The 70 years of devastation--as revealed by the Bible

by AddaGirl 73 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar


    Post 332

    Yes it does because Josephus was simply making and observation that for a period of fifty years the temple lay in a state of obscurity so this would have had to be in the context of the overall period of desolation of the land, the temple and city of seventy years as Josephus elsewhere clearly attests.

    Too easy

    scholar JW

  • JCanon
    Yes it does because Josephus was simply making and observation that for a period of fifty years the temple lay in a state of obscurity so this would have had to be in the context of the overall period of desolation of the land, the temple and city of seventy years as Josephus elsewhere clearly attests.

    Yes, but it is good to be specific. Cyrus had two kingships; one when he was head over the Persian half of the Medo-Persian empire and then when he became king over Babylon. These 20 years are said in the currently timeline to be from 559-539 BCE. In relation to the 70 and 50 years of desolation, 50 years of desolation would end when Cyrus becomes king over Persia and 70 years ends when Cyrus becomes king over Babylon. So Josephus is being cryptic here in the reference to the 50 years in contrast to his previous statement about the 70 years just 2 paragraphs earlier in the same work.

    However, one must read between the lines even more apparently. It turns out this reference to the siege of Tyre for these 13 years beginning year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar is actually a cryptic reference to the chronology of Cyrus' 20 years in relation to the fall of Babylon, where a kingship begins in the 14th year. That is, if during the 20-year rule of Cyrus, Darius the Mede rules for 6 years prior to Cyrus coming to the throne, then he would have begun to rule in the 14th year. The Hirom reference and the reference to 54 years is a clue that Josephus is actually talking about the 54 years from the fall of Jerusalem until when Cyrus becomes king over Persia. It's a complicated reference, but the numbers do not add up which is a clue this is a cryptic reference. Also the mention of Hirom? Hiram was a famous contemporary of Solomon not Cyrus.

    Here's his statement followed by how when the siege of Tyre is replaced by the siege of Babylon, and the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is replaced by the 7th year of Nabonidus, how the siege ends when Babylon would have been overthrown. Thus this reference would be proof that Josephus knew the precise chronology for these last 20 years but had to suppress this information because of the Persian revisionism, keeping in mind that in his earlier work, Antiquities, he clearly assigned an 18-year rule for Evil-Merodach, but in Against Apion, this suddenly became 2 years. There is no getting around, therefore, that the chronology was being revised and manipulated.

    Against Apion 1:21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius... So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

    Below is the last 25 years of the NB Empire showing how the overlay of the references by Josephus when applied to Nabonidus parallels the siege of Jerusalem in relation to the reign of Nabonidus which if counted as 13 years from year 17 would reflect the true, original Biblical chronology. It's speculative but curious, since Josephus contradicts the Bible directly in relation to the temple being completed in the 2nd year of Darius rather than his 6th year. A direct contradiction is usually a reference to an encryption. There are also two other numbers mentioned that relate to when Cyrus first began to rule and when the temple is destroyed. That is, both fifty and fifty-four years are mentioned. There are 54 years from the destruction of the temple until Cyrus began his 20-year rule over Persia, and 50 years of desolation of the land from the last deportation until Cyrus began his 20-year rule over Persia. So the numeric elements are there.

    Josephus says it is 54 years and 3 months, but if you actually add up the numbers it is 55 years and 3 months.

    "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia."

