listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem

by M.J. 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alleymom

  Dozy: It is entirely possible , especially relating to dating of events 2,600 years ago , based on perhaps 2 or 3 primary sources which may have been related on each other , that the historians have got this date wrong.

  Dozy ---

  PMFJI. 2 or 3 primary sources? There are literally thousands and thousands of contemporary dated cuneiform tablets which establish the names and regnal lengths of the neo-Babylonian kings. Ann O'Maly is correct when she says the neo-Babylonian chronology is established independently of Ptolemy's Canon.

  As of May 7, 2000, there were 7,797 dated texts from the neo-Babylonian period which had been catalogued. (Source: Janos Everling's "Chronological List of Texts from the First Millennium B.C. Babylonia.")

  Marjorie
• 

  scholar

  AnnOmaly

  Ptolemy'c Canon remains the touchstone or foundation for all other subsequent secular materials as all other documents are dated from the data contained in the Canon.

  The twenty year gap is demonstrated with the comparison of current secular chronologies with the biblical chronology authenticated by celebrated WT scholars. This gap is caused by the biblical seventy years which is unaccounted for by the secular chronologies.

  All secular materials are subject to interpretation including the notable Strm Kambys 400 which according to Dr. Rolf Furuli a Semitic scholar in his Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exiled of the Jews, 2003, Vol.1, p.135 shows a table which lists at least 11 examples of error in the astronomical information.

  Sound exegesis demonstrates that the seven times of Daniel were literally years so in the case of Nebuchadnezzer he was absent from the throne for a period of seven years which is unaccounted for by the secular evidence relied upon for the purposes of determining a Babylonian chronology. I am well aware of the Carl Jonsson's reasoning on the meaning of the seven times which includes a discussion of 'iddan' but as he is no scholar and provides no sound exegesis, his comments are simply foolish.

  The problem of using regnal based chronology is well illustrated by Robert Young's article and the scholarship of Edwin Thiele. Celebrated WT scholars have most wisely chosen a far superior methodololgy which is event-based. Such a methodology is not hamstrung by trying to reconcile conflicting calendrical problems.

  Celebrated WT scholars are not concerned about trying to prove 607 to the scholarly community or to higher critics. Sufficient information has already been published but such scholars are very ambivalent about theology it is unlikely that Biblical information wouls ever be convincing.

  Thank you very much for quoting Anderson in the commentary because he recognizes that basic fact that I have long argued that the seventy years is indeed associated with exile, servitude and desolation but rather than trying to separate such elements the Bible combines such into one period from the Fall to the Return.

  If you are happy with 587 then go for it but 607 is the right date as it is Bible-based whereas 587 or 586 are 'poofy' dates.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  When quoting Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 you need to pay close attention to what the texts actually say: both verses do not refer to regnal years but years of 'kingship'. Big difference!

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Ptolemy'c Canon remains the touchstone or foundation for all other subsequent secular materials as all other documents are dated from the data contained in the Canon.

  scholar's statement here forces him to acknowledge that either he is lying, or admitting that he has no honest basis for accepting 539 for the fall of Babylon as it must also be based on Ptolemy's 'unreliable' Canon. Since the contemporary evidence in harmony with 539 indicates an entire chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period, he's painted himself into a corner - which he will simply deny like he does all the other facts.

  The twenty year gap is demonstrated with the comparison of current secular chronologies with the biblical chronology authenticated by celebrated WT scholars. This gap is caused by the biblical seventy years which is unaccounted for by the secular chronologies.

  This is a lie. It is only the interpretation of the Society that creates the 20-year gap, not the bible. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I have made a tabulation completely in harmony with the scriptures that outlines the entire period.

  All secular materials are subject to interpretation including the notable Strm Kambys 400 which according to Dr. Rolf Furuli a Semitic scholar in his Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exiled of the Jews, 2003, Vol.1, p.135 shows a table which lists at least 11 examples of error in the astronomical information.

  Shouldn't that be Br. Rolf Furuli? (And what is special about the 'n' in "Length" that it is not italicized?) In any case, scholar is here cutting his nose off to spite his face, reducing the credibility for 539 (from the Society's perspective) in a vane attempt to cast doubt on other dates.

