i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
joey jojo
Jeremiah 25 is the major prophecy of desolation of the land of Judah, its city, Jerusalem and Temple along with being brought into Exile and serving Babylon for and at Babylon for 70 years. Daniel 9:2 quoting Jeremiah's prophecy refers to Jerusalem as the city and 2Chron.36:17-19;23 again in context with that same prophecy of Jeremiah refer also to the Temple and its later restoration after the 70 years.
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
joey jojo
You need to commit to a careful use of Exegesis in relation to your interpretation of Jeremiah 25:8-12 for a careful reading of that pericope and surrounding context beginning with verse 1 clearly indicates that the 70 year period was for the Jews and Judah alone with its city and temple to be desolated for 70 years, exiled for 70 years in Babylon and in servitude to Babylon for that same period of 70 years
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
notsurewheretogo
In order to answer your question you should consult with WT publications which have nicely addressed your question for that is the place to go!!!!
Chronology is not a static subject and like all other areas of knowledge is subject to change so WT scholars have seen reason to make an adjustment for that is what scholarship does for it moves forward.
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
Hi Doug
The establishment of 539 BCE as the date for the Fall of Babylon and as Pivotal date for the dating of the OT is based on known secular sources and the Biblical record so that means that such a date cannot be constructed independently of known and recognized sources as documented in WT publications. However, in keeping with the thesis of Rodger Young's article it is all about METHODOLOGY and that is why our Chronology is different to other scholars.
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
Finkelstein
WT Chronology embraces all of the facts, biblical, historical, secular and textual evidence for nothing is omitted or ignored. The facts pertaining to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar are well attested in the Bible and these form the basis of our wondrous Bible Chronology and this is well verified by the fulfilment prophecy culminating to the year 1914 CE
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
Hi Doug
Alan F's article is simply a summary of 4 differing methodologies in trying to resolve the still remaining dilemma of the 586/7 debate and that remains the problem of METHODOLOGY. The celebrated WT scholars have adopted a very different methodology in not being hamstrung by differing and competing calendrical systems used at that time. Our methodology fully accounts for the 70 years of Jeremiah which allows the fixing of positive dates for positive events making it easy to ascribe biblical events to a modern scheme of Bible Chronology.
scholar JW emeritus
i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .
these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.
(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.
Doug Mason
Hi Doug
Actually, Young's article proves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem as the only viable candidate for that event and demonstrates the wisdom and methodology used by the celebrated WT scholars during the forties. It was the said scholar who first introduced Young's scholarship to this forum many years ago and scholar did so because the article demonstrates the role of Methodology in developing a Bible Chronology. the article which is difficult for most readers to understand does not resolve the confusion about the 586/587 debate which remains even to this day a sore point for historians and scholars. Young's article is simply a hypothesis and therein lies the problem whereas WT Bible Chronology is easily understood, simple and is based on all biblical, secular and historical data. in short, it works and works well because it makes Bible prophecy intelligible.
scholar JW emeritus
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Doug Mason
The URL link for Eusebius does not work as I get an Error 404 message on both my Internet Explorer and Googler Chrome browser.
scholar
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Doug Mason
Most certainly as the Society's response covers the matter clearly:
Thus, while these ancient writers may not have been fully accurate in all the particulars, they do all agree on one point, namely, that the Jews were in captivity for 70 years, and some of these indicate that Jerusalem was desolate for the entire period.
scholar
in their letter to lobsto regarding the neo-babylonian chronology, the wts wrote the following regarding the early church fathers:.
less than 200 years after josephus, several early church writers clearly accepted that the length of the desolation or exile was 70 years, and no one gives any other length for this event.
for instance, tatian the assyrian (110 to 172 c.e.
Doug Mason
The references to the seventy years by the Church Fathers set out in the Society's reply to Lobsto and your quotations certainly confirm our interpretation of those seventy years as being a period of Exile, Desolation of the Land and Servitude to Babylon. You have misread or failed to understand the sources provided or you have your own agenda in this matter. Our vies is also supported by the Jewish Historian, Josephus and the Church Historian, Eusebius but the latter link for Eusebius does not appear to work so if you can post the quotation it would be appreciated without your comment on that quote.
scholar
