Secular historians say:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 2
Neriglissar 4
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
This is only 67 years. We however say it was 87 years from the beginning of Neb's rule until 539 conquest.
Who ruled during those missing 20 years if 607BCE is correct?
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chapter 11 Josephus
NOW when king Nebuchadnezzar had reigned forty-three years, he ended his life.
When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war;
Now, after a little while, both himself and the city were taken by Cyrus, the king of Persia, who fought against him; for it was Baltasar, under whom Babylon was taken, when he had reigned seventeen years.
Nebuchadnezzar: 43
Evil-Merodach: 18
Niglissar: 40
Labosordacus: 0.75
Naboandelus: 17
While the years do not agree with the Bible it does show that their is some question about the years that 2 of the kings ruled.
Heres something that is interesting.
2 kings 25:27 And it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that E´vil-mer´o·dach the king of Babylon, in the year of his becoming king, raised up the head of Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah out of the house of detention; 28 and he began to speak good things with him, and then put his throne higher than the thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. 29 And he took off his prison garments; and he ate bread constantly before him all the days of his life. 30 As for his allowance, an allowance was constantly given him from the king, daily as due, all the days of his life.
Doesn't this give the impression that EvelM outlived Jehoiachin? Jehoiachin would have been 55 years old in his 37th year of exile because he was 18 when he went into exile. Evelmerodach ruled for 2 years so says historians. But notice the scripture says that evelM basically took care of him 'all the days of his life'. If evelM only ruled 2 years this means that Jehoiachin must have died before he was 57 otherwise EvelM did not take care of him 'all the days of his life.' Since Jehoiachin at this point was being well taken care of I would think that he would have lived much longer than 57. While this cannot be confirmed it at least shows the likelihood of EvelM ruling longer than 2 years. 18 years would seem more likely since Chin would have been 73 years old at the end of his rule.
This does confirm that Neb ruled for about 43 years.
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
thirdwitness
-
thirdwitness
The following was not written by me:
The Secular Evidence
King Lists
For the chronologists of the Seleucid period, who sought to establish an absolute chronology by aligning known astronomical data with the years of certain kings on their lists, an unknown interregnum would invalidate all of their results prior to the interregnum. Thus, the astronomical data would be correct for the year in which it occurred, but the year of the reign of the king to which the data was assigned would be wrong. In considering the reigns of the kings mentioned in the Bible modern chronologists cannot reconcile their reigns with the reigns of pagan kings found on ancient king lists who were known to be their contemporaries. In order to reconcile the differences the modern chronologist invents co-regencies between the reigns of the various Biblical kings. Had the modern chronologist considered the possibility of interregnums then such radical action would not be necessary.
One particular problem comes into consideration when the Biblical period of 70 years of desolation for the land of Israel is compared with the sum of the reigns of the kings who ruled in Babylon during that period. Because the reigns of the kings do not add up to 70 years for the period in question many chronologists dispute the credibility of the Biblical record. However, if these chronologists, who hold fast to the popular method, were to have considered the possibility of an interregnum then the apparent contradiction would disappear.
The possibility exists that an interregnum occurred after the reign of Neriglissar. This concept becomes extremely plausible when one considers Nabonidus' statement that Labashi-Marduk was but a young man when he ascended the throne. With the great Median king Astyages still the dominant ruler in the region, it is not unreasonable to conclude that after the death of Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk was much too young to assume the responsibilities of being king; thus, Astyages could have appointed commanders to oversee the various provinces in Babylon until such time as Labashi-Marduk had come of age. Under these circumstances no business documents could be dated to the reign of a king, which would explain why none exist for this period of interregnum. It is also likely that with the decline of the Median Empire that Nabonidus revolted and killed Labashi-Marduk. -
ellderwho
third says:The wt is merely quoting secular authorities as to what they say.
That was not the case when the Towers quoted Graysons work for the Insight vol. As well as the early church fathers in the "Should you beleive in the trinity.C'mon Third you've got to better than this.
edited to add: use breaks in your paragraphs thanx
-
thirdwitness
So here are the possibilities:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 18
Neriglissar 4
Interim Ruler 4
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
Another possibility:
Nebuchadnezzar 43
Evil-Merodach 2
Neriglissar 4
Interim rulers 20
Labashi-Marduk .75
Nabonidus 17
One thing for sure. The Bible is correct and the 40 year desolation of Egypt took place as did the 70 years on Tyre and the 70 years desolation of Judah. Therefore, somewhere in the King's list there is an additional 20 years that secular historians do not acknowledge. Secular historians often change king's reigns to suit their fancy. -
thirdwitness
Wikepedia: Pekah ("open-eyed"), was king of Israel, the son of Remaliah, and a captain in the army of Pekahiah, king of Israel. William F. Albright has dated his reign to 737 BC-732 BC, while E. R. Thiele offers the dates 740 BC-732 BC. Although Pekah is said to reign for twenty years in the Book of Kings, such a lengthy reign cannot be supported from the evidence of the Assyrian chronicles, which show Menahem to have been King in 740 BC and Hoshea to have been King from 732 BC.
