Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Chronological notes

    The Babylonian Chronicles give 2 Adar (16 March), 597 BC, as the date that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, thus putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin . [3] Zedekiah's installation as king by Nebuchadnezzar can therefore be firmly dated to the early spring of 597 BC. Historically there has been considerable controversy over the date when Jerusalem was captured the second time and Zedekiah's reign came to an end. There is no dispute about the month: it was the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6). The problem has been to determine the year. It was noted above that Albright preferred 587 BC and Thiele advocated 586 BC, and this division among scholars has persisted until the present time. If Zedekiah's years are by accession counting, whereby the year he came to the throne was considered his "zero" year and his first full year in office, 597/596, was counted as year one, Zedekiah's eleventh year, the year the city fell, would be 587/586. Since Judean regnal years were measured from Tishri in the fall, this would place the end of his reign and the capture of the city in the summer of 586 BC. Accession counting was the rule for most, but not all, of the kings of Judah, whereas "non-accession" counting was the rule for most, but not all, of the kings of Israel. [2] [4]

    The publication of the Babylonian Chronicles in 1956, however, gave evidence that the years of Zedekiah were measured in a non-accession sense. This reckoning makes year 598/597 BC, the year Zedekiah was installed by Nebuchadnezzar according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar, to be year "one," so that the fall of Jerusalem in his eleventh year would have been in year 588/587 BC, i.e. in the summer of 587 BC. The Bablyonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and they also give the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, which was the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. These Babylonian records related to Jehoiachin's reign are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 but not in 586, as explained in the Jehoiachin/Jeconiah article, thus vindicating Albright's date. Nevertheless, scholars who assume that Zedekiah's reign should be calculated by accession reckoning will continue to adhere to the 586 date, and so the infobox contains this as an alternative.

  • Ethos
    Ethos

    Cant help but wonder why it requires two to three posts of cut and paste every page if this is supposed to be a discussion. Stop the red herrings and simply discuss information like normal people. Geez. Havent responded lately because I expected to receive more posts once I surpassed 100. Guess not.

  • Pterist
    Pterist

    JEFFRO *** There is no reason to believe that Daniel thought, "I'd better start praying now because Babylon was just called to account, and I've been in Babylon for 80 years*, so the 70 years must end in two more years."***

    You obviously misunderstood what I said, I dont have your gift of elogence :), He realized From the only information available to him namely Jeremiah's letter* that mentioned the 70 years for Babylon, and that stage he was in Exile for almost 70 years as he was in the first deportation before Jechoniah's group that came later. So obviously if the WTS dates were used he would have been there all most 90 years. 606-539= 67, 626-539 =87

    * He only had Jeremiah's letter, the Chronicles was not ever written until around 450 BC.

  • Pterist
    Pterist

    JEFFRO ...hold off on the friendly fire ....I'm on your side of this specific debate.

  • Pterist
    Pterist

    JEFFRO ..sorry if WTS was correct 80 years, but not,....606-539= 67, 619- 539 = 80

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Cant help but wonder why it requires two to three posts of cut and paste every page if this is supposed to be a discussion. Stop the red herrings and simply discuss information like normal people. Geez. Havent responded lately because I expected to receive more posts once I surpassed 100. Guess not.

    And yet you waste one of your limited posts on this drivel??

    I've told you before that you haven't presented any new arguments, so it's entirely unsurprising that I have been able to restate things I've said previously. And you've made it quite clear that you don't want to 'simply discuss information', particularly in view of your own repetetive copy-and-pastes of assertions, without providing any evidence to support your position, or any evidence to counter the evidence provided by others.

    Still no substantiation of your claim that I plagiarised Jonsson either.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    You obviously misunderstood what I said, I dont have your gift of elogence :), He realized From the only information available to him namely Jeremiah's letter* that mentioned the 70 years for Babylon, and that stage he was in Exile for almost 70 years as he was in the first deportation before Jechoniah's group that came later.

    I understood what you said, but the suggestion about '70 years of exile' is just wrong. Jeremiah never said anything about 70 years of exile. In any case, the same problem exists for the conclusion that Daniel had by then been in exile for 66 years (605*-539). There's no reason why Daniel would suddenly start praying if he had reason to believe there were 4 years of exile remaining.

    *Daniel was actually taken February 604BCE, but it was the year starting Nisan 605BCE.

    JEFFRO ...hold off on the friendly fire ....I'm on your side of this specific debate.

    Sorry if this appears to be the case. The apologist has already demonstrated that if another person says any particular thing (or he just makes up that another person said something like he did with AnnOMaly), then he also attacks what I say on the basis that I allegedly agree with others who state something that appears to contradict something else I've said. I will therefore point out any errors as I see them so my position is clear.

  • Pterist
    Pterist

    JEFFRO **** then he also attacks what I say on the basis that I allegedly agree with others who state something that appears to contradict something else I've said. I will therefore point out any errors as I see them so my position is clear.***

    Well it looks like we are all in safe hands with you and Ethos controlling the debate here. I'll get out the popcorn and just look on.

    Shalom.

  • soft+gentle
    soft+gentle

    17 pages

    ethos, imo, you haven't proved that anti 607 rebuttals are wrong. What you have done is provide better (but not completely convincing as your rebutters have shown here) reasons for 607 BCE than the society. So who has new light you or the WTS?

  • Ethos
    Ethos

    Alas, I will now prove what I have said conclusively.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit