by waton 88 Replies latest social current
Rattigan said
“1914 is not based on the fall of Jerusalem “
but
Insight on Scriptures p 132
“Beginning of ‘trampling.’ The ‘trampling’ on that kingdom of the dynasty of Davidic rulers did not begin with the Roman devastation of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate“
1914 is not based on the fall of Jerusalem.
Isn't it based on 607BCE plus 2520 years = 1914CE...?
why the majority of scholars accept 586 you can read the two articles I referenced
If you could link the articles that don’t require membership or login, great. I did read briefly about the Rosetta seals which they concluded the kings of Judah stopped using around 587 and using their dating methods dated 586. So they believe. And therefore Jerusalem fell in 586. If you can link the complete works as I mentioned, great. I can read with an open mind but I am skeptical to begin with because prophecy required the land to pay back its Sabbaths counting back from 539 and 586 wouldn’t add up. If 586 is the factual date, it would be a problem relating to prophecy.
The crucial year WT uses to establish the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy in Daniel 9 is 455 for the 20th year of Artaxerxes
Correct. As I also posted, I didn’t remember at the time where that date came from. Insight on the Scriptures under the topic 70 weeks explains WT reasons why believed but doesn’t link to 539 —although 539 and 29 are “pivotal” dates WT uses in phase with WT Bible chronology according to Insight article on chronology. Theoretically, using 539 as the standard other historical dates such as 29 should coincide (if linking historical events was possible) and so should theoretical dates such as 586 or 607.
reconstruct when biblical military campaigns occurred and uses 586 as an anchor for the destruction of Jerusalem, which the majority of scholars accept.
I can read with an open mind but I am skeptical to begin with because prophecy required the land to pay back its Sabbaths counting back from 539 and 586 wouldn’t add up.
Hi Fisher one! can you explain what "paying back it's Sabbaths" means please? I'm so fuzzy on all of this!
Fisherman : If you could link the articles that don’t require membership or login, great.
The Rosette stamped jar handle system and the Kingdom of Judah at the end of the First Temple Period is linked here and The Settlement on the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem at the End of the Iron Age: A Reconstruction Based on the Archaeological Evidence is linked here.
JSTOR allows "independent researchers" to read articles online for free. On both links there is an "alternate access option" which allows those who cannot access JSTOR through a school or library, to read 100 articles a month free. You do need to register with your email address but there is no payment.
what "paying back it's Sabbaths" means
According to Jewish law, every 7 years the land should not be cultivated. Israelites were required to let the land rest. The Israelites failed to this throughout the years. The scriptures don’t say exactly how many times the Israelites broke this law but 70 years of desolation was the total time that God required to allow the land to rest from being cultivated and harvested to pay back or compensate for the times this law was trespassed.
It is important to take note of this because some people can argue that God let the Jews out earlier than 70 years and reconcile 586 but that cannot apply to the land. Therefore, if 539 was the end of the 70 year desolation of the land, the desolation must have begun 70 years earlier.
“21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.” —2chr 2: 21
ALL the days
Fisherman:
It is important to take note of this because some people can argue that God let the Jews out earlier than 70 years and reconcile 586 but that cannot apply to the land. Therefore, if 539 was the end of the 70 year desolation of the land, the desolation must have begun 70 years earlier.
“21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.” —2chr 2: 21
ALL the days
A dishonest rendering, coupled with an equally erroneous conclusion. The parenthetical phrase rendered there as “until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath” is from Leviticus 26:34-35 and isn’t the “word spoken by Jeremiah” at all. Making the second part of that quote the beginning of the sentence ending with the part about 70 years is simply wrong. Babylon’s 70 years definitely ended in 539 BCE. But ‘serving Babylon’ didn’t mean exile, and exile is explicitly identified as a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon (Jeremiah 27:8-11).
A group of Jews returned to rebuild the temple in 538 BCE (though many Jews stayed in Babylon). Going back to Leviticus chapter 25, verse 8 indicates 49 years of sabbaths, which is entirely consistent with the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (not 586) until 538 BCE.
Also, the paper doesn’t purport to identify 586 as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, but instead uses a traditional date of the event as a basis for comparing magnetic levels to establish approximate dates for other events.
Fisherman:
These are scientists mind you.
🤦♂️
Why not use 539 as the base date since 539 is a historical fact.
The method is for dating events involving significant fires (”they use archaeological findings containing magnetic minerals which, when heated or burned, record the magnetic field at the time of the fire”), such as that in Jerusalem’s destruction. They can’t just arbitrarily pick any year as a ‘base date’.
2 Kings 24:12 and 2 Kings 25:8 identify sieges in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th and 19th years (counting his accession year as his first year). Jeremiah 52:28, 29 provide accession-year references to the same events as Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th and 18th years, and the earlier siege on Jerusalem was from late 598 BCE to early 597 BCE, ending before Nisan. Babylonian records confirm events for Nebuchadnezzar’s early years of reign including the siege in his 7th year, using Nisan-based accession dating. Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year was 605 BCE, so it is simple arithmetic to confirm that his 7th year (not counting accession year) began in 598 BCE and his 18th year (not counting accession year) began in 587 BCE, not 586.
According to wt, on 607 B.C.E., on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), the king of Babylon penetrated the walls of Jerusalem.—This is much earlier than 586. (The wt publishes support of their interpretation in the wt online library.) Other views are welcome but I was only bringing out the 70 year prophetic aspect involving the land, spoken by Jeremiah in the quoted scripture as I explained in my post.
