aqwsed12345
Claim1.
You claim that because some scholars debate whether the 70 years began in 605 or 609 BCE, secular chronology is uncertain. This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of historical chronology. Scholarly debates about minor details (such as whether the start date for Babylon's dominance is precisely 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, or 605 BCE after Carchemish) reflect healthy scholarly inquiry into specific events. Such small variances are common in ancient history and are measured in just a few years. However, no reputable historian places Jerusalem's destruction outside of the clearly established range of 586/587 BCE because multiple independent lines of evidence (Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical texts, archaeological layers, and Persian, Greek, and Egyptian records) converge powerfully upon this date. The JW position (607 BCE) demands a full 20-year distortion, not a minor scholarly debate of 3 or 4 years. Such a large distortion is historically impossible given the wealth of independent evidence.
---
The fact is that the 70 years is a definite period of history; thus, it would require a definite beginning and end. Yet scholars who are critical of the JW's viewpoint of 70 years cannot agree on whether the 70 years began in 606 or 609 BCE. Is this sound scholarship?
You talk about there is abundant evidence against 607, so if this is true, then why can you not provide a single or ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
----
Claim 2
You state Jeremiah’s prophecy relates exclusively to Judah and its exile.Jeremiah explicitly includes multiple nations ("these nations") serving Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11), indicating Babylonian regional dominance, not exclusively Judah’s exile or land desolation. Jeremiah 29:10 explicitly says after Babylon's 70-year domination ends, Judah would return. Historical records show Babylon fell precisely in 539 BCE, Cyrus issued the decree in 538 BCE (historically verified by the Cyrus Cylinder), and the Jews returned shortly thereafter—not arbitrarily delayed until 537 BCE as your chronology imposes without evidence. The JW interpretation artificially isolates Judah, ignoring biblical wording and historical evidence.
----
You ignore what Jeremiah explicitly states in order to support your opinion. Your interpretation artificially isolates Judah, ignoring biblical wording and historical evidence.
--
Claim 3
You assert Babylon’s judgment began only after the Jews returned in 537 BCE. Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly states Babylon’s punishment would begin "when seventy years are completed." Babylon lost its political sovereignty precisely in 539 BCE with Cyrus's conquest, marking the exact end of Babylon’s dominance as prophesied. Your argument confuses Babylon’s political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation over centuries. Jeremiah’s prophecy refers directly to political overthrow, fulfilled immediately upon Babylon's fall in 539 BCE, confirmed historically and biblically.
--
The completion of the 70 years was not at the Fall of Babylon for the Jews were still captive in Babylon in Exile. Ezra in 2 Chron. 36: 22 ends the 70 years discussed in vs. 21 to that of the the 1st year of Cyrus who uttered the Decree which would end the Exile allowing the Jews to return home in 537 BCE.
--
Claim 4
Josephus confirms the WT interpretation of the 70 years as to its nature and chronology.
Archaeology confirms the biblical fact that Judah and its surrounds were desolate for a period of time and usually dates the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 and not 587 BCE
Astronomy- Recently published research by scholars has shown that the traditional chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Period is false and that the VAT4956 clay tablet proves 607 BCE rather than 586 or 587 based on the Neb's 37 year. You will be pleased to know that the said scholar was responsible for the first translation from German to English of VAT 4956. Thus, scholar has some skin in the game.
Claim 5.
You question Nebuchadnezzar’s reign continuity, asking rhetorically about his alleged "missing years." Babylonian historical and administrative records show continuous documentation through Nebuchadnezzar’s entire 43-year reign (605–562 BCE). Daniel 4 describes a temporary period of incapacity, but never loss of the throne or administrative discontinuity. No historical record suggests a vacancy in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Your claim of "missing years" is completely invented, unsupported by any ancient source, and directly contradicted by continuous contemporary Babylonian texts
-- Where are the records of Neb's vacancy in his reign because Daniel makes reference to the fact that there was a 'circular letter' sent everywhere in all languages to all peoples, countries and peoples. Dan.4:34,b.c. ?
Claim 6.
You demand proof that Carl Olof Jonsson addresses Judah’s exile. Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR) explicitly and extensively analyzes the exile as integral to the 70-year prophecy. He demonstrates conclusively the exile's compatibility with the historically verified Babylonian domination period (609–539 BCE). Your claim that Jonsson "ignored exile" reveals you either haven’t carefully read Jonsson’s thorough scholarship or deliberately misrepresent his detailed discussion of exile and desolation.
