listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem

by M.J. 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

scholar

AnnOMaly
Thank you for your compliment. It is a rare thing to receive any favourable comments about anything that I have said on chronology over the last five years.
The point of Robert Youngs article and his earlier studies published in the same journal is the recognition of the basic fact of chronology is that as a science it combines together Methodology and Interpretation. This understanding accounts for the the many chronologies of the OT with the wide variation of dates even when it is the case that a general pattern of data is accepted such as Ptolemy's Canon is used. His article attempts to solve the calendrical problems for the dating of the Fall by sophisticated computer modelling which shows how silly the whole nonsense of the 586/586 controversy is when a method beyond the comprehension of ordinary people is used to establish the date of the most important event in OT history.
The chronology discerned by celebrated WT scholars is correct at least for the very basic reason that it is simple, can be explained in a simple way, this apart from the simple and clear biblical texts are its greatest strength.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
Yes, Babylon was judged and a judgement against Babylon in 539 was shown for Babylon in 539 with its Fall as was prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. But we are talking here about a specific Jeremaic prophecy at 25:12 which specifically foretells not the Fall of Babylon but its destruction. You must get the facts right and not twist a text to support a 'pet theory'. This verse is most emphatically about destruction, its end in the sands of history rather than its demise as a world power.
It is very important matter of exegesis as to whether verses 11 or 12 are in combination or seperate in context. These verses are shown as separate paragraphs in most Bibles which indicates that transalators regard the contents of both verses as separate issues. Further the major technical commentaries on Jeremiah state that these are separate and different contexts. Verse 11 ends the oracle against Judah and verse 12 begins the oracle against Babylon and the Foreign Nations. Exegesis is about context and the context disproves your specious reasoning.
Jeremiah referred to the land of Chaldea or the territory of Babylon so the reference in this verse is to the kingship, the city and the land, all would receive a desolation or permanent destruction over time. Whether the land was called Chaldea after 539 means little here because the land of Babylon is what is referred.
The verses of Jeremiah 27:6,7 is simply a prophecy of the end of Babylonian rulership at 539 and proves that dynasty ended, it has nothing to do with the permanent demise of Babylon as described by Jeremiah at 25:12. Of course such a end was important because it was this that brought the release of the exiles thus ending also the prophesied 'seventy yeras' which also led to the destruction of Babylon so all of these events are 'links in a chain'. That is why one must read all of the book of Jeremiah because it contains one embracing prophecy.
I have never in my five years of posting on these subjects ignored the fact that Judah served Babylon for seventy years. Have I not long and persistently argued that the seventy years was a period of servitude for seventy years, exiled in Babylon for seventy years whiclst the land of Judah was totally desolated for seventy years. This period rran from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 as described, confirmed and foretold by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Zechariah and Josephus. You must pay close attention and wake up to yourself. The Medo-Perians were not Babylonians but they assumed the rulership of Babylon or kingship so even during those final coupl;e of years the exiles were still subject to the King of Babylon as foretold.
Jeremiah plainly states that the desolation of judgement in 25:12 began after the seventy yeras was fulfilled which could only be in 537 which is two years after the fact of the Fall of Babylon. That is what Jeremiah says explicity.
You ignore what displeases you preferring the crazy and ignorant interpretations of apostates and higher critics. You are blind and are misled by the blind.
scholar JW
AnnOMaly

'Scholar.'
You're welcome for the compliment on recommending a helpful article.
Um, but I find the rest of your post difficult to comprehend.
This understanding accounts for the the many chronologies of the OT with the wide variation of dates even when it is the case that a general pattern of data is accepted such as Ptolemy's Canon is used.

Ptolemy's Canon isn't really needed anymore for the neo-Babylonian period, since historians can go straight to the source material.
His article attempts to solve the calendrical problems for the dating of the Fall by sophisticated computer modelling which shows how silly the whole nonsense of the 586/586 controversy is when a method beyond the comprehension of ordinary people is used to establish the date of the most important event in OT history.

"... attempts to solve ... by sophisticated computer modelling"? " ... a method beyond the comprehension of ordinary people"? I don't think so. Young says he used a method employed in Systems Analysis called Decision Analysis - that's true - but anybody can follow the good old fashioned logic he uses in his Decision Tables. No 'sophisticated computer modelling' is needed or used here. When you follow through on his argumentation, his presenting of hypotheses, the way he uses the Biblical data to eliminate the impossible or improbable, you find that he settles on one date: Tammuz 587 BC. There's nothing silly or nonsensical about it, if you have carefully read Young's article (which I doubt).
The chronology discerned by celebrated WT scholars is correct at least for the very basic reason that it is simple, can be explained in a simple way, this apart from the simple and clear biblical texts are its greatest strength.
It may be 'simple' on the surface, but the devil is in the detail.
Jeffro

Yes, Babylon was judged and a judgement against Babylon in 539 was shown for Babylon in 539 with its Fall as was prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. But we are talking here about a specific Jeremaic prophecy at 25:12 which specifically foretells not the Fall of Babylon but its destruction. You must get the facts right and not twist a text to support a 'pet theory'. This verse is most emphatically about destruction, its end in the sands of history rather than its demise as a world power.

