Your claim that 609 is accepted by most scholars as the end of the Assyrian Empire is simply false as there is no agreement within scholarship about this event.
You are saying that because not all scholars agree, then most don't agree? Basis?
Reference works give a number of dates and it seems that 612 for the Fall of Nineveh is the most popular for the end of the Assyrian Empire.
612 is accepted for fall of Nineveh. At that point Harran become Assyria's capital. Most historians agree with that, thought not all agree that Assyria was necessarily still an 'empire' as such. Even if no significant historical event occurred in 609, it would still be the year arrived at when adding 70 to the year in which Babylon was 'called to account'. It just so happens that something considered to be significant to many historians did occur in that year.
This is of sourse is a mighty deathblow for the absurd Jonsson hypothesis which favours 609 but then it also recognizes the validity of 605 for the beginning of the seventy years.
Hardly a mighty blow. I do not accept 605, and I do my own research rather than relying on what you like to call the 'Jonsson hypothesis'.
This dispute highlights one of the three problems that apostate and secular chronology have to contend namely a certain or definite date for the beginning of the seventy years which they cannot provide. Celebrated WT scholars have no such problem because wed have established a definite beginning of the seventy years with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
There you go with the 'celebrated WT scholars' again. Do you have a shortcut key set up for that or something?? Historically the Watchtower Society has vacillated between 607 and 606 but that's another issue. The date the Watchtower Society has chosen has a flawed basis. Rather than arrogantly select exact dates where sufficient evidence does not exist, genuine scholars accept that there may be some variance in dates attributed to events. It does not make them invalid.
There is no such conflict between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 because bothe texts are discussing different historical events. The former text uses the time feature of an event during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer and the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim when the exiles were taken to Babylon. The latter simply describes an historical event in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzer whereupon Jeremiah prophesied to those inhabitants in Judah and Jerusalem. These clearly are not coincidental events but the latter event proceeded the former in time and place.
That's the unnecessarily complicated interpretation of the Society , but it is to defend their skewed chronology (and confuses many Witnesses). The actual, simpler explanation for the supposed discrepancy is that Daniel - in Babylon - uses the accession year system and Jeremiah does not. Therefore Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (no year given) is Jehoiakim's 3rd year; and Jeremiah says that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 1st year when Jehoiakim was in his 4th year. They are both talking about the same year.
The prophecy or oracle in Isaiah 23 speaks of a seventy year period for Tyre and was clearly fulfilled when Babylon was destroyed in 539. This seventy year obviously is not identical with the seventy years for Judah and Jerusalem as referred to by Daniel, Jeremiah, Zecharian and the Chronicler.
Isaiah's Prophecy - Light for all Manking page 253: "Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble."
No, celebrated WT scholars
There's that shortcut key again
are not plaqued
That's twice now. I think you mean 'plagued'.
by the chronological problems that beset the Jonsson hypothesis and secular chronology because our chronology is simple, Bible based and is an event- based chronology because our methodology is different and superior.
Have you got 'Jonsson hypothesis' on another shortcut key? The chronology I have arrived at is definitely superior to the Society hypothesis because it is simple, without funny 'rule relative to vassalage' things. My chronology is bible based, without the conflict between Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31) and co-incidentally matches secular dating, making it even more superior to the 'Society hypothesis'.
I say once again that if you wish attack our chronology then you should get your own house in order first and that also applies to the apostate Carl Jonsson and his ilk.
And I say again that my 'house' is 'in order', regardless of whatever 'ilk' you want to insult. You can't just say that everything else is the 'Jonsson hypothesis' and therefore wrong. I do my own research (using nasty apostate sources like Watchtower publications and the British Museum) and make my own findings.
