I agree about 'new light'--i have a constructionist view, any new light should build upon, not replace, existing doctrine.
The 70 years of devastation--as revealed by the Bible
by AddaGirl 73 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AddaGirl
scholar,
I haven't figured out where you are coming from yet. I believe there is a component of servitude to Babylon, backed up by both Bible Scripture, Antiquities of the Jews X and Flavius Joseph Against Apion. I do realize that the final edict against Babylon did occur after the fall of Babylon but when the final edict of Babylon occurred, there was no king of Babylon. Nabonidus, or his son Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon and Jeremiah 27:6-7 clearly states that "and now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon my servant and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve. And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as servant. The sovereign rule of Babylon was 609 BCE, (the last Assyrian king Ashur Urbilitt II fell to Babylon) until their own defeat by the Medes and Persians in 539 BCE.
The 10 tribes of Israel became servant when Assyria fell, Zedekiah was a vassal king for Nebuchadnezzar, serving him 11 years before the revolt that felled Jerusalem, and allowed to stay on his land if he did not revolt.
(Antiquities of the Jews X Chapter 7 paragraph 3) Jeremiah prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would take Judah if they revolted and they would serve him and his posterity for 70 years having their servitude ended when the Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon. It says they will be exiled only if they revolt.
I get that you think I am incorrect but you do not state what you believe to be correct for me to understand your point.
Adda
-
JCanon
bennyk,
I agree with you 100%. None of the Bible Scripture ever says that the desolation of Jerusalem was for 70 years. It actually was desolate for only 50 years.
Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Gedeliah was killed in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is why his mourning began the following year and why there is a 2-year gap between 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 2 of Darius and 70 years after the mourning over Gedaliah in year 4 of Darius.
So the land was not desolated until the Jews left Mizpah and ran down to Egypt in the 7th month of the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehovah attempted to get them to return but they refused and a sword was sent after them, killing most of them. But the small remnant left was to return to Judea per Jer. 44:14, 28. Josephus is specific that those of the last deportation were those last ones who were down in Egypt. The fact that they stopped through Judea on their way presents no contradiction between the Bible and Josephus.
Thus technically the even the land was not totally desolated and completely emptied, including the northern kingdom area, until the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar. But because Nebuchadnezzar's campaign in year 23 also emptied the northern kingdom where others had reoccupied that territory, the Bible also speaks of "these nations" as serving a specific 70 years as well.
There is no way getting around 70 years of sabbath rest for the LAND. The "servitude" to Nebuchadnezzar is in direct relation to those persons removed off the land in year 23.
Please further note that the 50-year reference by Josephus is just 2 paragraphs after he mentions a 70-year desolation, thus the 50 years of desolation is when Cyrus first became king over the Persian part of the Medo-Persian empire. He ruled for 20 years and then became king at Babylon. Thus there is a relevant reference to 50 years of desolation in relation to Cyrus as well as a 70-year desolation in relation to the 1st year of Cyrus. Otherwise, Josephus is directly contradicting himself.
But at this point you are not going to resolve this without looking at the revisionism. In Antiquities, for instance, Josephus assigns an 18-year rule to Evil-Merodach. But in Against Apion that is only a 2-year rule. So at some point the chronology was revised. Our concern is which most reflects the Bible's timeline.
Per the Bible, the NB timeline is 26 years too short. That is, if you introduce a 70-year period from the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus then there is a 74-year period from the fall of Jerusalem to the 1st of Cyrus. That period in the current chronology from 587 to 539 is 48 years. 74 minus 48 is 26 years.
So one has to decide whether to go with the Biblical timeline or the secular timeline, as well as which version of Josehus. When the NB Period is expanded per the Bible it adds the following:
+2 years Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible ends the rule of Nebuchadnezzar in year 37 exile of Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin's exile parallels the rule of Zedekiah, so if Zedekiah's year 11 is Nebuchadnezzar's year 19, there is an 8-year difference. Thus year 37 of Jehoiachin's exile is year 45 of Nebuchadnezzar. 37+8=45. The 43-year reference is thus bogus revisionism by the Persians.
+16 year rule for Evil-Merodach. Per Josephus in Antiquities, Evil Merodach ruled 18 years rather than just 2.
