Frankly, it is dishonest of you to argue that the Judah lay desolate for fifty years when the Bible writers were most emphatic that it was seventy. Such reasoning proves that apostates and WT critics are desperate in tryng to disprove WT biblical chronology but their efforts such as the pathetic Jonsson nonsense are doomed to failure.
Frankly, it is dishonest for you to refer to Josephus or Berossus as primary texts relative to Ancient Near East chronology. As in, it is factually dishonest, not simply an opinion that your interpretation of the matter is disengenuous. Yet, you definitely have made that claim.
2. Celebrated WT scholars are quite happy to accept that scholarship endorses by means of cunieform tablets and other documents that EM' s reign was of two years but it also must be recognized that Berossus gives differing figures for the Neo-Babylonian period and so does Josephus. Josephus does provide primary evidence for Josephus and however you view Josephus does give conflicting data for the NB period.
I can only assume you meant, "[Berossus] does provide primary evidence for Josephus and however you view Josephus does give conflicting data for the NB period." I hope that is what you meant, because otherwise you believe an historian can provide primary evidence for him or herself. But, either way, you are misrepresenting both Berossus and Josephus as primary and secondary sources respectively. Josephus is at very best a secondary source of Berossus, while Berossus is at very best a secondary source of the primary sources he drew from.
You claim dishonesty on my part but offer no proof. Please note for everyone the Bible writers' emphatic claim that Judah would "lay desolate for seventy years." By my count, in the Bible, there are exactly two occurrences of the partial word "desolat*" in paragraph proximity to the word "seventy". One speaks of the desolation of Babylon after the end of the seventy years. Now, surely, if such a claim were emphatically made by the Bible writers you can find at least three instances...three times for emphasis, right? Here is the ONLY place a Bible writer mentions desolation in proximity to the word seventy as it pertains to Judah:
2 Chronicles 36:17-21
17 So he brought up against them the king of the Chal·de'ans, who proceeded to kill their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, neither did he feel compassion for young man or virgin, old or decrepit. Everything He gave into his hand. 18 And all the utensils, great and small, of the house of the [true] God and the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king and of his princes, everything he brought to Babylon. 19 And he proceeded to burn the house of the [true] God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also all its desirable articles, so as to cause ruin. 20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
Now that we have the text to which you refer in front of us, please note the writer does not say the land would lay desolate seventy years. The writer says "the days of lying desolated" (however long those days might be) "it kept sabbath" and that the prupose of the days lying desolated was to "fulfill" (i.e. complete or finish) "seventy years." Even the singular text that uses the verbiage you have fixated on in paragraph context does not actually say what you want it to say. And you have no other writer to call upon, yet you claimed "Bible writers" emphatically support your viewpoint. Please note the plural form, then please note the other writers that support your statement and in which verses they do so.
So, not only are you factually dishonest about what secular ANE chronology presents, you are intellectually dishonest in your representation of what the Bible presents. I accuse you of dishonesty and I have proof. You accuse me of dishonesty without proof.
Come, come, scholar. Let us not play at a game only of your choosing. Prove yourself honorable and answer what you promised to answer. You have not, yet. Is your promise worth only as much as that of J.F. Rutherford or do you have some honor and integrity?
scholar: scholar deals with facts, history and chronology
Prove it.
scholar: You ask certain questions about the data and I am happy to deal with those points you have raised but can you explain the following:
AuldSoul: I have responded directly to every one of your points.
And still, you haven't offered any explanation of the gap of 12 years between the WTS timing of Nebuchadrezzar's final regnal year and the completely independent dating of Amasis' accession year, when there is unquestionable documentation that has Nebuchadrezzar fighting a campaign against Amasis of Egypt in Nebuchadrezzar's 37th year.
And still, you haven't offered any reason for ignoring Uruk's dating of Evil-Marduk's reign.
And still, you haven't mounted any assault against the Egibi banking family documents.
And still, you haven't explained whether Adda-Guppi lived 104/106 years or 124/126 years. (This should be "102/104 years or 122/124 years")
Until you deal with those points I raised you stand as an oathbreaker and a liar, and I will regard you as a person without honor. Keep in mind that neither Berossus nor Josephus can be used as an authority superceding primary documents, although I wonder if you even see that there is no real distinction between your references to Berossus and your references to Josephus. You only have Josephus' perspective of Berossus to work from in developing your "concerns" while I have primary documents to work from in arriving at my certainty.
From primary documents, with a high degree of certainty I can rule out the following ranges of dates as possible timings for the destruction of Solomon's Temple:
- "In the beginning" - 588 BC
- 585 BC - the present
I cannot, with certainty, rule out 587 BC or 586 BC. Since I cannot rule these two years out as possibilities, I must—in the interests of intellectual honesty—allow for the possibility of either year. Much the same as Sam's acquaintance had to allow for the possibility that the bug could be either a beetle or a nymph of some sort, while being completely certain it was not a 14-foot-long crocodile, I must allow for the possibility of either 587/6 BC while being completely certain that Solomon's Temple was NOT destroyed in 746 BC.
No matter WHO claims that the temple was destroyed in 746 BC or what kind of divine authority they purport to possess, the fact remains that Solomon's Temple was NOT destroyed in 746 BC. The same is true of 607 BC.
Will you remain an oathbreaker and a liar? Will you be content to remain without honor? Have you no shame? I truly hope you are a "black propagandist" because otherwise you actually believe you are ethically superior to me.
AuldSoul