--
Nonsense. Jonsson does not discuss the 70 years as an Exile and does not even discuss the subject of the Exile. I have several editions of GTR, even an autographed copy of his Third edition and have read it from cover to cover. Give me the page numbers where he discusses the exile'
---
Claim 7
You repeat the claim that counting back 70 years from a supposed 537 BCE return yields 607 BCE exactly. The Bible and historical records explicitly date Babylon’s fall to 539 BCE, Cyrus's decree in 538 BCE, and return shortly thereafter. There's no historical reason to artificially delay two years to 537 BCE. Counting back exactly 70 years from the historically confirmed decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE clearly places the beginning of Babylon’s supremacy around 609 BCE, precisely matching Nabopolassar’s final defeat of Assyria at Harran, not 607 BCE. Your arbitrary insertion of an unsupported two-year delay is purely doctrinal, not historical or biblical.
--
But nothing happened of any significance in relation to Judah in 609 BC, for nothing happened of any significance until Neb invaded Judah in his 7th year- 617 BCE and 18th -607 BCE. The latter conquest began the 70 years of Exile.
Claim 8
You claim Jeremiah’s multiple deportations (597, 586, 582 BCE) confirm your 70-year exile. Jeremiah’s multiple deportations explicitly contradict the JW claim of total desolation from exactly 607 BCE onward. Clearly, the land was inhabited and not entirely desolate after 607 BCE. These deportations confirm precisely the historically accepted scholarly scenario: a prolonged Babylonian subjugation culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction in 586/587 BCE, not total immediate desolation in 607 BCE.
--
Not at all. The deportations of Neb and during his reign are all in context with the historical summary of events in Judah described in Jer. 52 mirrored by 2ki. 25. wherein both accounts begin from Zedekiah's 9th year right through to Jehoiachin's 37th year in Exile.Such deportations are characteristic of the fact the Exile was of 70 years beginning during Zedekiah's and Neb's reigns and ending during the reign of Cyrus .
Claim 9
You claim scholars arbitrarily "invented" 609 BCE. The date 609 BCE is explicitly documented in multiple independent ancient Babylonian Chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). Assyria’s defeat, Egyptian interventions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns against Harran are clearly dated historically and archaeologically. No modern interpolation occurred. Your claim of "arbitrariness" ignores the historical evidence from the Babylonian Chronicles.
--
No. Scholars arbitrarily inserted not invented and it is simply inserted into discussions of these documents in harmony with their Chronology.
Claim 10
You claim JW chronology is validated by modern scholarship and history. No reputable historian, archaeologist, or astronomer supports the JW chronology (607 BCE). JW chronology has been repeatedly and comprehensively disproven by overwhelming evidence from Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and astronomical sources. The date 1914 CE, dependent solely on your false 607 BCE date, therefore collapses entirely, exposed as historically untenable.
--
Truth is never dependent on popular or majority opinion and there are scholars from various disciplines who support and can prove the validity of 607 BCE.If your claim that JW Chronology has been repeatedly and comprehensively disproven by such overwhelming evidence from multiple sources then why is it the case that you cannot and will not provide ONE single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE? If you cannot or will not do this then your claim is false and simply amounts to ignorance and foolishness.
Answer to Challenge:
Your response is VAT 4956. But how does this tablet refute 607 BCE when all that it is about are observations during the Neb's 37 year, which is open to interpretation and recent research shows that there is another viable interpretation of the astronomical data, which makes any viewpoint at this stage tentative.for pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Conclusion:
Your arguments consistently rely upon selective quotations, misrepresentation, outdated assertions, invented scenarios, and disregard for established historical, archaeological, and astronomical facts.--
No You are looking for excuses. Remember that right from Charles Russell's earliest writings on Chronology, facts in relation to Chronology have always been presented to the public, and our Chronology has stood the test of time and is securely based on the Bible.
--
The scholarly consensus, supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, remains irrefutably that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE.
--
More correctly -'multiple independent lines of opinion', not ONE line of evidence has ever been presented by scholars in refutation of 607 BCE. Such an hypothesis has been falsified by the 70 years of Jeremiah.
--
Your challenge for "one line of evidence" has been conclusively answered: VAT 4956 alone disproves your chronology decisively and unambiguously. Your repeated assertions are thus thoroughly and conclusively refuted.
--
The best response to my challenge is VAT 4956 which is subject to interpretation and subject to analysis showing that its interpretation is questionable with another serious alternative. The jury is still out on VAT 4956
scholar JW