    13+10+6+1+4+20=54 years. But when you add the 10 months, 2 months and 3 months, you get 1 year and 1 months, making this 55 years and 3 months. Thus you have a reference here for 55 years to contradict the 54 years. Is this an error or an encryption? It is not considered to be an error because Jerusalem did not fall in year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar but year 19. But the Nabonidus Chronicle when compared to the Bible combines what happened in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar with what happened in his 1st year. This is why you have this 1-year descrepancy for the actual year Jerusalem fell based on the Babylonian records and the Bible. A critical comparison of the Babylonian Chronicle, which only survives partially, notes that the king of Judah, Jehoiachin was deported in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible clearly says he was deported in year 8. Likewise when the reign of Zedekiah begins in year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar, since Jehoiachin was deported on the very last day of year 8, we find his 11th year falling in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar at the time Jerusalem falls. That is an 8-year difference. 19 minus 11 is 8. Therefore, Zedeiah's rule began in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is also an 8-year difference. There is no doubt about this because Ezekiel was deported in year 7. Thus this one-year discrepancy would be referenced by the 55 years. That is, officially it was 54 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the 1st of Cyrus when Jerusalem falls in year 19; the 54 years would be a reference to the actual Biblical chronology, as stated. But the numbers add up to 55 years, which address the statement that Jerusalem falls in year 18, which it does not. That's the revised Babylonian dating that moves everything up one year. So Josephus addresses that one-year descrepancy by noting an error in the 54-year reference with times that actually add up to 55 years.

    Again, Josephus is not taken seriously here, otherwise, he contradicts himself in his earlier statement about the 70 years. Besides that, his numbers also don't work out with the actual chronology. If you count 54 years from the 7th year of Nabonidus which falls in 598 BCE you end up with the 20-year rule of Hirom ending in 544 BCE. Cyrus begins his rule in year 14 of Hirom, thus 6 years earlier in 550 BCE. That fits neither the 559 BCE 1st year for Cyrus, nor the 539 BCE first year of Cyrus. So it totally does not work.

    Even if you work backwards it doesn't work. That is, if you date the fall of Babylon per the pivotal date of 539 BCE, and begin Cyrus' rule the next year in 538 BCE, 50 years earlier is 588 BCE, year 17 of Nebuchadnezzar. You do get 50 years of desolation if you begin the 50 years from 587 BCE and end it in 537 BCE, though. However, this does not work with the 14th year of Hirom, which is supposed to be 54 or 55 years from the 7th of Nebuchadnezzar, that is 47 or 48 years earlier, which only go back to 585 or 584 BCE, which would be years 20 or 21 of Nebuchadnezzar. Hardly his 7th year.

    Again, the cryptic reference is based upon substituting Nabonidus for Nebuchadnezzar, and the 20-year rule of Hirom for the 20-year rule of Cyrus. The 20-year rule of Cyrus begins in the 6th year of Nabonidus, thus he'd become king at Babylon in his 21st year which he counted as year one. But if you begin his rule 1 year later, beginning in the 7th year of Nabonidus then his 1st year over Babylon would fall in his 20th year. So based on a 13-year siege beginning year 7 of Nabonidus, his rule ends up being 19 years when Babylon falls. This occurs in the 14th year of Cyrus, leaving the 6-year rule of Darius the Mede to finish out the remainder of his 20 years, after which he becomes king at Babylon beginning year 1!

    Again, this is pure SPECULATION on an OBSERVATION. But because it works out so specifically, we cannot presume that Josephus didn't know precisely that Darius the Mede ruled for six years prior to Cyrus coming to the throne. His reference earlier in Antiquities about an 18-year rule by Evil-Merodach also is specifically accurate to the original chronology. Thus per the Bible we are required to extend the rule of Nebuchadnezzar by 2 years from 43 to 45, and also includes a 6-year rule for Darius the Mede, which is otherwise zero. When you factor in the 18-year rule of Evil-Merodach per Josephus, rather than 2 years, you have added a total of 24 years to the NB Period. You need 2 more years to round out the 26-year descrepancy between the secular history and the Bilbical timeline. 586 to 538 is 48 years. Compared to 529 to 455 which is 74 years. 74 minus 48 is 26.

