SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

WT Chronology is likened to a strong cable with its many inter-connecting features unlike the secular chronologies which are simply a chain of connected links or a string of beads. (Refer WT, 15th July, 1922, p.217) Further, it states "In the chronology of present truth there are so many inter-relationships among the dates that it is not a mere string of dates, not a chain, but a cable of strands firmly knit together-a divinely unified system, with most of the dates having such a remarkable relations with others as to stamp the system as not of human origin" (ibid.).

In the following paragraph, the article notes the importance to Chronology of a genuine philosophy of history which must be discernible in the chronological system of divine truth (op.cit.). These inter-relations of dates are now termed as parallelisms . This is explained as "Parallel dates are two series of dates a certain number of years apart and marked by events of corresponding character. The intervening period is usually marked by a significant number or years" (ibid. p.219).

Major examples of which would be the following examples in the OT and NT:

1. 390 years of the Divided Monarchy- Ezekiel the Prophet

2. 70 years of Judah- Jeremiah the Prophet

3. 70 Weeks of Years - Daniel the prophet

4. 7 Times, Times of the Gentiles- Daniel the Prophet

These historical events form part of the tapestry of the Bible what has become known as 'Salvation History' and such parallelisms make up that strong cable of Chronology which is independent of all other secular Chronologies.

scholar JW

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The so-called evidence for NB Chronology is illusory as it is easily falsified by the simple fact that the NB Period of history makes no account of the 70 years of the Jewish Captivity and Servitude to Babylon

It would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting the Biblical evidence if it showed that the period of Babylonian domination was shorter than 70 years and therefore could not accommodate 70 years of Babylonian domination of all these nations around them:

(Jeremiah 25:11) . . .and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’

Fortunately, the NB Chronology allows for the right amount of years, 70 years of domination from the time of finally overtaking Assyria right up to the time of Babylon being overtaken by Persia.

Of course, Jeremiah's word would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting Watchtower evidence if that period of 70 years of domination was extended to add another 15 to 20 years of domination. In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar was already 20 years into the period of Babylonian domination of all these nations, and then got another 70 years after his 19th year (as the Watchtower claims) then that would be closer to 88 years of Babylonian domination. In other words, the Watchtower counts Babylonian domination from supposedly 625 BCE to 537 BCE, or 88 years. Claiming 88 years of Babylonian domination makes Jeremiah out to be a liar when he said that "these nations" will have to serve the king of Babylon for only 70 years.

Fortunately, Jeremiah's words are not falsified from the standpoint of accepting the NB Chronology. 

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

made worse when in fact that the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for such a lengthy period of time within the entire NB period.

Yes. Since it is supposed to be only 70 years, it would indeed be made worse if in fact the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for nearly a 90 year period as the Watchtower claims.

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider.

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting the Biblical evidence if it showed that the period of Babylonian domination was shorter than 70 years and therefore could not accommodate 70 years of Babylonian domination of all these nations around them:

(Jeremiah 25:11) . . .and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’

Fortunately, the NB Chronology allows for the right amount of years, 70 years of domination from the time of finally overtaking Assyria right up to the time of Babylon being overtaken by Persia.

NB Chronology does not account for the 70 years in any way, shape or form. COJ well demonstrates this fact when he was unable to clearly decide as to whether the 70 year period could begin in either 605 or 609 BCE for either according to his methodology had equal merit. Such confusion within scholarship is highlighted in Nile's Thesis in the Appendix A which for the beginning of the 70 years present three different dates: 612, 609, 605 BCE

WT Chronology has no such problem dating the beginning of the Period in Neb's 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 th year as properly calculated as 607 BCE

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, Jeremiah's word would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting Watchtower evidence if that period of 70 years of domination was extended to add another 15 to 20 years of domination. In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar was already 20 years into the period of Babylonian domination of all these nations, and then got another 70 years after his 19th year (as the Watchtower claims) then that would be closer to 88 years of Babylonian domination. In other words, the Watchtower counts Babylonian domination from supposedly 625 BCE to 537 BCE, or 88 years. Claiming 88 years of Babylonian domination makes Jeremiah out to be a liar when he said that "these nations" will have to serve the king of Babylon for only 70 years.

Gibberish or special pleading. Why not just accept the basic historical fact of the 70 years and do not make it so complicated for a complex chronology is a bogus chronology- the Devil's work!!

