scholiar:
Your table is simply a contrivance designed to mislead the gullible and further it is not scholarship because it is simply a copy of others chronology.
You keep jumping between saying my chart is not consistent with other scholars and saying it's a copy of others' work. As usual, you don't make sense.
Our computation of the Ezekiel's 390 years is simply taken from the year for the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in 997 BCE adding up all of the regnal years of the respective kings of Judah which ammounts to 390 years thus reaching the end at 607 BCE. No manufacturing or manipulation is required for the numbers simply fall into place.
Again, you keep saying 'our', but you are just a Watch Tower crony with no original thought of your own. The Watch Tower Society's chronology is full of "manufacturing and manipulation". The overarching manipulation is to 'force' a fit of superstitious JW numerology regarding 607 and 1914. However, there are various aspects of manipulation.
- Spurious periods added before Zechariah and Hoshea.
- Generally denying co-regencies, but allowing one co-regency for the entire period.
- Shifting reigns for Egypt, Assyria & Babylon to fit JW chronology (but with no specific years provided), saying every secular source on the subject 'must be wrong'.
- Redistribution of a spurious period prior to Uzziah (from 1944 JW chronology) into smaller less noticable discrepancies of a year each.
- Randomly switching between dating systems to 'explain' various inconsistencies.
- Counting years of reign from the point of 'vassalage', with no support from any source.
- Beyond one-year differences due to inconsistent use of dating systems, inability to reconcile 2 Kings 3:1, 2 Kings 15:1, 2 Kings 17:1.
- Distorted order and placement of events involving Daniel.
- Distorted placement of events of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign.
- Ignoring context of Jeremiah chapters 25-29.
There's a lot more that could be said, but that's sufficient for now.
Stern's article was straightforward and so was the specific reference chosen by the WT writers. Stern does not endorse WT chronology but certainly does agree that during the Babylonian period the land was desolated.
The only correct parts of your statements there is that Stern's article was straightforward and that Stern does not endorse WT chronology.
The only difference apart from the dates is that Stern finds no evidence for the complete dehabitation but you would not expect any other result from archaeology.
Basically, the 'only' difference is that what Stern said is fundamentally different to what the Watch Tower Society claims.