    Other comparisons of Josephus as well gives insight into Jewish history. For instance, his knowledge not only that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, but that the fable of the Book of Esther was substitute history for Nehemiah. That is, the characters of both Esther and Mordecai were a split character of Nehemiah's history. In Jewish folklore Nehemiah is a eunuch and in love with Artaxerxes. When he asks to return to his homeland, for instance, he is sitting on the king's lap and "batting his eyes" at the king. Jewish folklore makes Nehemiah out to be a flamboyant effeminate, with lots of the usual gay exaggerations our popular culture refers to as a "flaming queen." A later adaptation split the character so that one reflected the infatuation with the king as the beautiful Esther, and the high position of prime minister (cupbearer) was reflected by Mordecai, which was the Babylonian name for Nehemiah. When the Persian history was revised, Nehemiah's history with Artaxerxes would have made him far too old, over 143 years, so this history was suppressed and only his history upon returning from Babylon with Zerubbabel was reflected in the substitute "Esdras" that replaced the oridinal "Esdras" (Ezra/Nehemiah). The story of Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the wall continued in Jewish folklore though as a pseudo-historical refrerence, but it was a popular "wive's tale" because of the exaggerated character of Nehemiah who was a eunuch (gay). When Josephus relates this part of the history, he places both Ezra and Nehemiah during the reign of "Xerxes" who he represents as the father of Artaxerxes. He places the story of Esther and Mordecai during the rule of Artaxerxes, thus following the history of Nehemiah and Ezra. This is based on the original version of Esther where she is married to Artaxerxes. But this is not a total contradiction if one knows that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. Therefore Ezra and Nehemiah did serve under Xerxes, and if Esther and Mordecai are based on Nehemiah under Artaxerxes then that is also true. The accounts become exchangeable and thus repeat different versions of the same history, split up over two different kings who were really the same king.

    Bottom line is that Bible scholars, the WTS and others want to keep as much of the secular history in place as they can, so they compromise on the Biblical references, and totally ignore the Jewish historical references, such as in the apocryphal books of Esdras. When they do use Jewish sources like Josephus, they deliberately ignore certain references, such as the last deportation from Egypt as specifically stated by Josephus. So there is a conscious manipulation. In the case of Jerusalem's walls, for instance, Ezra 4:11 clearly says they were "finished" during the time of Smerdis/Bardiya ("Artaxerxes") which means they at least were being built! This is totally ignored in order to make it seem the walls were not rebuilt until the 20th of Artaxerxes, which is not only non-Biblical but ridiculous! Why would the Jews build a brand new temple in the middle of a wide open city without a wall? And how is it that Nehemiah and a handful of people threw up a double wall around Jerualem in just 52 days? The temple took 22 years to build and a wall just 52 days?

    Now keep in mind JWs for years review this again and again and nobody notices it doesn't make sense. That's because the WTS makes sure they don't have time to think and if someone raises a question they have plenty of double-talk to get around those questions, or they chastise that person for doubting.

    I admire some like scholar and FaithfulJW and even Furuli for supporting the Biblical references, but often even these are not confident enough to go all the way and totally let the Bible's chronology speak for itself. In that regard, Martin Anstey comes out as the true Biblical chronologist. He clearly understood that the 1st of Cyrus per the Bible needs to begin the 70 weeks, in which case the Persian Period plainly and simply is 82 years too long. My research has easily identified those extra years, part of which reflect a 26-year reduction in the NB Period, also easily restored. The VAT4956 confirms the original dating for Nebuchadnezzar for us, fortunately, so the Bible's timeline is now confirmed by a secular astronomical text. So technically there is no contradiction between secular and Biblical, just failure to recognize that the Persians revised their chronology to protect their favorite son, Xerxes who was also going under the name Artaxerxes. The Jews also cooperated with this counterintelligence against the Greeks and continued to cover for the secular timeline even down to the time of Josephus. The Jews finally adjusted their records in the 3rd century AD when they revised the Book of Esther to reflect her married to Xerxes rather than Artaxerxes, allowing her history to occur before that of Ezra and Nehemiah who appear in the canonical works during the time of "Artaxerxes." But this is a dead giveaway the Jews not only knew the original timeline but were supporting the fake timeline for their own political or religious needs long after the fact. Of course, when the new version of Esther came out, it completely contradicts Josephus, who does just the opposite, which is place Ezra and Nehemiah before Esther instead of after. But we can see through all this and understand what is being done, obviously.

