Jeffro
f that’s what you’re after, just stop reading after the first bit of evidence
--
Which is?
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
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
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
Whenever ‘scholar’ plays this tedious game after already having been given mountains of evidence, it always reminds me of the “What have the Roman’s ever done for us?” scene from Life of Brian.
--
It is not a game but a simple request. You have a website with mountains of information. Despite this abundant knowledge, you are unable or refuse to simply provide ONE line of evidence that refutes or disproves 607 BCE.
Shame on you.
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
KalebOutWest
I gave you many lines of evidence.
--
That is not what I asked. What I ask from you is simply ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
It hardly matters. My assessment of the sources is factually robust, and I’m aware of the fallacious appeal to tradition that leads some to cling to the incorrect year.
--
It matters to aqwsed12345.Seeing that the sources are robust could you then provide ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BE?
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Duran
hey already don't have it, that's why Scholar won't/can't answer this:
Scholar always responds but will not respond to nonsense. Can you provide ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
KalebOutWest
So much has already been provided. You can provide God from heaven to tell you that it's not true and you would spit in God's face and call God a liar. Why?
- I have made the challenge to all critics of 607 BCE as the date for the Fall of Jerusalem sofar you have not been able to provide ONE line of evidence that would disprove 607 BCE
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
aqwsed12345
Claim 1.
This argument is logically flawed. Scholarly disagreement over whether the Babylonian domination began precisely in 609 or 605 BCE does not indicate ignorance or uncertainty about the destruction date of Jerusalem itself. All credible historical and archaeological evidence conclusively establishes 586/587 BCE as the destruction date of Jerusalem, with extensive documentation through Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical tablets (VAT 4956), archaeological excavation layers, and corroborative Persian, Egyptian, and Greek records.
The JW assertion that disagreement on whether the Babylonian domination started in 609 or 605 BCE invalidates scholarly chronology entirely is untenable. Such minor disagreement (within a 3–4 year range) in no way supports a 607 BCE destruction date, a claim completely lacking historical, archaeological, and astronomical support. The Watchtower’s date (607 BCE) is not "biblical certainty"; it is a doctrinal invention contradicted by every credible historical record.
-
Disagree. The dates 605 and 609 BCE are used by scholars to begin the 70 years which is very relevant for any scheme of Chronology which covers this late period of the Judean Monarchy prior to its end. Such confusion stands in contrast to that of 607 BCE which is a definite date for the 70 years.
--
Claim 2.
Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly includes "these nations" in the 70-year prophecy, which indicates regional Babylonian supremacy, not just Judah’s exile. The JW argument artificially isolates Judah, ignoring explicit biblical references to the wider region.
Jeremiah 29:10 indeed foretells a return after 70 years are completed, precisely upon Babylon’s defeat (539 BCE), not two years later (537 BCE). Cyrus’s decree, historically confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, occurred shortly after Babylon's fall in 538 BCE, fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. The JW insistence on a 537 BCE fulfillment ignores historical data, arbitrarily imposing an unnecessary two-year gap between Babylon’s fall and the end of the 70 years.
--
Both texts in Jeremiah are descriptive of the events prior to the 70 years during and after the 70 years and pertain to Judah and its inhabitants in Jerusalem by means and under Babylon's supremacy over the region.
--
Claim 3.
This argument confuses Babylon’s immediate fall and political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation of the city, which took centuries. Jeremiah 25:12 states explicitly that punishment begins after the 70 years end, referring clearly to Babylon's political fall. Babylon ceased being sovereign precisely in 539 BCE, fulfilling the immediate judgment. Physical destruction occurred progressively much later under Persian and Greek rule, not linked explicitly to the 70-year prophecy’s termination date.
The JW argument mistakenly conflates Babylon’s immediate political fall with its later physical desolation, misinterpreting biblical prophecy.
--
This is simply your interpretation. Jeremiah clearly states after the 70 years were fulfilled Babylon would receive its judgement by means of destruction.and commenced after the jews returned in 537 BCE.
--
Claim 4.
Josephus indirectly supports 607 by his description and timing of the 70 years.
