Can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that Jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the Babylonians in 607?
Thanks again for your answers.
Zico
607
by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends
-
Zico
-
Elsewhere
Here is a nice chart: http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/607bce-table.htm
Regnal Years of Babylonian Kings During Occupation of Jerusalem
Timeline Overview Table
This chart summarizes the Watch Tower Society quotes collected and presented elsewhere (http://Reexamine.Quotes/607bce.htm). Please refer to that page for verification of the kingly succession and regnal years presented below.
Remember: for BCE dates, going backwards in time means the numbers get bigger (i.e. counting backwards in time: 3 CE, 2 CE, 1 CE, 1 BCE, 2 BCE, 3 BCE, ... 539 BCE, 540 BCE, 541 BCE, etc.)
- Begin counting backwards in time from: the fall of Babylon to the Persians (539 BCE) in the 17th year of the reign of Nabonidus
- Count backwards in time back to: the fall of Jerusalem to Babylonians under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar II (during his 18th regnal year)
Summary of Babylonian kings reigning over Jerusalem
Calendar Year Nabonidus:
17 yrsLabashi-Marduk:
< 9 monthsNeriglissar:
4 yrsEvil-Merodach
2 yrsNebuchadnezzar II
43 yrs539 BCE 17 540 16 541 15 542 14 543 13 544 12 545 11 546 10 547 9 548 8 549 7 550 6 551 5 552 4 553 3 554 2 555 1 556 0 (accession year) less than 9 months 4 557 3 558 2 559 1 560 0 (accession year) 2 561 1 562 0 (accession year) 43 563 42 564 41 565 40 566 39 567 38 568 37 569 36 570 35 571 34 572 33 573 32 574 31 575 30 576 29 577 28 578 27 579 26 580 25 581 24 582 23 583 22 584 21 585 20 586 19 587 18 * 588 17 589 16 590 15 591 14 592 13 592 12 594 11 595 10 596 9 597 8 598 7 599 6 600 5 601 4 602 3 603 2 604 1 605 BCE 0 (accession year) * Watch Tower Society and "wordly scholars and historians" agree that Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Jerusalem during his 18th regnal year. Therefore, according to Watch Tower Society's chronology of the kings of Babylon and the lengths of their reigns, Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Jerusalem in the year 587 BCE (i.e. not 607 BCE).
-
morwen
I don't know if this is what your looking for but....this was posted a while back on a thread here but I can't remember who posted it(sorry,but thanks to whoever you are!) I copied and pasted it into an email to send to my family.
Morwen
Here you go, Below is how the Tablet mentioned in the "Insight into the Scriptures" book is displayed at the British Museum as of 23 March 2006. Interestingly Enough some idiot at the WTBTS graphic design dept has not only got the tablet upside down but back to front, so the text reads the wrong way.
Then the two Lachish Letters. These prove the date to NOT be 607 BCE?
Here they are as of the above date
The reason i am asking for more details is because i intend to come down to the M useum at some point. Are there any other things at the Museum that will prove the date of Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE?
Well there's this display as well...
-
scholar
Zico
There is overwhelming secular evidence for 607 as the date for the Fall of Jerusalem despite the pitiful efforts to the contrary by the Jonsson hypothesis, apostates and higher critics. In a careful examination of all of the secular evidence points rather to 607 than 586, 587, 588 and 589. The secular evidence has a shortfall of twenty years so it does not quite make it but the biblical seventy years of exile, servitude and desolation closes the gap nicely and brings scholarship correctly to 607.
Recent scholarship on the seventy years undermines the Jonsson nonsense which uses the minority opinion of 587 as opposed to the majority opinion of 586, such scholarship does not agree with the apostate claims that the seventy years was of servitude alone from 609/605 until 539 BCE.
Celebrated WT scholars for centuries have long pointed to 607 beginning the Gentile Times proven by the facts of modern history and prophecy to have ended in 1914. In short, the correct understanding of the seventy years, secular evidence as found with Neo-Babylonian chronology despite a 20 year shortfall and the fulfillment of the Gentile Times provide three lines of evidence in support of 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
jwfacts
Very grandious claims scholar, are you on the piss at the moment!
There is never proof on anything Zico, if someone wants to get philosophical, so don't think that there is anything you can show a JW to prove 607 is wrong if they don't want to believe.
To show just how flaky 607 is, the WTS said it was 606 until about the 1940's then suddenly changed it to 607 when they worked out that there is no year zero.
-
buffalosrfree
Scholar; just what facts are you talking about, wt scholars oh yeah! That is laughable; just as you are, 1914 is about as provable as the end of things in 1975; you are not dealing in reality.
-
City Fan
The secular evidence has a shortfall of twenty years
Scholar has correctly shown that all secular evidence points to 586/587. Well done Scholar!
-
vitty
JW facts
If even the society thought it was 606 till the forties how did they get to 1914? -
scholar
City Fan
The shortfall of twenty years from the secular evidence merely highlights the importance of the biblical evidence over against being wholly reliant on the secular evidence. The secular evidence as currently interpreted does not account for the biblical seventy years and is therefore insufficent.or unreliable for determining the biblical fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW
-
scholar
jwfacts
The facts are that scholars do not know the precise calender year for the Fall of Jerusalem depite abundant secular evidence. Biblical evidence with the seventy years proves conclusively that 607 is the only possible date for this epochal event. It seems that you do not like the facts but prefer to believe the lie.
scholar JW