  Sound exegesis demonstrates that the seven times of Daniel were literally years so in the case of Nebuchadnezzer he was absent from the throne for a period of seven years which is unaccounted for by the secular evidence relied upon for the purposes of determining a Babylonian chronology. I am well aware of the Carl Jonsson's reasoning on the meaning of the seven times which includes a discussion of 'iddan' but as he is no scholar and provides no sound exegesis, his comments are simply foolish.

  scholar continues to assert that there is a supposed missing seven years, but it is simply a fantasy. No other king took Nebuchadnezzar's place, so for administrative purposes there was no need for any other name to be indicated. 'scholar' is no scholar in the true sense of the word, nor much of a logician.

  The problem of using regnal based chronology is well illustrated by Robert Young's article and the scholarship of Edwin Thiele. Celebrated WT scholars have most wisely chosen a far superior methodololgy which is event-based. Such a methodology is not hamstrung by trying to reconcile conflicting calendrical problems.

  Of course a method that ignores the facts will not be hampered by them. But of course it will be wrong. A "precise" date (with no actual proof or basis) in 537 plus 70 gives another "precise" date in 607, but it is completely meaningless, as it conflicts with the scriptures, with scholarship, and with honest examination.

  (And scholar still doesn't know how to properly use the word "methodology". According to the American Heritage Book of English usage: "in recent years, people have begun to use methodology as a pretentious substitute for method in scientific and technical contexts.")

  Celebrated WT scholars are not concerned about trying to prove 607 to the scholarly community or to higher critics. Sufficient information has already been published but such scholars are very ambivalent about theology it is unlikely that Biblical information wouls ever be convincing.

  There are no "celebrated WT scholars", you naive misguided pawn. Of course they can't be concerned about proving 607; it can't be proved at all. With regard to this issue, the Society hasn't actually published a great deal of factual information at all - just a smattering about 539 really - because there isn't any actual evidence to support their view.

  Thank you very much for quoting Anderson in the commentary because he recognizes that basic fact that I have long argued that the seventy years is indeed associated with exile, servitude and desolation but rather than trying to separate such elements the Bible combines such into one period from the Fall to the Return.

  The Society's approach to this period is like a jigsaw puzzle that for a while looks like it might fit together until it is revealed that the last few pieces cannot possibly fit because many of the other pieces are in the wrong places.

  If you are happy with 587 then go for it but 607 is the right date as it is Bible-based whereas 587 or 586 are 'poofy' dates.

  You can't actually provide a single piece of concrete evidence for your date in 607, (or 537).
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  Ptolemy'c Canon remains the touchstone or foundation for all other subsequent secular materials as all other documents are dated from the data contained in the Canon.

  You are dead wrong on that. You only have to do some scholarly research yourself to confirm that. And I'm sure it's been demonstrated to you a million times on various discussions. But if you choose to believe your fantasy, so be it.

  The twenty year gap is demonstrated with the comparison of current secular chronologies with the biblical chronology authenticated by celebrated WT scholars. This gap is caused by the biblical seventy years which is unaccounted for by the secular chronologies.

  No. The gap is caused by faulty exegesis of scriptural texts. Once the 70 years are understood properly, the gap disappears.

  All secular materials are subject to interpretation including the notable Strm Kambys 400 which according to Dr. Rolf Furuli a Semitic scholar in his Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exiled of the Jews, 2003, Vol.1, p.135 shows a table which lists at least 11 examples of error in the astronomical information.

  If the tablet is so dodgy, it cannot be used to derive 539 as the anchor date for the 607 hypothesis, can it? Perhaps the scribe wrote in the wrong year for Cambyses II to fit with the accepted chronology of the time. Or maybe he put the lunar eclipses in on the wrong days. And as the Insight book says on p. 454 of Vol.I, lunar eclipses are notoriously common - they could belong to numerous years - the only way to unquestionably fix a date is by means of a definitely stated total solar eclipse, which happens once every 400 years in a specific area.

  Wouldn't you agree, therefore, that Strm Kambys 400 is as untrustworthy, say, as VAT4956, and shouldn't be used?