    The best thing is to TRUST THE SCRIPTURES, which means trust that 455 BCE was the original dating for the 1st of Cyrus. Add 70 years to arrive at the last deportation in 525 BCE, and date the fall of Jerusalem to 529 BCE. That is the strict Biblical chronology of truth. When that is done, then the second coming in 1992 harmonizes with 45 years after the end of the gentile times in 1947, and the "end of gift and sacrifice" in the middle of the 70th week in 1992-1993. Without coming to that conclusion, now supported by the VAT4956 evidence, or the evidence the Persians revised their history and that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, then you will always have the wrong conclusions.


  • AnnOMaly

    I see our two resident chronology revisionists are at full throttle! Hi JCanon. Hi 'scholar.'

    Thadda girl, AddaGirl! Well, you have more or less nailed it.

    A couple of minor points I picked up on (I've only scanned through your webpage and this thread):

    Nebuchadnezzer 18 & 19 year are the same because he took the throne in May. It was now July.

    Yes, the 18th and 19th regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar as mentioned in the Bible are considered to be referring to the same calendar year (587). But the reason is the Jews used the non-accession method of counting reigns (1-2-3-4, etc.), while the Babylonians used the accession year system (0-1-2-3, etc.), and it is thought that Jeremiah 52:28-30 used a Babylonian source, hence captives taken in the 18th year here. (Same issue with Jer. 52:28 and 2 Kings 24:12.) In addition, years ran Spring to Spring (Nisan to Nisan), so - certainly as far as Babylon was concerned - even if a king began to reign half-way through a year, his Year 1 would begin the next Spring. By the way, Nebuchadnezzar was enthroned in the 6th month (Ululu which corresponds to Aug/Sept) - see

    Darius/Cyrus one in the same

    (thread) If Cyrus conquered the Medes and took the title King of Persia in the 6th year of Nabonidus before Babylon was conquered, how did Darius the Mede, become ruler over Babylon when it was first conquered?

    You've already seen that it's hard to come to any firm conclusions as to the identity of Darius the Mede given there's no evidence of his existence outside the Bible. The Bible says he was king of Babylon. Similarly, Belshazzar was given a similar title (and there was no outside evidence for him for a long time), while Nabonidus his father wasn't mentioned in the Bible. And yet historical records say Nabonidus was THE king of Babylon. An apparent contradiction. Discoveries have shown since that Nabonidus appointed the crown prince Belshazzar to rule Babylon on his behalf (while he did other things). Contradiction solved. Likewise, I think the simplest explanation is Cyrus was the supreme king whose reign is counted from Babylon's conquest for official purposes, but he appointed some character known as Darius the Mede to rule Babylon on his behalf.

    JC - What is pertinent here that I see, is harmony between Josephus and the Bible. That's because if the last people to be removed out of the land occurred at the time of the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, then the land could actually remain desolate with no people there for this 70-year period.
    AG - It is my understanding that after the destruction of the temple, those that were not removed fled to Egypt....Jerusalem was desolate. Nebuchadnezzar then advanced on Egypt and brought those Jews to Babylon.

    Now here's a question. Where did the deportation in the 23rd year come from?

    Jer. 44:29,30 says the sign that YHWH's punishment on those who fled to Egypt was to be a reality was that Pharoah Hophra (Apries) would be handed over to his enemies. Hophra was deposed by a coup in 570 BCE. It's thought he died a little while later. We also know of a fragmentary record of a campaign by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt and Pharaoh Amasis (Hophra's successor) in his 37th year or 568 BCE. So it's unlikely that the deportation in the 23rd year came from Egypt, if we are to factor in Jeremiah's prophecies.

