listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem

by M.J. 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jgnat

  In my long posting history I have presented main points and have dealt with all opposing arguments from the best and brightest of apostates including Alan F and I will continue to do so.

  ...and I've played a champion ping-pong player and was thoroughly trounced. To keep the game going, he'd conveniently "forget" the score. I think we finished at about sixty-three to zero. For him. At least I knew I was no match.

  Though I'll give you points for persistence, "scholar", on every other score you fail. You do not defend your position with evidence. You do not respond to criticism of your work. And, when cornered, you resort to ad-hominem attack.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  I disgree with your opinion thant Ptolemy's Canon is unnecessary for the Neo-Babylonian period. This material is the bedrock for Neo-Babylonian chronology with all other subsequent lines of evidence built upon this document. It is the basis or framework for interpretation of material relevant to any king for that period.

  It may have been at one time, but it is no longer the case. There is a wealth of contemporary evidence independent of the chronology Ptolemy collated.

  Young's article demonstrates the futility in trying to determine the Fall of Jerusalem by means of a regnal based chronology based solely on secular evidence. Using a mathematical model as he demonstrates in his arfticle does not give any confidence in his proposed choice of 587. Are we soon to accept a radical shift in the scholarly literature to 586 because of this article? I don't think so.

  It is likewise futile in trying to determine the fall of Jerusalem by means of the Bible only. Both the Bible and secular evidence are needed to determine Jerusalem's fall. Young employs both resources to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

  I agree that there won't be 'a radical shift in the scholarly literature to 586 because of this article,' because this article proposes 587.

  All that is shown how bewildering and complex chronologies are that ignore the primary biblical data.

  Actually, chronologies are far more bewildering and complex when you try to squash in an imaginary extra 20 years, ignoring both the Biblical data and the secular.

  WT chronology is not only simple but is elegant.

  Like the original Russelite/Millerite chronology: simple, elegant and exquisitely WRONG!

  Secular chronology is confusing, complex producing contradictions a consequence of 'devilish detail'.

  LOL. I knew the 'devil is in the detail' phrase wouldn't be lost on you
• 

  Jeffro

  Anyone who loves truth and goes where the facts lead cannot honestly accept the confused dates of 586 and 587 and others. The simple and clear biblical evidence points to 607 BC as the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 with the birth of God's Kingdom which only the Witnesses are announcing. I am glad to see that at least you acknowledged that I have looked at the facts so that means that I have knowledge of the sunject and know what I am talking about. It is you that perverted those facts along with Jonsson and others by jumping into bed with the higher critics, SDA's and apostates.

  Yes, you have looked at the facts. You have looked at them, seen that they are impossible to reconcile with your rediculous dogma and run crying like a baby girl back to your supposed scholars for support.

  Unable to accept that others recognize the flaws that you do not, based simply on what the bare facts have to say, you instead prefer to imagine some conspiracy of collusion and come up with as many meaningless labels as you can garner.

  You do not love truth. You love 'Truth™', a whimsically flexible collection of tenuous dogma propounded by the Society, and described at 2 Peter 3:16b.
• 

  a Christian

  Scholar, Can you please explain to us why you accept the secularly established date of 539 BC for the fall of Babylon and not the date 568/67 BC as being the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Astronomical data contained in VAT 4956 clearly identifies 568/67 as being "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." Why do you choose to establish the date of Jerusalem's fall by starting with the date 539 BC for the fall of Babylon, and then count forward a questionable 2 years to arrive at 537 for the Jews' return, and then count backwards a questionable 70 years to arrive at 607, rather than starting with the date 568/67 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and then simply counting backwards 19 years to establish that his 18th year of reign, at which time the Bible indicates Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, took place in 587/86? Do you use the secularly determined date of Babylon's fall to establish the date of Jerusalem's destruction, rather than using the secularly determined date for Nebuchadnezzar's "37th year" because you believe the 539 BC date for Babylon's fall has been more firmly established by secular historians than the date 568/67 BC has been for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? If so, will you please tell us why you believe this is the case? Why do you reject the astronomical data contained in Vat 4956 establishing 568/67 BC as "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" and accept similar astronomical data found elsewhere which has been used by historians to establish the date 539 BC for Babylon's conquest by Cyrus? If you believe that the Bible demands that Judah was absolutely desolate for 70 years, why not accept the date 568/67 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and 587/6 BC for his 18th year, and then maintain that the Jews must have returned home in 517 BC? To do so would require you to say that the secular evidence establishing 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall is in error, rather than saying, as you now must, that the secular evidence establishing 568/67 BC as the date for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is in error. So again I ask, do you choose to date the fall of Jerusalem by starting with the date 539 BC for Babylon's fall because you believe this date has been more firmly established than the date 568/67 BC has been for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year? If so, will you please explain why you believe this is the case? I thank you in advance for honest answers to these questions. Mike
• 

  toreador

  Good questions Mike, asked in a very straightforward honest manner. Lets see if Scholar can answer in the same.