  Sound exegesis demonstrates that the seven times of Daniel were literally years so in the case of Nebuchadnezzer he was absent from the throne for a period of seven years which is unaccounted for by the secular evidence relied upon for the purposes of determining a Babylonian chronology. I am well aware of the Carl Jonsson's reasoning on the meaning of the seven times which includes a discussion of 'iddan' but as he is no scholar and provides no sound exegesis, his comments are simply foolish.

  Jonsson didn't come up with this 'novel' idea. He researched this information from Bible scholars. You can personally verify the meaning of 'iddan' on the Blue Letter Bible site. I have books on my shelf that say 'iddan' doesn't only mean year.

  But aside from that, the Bible should determine the usage of a word, wouldn't you say? I've given you an example of Dan. 3:15 (also see v.5) where 'iddan' clearly doesn't mean year.

  The problem of using regnal based chronology is well illustrated by Robert Young's article and the scholarship of Edwin Thiele. Celebrated WT scholars have most wisely chosen a far superior methodololgy which is event-based. Such a methodology is not hamstrung by trying to reconcile conflicting calendrical problems.

  You are not telling me anything here.

  I asked, "What are the problems with regnal-based methodology and how does an event-based methodology eliminate those problems? Give me an example."

  You haven't answered the question. You merely repeated that a regnal based methodology is problematic and event based methodology is superior. I'm still in the dark as to how one is better than the other. Can you help me out by giving me a specific example to go on?

  Celebrated WT scholars are not concerned about trying to prove 607 to the scholarly community or to higher critics. Sufficient information has already been published but such scholars are very ambivalent about theology it is unlikely that Biblical information wouls ever be convincing.

  Then why are you so concerned that the scholarly community should settle a quibble over a year, if the WTS shouldn't be concerned with proving the veracity of 20 extra years? Doesn't truth matter? And if 607 is true, there is bound to be archeological support for that, isn't there?

  Thank you very much for quoting Anderson in the commentary because he recognizes that basic fact that I have long argued that the seventy years is indeed associated with exile, servitude and desolation but rather than trying to separate such elements the Bible combines such into one period from the Fall to the Return.

  'Scholar,' I don't don't know if you were distracted when you read the Anderson quote, but if you read his words again carefully, you'll find the opposite is true.

  If you are happy with 587 then go for it but 607 is the right date as it is Bible-based whereas 587 or 586 are 'poofy' dates.

  LOL. It's not a matter of being 'happy' with it. I was happy with the 607 date once, until I saw the evidence that, rather than 587/6 being 'poofy' dates, 607 was the 'poofy' date!

  When quoting Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 you need to pay close attention to what the texts actually say: both verses do not refer to regnal years but years of 'kingship'. Big difference!

  Nice dodge. Oh and I have paid close attention. The word rendered 'kingship' is 'malkuth' which means,

  1)

  royalty, royal power, reign, kingdom, sovereign power

  a)

  royal power, dominion

  b)

  reign

  c)

  kingdom, realm

  http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/4/1141149514-4558.html

  Getting back to the numbers. I believe the 'plain and direct reading' of Daniel's narrative is actually 3rd year of Jehoiakim's 'malkuth' (see definitions above) and 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's 'malkuth.' Not 11th year and 20th year respectively. You agree with the numbers 3 and 2, don't you?
• 

  TheListener

  I don't like to discuss the 607 date much, but I just feel I need to say this.

  Scholar, I read almost every post you make on this forum. I want to thank you for constantly reminding me why I left the truth and how good I currently feel being free to serve Jesus without the WTBTS in the middle.
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar wrote: The point of Robert Youngs article and his earlier studies published in the same journal

  Hi, Neil ---

  The author is actually Rodger Young, not Robert Young. I wrote to you about this last year:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/98220/1745071/post.ashx#1745071

  I hope you've been well. I'm continuing with rehab and haven't been on the board much.

  Marjorie
• 

  a Christian

  Scholar,

  Earlier I asked you why you prefer to establish the date for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem by starting your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400, rather than doing so by starting your count of time with "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar," as astronomically dated by VAT 4956.

  It seems you have ignored my question.