  • bennyk

    "Scholar" writes:

    The vast amount of data does indeed prove a twenty gap between secular and biblical chronology. Do the maths!

    Josephus provides the basis for doing the maths at Apion 1:20. Please read it and do the maths for yourself.

    Judah was not in servitude to Babylon until the reign of Jehoiakim who was made a vassal king by Nebuchadnezzer and this was not in 609 BCE.

    There is nothing in the Bible record that proves Josiah's vassalage to Babylon for in last stage of his reign he was in conflict with Egypt not Babylon. You need to get the history right as poor history means poor chronology.

    Hey, I feel slighted. When the Watch Tower Society conjectures something contrary to established secular history and gives it a veneer of respectability by citing scriptures which do not prove the claim, you accept that without hesitation. When I do the same [viz. "Judah was already in servitude under Babylonian hegemony following the defeat of Assyria at Haran in 609 B.C.E., where Babylon became the legitimate succesor to the Assyrian Empire. The fact that Josiah was already a vassal of Babylon explains why Josiah attempted to check King Necho's advance to Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (2 Kings 23:29; Chr. 35:20-22). "], you do not accept it. You are learning!!! Unless you'll be more willing to accept unsubstantiated (and indeed, untenable) guesses if I promulgate erroneous teachings and false prophecies for many decades.(?)

    Give some consideration to your own words: "You need to get the history right as poor history means poor chronology."

    Edit to add: Don't take it personally. See you Tuesday.

  • scholar


    Post 333

    I have done the maths and considerd all of the references to the seventy years by Josephus and his summation of matters agrees totally with that of the 'celebrated' WT scholars. As I said; Poor history equals poor chronology so one cannot do accurate chronology unless one gets the history right. You need to get the facts right about Josiah' s reign and his intervention into the military invasion of the Pharaoh Necho who was only later defeated by the Babylonians unders Nabopolassar. At that time Josiah's descendants came under Egyptian servitude later to be replaced by the Babylonians. The two texts you cited prove my point not yours.

    scholar JW

  • JCanon
    Yes, the 18th and 19th regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar as mentioned in the Bible are considered to be referring to the same calendar year (587). But the reason is the Jews used the non-accession method of counting reigns (1-2-3-4, etc.), while the Babylonians used the accession year system (0-1-2-3, etc.), and it is thought that Jeremiah 52:28-30 used a Babylonian source, hence captives taken in the 18th year here. (Same issue with Jer. 52:28 and 2 Kings 24:12.) In addition, years ran Spring to Spring (Nisan to Nisan), so - certainly as far as Babylon was concerned - even if a king began to reign half-way through a year, his Year 1 would begin the next Spring. By the way, Nebuchadnezzar was enthroned in the 6th month (Ululu which corresponds to Aug/Sept) - see

    This is a COMMON misconception. The fact is, that if you compare the Babylonian Chronicle with the Bible, you will see there is literally a one-year difference. The Babylonian Chronicle says that he deported Jehoiachin in year 7. But the Bible says it was year 8. This cannot be harmonized because Ezekiel was deported in the year 7 deportation. Further, the Bible relates the conflict with Necho to fall in the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar harmonizing with year 4 of Jehoiakim. Year 3 is when Daniel was deported. So during the revision period, to squeeze more years out of the NB Period in order to expand the Persian Period, they combined events from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and his first year, which moved everything back by 1 year. The text itself confirms it was copied during the reign of Darius, so we know it was revised.

    Thus it is not an option to combine and either/or issue with years 18 and 19 mentioned in the Bible with the same year. There was specifically deportations during the the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, one in the 7th years, which was Ezekiel, which you can counter-compare with the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, one in year 8, as the Bible says, one in year 18, 19 and 23. They all have different numbers.

