Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason 277 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Shepherdless

  You have been misled and deceived by the false teachers. The date 537 BCE is is the accepted date for the Return 0f the Jews to Judah thus officially ending the 70 years.Jer. 25:12 only comes into effect after the 70 years had ended in 537 BCE and not 539 BCE at the Fall of Babylon for it begins as a qualifier "But when 70 years have been fulfilled" and Dan 9:1-2 refers to the ending of the 70 years after Babylon fell for Daniel observed the matter in 'the first year of Darius'.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  You come across with hysterics which has no place in a sound and considerate conversation. The fact of the matter is that 586/587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem is impossible because it cannot account for the 70 years thus it is falsified by the 70 years, therefore, the only possible date is 607 BCE.

  scholar JW emeritus.
• 

  Finkelstein

  That’s why your intellectually dishonest and people viewing this thread can see that.

  You perfectly reconfirmed how corrupt the leaders of the WTS are and were.

  If I were you I would pray to god and ask for his forgiveness .

  False prophesying is a sin and an act of apostasy, therefore your forfeiting your own salvation.☹️
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  The said scholar has no time for hysterics or insults because when you insult someone that means that you have lost the argument.

  scholar JW emeritus
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi Scholar,

  Thank you for the reference to the paras in "Insight" volume 1.

  This means that the WTS accepts the ability of scholars to accurately calculate the dates of astronomical phenomena. I have copies of the original material that is referred to by these paras in "Insight", and they consistently are able to provide the dates of the eclipses during all of the period in question.

  This is great news, for these same scholars also list the eclipse in 605 BCE during Nabopolassar's reign and the 567 BCE eclipse during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year.

  I am equally delighted to see that the WTS has to rely on the secular chronology to arrive at 539 BCE.

  Their reliance on Parker and Dubberstein is also obvious, because the WTS changed the date from 538 BCE to 539 BCE following the 1942 release of P&D's work.

  Doug
• 

  Finkelstein

  It’s quite obvious that the WTS twisted history to suit its own agenda in calculating 1914.

  The WTS has been theological dishonest numerous times since its activity as a religious publishing house.

  I’d like to thank scholar for coming to this thread in helping expose the WTS’s corruption .
• 

  scholar

  Hi Doug

  I am somewhat taken back by your surprise that WT scholars rely on secular data in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because have I not said repeatedly on this forum and others that the WT Cfronology in relation to the calculation of 607 BCE and other OT dates that secular sources whether astronomical or otherwise are necessary in order to count back in time. Really, what your response shows that you have an inadequate understanding of the role of METHODOLOGY in Chronology and this was the fundamental purpose or thesis of Rodger Young's article.

  Simply put, Methodology allows WT scholars and any other Chronologist to cherry-pick if you like what secular data is required especially when the historical data or biblical data such as the 70 years conflicts or is not in harmony with a traditional methodology with the reliance on different calendations and astronomical data.

  Previously SDA scholars championed VAT 4956 pinpointing Neb's 37 th year using astronomical data which would disprove WT Chronology and 607 BCE. But the tables have turned on such scholars because of the research of Rolf Furuli whose thesis shows that Neb's 37th year can be assigned much earlier confirming Neb's 18th year in 607 BCE which is proved by Jeremiah's seventy years.

  scholar JW emeritus
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  it is nice to Finkelstein's hysterical nonsense which shows the weakness and foolishness of the arguments trying to disprove 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem proven by the biblical 70 years of Jeremiah the prophet.

  scholar JW
• 

  Finkelstein

  I'm not going to debate or discuss with you apostate scholar about this topic, we've done that numerous times here and every time you've come out looking like a convoluted idiot and dishonest one at that.
  

  The prophecy in Jeremiah was a failer or was inaccurate to the actual occurrences, there now you know the factual Truth .
  

  If the prophesy stated that the king of Babylon would rule over the Israelites for 70 years and during this time some would be taken captive by this ruler. Also during this time the temple would be eventually destroyed and Jerusalem was to lay in desolation thereafter.

  That would come closer to the actual occurring events.

  The difference in description between the meaning of captivity and desolation..
  

  The final destruction of Jerusalem did occur in 586 BCE, the 19th year of rein of Nebuchadnezzar.
  
• 

  scholar

  Finkelstein

  You are not prepared to debate the matter because you will lose as the said scholar has a long history on this forum of engaging in intense debate on this topic over many years so I have nothing to fear. The Bible presents the facts about what happened to the Jews during the period of Babylonian domination and such facts can only support 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem and not 586 or 587 BCE

  scholar JW