The Bible says he ruled for 9 years prior to his vassalship to Assyria , followed by 9 more years as a vassal to Assyria. Total: 18 years. Wrongo says secular chronology of the pagan astrologers! Hoshea's rule only 9 or 11 years. -
Leolaia
This question is absurd. Chronology is a system based on historical facts, not predictions about the future. Now if the prophecy was in fact fulfilled as history attests, then it would be consistent with the chronology of the period. But the author uses a prediction about the future (or rather, a warning) as a chronological datum and then presumes its historical status without verifying through historical sources whether such a 40-year period really existed. Instead the presumption of biblical inerrency stands as a surrogate for history, such that the correctness of the chronology of the period that accommodates this period is presumed a priori. There is no attempt at all to examine historical facts to see if such a break in Egyptian history really occurred (with even a depopulation of the land, unknown even in Babylonian sources). For in fact, not only is there no historical evidence of such a period of desolation, there is much evidence of continued history and activity during this time (e.g. the forty years spans across the reigns of pharaohs who continued unhindered). Neither does a presumption of biblical inerrency necessitate that prophetic warnings must always be fulfilled (the book of Jonah is a case in point). And for those who do not read the oracles through the lens of inerrency, there is much evidence that they do not constitute history per se (cf. the oracles of the prophet Jeremiah during the reign of Josiah in Jeremiah 1-6 in which the invaders of Jerusalem will be an unnamed foe from the "north", e.g. Assyria or one of the northern kingdoms, but when the new enemy is Babylon in the time of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, the enemy is revised as "Babylon"). In short, it is a very flawed argument.
-
ellderwho
Therefore, somewhere in the King's list there is an additional 20 years that secular historians do not acknowledge
Did you just come to the planet earth? Is this a conspiracy, the hidding of some twenty years. Stop it, stop it right now. Or start digging in the sand looking for some traces of a missing king.
Face it you cannot make it work. 1914 doesnt mean a friggin thing.
-
thirdwitness
Secular Chronologist 1: Lets see here, this Assyrian tablet says Hoshea ruled for 11 years. I think that's what it says. Does that look like an 11 to you.
Other sec chron: But the Bible says it was 18 years?
Sec Chron 1: The Bible? Youre not going to put it above this broken incomplete copy of an original document are you. Why, don't you know this was copied by Joe Astrologists. And he was copying the words of the mighty King Exxagerationists. This is much more accurate than the Bible.
Sec Chron 2: oh, yes, I see your point . How foolish of me. Ok 11 years it is for Hoshea. But now this messes up Pekah's rule. The bible said 20.
Sec chron 1: No problem , make it 6 years for Pekah. We have to make it fit in with this broken copy of Historian Brown Nose. He knew King Say I Did That very well . He wouldn't exxagerate his accomplishments.
Sec chron 2: Yes , the truth must come out. How can anyone believe the Bible. It is so inaccurate. INspired of God? Yeah right. They can't even harmonize with each other much less with what the great King Erase His Name AND Subsitute Mine said that he did. -
Leolaia
One thing for sure. The Bible is correct and the 40 year desolation of Egypt took place as did the 70 years on Tyre and the 70 years desolation of Judah. Therefore, somewhere in the King's list there is an additional 20 years that secular historians do not acknowledge. Secular historians often change king's reigns to suit their fancy.
No they don't, they examine the preponderance of the evidence. There is so much evidence concerning the length of the Neo-Babylonian period from so many different independent sources that there is literally no room to "change king's reigns" around.
And nice exemplification of the inerrency bias I referred to in my last post. All other historical facts, no matter how overwhelming in evidentiary value, are simply set aside if they are held to conflict with your understanding of the Bible. Historians do not have this bias for a very good reason. Imagine a juror who disregards all physical evidence in a murder trial -- evidence that is so overwhelming to convict -- because she privileges something else (let's say an oracle from Nostradamus) as proving the case in her own mind. The fact however is that you have no chronology at all unless you use some secular basis for the chronology. What you don't realize is that you can base your chronology on some other date other than 539 that has equally good empirical support (and consistent with the Bible), and you will have BOTH "seventy years" of desolation as well as destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. The Persian chronology would just start 20 years later. Subtrating 20 years from the Persian period is just the flip side of adding 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian period. Both can be equally consistent with your interpretation of the Bible and both take liberties with historical facts. So why not use a different anchor date (which is equally if not better supported than 539) and have 587 as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, since there is no a priori reason why this date should conflict with the "70 years"? The answer is simple....the other alternative will not yield 1914, which is clearly the desired goal of the Society's pseudo-chronology.
-
thirdwitness
We have already covered that. If you people would only read the information you would already know. But many of you seem like you just don't really want to know the truth. Read it if you do.
What about 519 BCE?
B ecause of the facts mentioned in the previous arguments, showing that the 70 years of Jerusalem’s desolation really was 70 years (not 50!), some have suggested that perhaps 587 BCE is correct, but the date of Babylon’s defeat is the one that is wrong. Perhaps, they say, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, lay desolate for 70 years, and then Babylon was conquered in 519 BCE at which time the exiles were released.
Of course, there is abundant secular evidence to show that 539 BCE is the date of Babylon’s defeat, and most importantly, such evidence is accepted by us because it does not contradict the scriptures. Aside from that, the 519 date is unscriptural.
If Babylon was defeated 20 years after generally accepted, that would push all events afterwards forward by 20 years also. This is because many historical dates are based on the date of Babylon’s defeat.
This would affect the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, the Seventy Weeks prophecy. The “word to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem” would have been given in 435 BCE, not 455 BCE. Hence, Jesus was born in 19 CE, baptized in 49 CE, and died in 53 CE. The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome would have subsequently occurred in 90 CE.
Either Jesus isn't the Messiah, Roman history is terribly unreliable, or these dates are simply wrong. The 519 BCE date is impossible, 539 BCE is the only acceptable and reasonable date for the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, thus making 607 BCE the date for the destruction of Jerusalem 70 years earlier.
- The 539 date does not contradict the scriptures and happens to be supported by secular chronology.
- The 519 date causes serious problems with the Messiah prophecies.
So as you see we have covered that angle and your theory just will not fit with Roman and 1st century chronology. We have looked at this from every angle and have studied this in depth. After you read the information then see if you can come up with something new, not something already covered and disproved as impossible.