    Now, I know this will be ignored because I know the lack of capacity that exists when an option like this occurs. So I'll just note for you, that if the 11th year of Zedekiah matches the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year Jerusalem fell, then there is an 8-year difference. Thus year 1 of Zedekiah would be year 9 of Nebuchadnezzar. THAT, is consistent with Jehoiachin being deported on the last day of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar as the Bible says (2 Kings 24:11...)

    And Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon proceeded to come against the city, while his servants were laying siege against it.

    12 At length Je·hoi´a·chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king."

    Again, he was deported on the very last day of the year. Zedekiah began ruling after that, so essentially his rule began in the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Again, this is confirmed since Zedekiah's 11th year matches Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, the year Jerusalem fell.

    I know some people think there is flexiblity here, but my position is that the Bible understood the accession year system of the Babylonians and all their references to the year of the king of Babylon was reflective of the accession year system when it referenced Nebuchadnezzar. Thus the contradiction with the revised Babylonian Chronicle is truly a 1-year contradiction based upon revisionism. The Bible assigns a 45-year rule to Nebuchadnezzar, the revised chronology only 43, but also the events during his rule are a year off as well.

    Now, of course, the absolute chronology of the Bible and the VAT4956 confirms that year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar was indeed the year Jerusalem fell as the Bible says, that is, based upon 511 BCE as the original dating for year 37, year 19 falls in 529 BCE. Year 23 would fall in 525 BCE, which must be exactly 70 years from the 1st of Cyrus which per the Bible must fall in 455 BCE. This is not NEGOTIABLE at this point since the VAT4956. It's a matter of correcting this, or being out of date or incompetent, or perhaps living in a fantasy world.

    Year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar is year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar per the accession year system. Period. The fall of Jerusalem is expressed in terms of both Babylonian and Judean kingships, namely year 11 of Zedekiah and year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar. There is no problems harmonizing these years when you deport Jehoiachin in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar as the Bible says. Here's how the king's list looks from the time of Jehoiakim through the end of Nebuchandezzar's 45-year rule.

    550 JHK01 NABOPAL-15
    549 JHK02 NABOPAL-16
    547 JHK04 NECHO ATTACK NEBUCH2-01 (18)
    546 JHK05 NEBUCH2-02 (19)
    545 JHK06 NEBUCH2-03 (20)
    544 JHK07 NEBUCH2-04 (21)
    543 JHK08 NEBUCH2-05 (22)
    542 JHK08 NEBUCH2-06 (23)
    541 JHK10 2ND DEPORT. NEBUCH2-07 (24)
    540 JHK11 JHC.3 3RD DEPORT. NEBUCH2-08 (25)
    539 ZED01 NEBUCH2-09 (1st exile of Jehoiachin-month 5)(26)
    538 ZED02 NEBUCH2-10 (2nd, month 5)(27)
    537 ZED03 NEBUCH2-11 (3rd, month 5)(28)
    536 ZED04 NEBUCH2-12 (4th, month 5)(29)
    535 ZED05 NEBUCH2-13 (5th, month 5)(30th of Nabopolassar)
    534 ZED06 NEBUCH2-14
    533 ZED07 NEBUCH2-15
    532 ZED08 NEBUCH2-16
    531 ZED09 NEBUCH2-17
    530 ZED10 4TH DEPORT. NEBUCH2-18
    528 GEDALIAH01 NEBUCH2-20
    527 GEDALIAH02 NEBUCH2-21
    526 NEBUCH2-22
    524 NEBUCH2-24
    523 NEBUCH2-25
    522 NEBUCH2-26
    521 NEBUCH2-27
    520 NEBUCH2-28
    519 NEBUCH2-29
    518 NEBUCH2-30
    517 NEBUCH2-31
    516 NEBUCH2-32
    515 NEBUCH2-33
    514 NEBUCH2-34
    513 NEBUCH2-35
    512 NEBUCH2-36
    511 NEBUCH2-37
    510 NEBUCH2-38
    509 NEBUCH2-39
    508 NEBUCH2-40
    507 NEBUCH2-41
    506 NEBUCH2-42
    505 NEBUCH2-43
    504 NEBUCH2-44
    503 NEBUCH2-45


  • JCanon
    You've already seen that it's hard to come to any firm conclusions as to the identity of Darius the Mede given there's no evidence of his existence outside the Bible.

