25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

374 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

exactly as Jeremiah had predicted at Jeremiah 25:12 and 27:7. (See<br />

chapter 5 above, pp. 220, 221.)<br />

(D-2) Jeremiah 25:9–12: 70 years of servitude — for<br />

whom?<br />

Returning to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Furuli first focuses on Jeremiah<br />

25:11, which says:<br />

And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of<br />

astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.<br />

(NIV)<br />

As was pointed out earlier, Furuli starts his discussion of the 70-<br />

year prophecy by admitting that Jeremiah applies the 70 years to<br />

Babylon, not to Jerusalem. Having concluded (falsely, as has been<br />

shown above and in chapter 5) that Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles<br />

36:21 unambiguously state that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate<br />

for 70 years, Furuli realizes that the meaning of Jeremiah 25:11 has<br />

to be changed to be brought into agreement with his conclusion.<br />

<strong>The</strong> clause “these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy<br />

years” is very clear in Hebrew:<br />

weâbdû haggôyîm hâêlleh et-melech bâbel shivîm<br />

shânâh<br />

and-will-serve-they the-nations these king [of] Babel<br />

seventy year[s]<br />

As Furuli points out (p. 82), the particle et before melech bâbel<br />

(”king of Babel”) is a marker indicating that melech bâbel is the<br />

object. <strong>The</strong> word order is typical in Hebrew: verb-subject-object.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are no grammatical problems with the clause. It simply and<br />

unambiguously says that “these nations will serve the king of Babel<br />

seventy years.” Furuli, too, admits that “this is the most natural<br />

translation.” (p. 84) How, then, can Furuli force it to say something<br />

else?<br />

Furuli first claims that “the subject (‘these nations’) is vague and<br />

unspecified” Actually, it is not. It simply refers back to “all these<br />

nations round about” referred to in verse 9. Furuli goes on to state<br />

that the subject in the clause might not be “these nations” in verse<br />

11 but “this land” (Judah) and “its inhabitants” in verse 9. Verse<br />

11, therefore, really says that it is only the inhabitants of Judah, not<br />

“these nations,” that will serve the king of Babylon 70 years. How,<br />

then, is the occurrence of “these nations” in the clause to be<br />

explained? Furuli suggests that they might be part of the object,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!