Scholar says... "dawg
Post 2174
The identity of the 'celebrated WT scholars' is not for you so you should not trouble yourself with such information. I would suggest that you read the Bible and the publications of the FDS.
scholar JW"
I thought I'd get a response such as this...LOL! I've read your fantasy book called the Bible it's rubbish, just as the words of the FDS... Let me tell you why it's rubbish, because it don't stand up to scrutiny just as your so called "celebrated scholars" don't... and that's why you answered in such an asinine way; you don't have any evidence to support these so called "celebrated scholars"...LOL!
Thank you so much scholar for proving my point... honestly, it begs the question if you're not joking this was so stupid a comment.
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo 103 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
dawg
-
AnnOMaly
Also, the data is so confusing that scholars cannot agree as to whether the Fall occurred in 586 or 587 BCE. There is a consistent twenty year gap and this problem has not been solved by scholars.
Your math's out. The difference between 586 and 587 is only 1 year, not 20. The 20 year gap exists only the imaginations of 607 proponents - not in reality. And the past confusion about the date arises from the Bible (was it the 18th or 19th year of Neb?). How readily you forget Rodger Young's solution to the 'problem' (did you ever actually read his work or didn't you get past the first paragraph?).
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 764
My maths is OK. You have misread what I had written. Scholars and apostates have two big problems. First, despite their claims that Neo-Babylonian chronology is the only reliable system of providing accurate dates they cannot determine the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem. Second, there is a 'Babylonian Gap' of twenty years between the chronology for the period and the Bible when the two chronologies are compared. This 'gap' is observed because of the biblical 'seventy years' and the lack of reliable data for the reigns of the Babylonian kings. Celebrated WT scholars in their wisdom and brilliance have for a long time brought these matters to the attention of scholars.
scholar JW
-
OUTLAW
Dawg..You,Scholar and I..All know..There are no WBT$ celebrated Scholars.....Not one...............If there were..Scholar could name one..He can`t.....They don`t exist.................
...OUTLAW -
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 764
The scholarly controversy over 586 or 587 BC is not about a fault in the biblical data or as Jonsson does complain that it is the Bible's fault. Rather, it is simply a matter of methodology. This is the substance of Young's article that it is a methodological problem and remember it was I, that said 'scholar' who first introduced that article on this forum and it was I, that first introduced the notion of methodology into chronology which was later vindicated by Young's scholarship.
scholar JW
-
JCanon
18TH VS 19TH YEAR ISSUE
Hi Ann:
Your math's out. The difference between 586 and 587 is only 1 year, not 20. The 20 year gap exists only the imaginations of 607 proponents - not in reality. And the past confusion about the date arises from the Bible (was it the 18th or 19th year of Neb?). How readily you forget Rodger Young's solution to the 'problem' (did you ever actually read his work or didn't you get past the first paragraph?).
Obviously YOU don't know the reason why there is this one-year issue either. Let me INFORM YOU why this is the case. It is NOT the Bible. The Bible is quite clear that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year. It also falls in the 11th year of Zedekiah, which is not a toss-up between year 18 or 19.
Zedekiah was appointed after the deportation of Jehoiachin which was on the very last day of YEAR 8 of Nebuchadnezzar as the Bible clearly says. 2 Kings 24:12
12 At length Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king.
If this is the very end of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar then Zedekiah would have been appointed at the beginning of the 9th year. In that case, there is an 8-year difference. Year 1 of Zedekiah is year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. Is that so?
Well if year 11 of Zedekiah was the year Jerusalem fell it should have been year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible clearly says year 19 was the year Babylon fell. So there is nothing wrong with the Bible's references.
The problem is that of the BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/cyrusnabcomp.JPG
The Babylonian Chronicle combines what happened in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar with what happened in his first year. We know that because Daniel was deported in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim but it wasn't until the 4th year that the Battle of Carchemish took place. So Daniel was exiled in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim's rule is thus a 3-year difference than Nebuchadnezzar. That is year 1 of Nebuchadnezzar is year 4 of Zedekiah at some point. Thisi s a three-year difference. Thus if Jehoiakim's rule ended in his 11th year, it should have been the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That's precisely what we know. Jehoiachim ruled for 3 months and then was deported in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. So there is no problem with the Bible.
Except Bible scholars are so thrilled that the Babylonian Chronicle details some of these events, including the deportation of Jehoiachin, they rationalize away the Babylonian Chronicle dates that to year 7 instead of year 8. Thus in the revision, the events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar occur one year earlier, in contradiction to the Bible's record, which is one year later. Because of this, and because you've got a year give and take with excuses such as accession-year system versus Jewish dating, the years are considered compatible in some generalized way. But in fact, that's not the case. The Bible is consistent throughout as far as the years of these kings, even using various systems of dating.