Archaeology finds evidence that Judah was desolate during the Neo-Babylonian period and supports 586 rather than 587 so you have two problems here.
Astronomy by means of recent published research on VAT 4956 validates 607 BE
Claim 5
Babylonian administrative and historical texts demonstrate uninterrupted governmental continuity during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. No ancient source indicates Nebuchadnezzar lost the throne, nor do historical records support a chronological gap. Daniel 4 describes temporary mental incapacity, not removal from kingship. JW claims of a seven-year chronological gap are historically baseless inventions intended solely to justify their faulty chronology
--
If your statement is correct then where are Neb's missing years of his reign? Daniel describes in quite specific terms what happened to Neb so need to whitewash that piece of history.
--
Claim 5
his claim is blatantly incorrect. Carl Olof Jonsson, in "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," thoroughly addresses Judah’s exile, servitude, and land desolation within his analysis of the 70 years. He explicitly demonstrates the prophecy concerns Babylonian dominance, incorporating Judah’s exile. JW arguments misrepresent COJ’s comprehensive scholarly research.
--
Show me where in his GTR that he discusses the Exile which was the 70 years.
Claim 7
Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, immediately freeing captives in 538 BCE (Cyrus Cylinder). Counting back exactly 70 years correctly places the start of Babylonian dominance around 609 BCE, not 607 BCE. The JW claim arbitrarily inserts two extra years without historical support, relying entirely on doctrinal preference rather than documented events. This is a deliberate miscalculation to align with JW prophetic speculations about 1914.
--
False. The Jews returned from the Exile in 537 BCE and if you count back 70 years you get 607 BCE which ended the Exile commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem
--
Claim 8
Jeremiah 52 explicitly lists multiple deportations: Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (597 BCE), 18th year (586 BCE), and 23rd year (582 BCE). Multiple deportations after 607 BCE destroy JW arguments, showing the land was not completely desolated in 607 BCE. Rather, these deportations confirm a prolonged Babylonian campaign consistent only with the scholarly 586/587 BCE destruction date. The JW argument inadvertently refutes itself by citing this evidence.
- True. multiple deportations characteristic of the Exile during which were conducted within neb's reign. These facts show the reality of the Exile of 70 years.
---
Claim 9
The date 609 BCE is explicitly derived from historically attested events (Assyrian defeat at Harran, Egyptian actions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns) confirmed in multiple Babylonian chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). These dates are well-attested, not arbitrary insertions. JW’s claim of “interpolation” is entirely unfounded historically and represents a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern chronological research.
-- The arbitrary date of 609 is simply opinion
Claim 10
The JW’s entire Gentile Times calculation depends wholly upon the false 607 BCE destruction date. Since 607 BCE is conclusively disproven historically, archaeologically, and astronomically, the JW 1914 doctrine also collapses. Astronomical and historical records categorically contradict 607 BCE, demonstrating the JW prophetic calculation as incorrect and baseless.
--
The date of 607 along with our teaching of the Gentile Times has withstood the test of time and scholarship and has been thoroughly vindicated by modern history and biblical scholarship.
Conclusion
You can summarize all that you like but here is a challenge for you and your cronies. Please provide ONE line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Remember not 17 as per COJ in his GTR but simply ONE. Got it?
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
Jeffro
This aptly demonstrates the faulty argument from tradition for asserting 586 BCE rather than the correct 587 BCE. It’s readily apparent that 5 years before the 23rd year (582 BCE) is 587 BCE. It’s only very slightly more complicated for the 11 years after the 7th year because that deportation was in 597 BCE, but it was before Nisan and also pinpoints 587 BCE when considered properly.
---
It would appear that aqwsed 12345 does not agree with you pushing the barrow on 587 BCE
scholar JW
-
187
Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!
by BoogerMan init-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".
it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.
" (galatians 2:1-10).