    This is a completely irresponsible statement since lots of people understood who Darius the Mede was. But case in point is Sir Isaac Newton who gives lots of details about Darius the Mede. Wonder where he got that information if "there's no evidence of his existence outside the Bible"?

    An exerpt from Sir Isaac Newton's "A Short Chronicle" which covers the Babylonian timeline. Were you aware of the Darius the Mede references by Sir Isaac Newton?

    609. Josiah slain. Cyaxeres and Nebuchadnezzar overthrow Nineveh, and, by sharing the Assyrian Empire, grow great.

    607. Creon the first annual Archon of the Athenians. The second Messian war begins. Cyaxeres makes the Scythians retire beyond Colchos and Iberia, and seizes the Assyrian Provinces of Armenia, Pontus and Cappadocia.

    606. Nebuchadnezzar invades Syria and Judaea.

    604. Nabopolassar dies, and is succeeded by his Son Nebuchadnezzar, who had already Reigned two years with his father.

    600. Darius the Mede, the son of Cyaxeres, is born.

    599. Cyrus is born of Mandane, the Sister of Cyaxeres, and daughter of Astyages.

    596. Susiana and Elam conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Caranus and Perdiccas fly from Phidon, and found the Kingdom of Macedon. Phidon introduces Weighs and Measures, and the Coining of Silver Money.

    590. Cyaxeres makes war upon Alyattes King of Lydia.

    588. The Temple of Solomon is burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. The Messenians being conquired, fly into Sicily, and build Messana.

    585. In the sixth year of the Lydian war, a total Eclipse of the Sun, predicted by Thales, May the 28th, puts an end to a Battel between the Medes and Lydians: Whereupon they make Peace, and ratify it by a marriage between Darius Medus the son of Cyaxeres, and Ariene the daughter of Alyattes.

    584. Phidon presides in the 49th Olympiad.

    580. Phidon is overthrown. Two men chosen by lot, out of the city Elis, to preside in the Olympic Games.

    572 Draco is Archon of the Athenians, and makes laws for them.

    568. The Amphictious make war upon the Cirrheans, by the advice of Solon, and take Cirrha. Clifthenes, Alcmaeon and Eurolicus commanded the forces of the Amphictions, and were contemporary to Phidon. For Leocides the son of Phidon, and Megacles the son of Alcmaeon, at one and the same time, courted Agarista the daughter of Clifthenes.

    569. Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt. Darius the Mede Reigns.

    562. Solon, being Archon of the Athenians, makes laws for them.

    557. Periander dies, and Corinth becomes free from Tyrants.

    555. Nabonadius Reigns at Babylon. His Mother Nitocris adorns and fortifies that City.

    550. Pisistratus becomes Tyrant at Athens. The Conference between Croesus and Solon.

    549. Solon dies, Hegestratus being Archon of Athens.

    544. Sardes is taken by Cyrus. Darius the Mede recoins the Lydian money into Darics.

    538. Babylon is taken by Cyrus.

    536. Cyrus overcomes Darius the Mede, and translates the Empire to the Persians. The Jews return from Captivity, and found the second Temple.

    529. Cyrus dies. Cambyses Reigns,

    No evidence outside the Bible of Darius the Mede? Well it so happens lots of coins from his reign exist! The original DARIC was from his reign. Oh, I see, coins from a non-existent king?

    I wonder what WIKIPADEDIA has to say about the DARIC?

    Here is a picture of the original Babylonian king Darius the Mede on the DARIC:


    Funny to me, Sir Isaac Newton seemed to find plenty of information and evidence on Darius the Mede. Now I wonder where he got his information since you claim there is "no evidence" outside the Bible of who he was. I guess that means you're not really that much of an expert on the topic of Darius the Mede then, right?