  Tor
• 

  Leolaia

  I asked pseudo-scholar these very same questions last year in several threads, and I'm sure he'll dodge them just the same way again...He will specify his own idiosyncratic criteria of what makes a suitable anchor date in order to disqualify the other potential anchor dates.
• 

  a Christian

  Scholar, As I understand things, the date 539 BC for Cyrus conquest of Babylon has been primarily determined in a far less direct way than the date 568/7 has been for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Historians tell us that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC primarily because a tablet called "Strm Kambys 400" contains astronomical observations which identify the year 523 BC as "the 7th year of Cambyses." Historians understand Cambyses to be Cyrus' son, who they believe began to rule immediately following his father's death. And since they believe Cyrus reigned for 9 years after his conquest of Babylon, they conclude that since 523 BC was Cambyses' 7th year ( with six full years having passed since his father's death and since his own rule began ) Cyrus must have begun to reign 16 years before 523 BC, which of course would be 539 BC. In doing so historians tell us Cyrus' "9" years of rule were counted using the "accession year" system of reckoning, in which a king's first partial year of rule was not counted as part of his official total years of rule. So, counting backwards in time from 523 BC they count 6 full years for Cambyses' rule + 9 full years for Cyrus' rule + 1 more year for Cyrus' "accession year" during which he conquered Babylon. They then add 16 years ( 6 + 9 + 1 ) to 523 BC ( Cambyses' 7th year ) and that brings them to 539 BC as the "accession year" of Cyrus. Now this all makes perfect sense to me. And I believe historians are right about all of this. But it also seems to me that it makes a lot more sense for us to date Jerusalem's destruction beginning our count of time from "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar," which VAT 4956 identifies as 568/67 BC, than to do so beginning our count of time from "the 7th year of Cambyses," which Strm Kambys 400 identifies as the year 523 BC. For when we date Jerusalem's destruction beginning our count of time from "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" there are no possible "weak links" in our chain. ( If 568/7 BC = Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year then 587/6 = his 18th year, during which the Bible indicates Babylon devastated Jerusalem. Establishing 587/6 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction in this way requires the use of only one "strong" link. ) However, when Jehovah's Witnesses date Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon beginning their count of time from "the 7th year of Cambyses" they do so using several possibly "weak" links. 1. How can you be sure Cambyses began to rule immediately upon his father's death. Maybe some unmentioned king ruled for an unknown period of time between the two of them. The WT has said such a thing may have happened at another time. Why not here? 2. How can you be sure that Persian royal historians, at the time Strm Kambys 400 was written, recorded the length of Persian kings' reigns using the accession year system of reckoning? Historians believe that they did. But this is only their belief. If they used the non-accession year system that would mean Cyrus began his rule in 538 BC rather than 539 BC. 3. What if the Jews returned to their homeland only one year after Cyrus began to rule, as Josephus seems to indicate, rather than two years afterwards as the WT maintains? That would change your dating of Jerusalem's destruction by one year. 4. And, of course, what if the Temple laid in ruins for only fifty years, as Josephus tells us it did in his final word on this matter, rather than "70 years" as the WT maintains? This would change your dating of Jerusalem's destruction by 20 years. It seems clear to me that the WT method of dating Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon ( Strm Kambys 400 which identifies "the 7th year of Cambyses" as 523 BC ) is one which requires the use of four weak links to get to 607 BC. Why then do you believe it is not wiser for us to date Jerusalem's destruction using a method ( VAT 4956 which identifies "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" as 568/67 BC ) which requires the use of only one strong link to get to 587/6 BC? Mike
• 

  Jeffro

  I have ignored no facts if I have then list such facts. What I have done is listen and read what the texts say not what you want them to say. The verse does not day that the calling to account for Babylon began in 539 with the Fall. That is your interpretation. What the text says is that after the fulfilling of the seventy years(537 BCE) Babylon would be called to account by being made a desolate place. These things did not happen in 539 but after 539, long after 539 BCE. I agree that with its Fall in 539 it was called to account and received judgement which was also foretold by the prophets that Babylon would be punished by falling to Cyrus but this specific prophecy 25:12 foretells not its fall but its permanent destruction. BIG difference which eludes the apostates.

  "What the text says" hey? Like Jehoiakim's 3rd year actually being his 11th year? Like "all these nations round about" actually meaning just Judah? Your lies are evident. You continue to ignore the specific judgement that Babylon's king would be called to account after the 70 years. This part of the prophecy cannot be given the wishy-washy fulfilment that you would have us believe, particularly in view of the fact that Daniel specifically indicates the judgement of Babylon's king.

  In order to understand verse 12 one must see it in context and the context are all of the verses prior and sunsequent to verse 12. Now, the context demands that the seventy years ended with the Return and not the Fall of Babylon.

  The context demands no such thing. Nations served the king of Babylon until they didn't. The return of the Jews had no bearing on whether other nations were serving Babylon, so your alleged interpretation is completely meaningless.

