Validity of 607 BCE date (page 4)

Billygoat

Judging by some of the artifacts encountered during my archelogical dig through my refrigerator this weekened, I'd say the base contents of some food were placed in there on or about 587 BCE.

Andi

Your opinion that there is evidence for 607 is plainly stupid. The date is based upon nothing more than the Society's traditonal claims which include distortions of the Bible and of secular evidence. Jonsson covers in great detail just how the Society does this.

: The date is based upon the established fact

What fact? Are you having trouble writing the English language?

: by means of astronomical records and other secular material for the fall of Babylon.

Astronomical records attest indirectly, via secular records, to the fall of Babylon in 539. No problem here. Astronomical records (namely, VAT4956) attest directly to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year in 568 B.C.E. No problem here for other secular records, since this date is perfectly in accord with them. The Society simply dismisses this and similar evidence with a wave of the pen. That's grossly hypocritical.

The issue here is not the date for the fall of Babylon, but the fact that the Society ignores direct scriptural proof that its position about "the 70 years" is wrong. I already gave an outline of some of this proof. You ignored it completely, just as I warned stevieb1 you would. You're dishonest about the evidence, just as the Society is.

: The historic fact of the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland after the 70years is attested to in scripture.

Yet another distortion. The Jews certainly returned, and the best of today's evidence is that they returned in 538, not 537 B.C.E. Scripture nowhere says that precisely at the end of 70 years of captivity the Jews would return. It could not, because as I already explained, 2 Chronicles 36:20 is very precise: the Jews would no longer be captive to the king of Babylon when the "royalty of Persia" began to reign. Since Cyrus began to reign in 539 B.C.E., the Jews were no longer captive to "the king of Babylon" after that date. This proves that the Society's interpretations that the 70 years were (1) an exact period, to the month, of desolation of Judah, and (2) an exact period of captivity of the Jews in Babylon, are wrong. The 70 years of servitude predicted by Jeremiah in Jer. 25:11 ended in 539 B.C.E., period.

: Finally, the desolation of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer is confirmed by scripture and secular history.

That's not an issue. The issue is how long that desolation lasted. Josephus latest testimony was that it lasted about 50 years.

: These facts are not the imagination of the Society.

I've proved that the most important of the Society's claims are pure distortion of the biblical record.

: The 'devil is in the detail' and what a complex period of Judean history this is.

Right. You and Mommy have many of the details wrong.

: The plain facts are that this watershed in Jewish history is the the subject of much controversy within contemporary scholarship.

Nonsense. There are slight discrepancies in minor details, a year or a month or a day here and there. Nothing like the 20-year faux pas of the Society.

: It is dishonest to say that because the society has a methodology of computing these principal stages of history that differs from other approaches that it is without any foundation.

That's right, but no one is saying that. What is being said is that the methodology is wrong. It's not wrong merely because it differs from secular dating, but because it ignores many facts and it requires ridiculous and unscriptural interpretations of a number of Bible passages.

: The very fact that scholars cannot agree as to 587 or 586 is cause for grave concern.

Hardly. Scholars do not have to be unanimous on this minor point for the entire run of secular Neo-Babylonian chronology, from roughly 626 B.C.E. through 539, to be essentially correct. The only source of disagreement is how some scholars interpret the Bible's ambiguity about whether the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. But a number of scholars including Jonsson have showed how to resolve the discrepancy, and it comes out to 587. In contrast, the Society has never adequately addressed this problem -- it has simply glossed over it. The scholarly community could do the same, but that would be dishonest.

: If the Society is so wrong and if the Jonsson hypothesis is so correct then why if the evidence is so compelling, so abundant and incontrovertible that there exists thi uncertainty.

This has been explained by several posters, including twice by me.

: Jonsson asserts 587 over 586 which he triflys deals with this point by means of a footnote 15 on page 293 in his latest work.

So? The best of today's scholars agree with him, so it's not much of an issue.

: Interestingly, in his previous supplement to GTR published in 1989, he deals with this difficult issue with 7 pages.

Your point?

: Jonsson omits to mention that David Freedman the editor in chief of the Anchor Bible Dictionary has in that reference work, 586 for the Fall of Jerusalem.

So what? Freeman may not be completely aware of all scholarly arguments, or he may disagree with them. But this kind of thing is not decided by someone's claim to authority -- it's decided by the evidence.

