Splash
So I pointed out that using the Insight chronology (not really my methodology to be fair) of one king after another, using the Insight volume reign lengths, Jerusalem fell in 587BCE.
---
Therein lies your problem because you have chosen a specific methodology that has produced a widely different result. By constructing a scheme of Chronology based on the backward computation of the reigns of the N B Period you get 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem base dom material in the Insight volumes. I get that!.
However, if using the same methodology by means of counting back using the regnal data- reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy as published in that same volume then you get 607 BCE. Do you get it?
---
Where do these extra 70 years that you insist on come in, in the Insight books?
I went back and reread them and no kings were missing and there was no mention of dropping in an extra 70 years somewhere or other.
---
Are you now saying that there is no mention of the 70 years in the Insight volumes or in the Bible? The 70 years of desolation and exile are indeed associated with the reigns of Zedekiah, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in connection with what happened to Jerusalem, its Temple and Land of Judah. In fact, Jeremiah, when first introduces the '70 years as prophecy, was first revealed in King Jehoiakim's 4th year- Jer.25:1 In short, the factoring in of the 70 years as a historical event is the most significant factor when constructing a Chronology for this period of OT history and aits omission into any modern scheme of Chronology renders such a Chronology as false, inaccurate and misleading.
--
Are the Insight books wrong or missing something, because the simple sums from there lead me to 587BCE?
---
The Insight volumes omit nothing and are correct in being faithful to the Bible. What is missing is your thinking, just think about what you are reading.
scholar JW