WTBS article prove 587/586 BC fall of Babylon

by crazies 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar:

  I repeat Neo-Babylonian chronology is a 'dog's breakfast' because it used as a principal base for all secular chronologies which simply are the 'deep things of Satan' who seeks to deceive and misleed the many by chronologies that are the product of higher critics. Such people fail to uphold the integrity of the Bible and its chronology as fully explained by celebrated WT scholars and such mischevious ones are condemned to spiritual darkness.

  Archaeologists and historians are tricked by "deep things of Satan". Superstitious drivel! Did you throw some salt over your shoulder for good luck while you typed that rot?

  There is a twenty year gap between the secular and sacred chronology and there remains Nebuchadnezzer's missing 'seven years unaccounted for by this chronology. Present day archaeological discoveries are of great interest WT scholars and his material simply confirms the date of 607 for the Fall because of the increasing date over what has become known as the 'Babylonian Gap ' problem. Scholars the world over show a marked preference for 586 rather than the apostate date of 587 so before you demonstrate any triumphialism you need to sort out what date is supposedly correct: 586 or 587?

  The 20 year gap in the Watchtower's Babylonian chronology is matched by the Society's 20-year inconsistency with Egyptian chronology, which was completely independent of Babylonian chronology. It is clear that it is the Watchtower Society produces the gap. Your misdirection over 586/7 is ludicrous. You contend that doubt over a period of 1 year somehow proves that it is at 20 years variance with reality. Because professionals like to rely on facts, they sometimes have a slight amount of variance when solid facts are not available. Indeed, the return of the Jews, the Society's supposed end-point of the 70 years, is also not agreed upon by all scholars; therefore the beginning and end of the Society's 70 years are not firmly fixed at all. So it looks like you too, 'scholar', will have to belay your "triumphialism" (which of course, is not actually a word).
• 

  Jeffro

  elderwho:

  Simply show your kings list with years reign. You cannot, lest you be shown as the fraud you and the tower are.

  'Scholar' still owes me the same thing, which he said he would give me in return for a biblical tabulation of the Jewish divided monarchy... My initial version I gave him was a few months back... I'm still waiting.
• 

  Jeffro

  You cannot prove that 597 was the year of Jehoiachin's exile because you are in error by twenty years as celebrated WT scholars have long shown that this event falls in 617 BCE. The Jonsson hypothesis attempts such 'proof' in the GTR, 4th edn but it fails utterly because it has the history of the period in a mess because it of its inaccurate presentation of the reign of Jehoiakim.

  The WT storytellers have never "shown" that this event falls in 617BC. They've stated it, but it has never been shown because no accurate tabulation has ever been provided by the Society. The only 'mess' is that historians have is that they don't agree with the Society. And that is because the Society is simply wrong. It's interpretation, application, and start and end of the 70 years are just plain wrong.
• 

  Jeffro

  The joke is on you because you with all your fancy Neo-Babylonian chronology cannot decide the year for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586 or 587? Celebrated WT scholars mock the secular chronololgy because our system works, Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE. When you find out what year it was then you can laugh and boast.

  Scholar, if you challenge the validity of 586/7, then it is also contingent on you to establish that the Jews definitely returned from exile in 537. Many sources say 536. You are stuck with the same problem for which you accuse supporters of 586/7. The Society has never provided any actual evidence that definitely places the return of the Jews in 537 apart from speculation and a desire to make it match up with 607 (in typical Watchtower circular reasoning). All this to support the holy grail - 1914.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  EW

  If I don't have to produce a kings list, I could say it fell invisibly in 1914.

  D (scholar) Dog
• 

  scholar

  Scholar

  Reply to Post 694

  That is correct all chronologies that are based upon secular materials alone such as Neo-Babylonian data are wrong not for the reason that they conflict with Jehovah;s Witnesses but because the data conflicts with the Bible by ignoring the 'seventy years'. The end of the seventy years can only be 537 and not 539 because the exiles were still in Babylon and not then released from captivity. We have biblical or secular data for determining at point of the reign when Nebuchadnezzer was absent from the throne but we believe in its historicity and our chronology is not based upon regnal years of the Babylonian ryulers so it is of no importance for our chronology but for apostates and higher rulers it is a devastating blow to their chronology because such chronology is soley based upon incomplete regnal data.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Reply to post 695

  Neo-Babylonian chronology is indeed a 'dog's breakfast' because it is faulty and does not agree with biblical history and the biblical texts. It has been used to deceive people over the centuries from the biblical history and chronology based on God's Word and serves as a one of Satan's 'crafty acts' in undermine the confidence of sincere people in the Bible. It distracts people's attention from the reality of the Messianic Kingdom established in 1914 at the end of the Gentile Times etc.

  The twenty year gap is proved by comparing biblical and secular chronology as real because the figures demonstrate it for it is not some bookeeper's 'sleight of hand'existing in the imagination. It is an existent! It exists because the seventy years- a period of desolation, servitude, exile exists.

  The contention over the date for the Fall of Jerusalem is not my doing, it is not of my origination nor is it result of special pleading but it is a consequence of poor scholarship and higher criticism. But it is not just about two dates to wit, 586 or 587 but it involves also 588 or 589 that are advocated by some scholars at present. This means that there are four possible candidates for the Fall, one of the most momentous dates in Jewish and Biblical history.

  The date for the Return as 537 is not universally accepted by scholars but there is little departure from that year and is biblically well founded for it is not made into a big deal even by the apostate Jonsson. Afterall when the entire framework of chronology is examined the only date that is universally accepted is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE which serves suitably as a pivotal or Absolute Date for the OT.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Response to post 697

  The calculation of 617 has been discussed many times in WT literature because it is linked with the 'third year of Jehoiakim' mentioned in Daniel 1:1 despite your claim to the contrary. The mess that historians have made for themselves is because they have chosen to ignore the historical reality of the biblical 'seventy years' and have 'dug their own graves' on the subject of chronology. The interpretation of the seventy years presented by celebrated WT scholars is plainly and absolutely correct being a period of exile-servitude-desolation running from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Reply to Post 698

  Celebrated WT scholars have shown in WT literature how the date for the Return is calculated and is found to be 537 BCE. I suspect that you are simply using this as a useless exercise or 'red herring' to distract sincere readers of the dilemna over 586 or 587. However, if you want to play this game then so be it, firstly you supply your reasons for your proposed date and then I will show our reasons. In other words, as you have raised this issue it is the case of : You show me yours and I will show you mine.

  scholar JW
• 

  Cordelia

  scholar i would like you to post your list of kings as my dad speaks of apostates missing out a persian king! (tho i thought the list was following the babylionan kings) and wondered if your list was the same coz im not sure what he was on about,

  he also said that jerusalem came under seige in zedikiahs 9th year (609bce) and fell in his 11th year (607bce) corresponding with nebuchadnezzers 19th year if actual rule (counting from his ascension year in 625bce) (2 kings 25;1-8)

  sorry everyone i agree with you all as every encloypedia points to 587 but i just want to look into every angle, which should we count from his proper year or his ascension year??

  but bascially i think the witness always come back with the answer about the 70 years, counting from the recognised date of 535bce

  so if the 70 years arent talking about babylon what are they talking about, wasnt there abit in the ISAIH book that included tyre etc, so maybe the 70 years could be talking about babylons dominion over a few nations not as the witness say the 70 years of exile?