+6 years for Darius the Mede. Per the Bible, when the 70 years begin in year 23, 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem is year 2 of Darius the Mede. Zechariah 1 shows the Jews still in exile wondering when God will "show mercy" to the cities of Judah and Jerusalem. 70 years after the mourning over Gedaliah ends in year 4 of Darius the Mede. But of course, the Jews last deported would have 2 more years of exile before they were released and therefore before the 1st of Cyrus. Thus per the Bible the rule of Darius the Mede was six years.
+2 Nabonidus, by deduction. We know that Cyrus became king in Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus and ruled for 20 years before he became king at Babylon. This entire period is thus 25 years. If we subtract the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede from this Period it leaves a 19-year rule for Nabonidus, which is +2 years more than conventionally assigned, which is 17 years.
This all adds up to 26 years: 2, 16, 2 and 6.
If the Persians did revise the NB timeline, to add extra years to the Persian timeline, then the 50-year reference is spurious and irrelevant anyway.
Date tampering for this period is suggested by several things, but most significantly the double dating in the VAT4956, which carry both 568 BCE and 511 BCE dates for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. I only bring this up not because of the absolute chronology implication but because the 511 BCE dating is in harmony with the Bible and Josephus' relative chronology of a 70-year interval from year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus. That is, when year 511 BCE is year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar then year 23 falls in 525 BCE and 70 years later falls in 455 BCE. 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus is Biblically relevant to the 70 weeks prophecy which must begin when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem."
So there is a lot in place on the "altnerative" dating side of the page in direct support of a 26-year longer NB Period that agrees with the Bible's relative chronology. Thus the true reason for all the confusion is that the Bible's timeline for the NB Period is different than the surviving popular NB timeline. When the Bible contradicts secular, though, Biblicalists always side with the Bible.
So the 50-year reference comes out of the secular timeline, but not the Biblical timeline. The Biblical timeline inserts 70 years of sabbath rest for the land at the time the last deportation occurs in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Some try to make this work and ignore the revisionism but it doesn't work. You have to accept either the Bible is incorrect or the NB history is incorrect. You can't harmonize the two. Even though, actually, since the VAT4956 is a Babylonian text, it could be argued that some Babylonian records are in complete agreement with the Biblical timeline, both the relative and the absolute (i.e. 74 years from fall of Jerusalem to 1st of Cyrus, 1st of Cyrus dated to 455 BCE vs 537 BCE).
JC
-
AddaGirl
JC,
Only one point. I have much to look up. Cyrus assumed his fathers throne in 559 BCE but had to recognize the Mede ownership. Nabonidus took the thrown in 556 BCE. Cyrus overthrew the Medes in 550/549 which was the 6th year of Nabonidus, took the title King of Persia and ruled 10 years before becoming king over Babylon.
-
JCanon
Maybe Isaac Newton knew more that all the expert historians, the Bible and even the JWs who state that Darius the Mede never existed as a king. Gobryas, the general that took charge for Cyrus initially (born in 601 BCE) was 62 at the time Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Darius was 19 at the time. Also Darius the Mede means "Holder of the Sceptor", a position that Gobryas held for Cyrus.
Per Sir Isaac Newton, who clearly is following the Biblical references or at least coordinating them, Darius the Mede was born in 600 BCE and thus was 62 when Babylon fell in 538 per his timeline.
Then there were revisions made in the Classic Greco-Persian period, a favorite invention was to split the character into two different ones with each carrying a separate aspect of the history. This is presumed about "Ugbaru" and "Gubaru"; where one conquers Babylon with Cyrus and dies shortly afterward and the other becomes governor and divides the kingdom up into satrapys and rules for 14 years. Per the Bible Darius the Mede did what both Ugbaru and Gubaru did. Therefore, some part of the history of Darius the Mede is considered revised and we can take the details of each and see how they apply to the single person Darius the Mede.
Per the Bible Darius the Mede ruled for six years as king. If we include that in the 14 years of rule mentioned for Gubaru it leaves a period 8 years. That means Gubaru died one year before Cyrus who ruled for 9 years. This is consistent with the son of Cyrus, Kambyses, ruling for one year from Babylon as co-ruler in the last year of Cyrus. So, it gets complicated.
JC
-
JCanon
JC,
Only one point. I have much to look up. Cyrus assumed his fathers throne in 559 BCE but had to recognize the Mede ownership. Nabonidus took the thrown in 556 BCE. Cyrus overthrew the Medes in 550/549 which was the 6th year of Nabonidus, took the title King of Persia and ruled 10 years before becoming king over Babylon.
