Aha Ha! You are back.
The comparison of the total regnal years for the Divided Monarchy with Bible Chronology is not meaningless especially when you compare these two listing with tabulations of other scholars for it is part and parcel of collecting relevant data toso as to become schematic. I never said that the assigned dates for the reigns agree with our chronology only the sum totals and also both of which agree with your tabulation so we are all together in the same bed. Is that not cosy?
I know what methodology means.Do you? Have you read the introductory paragraphs in his artcle titles "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" If not then read it.
Yes many reference works give 609 as the disappearance of Assyria from the pages of history but others do not. It is still a very poor choice for a chronological marker for it would be better to go for 605 BCE The end of any empire is in itself a significant event and that applies to Assyria but if you are truly honest that the most significant event in Israelite History was the Fall of Jerusalem- a far superior candidate for the beginning of the seventy years.
Jeremiah's prophecy was mainly targeted to Judah as confirmed by reading the very first chapter. In his book he prophesied to the nations as well but the principal audience of his book is Jeusalem-Judah and the Land.
The foundation of 607 BCE is now more solid because of recent research regarding the dating of the Neb's 37 th year as explained in the Nov 15 th Wt 2012 concerning Vat4956. This research now brings Neo-Babylonian chronology as a corrobative witness to the accuracy of Bible chronology. Further, NB chronology omits any reference to the biblical seventy years thus creating a historical gap of twenty years so when this is factored in then NB chronology can now be harmonized with Bible chronology proving 607 BCE
537 BCE as the endpoint for the seventy years conforms to the biblical and historical evidence as presented. As with many dates there is always some degree of uncertainty because not all of the facts are presented bu there is sufficent data to validate 537 BCE.
The date 586 enjoys wide support within scholarship. Why not Google it and test it yourself?
The change of leadership at Babylon has everything to do with the seventy years and Jeemiah's prophecy for did not Jeremiah and Daniel foretell this event? After Babylon fell there was a new King of Babylon who kept the Jews captive until their release two years later in 537'
I agree that Jeremiah 29:10 can accommodate the seventy years for Babylon but the domination of Babylon over the Jewish captives did not end in 539 but two years later when the new leadership rleased them thus ending the seventy years for Babylon and the seventy years in Babylon.
Yes I agree would it not be very exciting if some notable scholar published confirmation of 607 BCE. I can't wait but, hang on has not what Rolf Furuli has done?
The fact of the seventy years proves a gap of twenty years because NB chronology makes no allowance of it even though its dynasty parallels the same period. So, it cannot be ignored. Once recognized and factored in then you 607 confirmed. Done and Dusted.
Did you love my pretty illustration?
Was not Jeremiah talking about eventual judgement upon Babylon and its territiory and immediate judgement upon the King. Does not Jeremiah when prophesying against the nations speak of eventual judgement?