AllTime Jeff
Post 1657
Methodology selects those sources that are appropriate, you have yours and we have ours.
Scholar has hasd nine years of enjoyment refuting the apostate nonsense.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
AllTime Jeff
Post 1657
Methodology selects those sources that are appropriate, you have yours and we have ours.
Scholar has hasd nine years of enjoyment refuting the apostate nonsense.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
doyryakii
Post 626
1. The matter of the zero year was simply a matter of methodology and when it was realized that there was an error then an adjustment was made. This is no big deal because chronology is a science that has always been in a state of flux. Suh fine tuning did not impact on the validity of the 1914 CE date for the end of the Gentile Times, thanks be to Providence.
2. Accoding to accurate Bible chronology Josiah died in 629 BCE so you are twenty years wide off the mark.
3. Biblical evidence begins Neb's reign in 624 BCE so once again you are twenty years off the mark.
4. 537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.
5. To say that 607 BCE has no support is simply stupid because there is clear evidence both from the Bible, Josephus and NB chronology to support such a determination. With the latter its records brings us within a twenty years striking distance and when the seventy years is factored into that chronology then Bingo you have a rock solid, irrefutable 607 BCE.
5. Apostates have a hang-up over the zero year problem but fine tuning and correct methoidology proved the validity of 1914 CE.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
Doug Mason
Post 566
I would be most happy to meet you face to face at time and place of mutual convenience so as to discuss your claim of my' inability to provide any support for the WT's position'.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
AllTimeJeff
Post 1638
As said or meant to have said that Babylonian records do not give calendrical dates for those events an dneither does the Bible so the chronologist must assign dates according to our modern reckoning.
The confusion as to what precise year should be reckoned for the Fall of Jerusalem is often blamed on the biblical data but the celebrated WT scholars have always been fully aware of the 19th and 18th years of Nebuchadnezzer and also the difference between regnal and accession year method of dating. Further, they are also aware of the difference between calendrical systems either dating from the Spring or the Autumn. However, taking all of these factors into account as carefully explained in the All Scripture Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1963, pp.277-383. these scholars have quite successfully unlike modern scholars to determine a precise calender year for the Fall which is 607 BCE.
Scholar has no problem and never has had any problem in defending and expalining the validity of 607 BCE and has done just that on this forum for the last eight years and will continue to do despite the vehement attack by apostates.
Scholar is untroubled by your adherence to a problematic 587/586 BCE date for the Fall and is fully aware of your sources but these sources are not from the Bible and it is the Bible alone that determines Bible-based chronology.
You ask for names of those non JW scholars who support 607 BCE:
Jerry Leslie
Julian T Gray
Paul S Johnson
Morton Edgar
Charles f Redeker
I hope this helps.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
Mary
Post 10713
That's right scholarship does not treat Neb's seven year experience as literal history and this is a big problem for those supporters of NB chronology and for those who argue against a major fulfillment of Dan 4. It all boils down to credibility a word unfamiliar to apostates.
There is no need for any extravagant claim about this matter for all you need to do to understand the said scholar's observation is to simply read the literature.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
isaacaustin
Post 1608
Indeed there is everything in Luke to prove its connection with Daniel 4 namely the use of 'times', Jerusalem and its 'being trampled' and the period of the Gentile Times. It is all there in the mix.
Daniel 4 id not only about Neb's experience for seven years but more to the point it is about seven times of Gentile Rulership at the expense of God's Kingdom which is the focal point of that prophetic drama.
The 'day for a year' is indeed a Bible rule of interpretation proved also by its long tradition amongst Biblical and Jewish interpreters.
You miss the point, chronology is all about doing just that: counting back and with prophecy counting forward.
Jeremiah foretold seventy years of servitude-desolation-exile whilst under Babylonian domination you are only seeing part of the story. Dating the period from 609 BCE is simply a guess propounded by apostates with little support from scholars. Also, nothing of any significance occurred in that year so your proposal is dumb.
Your proposed 609-539 BCE period and your proposed 586/587 BCE conflicts with the Bible on numerous grounds and it most certainly conflicts with our wondrous Bible chronology developed by those 'celebrated WT scholars.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
AnnOMaly
Post 961
Robert Young's article only established what he believed the year to be according to his own selected methodology but 586 BCE still remains the preferred choice of serious scholars.
Do not forget from where it was that you first learnt of that seminal article and it was from your mighty scholar.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
AnnOMaly
Post 960
No desperation was needed because those Bible Students were people of faith and had faith in Bible prophecy and the Lord's Return. Do you share such a faith in God's Promises? Their predictions and prophesying about 1914 were vindicated by the facts of modern and eschatological history. For many decades 606 BCE served its purpose and with Providence certain adjustments have been made much to the celebration of our now wondrous Bible chronology, a Jewel in the Crown so to speascholar.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
Leolaia
Post 13180
No, the secondary fulfillment does not override the primary one but supplements it as it is the purpose of the dream and Neb's experience in the first place as Neb had to be shown that God's rulership was superior to his. This proves that you cannot separate the two for these are bound up together by means of the expression 'times' and the vocabulary of the Kingdom of God.
There is no inconsistency with Jehovah's selective use of a pagan ruler to enact a prophec tis drama or history in the fulfillment of prophecy for there are numerous precedents for this in the Bible. You state a problem whence there is no problem except in your own mind asa a lack of understanding. Gentile Rulers have been used by Jehovah to execute his authority in certain ways and means in respect particularly to that first Kingdom of God on earth, Jeruslaem which had to be punished many times by pagan rulers. The book of Daniel throughout explains and develoips God's Kingdom by means of the various World Powers and their relationship with the Holy Ones of God. This same theme is tasken up with the book of Revelation. You need to see things as a theological perspective and not bury your pretty self in the mire of higher criticism which has no place for the spiritual.
scholar JW
70 years of captivity?.
i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.
that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.
AllTime Jeff
Post 1620
The Bavylonian 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. Those dates are based on scholarly interpretation because there is always some fluidity involved in most cases. The date 607 BCE is calcuable as is 587 or 586 BCE and such calculation has been explained in the Society's publications.
Just because a date is 'popular'does not make it correct for science is full of the 'popular' being consigned to the dustbin of history where such a false chronology belongs. Your research about the importance of Absolute Dates as being unimportant is utter nonsense for any decent textbook shows the necessity of having absolute or astronomically fixed dates as being essential. Scholars do not accept 586 or 587 as a pivotal date because these dates do not have the status required, it is only Carl Jonsson who would like to have it so.
Celebrated WT scholars most certainly can prefer 539 BCE over other dates for three good reasons and these are scholarly status, biblical context and methodology.
You still have not given me the precise calender year for Jerusalem's Fall for it must either 586 or 587 BCE for it cannot be both. You must try again.
scholar JW