  I pointed out that the latter method ( VAT 4956 = 587/6 BC ) requires the employment of no possibly mistaken assumptions as does the former ( Strm Kambys 400 = 607 ). That being the case, the only valid reason for dating Jerusalem's destruction beginning your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400 would be if historians believe that Strm Kambys 400 is a much more reliable historical document than VAT 4956.

  Do they? Again, I ask you to tell me why you accept Strm Kambys 400 which leads you indirectly to your 607 date, and not VAT 4956 which leads us directly to the 587/6 date.

  If you insist that the Bible's "70 years" prophecies must be understood to refer to years of total desolation for Judah, why not accept the 587/6 date for Jerusalem's destruction established by VAT 4956 and then maintain that the Jews returned home 70 years later, in about 517? You could then say that Strm Kambys 400 must be in error about its apparent dating of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539, as you now say that VAT 4956 must be in error in regards to its apparent dating of Jerusalem's destruction in 587/6?

  Again I ask you, and I hope you will answer, why do you believe the astronomical dating found in Strm Kambys 400 is more reliable than that found in VAT 4956?

  Mike
• 

  toreador

  I didnt realize you were sick Marjorie. May I ask what you are recuperating from? I hope things are going well for you.

  Tor
• 

  Jeffro

  You continue in relation to Jeremiah 25:12 that Jeremiah described the judgement of Babylon as of desolation after the seventy years were fulfilled. It is you that needs to get the facts right. The seventy years and its fulfillment was to be fulfilled how? Only by their Return in 537 as described and confirmed by Ezra. Ezra did not describe the end of the seventy years with the Fall of Babylon so your theory is wrong and plainly stupid.

  Again you play on the word "desolated" (shamem - appalled) as if it actually requires complete depopulation, though it actually does not (besides the fact that there were some inhabitants in parts of Judea throughout the 70 years). It simply indicates a period of indignation of Babylon's 70 years during which it was considered that the Sabbaths were repaid. Moreover, 2 Chronicles indicates that the 70 years only continued "until the royalty of Persia began to reign," after which the Jews were no longer "servants to [Nebuchadnezzar] and his sons." (2 Chronicles 36:20; Jeremiah 25:12) The focus of verse 22 onwards of 2 Chronicles 36 is the commission to rebuild the temple, and there is no specific mention that the return of the Jews is the event that marks the end of the 70 years (which would contradict Jeremiah).

  The context of not only ch.25 but indeed the entire book of Jeremiah completely disproves yopur nonsense as he foretold that Babylon would fall and would be desolated along with the other foreign nations. The context says that the seventy years was not only of servitude but exile and desolation of the land of Judah, the latter facts you stubbornly refuse to accept.

  The seventy years is explicitly defined by Jeremiah to many nations being subject to Babylon. The Jews being exiled to Babylon meant nothing to the surrounding nations, and has no bearing on them serving Babylon in any fashion, so the Society's interpretation is invalid. Jeremiah was commissioned as a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:10, 14-16), and it is not only dishonest but also meaningless to apply to only Judah a prophecy that obviously applied to many nations.

  I really do not care about your opinion of my posts because I can reply to you likewise. The date 537 is well established and if you know a better date then state it and show the evidence. You say it is more likely that the Jews returned in 538 then prove it! If then Jews returned in 538 and if this is so correct then how is it the case that other scholars champion 536 and where then does that leave the nonsens of Alan F? Neither you or Alan F can prove that the Jews returned in 538, even Jonsson in his hypothesis says very little about it and that is because he knows that 537 has considerable scholarly merit.

  I have come to recognize that you do not care much about facts. Even if it were not for the contrary evidence given by Ezra and Josephus, the Society still could not justify its entirely speculative selection of 537 for the return of the Jews. Evidence has already been furnished for why 538 is much more likely the correct year. I am not responsible for whether some scholars with their own agendas prefer 536, and they are not in the majority. Since those scholars also reject 607 and therefore are not considered reliable by the Society, it is of little importance anyway. Furthermore, it is hypocritical of the Society to accept 539 at all for the fall of Babylon, as it is derived using methods that the Society rejects as being unreliable.