So it's because of trying to harmonize the year 7 reference in the Nabonidus Chronicle with year 8 in the Bible that they presume year 19 in one record works as year 18 in another but are still talking about the same year. But you can't count up to the 11th year of Zedekiah when we know precisely when he began his rule, without reaching the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Jehoiakim's rule proves that the accession year, the year Daniel was deported was year 3 of Jehoiakim and his official rule matching Jehoiakim's rule was year 4. So presuming the Bible presumes to use either reference, year 4 of Jehoiakim would be either year 1 or year 2 of Nebuchadnezzar. Year 2 using the accession year as year 1. Thus year 11 of Zedekiah would be year 8 or year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah would have begun his rule, likewise in either year 9 or year 10. So the 11th year of Zedekiah using this alternative dating would have seen the fall of Jerusalem in either year 19 or year 20. 20 years counting from the accession year, 19 years counting from year 1.
So this 18 vs 19 year issue is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Also adding to this is that there indeed was a deportation in the 18th year, but also the 19th year. Some confuse the two. But the numbers of those deported in year 19 are totally different than those deported in year 19.
So the bottom line is, the 18 vs 19 reference has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible definitely dates the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar's accession year system, which alternatively would be year 20 if one presumes his accession year was counted as year 1, not year 18.
Thus the reason for this 18 vs 19 back and forth is because scholars don't accept that there is 1-year discrepancy in the Nabonidus Chronicle versus the Bible. But the Nabonidus Chronicle itself admits it was copied (revised!) in the 22nd year of Darius!! And thus the changes were made during the Persian Period..
So again, if you're going to play the "accesion year" vs "non-accession" year system, then the dates in question would be year 19 vs 20, not 18 vs 19. Since that's not the case, that argument is bogus. But it has nothing to do with anything confusing in the Bible.
JC
-
JCanon
There is a consistent twenty year gap and this problem has not been solved by scholars.
There is no such 20-year gap problem for scholars. The gap is caused by JWs. They are the ones that use 539 BCE as the "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon and thus 537 BCE for the return of the Jews. Nobody told them to use secular dating over Biblical. The Bible dates year 1 of Cyrus in 455 BCE. But because they made that SECULAR choice, then flipped onto their "we believe the Bible over secular" argument, they by necessity from 2 Chronicles 36:20 have to insert 70 years for the "land to pay back its sabbaths". That's where the 20 years comes from. There is 50 years from 587 to 537 and 70 years from 607 BCE. But the 70 years per Josephus begins with the last deportation in year 23. So there is no 20-year issue except for witnesses. The Josephus problem would be a 24-year problem.
But scholarship on this ends once you introduce the VAT4956's dating of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. That's because year 23 will fall in 525BCE. Dating that to the last deportation, Cyrus comes to rule 70 years later in 455 BCE. 455 BCE is the year the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" and thus the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy! Therefore, scholars need not be confused any more. They can use the VAT4956 to redate specifically the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Witnesses create another problem for themselves as well, when they refused to recognize any co-rulerships except one. E.H. Thiele was able to identify the co-rulerships and harmonize them in his "The Amazing Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." The WTS didn't trust this, apparently and end-to-ended all the Judean kingships leaving gaps in the Israelite kingships (interregnums of up to 12 years!!). Thus by the time we get to Solomon secular history and the Bible have about 47 less years in the timeline than JWs do!! That means their dating for Solomon is 67 years earlier than secular history. They date the Exodus to 1513 BCE while secular dates it to 1446 BCE.
So whether the 20-year problem or 24-year problem or 67-year problem, it ALL has to do with the WTS not trusting the Bible first and dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE as does Martin Anstey. Now that the VAT4956 dismisses the 539 BCE dating, the WTS has no "pivotal date" to stand on, and they can't use the Bible's internal timeline to contradict anything since the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455 BCE, the true pivotal date for this period based upon the baptism of Christ.
So "scholars" will continue and always remain "confused" over the chronology until they realize the Persians revised the NB Period and reduced it by 26 years.
In the meantime, Josephus tells us SPECIFICALLY when the 70 years are to begin and end. It begins with the last deportation and when those last deported serve 70 years then it ends in the 1st of Cyrus.
JC
-
Jaakob
I've always thought that there are two 70 year periods that run somewhat parallel to each other. First one from 609bc to 539bc for Babylonia and the second one from 587/6bc to 517/516bc for Jerusalem. The actual exile would then be about 50 years.
I suppose this has been discussed to death before though... -
dawg
Yea Outlaw... he's skipping that one isn't he? And yet he manages to ignore how these same "scholars" have been wrong about everything else.
He's as crazy as a loon! Come on Scholar, can't you name one of these "celebrated scholars"? -
digderidoo
I've always thought that there are two 70 year periods that run somewhat parallel to each other. First one from 609bc to 539bc for Babylonia and the second one from 587/6bc to 517/516bc for Jerusalem. The actual exile would then be about 50 years.
I suppose this has been discussed to death before though...Discussed to death? Here, no way. just go to the search facility and type in 70 years
I find it interesting. When i first set out to look at 587/6 v 607 i didn't realise the subject would be so vast and deep. I am still learning. My next step is to read both Johnson's and Furuli's books.
Paul
...OUTLAW