Thanks for this reference. The presumption is that the reference to Cyrus overthrowing the Medes is when he began his 20-year rule in the original chronology, which was revised when the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede was removed so that Cyrus began his rule when he and Darius conquered Babylon. But as you already noted, the Bible clearly shows Darius the Mede taking the kingship immediately after Babylon falls. Cyrus did not begin to rule at this time. The Jews were not to be released until the "royalty of Persia begins to rule." That is, when Cyrus the Persian becomes king over all of Babylon. I showed you one reference where Darius the Mede clearly was an idientified person who did specific things historically including a 2-year rule before the Jews were released. That may have been revised as we take a second look. The Babylonian chronicle was copied in the 22nd year of Darius, presumably Darius II. The document itself states when it was "copied". The style of writing has linked it to being dated to as late as the end of the Persian Period, with identifical small type cuneform found in two other primary documents, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder, all considered to come from the Persian Period and not the NB Period.
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/cyrusnabcomp.JPG (Cuneiform writing comparison, Cyrus-Nabonidus cylinders)
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/cyrusnabcomp.JPG (Babylonian Chronicle writing style)
So in essence, seeing that there is a 26-year discrepancy between the Bible and the current NB records, the presumption is that the NB records were revised during the Persian Period. But ultimately, the VAT4956 not only shows the revision it gives both dates; the revised and the original, so it's not a matter of speculation any more. It's proven that year 511 BCE was the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When that happens it reflects a 26-year longer Neo-Babylonian Period as well just as the Bible does.
So ultimately the 70-year options depends on which chronology you use; the Bible's or secular Babylonian records "copied"(i.e. revised) during the Persian Period.
JC
JC
-
scholar
AddaGirl
It is quite simple really. As a scholar I full support and endorse the Bible chronology of the Society as only reliable and accurate chronology that is faithful to God's Word. The biblical seventy years is one definite historic period described by Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and Ezra. These seventy years is a period of servitude-exile-desolation running from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. It is as simple as that.
You are incorrect in saying that there was no king of Babylon at the time of the final edict of Babylon for Cyrus who conquered Babylon was acknowledged as 'King of Babylon and this role was maintained for a period according to secular history. Certainly, Jeremiah 27:6-7 simply describes that nations would serve the Babylonian dynasty and so it was that Judah for seventy years served not only Nebucchadnezzer but his son and grandson exactly as Jeremiah prophesied but this dynasty ended with the demise of Nabonidus and Belshazzar with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This dynasty was replaced by a new King of Babylon with the conquerors of the Medes and Persians who were now the new rulers of Babylon during and after 539 BCE.
Thus there is no conflict between Jeremiah 25;12 and Jeremiah 27:6-7.
Your claim that 609 BCE marked the beginning of Babylon's sovereign rule is false as according to Bible chronology it is 625 BCE.
The Society has published much on chronology and so it is simply a matter reading such material to fully understand matters and that includes the seventy years.
scholar JW
-
Narkissos
Leviticus does not elude to 70 years at all for the desolation to pay its sabbaths.
No, but it shows how the notion of "sabbath for the land" is connected to that of "exile," not "absence of the temple".
In principle the sabbatical pattern suits a 49-y. exile (7 x 7, cf. Daniel 9) even better than a 70-y one (10 x 7), but it is apparent to me that 2 Chronicles imply the latter (of course that doesn't change history!).
2Chronicles 36:21-23 clearly show that the land being desolated was to fulfill 70 years not for 70 years
Again you choose to disconnect v. 21 from v. 20, whereas it continues the same sentence (compare the paragraph setting in most bibles). And don't look for some mysterious teleological meaning in "to fulfill," it is the standard Hebrew idiom for the completion of a time period...
1Chonicles 4:21--right scripture?
Sorry, my bad: 4:31.
-
AddaGirl
scholar,
I do respect your beliefs. I am also aware of the JW full timeline and Bibilical differences. I know the history as taught by the JWs on this topic. I have rejected it based on all the information I was provided from JW headquarters, the chronology of kings as evidenced in the Bible, historical references and the education I have received from this forum to help me sort out what I need to know. As a matter of fact, the JW history was the 1st history I had ever had and it was the driving force that has sent me on this journey.....to understand the Bible and to eventually find "the truth." For that I am grateful. I am taking positive steps to grow closer to God.