    It's amazing how ill-informed the "experts" on these topics are. It's incredible!


  • JCanon

    Hi Ann:

    Jer. 44:29,30 says the sign that YHWH's punishment on those who fled to Egypt was to be a reality was that Pharoah Hophra (Apries) would be handed over to his enemies. Hophra was deposed by a coup in 570 BCE. It's thought he died a little while later. We also know of a fragmentary record of a campaign by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt and Pharaoh Amasis (Hophra's successor) in his 37th year or 568 BCE. So it's unlikely that the deportation in the 23rd year came from Egypt, if we are to factor in Jeremiah's prophecies.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but...

    The idea that the Jews deported in year 23 came from Egypt is a DIRECT QUOTE from Josephus. Thus Josephus has to be contradicted here to move the 23rd year deportation from Egypt elsewhere. Here is that direct quote.

    ANT 10.9. the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Celesyria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned (16) and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews.....,; but the king of Babylon, who brought out the two tribes, (17) placed no other nation in their country, by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."

    See? We have a direct quote from Josephus claiming a deportation of those in Egypt in year 23 that left the land of Judah desolated for 70 years.

    What we have to do now is see if that harmonizes with the Bible. It does. The Bibilical references are Jer. 44:14, 28 which notes that those who "escaped from the sword" would return to Judea. Thus we find at 2 Chronicles 36 this same phrase being used in connection with the last deportation...

    20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

    Notice this is specific: "those remaining from the sword." This is not a general reference to all Jews but to those specifically spared from the sword of Nebuchadnezzar's massacre when he arrived there in year 23. Thus even the Bible links those last deported to those left down in Egypt. Now since the Bible promised Baruch his life, and obviously Jeremiah, and we know both were down in Egypt, they would be part of those "remaining from the sword" and thus this tells us when they were deported. Thus the last deportation from Egypt via Judea matches the account of the traditional Jewish history. Any suggestion that there is a question about who those last deported were or from where is a matter of unfamiliarity with the reference. Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year campaign, therefore, had nothing to do with any Jewish deportation.

    Interesting, though, that you'd know about Apries in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year and not know about Josephus' direct reference for the deportation. Again, it becomes quite interesting to me why so many false and academically irresponsible presumptions persist. It's just AMAZING!!!


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Sorry I have been out of action for a few months (my wife has terminal cancer), so I have not yet had the time to plough through all of the pages on this post yet.

    It is not possible for the WTS -- or anyone else for that matter -- to prove which year the Jews returned to Jerusalem following the decree by Cyrus.

    It is not possible to show that this is the event that marked the end of the "70 years of servitude" by the nations listed by Jeremiah.

    Further, one would have to show whether each Jewish writer at that time was using inclusive reckoning or not. For example, using our numbering system and inclusive reckoning, the period from 607 BCE to 537 BCE would be 71 years, not 70 years.



  • scholar

    Doug Mason

    Post 488

    Nice to have you back on board. Sorry to hear the sad news about your dear wife and I trust that all will go well with you in this time of trial.

    As I have argued several times on this board, Chronology is all about methodology and interpretation so many many if not all date cannot be ever 'proved' regardless of the skill of the chronologist. At best, one can only demonstrate by reason dates for specific events in a chronology. No date for the Return can be proved in the absolute sense but upon a carful examination of the Scriptures and secular history the date 537 BCE is the most proovable date.

    The date of the Return indeed is the only possible date to end the seventy year period as descibed by Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra. The other candidate, 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is impossible for the very simple amongst many others that the Jews were still Babylon at that time and the land was still desolate at that time.

    You raise the matter of inclusive reckoning but if we subtract the period from the precise month namely Tishri, 607 until Tishri, 537 BCE we get 70 full years as required by the Bible writers and in harmony with Josephus.

    scholar JW

Share this