The date 539 is derived from a Absolute date which is astronomically fixed. So, 539 technically speaking can only be a pivotal date derived from a fixed or absolute date.
Fine. That astronomically-fixed date being 523 BC.
Howecer, 539 is the best pivotal date for the purposes of chronology because it is an event which is well based on the biblical and secular history.
The chronology is anchored in astronomically-fixed absolute dates. Derived dates, however historically significant (e.g. pivotal in history) are still derived from them.
What more momentous event could there be then the Fall of a World Power and its impact on God's people.
What more momentous event for God's people could there be than the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple! Don't you believe that it is the "pivotal event" that starts the 70 years? Don't you believe that it is the "pivotal event" that starts the centuries of Gentile Times that leads all the way down to 1914? I would think that you would be consistent.
Nevertheless, as I pointed out above, derived dates are still derived dates. If we're talking about chronology, the absolute dates that are used to derive the "pivotal" dates are what matters.
Your proposal of 587 as an absolute date is impossible because it is not astronomically fixed
LMAO! Here you're trying to use your own inconsistency against me! You were the one who was calling 539 BC an absolute date and I was the one who pointed out that it was not astronomically fixed. I said that if 539 BC is an absolute date as you claimed it to be, then 587 BC should equally be considered an absolute date. Now you conveniently switch positions and declare a "fundamental difference" between absolute and pivotal dates, refer to 539 BC as a pivotal date, and say that I "proposed" 587 BC as a genuine absolute date when it really is not. You're actually making my exact point. If 587 BC is not an absolute date, than your own proposal of 539 BC is equally "impossible becuase it is not astronomically fixed".
so at best it could only serve as a pivotal date dependent on that later astronomically fixed date of 568 BC.
Right, and likewise, 539 BC is at best only a pivotal date dependent on that earlier astronomically fixed date of 523 BC. My point: What's the difference? Why are you starting your chronology with one astronomically-fixed date and not the other? Apparently you still don't get my point. Note too that 587 BC is straightforwardly derived from the astronomically-fixed date of 568 BC. In fact, the derivation is simpler because both dates occur within the reign of the same king and we don't have to keep track of other reigns as we need to do to get to 539 BC.
I prefer classifying 539 as a Absolute Date rather than as a pivotal date because of its theological significance and its relevance to OT chronolgy. But this is my personal opinion on the matter.
Whoa, now you suddenly turn the tables again! You start out saying that there is a "fundamental difference" between pivotal and absolute dates and conclude that it is impossible that 587 BC is an absolute date because it is not astronomically fixed. Fine. Now you jettison that distinction entirely and treat 539 BC as an absolute date anyway because of its "theologial significance" .... how is that a defining property of absolute dates??? This is special pleading of the worst sort.
Not only that, but you also indulge in circular reasoning in referring to 539's "relevance to OT chronology". It only has that relevance after you have already chosen another date, 523 BC, as date to fix your chronology, to derive 539 BC as the date to fix the terminus of the 70 years two years later. If we choose a different absolute date to fix your chronology, 568 BC, and apply the very same interpretation of the 70 years to get to the last year of Zedekiah (i.e. the Watchtower Society's interpretation), we are now talking about 519 as the fall of Babylon and 517 BC as the terminus of the 70 years. With 568 BC as the anchor date (and with the Watchtower interpretation of the 70 years), 539 BC is meaningless. The only reason why 539 BC has any significance for you is that you have already a priori selected 523 BC as the astronomically-fixed anchor date.
Which brings me to my main point...
Your interpretation of the seventy years is problematic and renders the fulfillment of that prohecy sterile and meaningless. The seventy year was marked by exile, servitude and desolation powerfully presented by Jeremiah and that is why that the seventy yeras could only have begun with the dramatic fall of Jerusalem and their dramatic returm from exile.
This is false...I made no contrary interpretation of the seventy years; I simply employed your very own interpretation of the 70 years. The only difference was the date one chooses to fix the rest of the chronology. And my point, which you still have not acknowledged, is that there is no inherent conflict between 587 BC and your interpretation of the 70 years. You continually talk as if there was such a conflict. But logically, one could start of with 568 BC just as you start off with 523 BC, and derive 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall and a terminus of the 70 years just as you derive 537 BC as a terminus of the 70 years on the basis of 523 BC (which is the basis for both 539 BC and 537 BC), and come up with a chronology that has both (1) 587 BC as the date of Jerusalem's fall and (2) the interpretation of the 70 years which you so love and prefer. Both in complete harmony. And since the "Bible" trumps all other secular evidence (as you say it does with the admittedly "overwhelming" secular evidence for the length of the Neo-Babylonian period), it doesn't matter at all that the chronology of the Persian period is now some 20 years off from what can be otherwise established through secular evidence. It doesn't matter at all how overwhelming the evidence is otherwise that Babylon fell in 539 BC, because at least we can maintain the 70 years as running from the date of Jerusalem's fall to the end of the captivity. All the other secular evidence does not matter, and it is also consistent with the biblical evidence of the Persian period which is relative and not astronomically-based. I honestly don't see how this is any different than what you are doing with respect to the overwhelming evidence for Jerusalem's fall in 587 BC. I see it as different sides of the same token.
