scholar,
as I mentioned in an earlier post about Rolf Furuli, I have a certain admiration for you guys that are doing the work the WTBTS should be doing. It is quite interesting how they stay away from the subject of Chronology. No direct references are made anymore to actual archaeological texts/documents. Just vague statements. Even the last reference to the appendix of Let your Kingdom come (where at least VAT4956, Ptolemy, etc... were mentioned by name) was eliminated with the revised Revelation book. This definitely does not give them any credit about scholarship.
All references about Chronology are now to the Insight book only, where vague statements are made about the evidence against 607.
That having been said, I feel you have a number of problems to solve, which I'll try to list:
I read many of your past comments (also on other boards, like channelC) and find that you, like the WTBTS, lack of concrete arguments. You hang on a couple of Scriptures and reject everything else without giving proper reason for it. The last example is when you say it is impossible to write an accurate Babylonian king list. Given that statement, I would expect a huge debate among scholars about Neo-Babylonian chronology, which is absolutely not the case. So far I could not find one that disagrees with it.
The Bible is not a book about chronology. Its chronology is totally dependent on secular chronology (I wonder why God did not give more chronological details) and, when it presents dates, is far from being perfect. A good number of scriptures need harmonisation as they apparently seem to contradict themselves. Why should it be taken so strictly when talking about the 70 years of desolation?
If it wasn’t for the JW prophecy about the 7 times (which is not directly mentioned in the Bible as a prophecy); would JW’s still be advertising that 607 BCE is the date of Jerusalem destruction?
Besides posting here, I have you seriously challenged scholars about the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology? What was their response?
If you reject about 90% of the accepted secular chronology, insisting on the 70 years of destruction for Jerusalem, on what basis you chose where to start and to end them? Or you want to tell me that what the WTBTS has published on this point corresponds to serious scholarship? w86 11/1 p. 6 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is - When Did the “Seven Times” Really End?
Some people argue that even if the “seven times” are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of “the time of the end” by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. (“Let Your Kingdom Come,” pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or any other year for that matter—has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?
Scholarship is about ascertaining facts to establish the truth, not to start from the “truth” and work out the facts in favour of it and reject everything else.
If the WTBTS spreads new light about chronology, you will have to retreat all that you have been saying so far (some people will have to rewrite their websites ), that is why it is generally not appreciated that you make a defence for them
