*** si pp. 282-283 par. 28 Study Number 2—Time and the Holy Scriptures ***
Pivotal Date for the Hebrew Scriptures. A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at Daniel 5:30. Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar.
You said "The Ba(b)ylonian records do give any calendrical dates as we know it but simply events linked with a regnal year which allows scholars to determine a date for that event. " You really should read the All Scripture book more.
Ann O Malley kindly corrected a mis-statement on my part regarding the difference between 587 and 586 BCE, which I had actually forgotten about regarding regnal vs ascention year chronology. Here is her statement and my response in its entirety.
Ann O Malley wrote
Meanwhile, more history books then can be found have the date as 587/586 BCE as the date of Jerusalems fall, the year off being for those use the zero year or not.
(Hope you don't mind, ATJ.) Just to clarify for any newer readers - the ambiguity as to whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 derives from the Bible's dating of its fall in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (in one Scripture) and in his 19th year (in another Scripture). A judgment has to be made on whether the writer was using the accession year system (0-1-2-3-etc.) or non-accession year system (1-2-3-4-etc.) for counting regnal years.
"Ann, I appreciate the correction. I actually read up on that a little last night. I got myself confused. Thanks!"
(fake) Scholar, I believes that answers your question as well.
(fake) Scholar, AllTimeJeff recognizes not only the problem that you have in maintaining 607 BCE as legitimate, but the bungled JW strategy that the cult has been using since 1960 to prop up its date by discrediting the dates and findings of everyone else.
Whether you like my date of 587/586 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem or not, I have supplied sources. I realize that JW's call these "popular" as if having a fact accepted by the majority must be rejected because it is accepted by the majority. Not exactly a desireable premise to have sir.
I remind you once again of the question you have failed to answer: Where is one, non JW, scholar that has backed up 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem by Baylon? I ask you again. And again.
Where is one, non JW scholar that has backed up 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem by Baylon?
AllTimeJeff realizes you would rather not answer that question. But AllTimeJeff will not let you off the hook with that one.