You will see that same prefix occurs in both places and if it can mean ABOUT in one, it would simpy be blindness to claim it CAN'T mean that in the other. The very fact that numerous translators have recognized that it can mean ABOUT, proves that it can mean it at Jeremiah 25:11.
And since many translators acknowledge that it can mean ABOUT in Daniel, then it is the same thing as acknowledging that it can carry that meaning at Jeremiah 25:11 whether they chose to render it that way or not.
###############################################
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CAN YOU SHOW THE MEANING OF KEC IN HEBREW? If translators have recognized that it can mean about, why did some put it in Daniel 5:31, but all of them failed to put it in Jeremiah? Oh, I guess another mistake just like the Chronologists. No it is more an organization with an agenda that can only survive by twisting the word of God.
No one agrees with you so I guess we are all blind. I am tired of you imposing your view when it is clear no proof can be given, but a wild opinion.
כְּבַ֥ר Daniel 5:31
כִמְלֹ֣אות Jerimah 25:12 Different words different meanings this is the Watchtower tactic of re-interpreting words to mean something different. I am not dealing with the root word that is you, I am dealing with the entire new word, which is not the same from one verse to the next. Also, the sentence structure is different. No, it does not mean "about" the prophecy is very accurate. We can move on, because you have no case only great imagination hundreds of Hebrew Scholars do not agree with you. One word is "ke bar" and the other is "Kim lo wt". Not the same word at all no matter how you want to twist it the first letter does not define the entire word that is pretty simplistic. If that is how you interpret words wow then maybe "kiss" and "kill" means the same thing. The words don't even share the same root word what are you talking about.
Jeremiah 29:10 (NIV)
This is what the Lord says: "When seventy years
are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place."
It seems clear from the context in these two segments that the seventy years applies to Babylon itself, not to the period of time that the people of Judah are to spend in Babylon. In chapter 25 it says that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. Again in chapter 29, Jeremiah makes the connection to Babylon by saying that 70 years are "for Babylon".
Completed for who? The temple, Israel nope BABYLON. Does BABYLON MEANS BABYLON OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER VERSION?
So the 70 years refers to the period of Babylonian Empire. When did this start and finish? As alluded to earlier, Babylon was conquered by Cyrus II of Persia in 539 BC. So this is the finish. When was the start? For our purposes, the start would have to be when the other "nations will serve the king of Babylon" (see excerpt from Jeremiah 25 above). The major world power prior to Babylon was Assyria.
For a good overview of the decline of the Assyrian Empire refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see article in Britannica CD 99: The History of Ancient Mesopotamia: Mesopotamia to the end of the: THE NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (746-609): Decline of the Assyrian empire). Here it describes how the Assyrian empire, after becoming weakened through civil war, fell to the combined forces of the Medes and the Babylonians, finally being extinguished in 609 BC. In this final battle, the Assyrians and the Egyptians fought side-by-side. Prior to being conquered by the Medes and Babylonians, the Egyptians fought against Judah - and Judah lost. This is the battle where Josiah was killed. The chronology of Judah places this event in 608 BC - but that is close enough to 609 BC when a 1 year margin of error is assumed.
The following time period emerges:
609 BCE Assyria is defeated ------70 years of Babylonian Supremacy --------------- 539 BCE Defeat of Babylonian Empire
This is the proper fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You said Your problem here is that you are simply parroting the traditional view as if it is proof when that is exactly what is being called into question. You can't use as your source the very thing that is being questioned. That is called "circular reasoning" and you just made a huge circle.
There is nothing in the narrative of Jeremiah 25 that tells us that this seventy years of servitude under Babylon started with Assyria. As I have mentioned above, the "oracle against the nations" started with Jerusalem and verse 29 can corroborate that. With that view, it would mean starting with the desolation of Jerusalem, those nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. That is a completely natural reading of the verses in question, and one that the context supports.
#####################################################
That is what you do by saying the 70 years have not ended in 539 BCE because the jews were still in excile. It is circular reasoning the difference with my position is that I have a tremendous amount of Archeological data to back my position as well as the Bible itself and you don't. Again, the text does not say that and history shows it was not what happened, so might be natural for you, but it is not what it says.
############################################
I can't believe that you simply blew past all of those quotes from Niece/Barclay which contradict your view and you landed on the one comment that you erroneously think supports your view. That, in my opinion, is very disingenuous. The quote you offered does not in anyway overturn what Barclay repeated more than once about Berossus believing that the fall of Jerusalem was at the same event as the attack on Egypt. I hope the readers notice how you just skip over evidence like this as if it wasn't even there.
########################################
I look at the immediate context of what Josephus said and give that greater credence then what Barclay might say. I have shown why his immediate context does not agree specially Berossus Kings list. I do see a contradiction in what you are trying to say. So, let move on to Archeological data and see if those Chronologists in the third Century truly made a mistake as you claim. Lets get the rhetoric out of the way and see actual Archeological, Astronomical data. I added another Stele for your review. You cannot be reading well, when you thought I thought the 70 years started in 605 BCE.
This is just more and more rhetoric unfounded by any Archeological findings, so you can try to twist a word here and there all you want.
=========================================================
Long sections of all caps usually means you're yelling. There's no reason to yell. I am starting to think that you are not reading everything because you only respond to select items that I have offered and that makes for an ineffective argument from you. If you want to have success in an argument, you need to respond to everything that is offered as long as it is relevant to the topic at hand. But there are a few things that you said above that I need to address because they are inaccurate.
You will find that I do not ONLY HAVE BARCLAY as you claim. Besides, you claim yourself that you found agreement with him so he can't be all bad, right? I will be quoting from a number of different scholars along the way and primarily from scripture itself. You and those reading along will see that I do not stand alone on Barclay.
I have no problem addressing the king's list as I will demonstrate when we get to the Nabon 8 stele (Hillah) in the other thread. Patience, my friend. Patience. It is taking me a while to present my first response in that thread because there are some quotes that I have to write out myself rather than copy and paste, and unfortunately, my time is limited at the moment, but don't worry, it will come soon enough,
You claim you do not agree that he said 70 years desolation in the 19 chapter but I have shown you that is exactly what the Greek text says. The word DURING is unwarranted, so there is no ambiguity there as to what was meant. You can deny it all you want, but then you're just cherry picking, the same thing you accuse us of.
=====================================================================
I ADDED A COUPLE OF MORE MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME HOW THEY ARE ALL WRONG ALSO WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SHOW HOW ALL THE CHRONOLOGICAL JOINTS FROM ONE KING TO THE NEXT ARE ALSO WRONG. THE BIBLE IS THE EASY PART TO SHOW IT IS NOT HOW YOU INTERPRET IT TO BE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You said "I am talking about the COMPLETE king list down throughout history, both before and after this period of time. Where can that be found?
################################################
Have no idea what you are talking about, but we are dealing with a specific period and all known data shows them to be accurate. Not, really sure I care to know about Noah at this time. Since, you know those list are wrong why don't you give me the list.