Did the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity stem from the warnings found Lev 26:18-33?

The Babylonian exile had lasted 70 years. The following passage indicates that during this period of 70 years, the land "enjoyed" its Sabbath rest.

2 Chronicles 36:21 (NIV)
21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete.

In other words, the land was enjoying its rest because during the previous years, the Israelites had not been observing the seventh-year sabbath, which appears in the Torah as follows:

Leviticus 25:2-7 (NIV)
2 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. 5 Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. 6 Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your male and female servants, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, 7 as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.

In the following chapter of Leviticus, there are four warnings from the Lord that punishment would be seven-fold for violations of the commandments. For example -

Leviticus 26:18 (NIV)
18 If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.

Leviticus 26:21 (NIV)
21 If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve.

Leviticus 26:24 (NIV)
24 I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over.

Leviticus 26:28 (NIV)
28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over.

So if the Israelites had not been observing this seventh-year sabbath year after year, then the 70 years captivity was the single "lump sum payment" of those sabbath years for the land to lie in fallow rest.

Now, my first question is, is the interpretation that the Israelites not observing the seventh-year sabbath from the time of King Manasseh, which appears to have been 70 years prior to the Babylonian captivity? If so, then 10 lost years of sabbath rest would have occurred during those 70 years (since every seven years would have been the seventh sabbath-rest year). If compound interest is assessed in punishment, then the seven-fold magnification would be 10 lost years x seven-fold punishment = 70 years. Is this the correct interpretation?

My second question stems from the following verse.

Daniel 9:24 (NIV)
24 Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

Is Daniel speaking here of another "compound interest" situation? In other words, what is the correct interpretation of seven x 70 years, which some translations translate as "70 weeks"? Are the Israelites being punished "seven-fold" to live under Gentile world rule until deliverance from the Messiah (because of their erstwhile 70 years of disobedience from the time of King Manasseh until the Babylonian Captivity as well)?

  • This looks to me like a question about Daniel 9:24 with your own answer included - I'd recommend splitting the portions that are your answer out into an actual answer and leaving the core of the question. Nov 15 '14 at 13:21
  • 1
    @BenjaminHoogterp I have to agree with Jack; 1)This question needs to be 'boiled down', and your own answer kept out of it(you can answer your own question, in a separate reply). Also, you seem to support a separate conclusion about the '490 years'. Would it be ok to simply ask, "Is the Lev. 26:18-45 passage fulfilled by Dan. 9:24"? That would be "on topic" and answerable, and you could provide your own answer, if needed. Otherwise, my suspicion is in it's present form, it's due to be closed.
    – Tau
    Nov 16 '14 at 4:21
  • 1
    @JackDouglas - I took a stab at trying to salvage the question based on what I had inferred the OP was trying to ask. What do you think?
    – Joseph
    Nov 18 '14 at 1:08
  • I wouldn't have a problem with how I hard reword ed it, or with how Joseph did.. the only thing i had a problem with was the android app, which doesn't allow comments on closed questions of your own.. had to open it in a browser for tvat. But, it goes a little further than I asked, but i think it would be a worthwhile question as edited now.
    – user6152
    Nov 18 '14 at 4:52
  • 1
    @Joseph thanks for putting the effort in :) my only remaining doubt is whether it's too broad with both questions in place - I wonder if it is better to focus on one or the other (or split the question into two). For me personally it is the second question that is more interesting. Nov 18 '14 at 8:43