-
-
scholar
aqwsed12345
1.It is misleading to argue a lack of consensus to justify 607 BCE. Scholars differ between 609 BCE (final Assyrian defeat at Harran) and 605 BCE (Babylonian victory at Carchemish) as the start of Babylon's 70-year period of supremacy precisely because both dates have historical significance. However, no credible scholars propose 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. All reputable secular historians agree on 586/587 BCE. The uncertainty over 609 vs. 605 BCE does not support 607 BCE, as the JW argument incorrectly assumes.
The scholarly dispute concerns when Babylon's dominance began, not when Jerusalem was destroyed, which is securely dated to 586/587 BCE by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence.
----
1. Thus, because scholars cannot agree as to whether the 70 years began in either 606 or 609 BCE makes their chronology is worthless as it is based on uncertainty. If you cannot agree, then you simply do not know, whereas WT scholars, based on the biblical evidence, know for certain the date for the commencement of the 70 years. What credible scholars choose to believe is not evidence and there is simply no evidence for either 586 or 587 BCE for the date of Jerusalem's Fall or whether 605 or 608 BCE began the 70 years.
--
2. The context clearly indicates a period of regional Babylonian dominance, not exclusively a 70-year desolation or exile of Judah. Notice the explicit mention of "these nations" (plural), which includes Judah but is not limited to it. Thus, Jeremiah's 70 years encompass Babylon’s political and military dominance, aligning historically from approximately 609 BCE (or 605 BCE) to Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE.
Jeremiah 29:10 supports this: the 70 years conclude when Babylon's rule ends, allowing Judah’s return—not after the return itself (537 BCE), but upon Babylon’s fall (539 BCE). Ezra and Daniel also understood the 70 years in terms of Babylon's dominance ending with its fall, not two years afterward.
---
2. Clearly Jer. 25:11 and its context shows the dominance of Babylon but this verse and its content is specific to Judah alone for vs. states "concerning all the people of Judah and vs. 2 "concerning all the people of Judah and all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem".
Jer. 29:10 clearly shows that it was after the 70 years at Babylon were completed then and only then would the Jews return from Exile and that did not happen with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE.
---
3. Historically, Babylon was punished exactly at its fall in 539 BCE by Cyrus the Great, as confirmed by numerous historical records. There is no delay or "two-year gap" in Scripture or history. Babylon lost sovereignty precisely at its conquest in 539 BCE, directly fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. The JW assertion that Babylon’s punishment must begin in 537 BCE is entirely artificial, unsupported historically and biblically.
--
3. Babylon fell in 539 BCE, and this was a punishment and a judgment against Babylon as prophesied, but a further destruction and not just a fall was foretold in Jer. 25:1,2 which amounted to total destruction which did not happen in 539 BCE.After that Babvlon lost its staus as a world power now subject to the Medo-Persian Empire with a new king of Babylon.
--
4.Refutation:
- Josephus: Josephus explicitly confirms Jerusalem’s destruction occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year, corresponding historically to 586/587 BCE. Josephus never supports 607 BCE. JW misuse of Josephus selectively distorts his clear statements (e.g., Antiquities X.7.1).
- Archaeology: Extensive archaeological excavations in Jerusalem universally confirm the destruction layers dating precisely to 586/587 BCE. No archaeological evidence supports 607 BCE.
- Astronomy: Astronomical diary VAT 4956 precisely confirms Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year as 568/567 BCE, proving the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 586/587 BCE (his 18th year). The JW attempts to redate VAT 4956 to 588 BCE are incorrect and discredited by independent astronomers...
- Josephus supports JW interpretation of the 70 years in terms of its nature and timing.
- Archaeology supports the fact of the desolation of Judah which indirectly supports JW interpretation of the 70 years as a period of desolation of the land.
- Astronomy through the VAT 4956 is now shown to be supportive of 607 BCE/
---
5. Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year illness in Daniel 4 is nowhere described as creating a gap in Babylonian history. Babylonian administrative texts from this period show continuous governance, clearly disproving any interruption in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The JW insertion of a seven-year gap is a completely unsubstantiated and artificial attempt to justify their chronological misalignment.
--
5. It was part of history so it is a vital piece of chronology which is based on history. Poor or inadequate history leads to poor or inaccurate chronology. The bigger issue is the Babylonian Gap of 20 years between secular/profane chronology and Bible Chronology.Do you believe that Nneb was absent from the throne for seven years?