Proverbs 2:1-6 My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure up my own commandments with yourself, so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear that may incline your heart to discernment; If, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you find the very knowledge of God. For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment.
AddaGirl
-
JCanon
Hello Scholar. I'm a JW too! I believe the Bible too. But...
It is quite simple really. As a scholar I full support and endorse the Bible chronology of the Society as only reliable and accurate chronology that is faithful to God's Word. The biblical seventy years is one definite historic period described by Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and Ezra. These seventy years is a period of servitude-exile-desolation running from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. It is as simple as that.
You are a scholar, right? Well then I only need to tell you that Gedaliah did not die within 2 months of the fall of Jerusalem in the same year. He died the following year in the 7th month. It took time to get word out, it took time for him to become confident with the Babylonian intentions, and the Bible doesn't say exactly when he was appointed governor. The Bible describes those invited to harvest summer crops, including wine, which is a very early summer/late spring crop, as coming in gradually from the surrounding areas. It is logical, therefore, to think that this word went out prior to the actual beginning of those summer crops. So everything clearly points to the following year. Furthermore, there is a 2-year gap between when 70 years expire in the 2nd year of Darius and 70 years expire from mourning in the 7th month for Gedaliah. Meaning that the mourning for Gedaliah did not begin until two years after Jerusalem fell. Now that is consistent with the mourning beginning the year after Gedaliah died rather than two years after, thus confirming he died in year 20 instead of year 19.
Also realize that Josephus at Ant. 11.1.1 and elsewhere clearly begin the 70 years with the LAST DEPORTATION. Thus since you are so impressed or consistent with the WTS' take on this, note that Josephus specifically links the last deportation with those Jews remaining who had run down to Egypt! Where does the WTS claim these 23rd year deportees came from? They claim they must have been some who scattered when Gedaliah was killed and then were later rounded up. But the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible agrees with Josephus! That those who were deported in year 23 were the remaining ones from the sword who had ran down to Egypt! Thus you need to harmonize Jeremiah 44:14,28 with your statement above and claim that the land was desolate after the destruction of Jerusalem. There was a 23rd-year deportation! Further, the Bible says quite clearly those deported last were those "who escaped from the sword"...
" 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."
This is specific. Who are "those remaining from the sword"? Just any Jews left? NO. They are specifically those left remaining from the sword of Nebuchadnezzar that were not killed in Egypt! Thus the Bible itself confirms what Josephus relates as traditional Jewish history, which is those of the last deportation in year 23 are those who were left remaining from the sword who had run down to Egypt. And the Bible clearly says this specific group would return to Judea, if only for a few months.
Therefore, SCHOLAR, please know and/or adjust your comment about the "desolation" beginning with the fall of Jerusalem per the WTS, because that contradicts not only Josephus, whom they thus misquote, but also the Bible itself. The devastation of the land and the empying of it of all the "nations" meaning those occuping the norther tribe area and the coastal towns like Ashkelon, were deported in year 23.
You are a SCHOLAR. Reflect further that this bitter "cup" of Nebuchadnezzar that many would drink would begin with Jerusalem. Jerusalem would drink first!
28 And it must occur that in case they refuse to take the cup out of your hand to drink, you must also say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies has said: “Y OU will drink without fail. 29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’
Therefore, in practical application, it would take time to deport all these nations from both the northern and southern kingdoms. But Jerusalem would be the first to drink the bitter cup. Thus Jerusalem would be destroyed first before the other nations. Even so, 70 years were specifically to be served by these nations. Thus it was not until the 23rd year that the final remnants of these kingdoms mentioned got deported. Everybody has to serve these 70 years while the land lie desolate. So indeed, this last 23rd-year campaign of Nebuchadnezzar is when he deported everyone out of the land finally, though some of those lands, like Jerusalem were already destroyed but with a few people left behind. Thus the "nations" that would serve 70 years along with "those remaining from the sword" is the fulfillment of this prophecy. This is NOT what JWs are teaching. They count the devastation of the land and the death of Gedaliah in the same year, without regard to the last deportation in year 23.
Would you mind acknowledging you were not aware of this or please provide an explanation? Here is a quote from the WTS on this.
]Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7). (Insight book)
Note that they quote directly Josephus here who specifically says the Jews were deported from EGYPT. They avoid this direct reference and invent Jews who "may have fled" to other areas, that is, other than Judea, to explain the last deportation, at the same time specifically avoiding the reference that these were the ones "remaining from the sword" who were deported from Egypt! The height of deception. Why avoid the historical reference Josephus provides if they were in doubt about who were these last ones deported? At any rate, as noted above, they directly contradict the scriptures who clearly tell us who those who were laste deported were, who were those who "escaped from the sword" which is a reference to the last remaining ones of the Jews who were down in Egypt. This would thus include Jeremiah and Baruch! What do you think happened to them? Were they killed with the others? No. They were deported in year 23.
So yes, while the WTS is correct that there was a literal 70 years of sabbath rest, it did not begin until everyone was removed out of the land and that final complete removal did not occur until the last deportation, year 23.
Therefore, SCHOLAR, you have a choice. To go with the Bible or the Watchtower. They are in conflict. I know this is a hard choice. But if you side with the Watchtower, you will be turning your back on Jehovah and the Bible. The Watchtower is not the source of life but the Bible s. So is your loyalty to the BIBLE or to the WTS? You can't have both at this point. I'm sorry.
You are incorrect in saying that there was no king of Babylon at the time of the final edict of Babylon for Cyrus who conquered Babylon was acknowledged as 'King of Babylon and this role was maintained for a period according to secular history. Certainly, Jeremiah 27:6-7 simply describes that nations would serve the Babylonian dynasty and so it was that Judah for seventy years served not only Nebucchadnezzer but his son and grandson exactly as Jeremiah prophesied but this dynasty ended with the demise of Nabonidus and Belshazzar with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This dynasty was replaced by a new King of Babylon with the conquerors of the Medes and Persians who were now the new rulers of Babylon during and after 539 BCE.
Again, SCHOLAR, you are not representing the Bible specifically here. The "nations" that were to serve Babylon exactly 70 years were those deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. Because the entire land, both northern and southern kingdoms had to be desolated, along with some never conquered surrounding cities like Ashkelon and Tyre, the Bible speaks of "these nations" serving the same 70 years as the last deported Jews from Egypt. So you are right, there is no conflict in the Bible about these 70 yeras, but you must understand exactly when these 70 years began. Not with the fall of Jerusalem, but later with the last deportations in year 23.
Your claim that 609 BCE marked the beginning of Babylon's sovereign rule is false as according to Bible chronology it is 625 BCE.
This, again, is incorrect. For one thing, as noted, 70 years earlier than the return from Babylon is year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, the last deportation. So even if you used the incorrect secular date of 537 BCE to get 607 BCE, it would only mark year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, not year 19. Thus Jerusalem would have fallen in year 611 BCE, year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. The accession year of Nebuchadnezzar 19 years earlier thus would be 630 BCE and not 625 BCE as you state. But of course, the Bible and now new research including the VAT4956 double-dating to 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar establish that the original dating for the return of the Jews was 455 BCE. The Bible begins the 70 weeks "when the word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem." Cyrus was prophesied to rebuild both the city and the temple, so how do we get past that this is not fulfilled in the 1st of Cyrus? We don't! Martin Anstey saw it clear that 455 BCE [sic] should be the 1st of Cyrus, that is, that the return was exactly 483 years prior to the baptism of Christ! That means he identified in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" written in 1913 that there were 82 years too many in the Persian Period. Well, I investigated this and he was right. The Persian Period collapses immedately once you know Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, which you can confirm archaeologically! Plus the Biblel indicates the very same thing. Xerxes just used the second name Artaxerxes, that's all. He later took advantage of the double name to claim he had died and another king, his son, was now ruling. It was clever Greco-Persian counterconspiracy politics. But the historians liked the revisions and maintained them and they thus remain uncorrected but also in conflict with the Bible's timeline. Now, however, the VAT4956 proves precisely that the 1st of Cyrus occurred in 455 BCE. So there is no "academic" room now to even remotely entertain the NB dates are correct. The most accurate dating that we get, which is from the VAT4956, though, does not conflict with the Bible's timeline but confirms it. 455 BCE is the true date for the 1st of Cyrus. The FAKE YEARS in the Persian Period are 1 for Kambyses, 30 for Darius I, 30 for Artaxerxes II, and since Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, 21 years for Xerxes is combined with the rule of Artaxerxes I. That's a total of 82 years. No archaeologist will likely argue otherwise since Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II, a clear indication they were the same king. Xerxes' tomb at Naqshi-Rustam is clearly newer and an afterthought after the fact.
