The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

372 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
In conclusion, the theory that Seleucid scholars worked out an
erroneous hypothetical chronology for earlier times that they
systematically embodied into the astronomical tablets they were
copying cannot be supported by the available facts. It is not based
on historical reality and is a desperate attempt to save cherished but
false dates.
(D) Unfounded claims about the Biblical 70 years
As is discussed in chapter 5 of the present work, the prophet
Jeremiah directly applies the 70 years to the length of Babylon’s
dominion over the nations, not to the length of the desolation of Jerusalem
and the Jewish exile:
. . . these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
(Jeremiah 25:11, NIV)
When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come back to
you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
(Jeremiah 29:10, NIV)
These texts clearly apply the 70-year period to Babylon, not to
Jerusalem. Quoting the above NIV rendering of the two verses,
Furuli even admits this, stating that “the text does not say explicitly
that it refers to an exile for the Jewish nation. If we make a
grammatical analysis in 25:11, we find that ‘these nations’ is the
grammatical subject, and in 29:10, ‘Babylon’ is the patient, that is,
the nation that should experience the period of 70 years.” (p. 75)
(D-1) Is Furuli’s view of the 70 years really supported by
Daniel and the Chronicler?
Attempting to evade this undesirable conclusion, Furuli turns to
the 70-year passages at Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21,
stating that “the writers of Daniel and 2 Chronicles understood the
words of Jeremiah to imply a 70-year exile for the Jewish nation.”
After quoting the NIV for these two texts, he claims:
As the analysis below shows, the words of Daniel and the Chronicler
are unambiguous. They show definitely that Daniel and the Chronicler
understood Jeremiah to prophesy about a 70-year period for the Jewish
people when the land was desolate. (p. 76)
The discussion of the two passages in chapter 5 above (pp. 215-
225) shows this claim to be groundless. Both passages may easily
be harmonized with the clear statements of Jeremiah.