--
6. Carl Olof Jonsson extensively discusses the 70-year period, analyzing all relevant biblical texts (Jeremiah 25, 29, Daniel 9, Ezra 1, 2 Chronicles 36). He convincingly demonstrates that the 70 years were Babylon’s dominance, not Judah’s specific exile. The JW assertions grossly misrepresent Jonsson’s thorough and careful scholarship.
--
6. Precisely and that is COJ's problem because he does not see through the lens that the 70 years was not just about Babylon's dominance but of Exile so he was rather short-sighted respecting the 70 years unlike the celebrated WT scholars.
--
7. The biblical and historical record explicitly refutes this claim. Cyrus issued his decree to release the Jews in 538 BCE, historically attested by the Cyrus Cylinder. Most scholars agree the actual return occurred by 537 BCE. Counting back exactly 70 years aligns with Babylon’s dominance (609/605–539 BCE), not 607 BCE. The JW timeline artificially compresses historical events and misdates key events, such as Nebuchadnezzar's reign, contrary to overwhelming external evidence.
---
7. The said scholar is happy that you recognize that the Jews returned home in 537 BCE which of course ended the 70 years as fortold by Jeremiah and confirmed by Ezra. Thus if we count back 70 years we arrive at 607 BCE with Babylon's dominance- beginning of the Exile to baylon and leaving a desolate land all these circumstances are composite of the 7o years.
---
8. This inadvertently disproves the JWs' own claim. Jeremiah 52 clearly refers to deportations after the initial 597 BCE exile. If Jerusalem had been destroyed and made completely desolate in 607 BCE, no further deportations could have occurred years later. This passage instead confirms the multiple-stage exile and contradicts a singular 607 BCE destruction.
--
8. Nonsense. Jeremiah lists three deportations during Neb's reign, which altogether confirm the historical reality of the 70 years as a period of Babylon's dominance in the Levant - exile of the Jews by means of deportations of its citizenry as exiles, thus leaving a land desolate and depopulated, which affirm the Exile of 70 years.
--
9. This claim shows misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The Babylonian Chronicles (especially ABC3 and ABC4) clearly document Nabopolassar’s decisive victory over Assyria at Harran (609 BCE), firmly establishing this date historically. No interpolation is involved; rather, clear Babylonian historical records support this date explicitly.
--
9. Ancient historical records do not contain modern calendrical dates, as these are inserted by the translator or scholar working on the documents.
--
10. The JW "Gentile Times" prophecy depends entirely on 607 BCE, which has been comprehensively disproven historically, astronomically, archaeologically, and biblically. Even accepting symbolic "prophetic years," the foundational 607 BCE date is factually invalid. Without 607 BCE, the entire 1914 prophetic calculation collapses.
--
10. False. The Gentile Times is based on 607 BCE which is well proved from the Bible, secular history and ancient astronomy to be the only authentic for the Fall of Jerusalem leading to the well-established modern history of 1914.
--
The JW argument for a 607 BCE date for Jerusalem’s destruction fails at every level of scrutiny:
- It misreads Jeremiah’s prophecy.
- It contradicts explicit historical and astronomical evidence.
- It distorts scholarly research and misrepresents reputable historians.
- It artificially inserts chronological gaps without evidence.
- It selectively quotes and misrepresents historical sources like Josephus and Babylonian Chronicles.
The scholarly consensus—backed by a convergence of biblical, historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence—is clear: Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE, and Babylonian supremacy (the 70 years) lasted from approximately 609 BCE to 539 BCE
The date of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is firmly established:
Based on the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah, history of Ezra, confirmed by Daniel as a witness to those events.
The 70 years was a definite historical period with a definite beginning and end anchored in history
The 70 years was period of Exile - a period of servitude to Babylon - a period of a devasted and depopulated land of Judah
The 70 years as described was confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus
The date 607 BCE and its 70 years is well anchored in the chronology of the Divided Monarchy
The date 607 BCE is based on the universal acceptance of the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE
scholar JW