  It makes perfect sense to apply that specific judgement of desolation of Babylon after the Return for two reasons : FIRSTLY, the Jews were no no longer captive to Babylon, they were now a free people in their own homeland. SECOND, Babylon must also receive her judgement of a long and permanent nature as fortold by the prophets which meant her permanent desolation. Such a context including all of Jeremiah shows that he foretold not only the Fall of Babylon but its eventual desolation as with all of the other foreign nations which have all been buried in the sands of history.

  Your first explanation ignores the actual application of the 70 years, which were of nations serving Babylon. Your second explanation lacks weight, only having an open-ended application which ignores the clear events recorded by Daniel. You do know that people still live in 'Chaldea' don't you?

  In my long posting history I have presented main points and have dealt with all opposing arguments from the best and brightest of apostates including Alan F and I will continue to do so. 537 BCE is a well established date with no other serious conmpetitors for if there were then the Jonsson hypothesis would have flagged the matter. Daniel's comment about Babylon being weighed was fulfilled with its fall in 539 but he makes no reference in that chapter to the seventy yearr so your 'red herring' argument is false. Such a Fall in 539 is only related to 25:12 in the sense that it was foretold that she would fall and Jeremiah said in verse 12 that she would be desolated.

  Though you have responded to opposing arguments, you haven't really dealt with them in any true sense. Your points are weak and easily disproved. Your logic is shameful, and any reasoning ability you may possess is overshadowed by your tenacious desire to cling to your precious dogma. 537 is not established at all let alone well. The only 'proof' the Society has is some purely conjectural reasoning that Cyrus made his pronounced right at the end of his second year, though it is exceedingly more likely that the Jews returned in 538. Daniel says that Babylon's days had been numbered. The only reference for numbering Babylon's days is the 70 years. Then Daniel says that Babylon's king was being weighed, called to account, and on that night he was killed. There is no later judgement of a Babylonian king, and it is obscenely ignorant to deny that the verses are related.

  Well if the Jews did not return in 537 then pray tell what year did they return? Here again this date is not seriously challenged by scholars. Jonsson says little about the matter except for a footnote with two muted sources. There was a king of Babylon after 539 and this was first Darius followed jointly by Cyrus for starters.

  They returned in 538. But this has already been explained to you in detail by AlanF - you just don't want to acknowledge the facts. The complementary accounts of Ezra and Josephus confirm that 538 is the only possible year for it to have occurred.
• 

  Jeffro

  I disgree with your opinion thant Ptolemy's Canon is unnecessary for the Neo-Babylonian period. This material is the bedrock for Neo-Babylonian chronology with all other subsequent lines of evidence built upon this document. It is the basis or framework for interpretation of material relevant to any king for that period.

  That is simply not the case. The extant contemporary tablets build a complete picture of the Neo-Babylonian period, which, in tandem with the known year 539, mean that Ptolemy's Canon is not required as a foundation.

  Young's article demonstrates the futility in trying to determine the Fall of Jerusalem by means of a regnal based chronology based solely on secular evidence. Using a mathematical model as he demonstrates in his arfticle does not give any confidence in his proposed choice of 587. Are we soon to accept a radical shift in the scholarly literature to 586 because of this article? I don't think so. All that is shown how bewildering and complex chronologies are that ignore the primary biblical data.

  The biblical accounts of the Jewish monarchy are regnal-based chronology, and you have no trouble accepting them. You contend that it is doubtful that there would be a "radical shift in the scholarly literature to 586", yet you would have us believe that some evidence may be found in the future that would shift the event by not just one, but 20 years! Rediculous!

  WT chronology is not only simple but is elegant. Secular chronology is confusing, complex producing contradictions a consequence of 'devilish detail'.

  Simple, elegant, and completely wrong. When examined in the wishy-washy overviews of Watchtower literature, it appears simple enough, because the actual evidence involved is largely ignored. Indeed, with regard to the Society's flawed dogma, the 'devil is in the detail', so the detail is conveniently ignored.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  There is certainly a wealth of secular materials available that relate in various ways to the reconstruction of Neo-Babylonian chronology but I disagree that such materials have replaced the status and importance of Ptolemy' Canon. All of this other material is subject to interpretation and has not solved the many problems in establishing the reliability of such chronology. For example, there is a twenty gap between such chronologies and biblical chronology as established by celebrated WT scholars. In addition, there is the omission of imporatnt events during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer ie, the seven years absence from the throne which compromises the accuracy of all this so called evidence. The Bible is the only reliable guide in establishing events in biblical history and it works very nicely because one can go right back to the time of Adam, The reason why it works is because careful Bible Students have used an event-based methodology which eliminates the many problems arising from a regnal-based methodology. Certainly, Young arrives at a conclusion which is 587 but he is yet to convince the rest of scholarship of the certainty of 587 for the Fall. I believe despite his sincerity that his efforts are doomed to failure.

  There is no imaginary twenty years because the Bible speaks most definitely of seventy years and not of your imaginary 'fifty years' which is required if one were to follow your hypothesis. As I have said our chronology is simple, elegant and correct and you cannot prove otherwise. When you have some certainty about a precise date for the Fall then you can boast but until then you should continue to research the matter. Dogmatism without certainty is pure arrogance and stupidity.

  scholar JW