billythekid46:
Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG,
You could. However the timeline you offered is not supported by the actual source material, and is based on fundamental errors relating to dating systems. Whilst anyone can suggest any old absolute years, your timeline does not correctly represent the relative time periods either.
which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who?
I have considered the material from scratch, relying on the source materials (the Bible, the works of Josephus, Babylonian chronicles, etc) rather than interpretations of later historians. (However, I have also considered later sources and found them to agree.)
If the information in the Bible is reliable, the timeline I have provided is correct. If the information in the Bible is not reliable, it doesn't matter anyway.
So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC
This is merely an attempt to 'make' '70 years' 'fit' from '607' until '537'. Except 537 is wrong anyway, because comparison of Ezra and Josephus indicates 538 to be the year in which Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Additionally, it's a misrepresentation of what the '70 years' were about, which was a period of Babylonian dominance over all the nations, and not a period of exile or dominance over Jews. (Also, comparison of LXX and later manuscripts indicates that the specific period of '70 years' was written in later rather than being 'prophetic'.)