[b-hebrew] repost of full question
Dirk Frulla
fiveacorns at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 21 11:25:02 EDT 2008
K. Randolph.
Thanks! See my comments below blocked out as **DF** - **END DF**
"Then there are different interpretations of Biblical data. I accept one
interpretation: professional etiquette says that while I may mention which
interpretation I accept, in fact it is preferable that I do so so others may
understand other statements I make, I may not push it as the only correct
one while on this discussion group."
To sum up: while there is a scholarly consensus, we must recognize that it
is based on a certain amount of guesswork, educated guesses, but fuzzy
enough that one cannot use that scholarly consensus dogmatically.
**DF**
True. Sharing different viewpoints is always helpful. It is equally helpful to show where there might be logical holes. For example, if one were to accept 539 BC as the fall of Babylon, and yet accept the lengths of reigns currently established by the scholarly consensus, the 18th year of Neb. fall on 587 BC.
>From what I can tell Rolf does accept these things, and the scholarly consenus regarding the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings is derived from thousands upon thousands of business and administrative documents.
Also, my purpose in starting this post-chain is that if one were to accept 587 as the fall of Jerusalem, and yet read Daniel 9:2 as equating the 70 years with the desolation of Jerusalem, there is a contradiction. Also, it seems that Jeremiah specified a clear order of events, indicating that the 70 years (of whatever it may be) would end, and THEN Babylon would be called to account. This means the 70 years ended with the fall of Babylon - or at least sometime prior to that. So if we have Daniel and Ezra saying the desolation = 70 years, we create some contradictions (since the Jews didn't return for another 1-2 years) - OR we have to postulate that Jeremiah was a false prophet.
We can't have Jeremiah being a true prophet of God, specifying an order of events, saying that the 70 years applies to servitude of nations and then Daniel coming into the picture later and essientially re-write what Jeremiah wrote UNLESS we postulate that Jeremiah was a false prophet - which really doesn't make sense because then Daniel is insisting the learned of the 70 years from Jeremiah.
Yet, if you read Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronilces 36:21, there is word there that brings the reader's attention to the end of the period, not the period as a whole. This is why I signed up for this mailing list - because the issue at hand DOES indeed deal with what is written in Hebrew in these passages.
*END DF**
Thanks!
Dirk Frulla
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list