You still ignore the facts, and it is obvious to all that it is you with the 'pet theory' that completely ignores the facts of the matter. Again you try to misdirect the issue to the finality of the matter, though your assertion does nothing to suggest that 537 is a valid date for beginning such a period of judgement. You ignore the simple fact that the calling to account of Babylon's king which marked the beginning of the judgement definitely occurred in 539. You minimize the account of Daniel that specifically indicates the judgement of Babylon's king, the progeny of Nebuchadnezzar, to whom all the nations had been in servitude until that time.
It is very important matter of exegesis as to whether verses 11 or 12 are in combination or seperate in context. These verses are shown as separate paragraphs in most Bibles which indicates that transalators regard the contents of both verses as separate issues. Further the major technical commentaries on Jeremiah state that these are separate and different contexts. Verse 11 ends the oracle against Judah and verse 12 begins the oracle against Babylon and the Foreign Nations. Exegesis is about context and the context disproves your specious reasoning.
I did not argue about whether the verses are to be understood in combination. Within the scope of whether Jeremiah 25:12 supports the 70 years ending in 537, it does not matter whether verses 11 and 12 are considered separately or not. Irrespective, the 70 years cannot end after 539.
Jeremiah referred to the land of Chaldea or the territory of Babylon so the reference in this verse is to the kingship, the city and the land, all would receive a desolation or permanent destruction over time. Whether the land was called Chaldea after 539 means little here because the land of Babylon is what is referred.
It makes no sense to say that after 70 years the king of Babylon would be judged, and then apply that judgement to a non-Babylonian king who emancipated the Jews 2 years after having brought judgement upon the king of Babylon. In any case, there are still inhabitants today in parts of what was called Chaldea. It could be said of any location that eventually it will be destroyed. There is nothing prophetic about that.
The verses of Jeremiah 27:6,7 is simply a prophecy of the end of Babylonian rulership at 539 and proves that dynasty ended, it has nothing to do with the permanent demise of Babylon as described by Jeremiah at 25:12. Of course such a end was important because it was this that brought the release of the exiles thus ending also the prophesied 'seventy yeras' which also led to the destruction of Babylon so all of these events are 'links in a chain'. That is why one must read all of the book of Jeremiah because it contains one embracing prophecy.
You ignore the "embracing prophecy" of Jeremiah in preference for the Society's dogma. Jeremiah was commissioned as a "prophet to the nations" (Jer 1:4,10), and he was specifically used to pronounce judgement on "the nations" (Jer 1:14-16). You acknowledge that 25:12 is an oracle against Babylon, but then in the next breath try to suggest that the calling to account of the king of Babylon refers to a non-Babylonian king in some whimsical metaphorical fashion applied in 537.
I have never in my five years of posting on these subjects ignored the fact that Judah served Babylon for seventy years. Have I not long and persistently argued that the seventy years was a period of servitude for seventy years, exiled in Babylon for seventy years whiclst the land of Judah was totally desolated for seventy years. This period rran from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537 as described, confirmed and foretold by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, Zechariah and Josephus. You must pay close attention and wake up to yourself. The Medo-Perians were not Babylonians but they assumed the rulership of Babylon or kingship so even during those final coupl;e of years the exiles were still subject to the King of Babylon as foretold.
You have certainly "long and persistently argued," but I haven't seen you be right yet on any major point. You contritely accept the crumblike compliments such as those offered by AnnOMaly for the smallest of correct comments, because none of your main points are valid. You cling to the year 537 for the return of the Jews as if it were an established fact, and you ignore the clear and obvious fact that Daniel explicitly said that the days of Babylon's kingdom had been "numbered" and "finished", the king was "weighed", and the kingdom "divided", all in 539. It is ignorant in the extreme to deny that these events related specifically to the judgement of Babylon's king indicated at Jeremiah 25:12. (Even the NWT has a cross-reference to Jeremiah 25:12 on Daniel 5:26).
Jeremiah plainly states that the desolation of judgement in 25:12 began after the seventy yeras was fulfilled which could only be in 537 which is two years after the fact of the Fall of Babylon. That is what Jeremiah says explicity.
There is no rational basis for your claim that this "could only be in 537". You have no actual proof that the Jews returned in 537. The simple fact is that nations were serving Babylonian kings until they weren't. There was no king of Babylon after 539. Babylon lost its indepedence as a kingdom, and Babylon became part of the domain of Medo-Persia.
You ignore what displeases you preferring the crazy and ignorant interpretations of apostates and higher critics. You are blind and are misled by the blind.
I know you like to believe this because it strengthens your faith in delusions. However, as I have told you previously, I arrived at my own conclusions based on the Bible initially and then had them confirmed by external sources.
willyloman