: Uncertainty about this matter is also highlighted by the comment made by Prof. Jack Finegan a supporter of 586 that "the highly probable date of the final fall of Jerusalem - July 18, 586 BCE". {Handbook of Biblical Chronology,1998,p.259]

Ditto for Finegan. All this shows is that good scholars can come to different conclusions about minor matters. It still doesn't invalidate the rest of secular chronology.

: Jonsson and yourself assert that the discrepency arises from the biblical data with the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer. This is misleading, your error lies in the assumptions that you have made concerning that data. The relevant texts possess their own integrity but the assumptions made on these texts are entirely speculative.

Wow, you sure explained that well! You're such a good "scholar".

: Jonsson devotes a considerable portion of his book to an exegesis of the seventy years. He is to be commended for this pioneering attempt as there is a serious lack of scholarship in this regard.

True, but that is rapidly being remedied.

: His discussion of this period is unsatisfactory

Translation: "I don't like it because it disagrees with my Mommy."

Try writing an actual argument for once. So far you've made a farce of your screen name.

: but it is a useful analysis. I venture to say that there is need for a thesis to be undertaken on this subject that would need to be far more thorough than what has so far appeared in scholarly journals.

Maybe so, but you're certainly not going to find anything scholarly in Watchtower publications. The best so far is Jonsson's latest book. But because it clobbers the 1914 chronology, and with it the entire basis for the JW religion, you don't like it. That's all this boils down to -- you don't like having the foundation for your religion swept away.

And I will guarantee that anything Furuli may publish will be more of the same JW-style nonsense -- distortions, lies and half-truths. Just as no JW, including you, has yet attempted to tackle the huge whammy of 2 Chronicles 36:20 combined with Jeremiah 25:12 and related scriptures, neither will Furuli. That's because you people are dishonest at heart.

AlanF

peterstride

Right on AlanF!

Peter

biblexaminer

GO ALAN!

hawkaw

As a non-JW I must admit, the whole thing is just so wild and yet so complicated that it takes pages after pages to refute.

If it wasn't for people like bible examiner and Alan, I would still be trying to figure this insane thing out.

Thanks every one.

The next time Don Adams or a member of the Governing Body gets up and gives a talk on this 1914 crap, I recommend that every one in the crowd should take off their rose coloured glasses and put a BIG PAPER BAG over their heads just like when people go to watch a bad football team play.

hawk

Zep

AlanF outside the 3 point zone...

He shoots!

Nothing but net!

Farkel

"scholar",

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

: The very fact that scholars cannot agree as to 587 or 586 is cause for grave concern.

And the fact that the WTS is not just ONE year off, but TWENTY years off from ALL scholars on this planet (half of the GB never finished High School: they are NOT scholars, dummy) is NOT a cause for "grave concern?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are a DipFuck. May AlanF and others feast on the carcass of your circular and pathetic arguments. I'll get some Cheetos and watch you roast. But please feel free to share.

Farkel

scholar

Alan F

You give the impression that you are all knowing in matters of biblical chronology and that the society's chronology is bunk. You have a profound influence on the many posters to this board, you are a loyal support of the Jonsson hypothesis, in fact you are a chronologist along with Carl in company with such luminaries as Edwin Thiele and Jame Ussher. I salute you!

Because you are so learned as it seems in all areas pertaining to the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses Iwonder if you will indulge me with a simple and lowly challenge. Your attention to this request would completely satisfy me that that you are far superior to me in all matters of scholarship. Never more will I dare to reply on matters chronological on this board.

THE CHALLENGE:

you are to post on this board at a time of your convenience and using the expertise of whatever source you so desire including CARL,
the following:

A LIST OF THE REIGNS OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL

Such a list would demonstrate competence in chronology as has been demonstrated by the society, Thiele and a few other scholars.
Failure by you to undertake this task will demonstrate to all your incompetence in this field. As I have challenged you first to put up you may wish to challenge me. So be it, but I reserve the right to refrain until you have responded as requested.

scholar

Jeremy Bravo

Scholar,

I know that Alan doesn't need my help, but what does Judean/Isreali chronology have to do with the matter at hand, Babylonian chronology?

Apples and oranges and red herrings....
Jer.

Zep

Failure by you to undertake this task will demonstrate to ALL your incompetence in this field.

Speak for yourself

Validity of 607 BCE date

Share this