Rattigan350:
Zedekiah has nothing to do with the Gentile times.'scholar':
Your argument about the Russell and the zero year is inapplicable as the issue at hand does not cross over from the BC to CE era.Notice how the apologists do not understand how events are interrelated, largely owing to the fact that they learn their chronological beliefs by rote rather than by analysis. So if their version of the story about, for example, a particular king doesn't explicitly reference some other theme in their dogma, it is considered irrelevant (which protects their cognitive dissonance). In this case, it is particularly flawed because the calendation for Zedekiah directly influences the timing of their supposed start of the 'gentile times' (setting aside the fact that the 'appointed times of the nations' is identified as 42 months at Revelation 11:2 in reference to the Roman assault on Jerusalem).
'scholar':
Nowhere does the WT Society insist on certain calendar systems are applicable for we have always recognized that for OT Chronology both a Tishri/ Nisan or Spring/Autumn calendars were used in ancient Palestine.Of course the Watch Tower Society won't get specific about the calendar systems, because their position cannot be established when properly analysed. It is therefore in their interests to be vague. However, its flawed chronology of both the Neo-Babylonian period and the entire divided monarchy does assume Nisan calendation, with arbitrary switches between accession and non-accession dating (for example, Insight volume 1, pages 464-5: Asa's rule 'evidently' counts from following year, Jehoshaphat's rule 'evidently' counts from following year, Ahaziah's reign 'may count' from following year, 'it seems' Jehu's 'years of kingship' begin the following year, 'it seems' that Menahem's reign is counted from the following year).
'scholar':
Your tabulation of four assumptions illustrates the dilemma that you have created for yourself.There is no dilemma for me here (and this doesn't describe a dilemma anyway). The 'four assumptions' I listed are assumptions inherent in your position (and they still don't support JW chronology of the 'gentile times' when examined properly). I have established by analysis rather than assumption that:
- The authors of Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah & Jeremiah use Tishri/non-accession dating for Judah
- The authors of Kings & Chronicles use Nisan/non-accession dating for Israel
- The authors of Kings and Jeremiah use Nisan/non-accession dating for Babylon (apart from the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30, which use Nisan/accession dating)
- The author of Ezekiel uses Tishri-based years of exile
- The authors of Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah (apart from 1:1, which doesn't name a king and may be a copyist's error), Esther and Daniel use Nisan/accession dating for Persia
- The author of Daniel uses Nisan/accession dating for Judah and for Babylon (except at 9:1-2 & 11:1 where 'Darius' can only be reconciled with a temporary governor before the arrival of Cyrus and has no accession period).
Where a book is not listed above for a particular combination, the author does not specify any years of reign for that kingdom. For example, Isaiah does not specify any years of reign for a king of Israel.