This is a fascinating discussion, but I just don't think there is any need to argue about this anymore. The Watchtower Society already threw in the towel on this in 1995 when they drop-kicked their related "generation" teaching.
It's not 607 that is a "key date" for the dubs; That's one in a series of dates that leads from their interpretation of "the seven times" of Daniel to a really significant date (in their view): 1914. And that date has historically been important primarily because it was the key to the expectation of the end of the system of things, to occur within the generation of 1914, defined as a time period of no more than 80 years, more likely 70 years (based on a scripture about the length of a man's life or generation).
Since they did away with the generation teaching, creating a new interpretation that lets the word "generation" stand for something fuzzy and unidentifiable -- with respect to any timeline -- they've already set the stage for dropping the related dates, 1914 and 607.
The only reason they haven't done so is that they tend to do these things in stages so they don't make the rank and file too nervous -- not that many would notice.
So this entire debate, and AlanF and others have made many sound arguments, is moot. The big shots at Bethel don't believe in 607 anymore. They just haven't announced it yet.
Jeffro

So this entire debate, and AlanF and others have made many sound arguments, is moot. The big shots at Bethel don't believe in 607 anymore. They just haven't announced it yet.
Indeed, anyone who has actually looked at the facts cannot honestly stick to the 607 dogma. Most Witnesses never consider all of the facts because they are taught to accept what the Society says and to be suspicious of information from any other source. Such people have been misled, and largely become victims of circumstance. But those such as 'scholar' who have looked into the facts and yet continue to support the Society's views despite those facts are either thoroughly brainwashed or intellectually dishonest.
GermanXJW

You may add the Roan Mountain Institute which seems to be close to Christian Science:
http://theroanmountaininstitute.com/38.htm
607 BC / 4) Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem and the temple.
To make it clear: I think the 607 date is bogus, just to complete your overview
scholar

AnnOMaly
I disgree with your opinion thant Ptolemy's Canon is unnecessary for the Neo-Babylonian period. This material is the bedrock for Neo-Babylonian chronology with all other subsequent lines of evidence built upon this document. It is the basis or framework for interpretation of material relevant to any king for that period.
Young's article demonstrates the futility in trying to determine the Fall of Jerusalem by means of a regnal based chronology based solely on secular evidence. Using a mathematical model as he demonstrates in his arfticle does not give any confidence in his proposed choice of 587. Are we soon to accept a radical shift in the scholarly literature to 586 because of this article? I don't think so. All that is shown how bewildering and complex chronologies are that ignore the primary biblical data.
WT chronology is not only simple but is elegant. Secular chronology is confusing, complex producing contradictions a consequence of 'devilish detail'.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
Response to post 854
I have ignored no facts if I have then list such facts. What I have done is listen and read what the texts say not what you want them to say. The verse does not day that the calling to account for Babylon began in 539 with the Fall. That is your interpretation. What the text says is that after the fulfilling of the seventy years(537 BCE) Babylon would be called to account by being made a desolate place. These things did not happen in 539 but after 539, long after 539 BCE. I agree that with its Fall in 539 it was called to account and received judgement which was also foretold by the prophets that Babylon would be punished by falling to Cyrus but this specific prophecy 25:12 foretells not its fall but its permanent destruction. BIG difference which eludes the apostates.
In order to understand verse 12 one must see it in context and the context are all of the verses prior and sunsequent to verse 12. Now, the context demands that the seventy years ended with the Return and not the Fall of Babylon.
It makes perfect sense to apply that specific judgement of desolation of Babylon after the Return for two reasons : FIRSTLY, the Jews were no no longer captive to Babylon, they were now a free people in their own homeland. SECOND, Babylon must also receive her judgement of a long and permanent nature as fortold by the prophets which meant her permanent desolation. Such a context including all of Jeremiah shows that he foretold not only the Fall of Babylon but its eventual desolation as with all of the other foreign nations which have all been buried in the sands of history.
In my long posting history I have presented main points and have dealt with all opposing arguments from the best and brightest of apostates including Alan F and I will continue to do so. 537 BCE is a well established date with no other serious conmpetitors for if there were then the Jonsson hypothesis would have flagged the matter. Daniel's comment about Babylon being weighed was fulfilled with its fall in 539 but he makes no reference in that chapter to the seventy yearr so your 'red herring' argument is false. Such a Fall in 539 is only related to 25:12 in the sense that it was foretold that she would fall and Jeremiah said in verse 12 that she would be desolated.
BIg difference.
Well if the Jews did not return in 537 then pray tell what year did they return? Here again this date is not seriously challenged by scholars. Jonsson says little about the matter except for a footnote with two muted sources. There was a king of Babylon after 539 and this was first Darius followed jointly by Cyrus for starters.
You certainly have peace with your delusions.
scholar JW
scholar

Jeffro
Response to post 855
Anyone who loves truth and goes where the facts lead cannot honestly accept the confused dates of 586 and 587 and others. The simple and clear biblical evidence points to 607 BC as the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 with the birth of God's Kingdom which only the Witnesses are announcing. I am glad to see that at least you acknowledged that I have looked at the facts so that means that I have knowledge of the sunject and know what I am talking about. It is you that perverted those facts along with Jonsson and others by jumping into bed with the higher critics, SDA's and apostates.
scholar JW

listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem

Share this