So, as I said, no excuse at this point for not going strictly by the Bible and dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. We know WHY the chronology was changed. It is not a mystery. And it is because of these changes that the secular and Bilblical timelines for the NB Period are out of sync. That's because to partially make up for the extra 30 years added to the reign of Darius I, the Persians removed 26 years from the NB Period, making it too short now to accommodate the 70 years of rest for the land. So again, it's not that we don't know when, why and how the timeline was changed; nor is it that there is no surviving references to the original chronology. We have the VAT4956!
The Society has published much on chronology and so it is simply a matter reading such material to fully understand matters and that includes the seventy years.
scholar JW
I have read this and my comments are above. While it is admirable that the WTS claims to go by the Bible and will side with the Bible in a conflict, they fail to fully represent the Bible's true chronology. They made one critical error. Presuming 539 BCE was a reliable historical date. Fact is the entire timeline was changed, altering both the absolute and relative dating for the NB and Persian Periods. But even when using 537 BCE for the return from Babylon, they contradict scriopture when they date 607 BCE to the fall of Jerusalem when the 70 years clearly only began with the last deportation, year 23. So I have read the WTS' history and find them in conflict with the Bible.
You must also, since there is no choice here. If you don't, then where will your credibility be as far as claiming to believe the Bible?
The scripture you and the WTS have to deal with is Ezra 6:14,15. It shows the accession year of "Artaxerxes" occurring in year 6 of Darius. It shows that Artaxerxes was the last king to participate in the building of the temple. When you ignore this, you have to invent a lie that Artaxerxes didn't finish the temple even though the Bible clearly says he did.
14 And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Hag´gai the prophet and Zech·a·ri´ah the grandson of Id´do, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Da·ri´us and Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia. 15 And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Da·ri´us the king.
Do you know what the WTS says about Artaxerxes listed here? They clearly know he couldn't have completed the temple if Darius I ruled for another 30 years. So they come up with a lame excuse, just like the last generation excuse they are promoting now, that this must have been a reference to his providing some materials later to the temple long after this! That is, they contradict the Bible in saying that the king who finished the temple was Artaxerxes! This also makes no sense because they also believe that Xerxes followed Darius on the throne. In fact, the Bible is simply referring to Xerxes as "Artaxerxes" because that was his alternative name. We actually have at least one extant document that refers to "Arses who is also known as Artaxerxes"...
Unfortunately comparison with the dating formulae of the Astronomical Diaries does not help very much. In these formulae the name of the father of the reigning king is never mentioned. The formula used here is: PN ša PN2 (LUGAL) MU-šú na-bu-ú, “PN, who is called king PN2.” See for example AD I, p. 152, no. -346, left edge: MU 12.KAM m Ú-ma-kuš šá m Ár-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú na-bu-ú, “year 12 of Ochos, who is called king Artaxerxes (III)”; MU 38.KAM m Ár-šú LUGAL šá m Ár-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú [na-bu-ú], “year 38 of king Arses, who is called king Artaxerxes (II)” (AD I, p. 136, no. -366 B lower edge; on tablet A left edge the title LUGAL, “king,” added to both names, has been omitted in both cases); m Ú-ma-kuš šá m Da-a-ri-muš MU-šú SA 4 , “Ochos, who is called Darius (II)” (AD I, p. 66, no. -391 B obv. 1). http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arses/arses_2.html
So again, the WTS must LIE and twist the scriptures when it is quite clear what the scrioptures are saying, and YOU, SCHOLAR, are going along with those lies. It is further worse now because maybe the WTS didn't understand how all this worked out. but now they must. All is understood once you know that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/xerxeshand.html (Xerxes hand position)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/nehemiah.html (Nehemiah at Persepolis)
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/dariusxerxespalace.JPG (Xerxes at Palace of Darius)
Now. You will either hold out with the WTS until they demise or it becomes clear the current NB timeline is defective, or you will side with the Bible now and understand the truth. If you wait until the WTS and the world or more or less forced to deal with the revisions, then it might be too late, since to hold onto the false secular chronology (based on 539 BCE) means you must reject the Bible now. And that may cost you dearly. You have a CHANCE to truly show you believe the Bible first as a reference, including when the Watchtower fails to represent the truth. If you ignore the Bible it means you are WORSHIPPING the WTS and Jehovah considers it a form of idolatry.
Hard choices if you are enamored by the WTS. Easy chocie if you love the Bible!
JC
