Ptolemy'c Canon remains the touchstone or foundation for all other subsequent secular materials as all other documents are dated from the data contained in the Canon.
You are dead wrong on that. You only have to do some scholarly research yourself to confirm that. And I'm sure it's been demonstrated to you a million times on various discussions. But if you choose to believe your fantasy, so be it.
The twenty year gap is demonstrated with the comparison of current secular chronologies with the biblical chronology authenticated by celebrated WT scholars. This gap is caused by the biblical seventy years which is unaccounted for by the secular chronologies.
No. The gap is caused by faulty exegesis of scriptural texts. Once the 70 years are understood properly, the gap disappears.
All secular materials are subject to interpretation including the notable Strm Kambys 400 which according to Dr. Rolf Furuli a Semitic scholar in his Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exiled of the Jews, 2003, Vol.1, p.135 shows a table which lists at least 11 examples of error in the astronomical information.
If the tablet is so dodgy, it cannot be used to derive 539 as the anchor date for the 607 hypothesis, can it? Perhaps the scribe wrote in the wrong year for Cambyses II to fit with the accepted chronology of the time. Or maybe he put the lunar eclipses in on the wrong days. And as the Insight book says on p. 454 of Vol.I, lunar eclipses are notoriously common - they could belong to numerous years - the only way to unquestionably fix a date is by means of a definitely stated total solar eclipse, which happens once every 400 years in a specific area.
Wouldn't you agree, therefore, that Strm Kambys 400 is as untrustworthy, say, as VAT4956, and shouldn't be used?
Sound exegesis demonstrates that the seven times of Daniel were literally years so in the case of Nebuchadnezzer he was absent from the throne for a period of seven years which is unaccounted for by the secular evidence relied upon for the purposes of determining a Babylonian chronology. I am well aware of the Carl Jonsson's reasoning on the meaning of the seven times which includes a discussion of 'iddan' but as he is no scholar and provides no sound exegesis, his comments are simply foolish.
Jonsson didn't come up with this 'novel' idea. He researched this information from Bible scholars. You can personally verify the meaning of 'iddan' on the Blue Letter Bible site. I have books on my shelf that say 'iddan' doesn't only mean year.
But aside from that, the Bible should determine the usage of a word, wouldn't you say? I've given you an example of Dan. 3:15 (also see v.5) where 'iddan' clearly doesn't mean year.
The problem of using regnal based chronology is well illustrated by Robert Young's article and the scholarship of Edwin Thiele. Celebrated WT scholars have most wisely chosen a far superior methodololgy which is event-based. Such a methodology is not hamstrung by trying to reconcile conflicting calendrical problems.
You are not telling me anything here.
I asked, "What are the problems with regnal-based methodology and how does an event-based methodology eliminate those problems? Give me an example."
You haven't answered the question. You merely repeated that a regnal based methodology is problematic and event based methodology is superior. I'm still in the dark as to how one is better than the other. Can you help me out by giving me a specific example to go on?
Celebrated WT scholars are not concerned about trying to prove 607 to the scholarly community or to higher critics. Sufficient information has already been published but such scholars are very ambivalent about theology it is unlikely that Biblical information wouls ever be convincing.
Then why are you so concerned that the scholarly community should settle a quibble over a year, if the WTS shouldn't be concerned with proving the veracity of 20 extra years? Doesn't truth matter? And if 607 is true, there is bound to be archeological support for that, isn't there?
Thank you very much for quoting Anderson in the commentary because he recognizes that basic fact that I have long argued that the seventy years is indeed associated with exile, servitude and desolation but rather than trying to separate such elements the Bible combines such into one period from the Fall to the Return.
'Scholar,' I don't don't know if you were distracted when you read the Anderson quote, but if you read his words again carefully, you'll find the opposite is true.
If you are happy with 587 then go for it but 607 is the right date as it is Bible-based whereas 587 or 586 are 'poofy' dates.
LOL. It's not a matter of being 'happy' with it. I was happy with the 607 date once, until I saw the evidence that, rather than 587/6 being 'poofy' dates, 607 was the 'poofy' date!
When quoting Daniel 1:1 and 2:1 you need to pay close attention to what the texts actually say: both verses do not refer to regnal years but years of 'kingship'. Big difference!
Nice dodge. Oh and I have paid close attention. The word rendered 'kingship' is 'malkuth' which means,
1) royalty, royal power, reign, kingdom, sovereign power
a) royal power, dominion
c) kingdom, realm
Getting back to the numbers. I believe the 'plain and direct reading' of Daniel's narrative is actually 3rd year of Jehoiakim's 'malkuth' (see definitions above) and 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's 'malkuth.' Not 11th year and 20th year respectively. You agree with the numbers 3 and 2, don't you?