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. Since it is supposed to be only 70 years, it would indeed be made worse if in fact the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for nearly a 90 year period as the Watchtower claims.

The 70 years was defined period of servitude/domination. exile/captivity. desolation of the land between two clearly defined historical events marked in Bible History to wit: Fall of Jerusalem and the Return to Judah properly fixed.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology is likened to a strong cable with its many inter-connecting features unlike the secular chronologies which are simply a chain of connected links or a string of beads. (Refer WT, 15th July, 1922, p.217)

Uh-oh! If she's consistent, you should be hearing from @Arauna soon about using an old publication to pretend that current belief is still based on this same old false idea about WT chronology.

What that article actually says, anyway, is that even WT chronology really is just a string of connected links like a string of beads, but with one additional feature that makes it like a strong interconnected cable. And that one feature is "parallel dispensations."

In other words the only thing that sets our chronology apart from secular chronology, and made it proven to be of "divine origin" was an idea that the WT has since completely rejected:

What does the WT chronology add that makes if of divine origin?

Those proofs are parallelisms:

The primary parallelism, the only real one, was the 1,845 year parallelism. Although 2520 was mentioned, it can be seen that this was not a parallelism, but just a stretch of supposedly prophesied time, and completely dependent on all the ideas that had just been rejected as too secular.

Who'd have guessed that 1914 was considered accurate because it was 1845 years after 70 AD? This is why the end of the Jewish kingdom had to be dated back to 606, because the methodology was simple: count backwards from 1914.

[scholar JW]

JW insider

Your reply is just what i expected. Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

While we are at it what year ended the Monarchy of Judah with its overthrow by Neb when he destroyed Jerusalem and do you accept the timeline for the Divide monarchy in recent WT publications and if not what chronology for the Divided Monarchy do you accept?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

On 12/16/2020 at 7:26 PM, scholar JW said:

NB Chronology does not account for the 70 years in any way, shape or form.

But it obviously does. It doesn't give 88 years like the WTS wants, and it doesn't give just 50 years (as Josephus finally corrected the period from the fall of Jerusalem to Cyrus). As you indicate, the standard NB Chronology gives a period that scholars and Bible students can begin from about 612, 609, or 605 at the latest, with 609 between them. The Bible ends that period with Cyrus, and that date is admitted, by the WTS to be 539, relying on the same secular chronology. The first is 73 years and the last is 66 years. 609 as a solution would be exactly 70 years. If you see a problem with being able to fulfill "70 years" in a period of about 66, 70, or 73 years then there is no reason to discuss this "70 years." It seems very specious and disingenuous to say that 70 years cannot be 70 years.

On 12/16/2020 at 7:26 PM, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has no such problem dating the beginning of the Period in Neb's 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 th year as properly calculated as 607 BCE

Wait! You were worried about a range of dates from 66 to 73 making a huge problem for secular chronology? That's only 3 or 4 years off at most. And they average about 70 years. Yet you claim the WT chronology has no problem by creating a date that contradicts their own sources for BCE dates by about 20 years!

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But it obviously does. It doesn't give 88 years like the WTS wants, and it doesn't give just 50 years (as Josephus finally corrected the period from the fall of Jerusalem to Cyrus). As you indicate, the standard NB Chronology gives a period that scholars and Bible students can begin from about 612, 609, or 605 at the latest, with 609 between them. The Bible ends that period with Cyrus, and that date is admitted, by the WTS to be 539, relying on the same secular chronology. The first is 73 years and the last is 66 years. 609 as a solution would be exactly 70 years. If you see a problem with being able to fulfill "70 years" in a period of about 66, 70, or 73 years then there is no reason to discuss this "70 years." It seems very specious and disingenuous to say that 70 years cannot be 70 years.

There is simply 70 years proper that is the focus for that is the only period mentioned and it is simple to define where that 70 years fits and that is between the Fall and the Return whereupon on has exactly 70 years between two major historical events. pure and simple.

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Wait! You were worried about a range of dates from 66 to 73 making a huge problem for secular chronology. That's only 3 or 4 years off at most. And they average about 70 years. Yet you claim the WT chronology has no problem by creating a date that contradicts their own sources for BCE dates by about 20 years!

I am not worried at all because when one does compare secular chronology with Bible Chronology yo see a gap of 20 years so that is Ok for need only have to adjust the NB period by 20 years which seems to what the Finnish Chronologist has done verified by his study of the astronomical data as with Furuli.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender?

I have never claimed to be clever or expert on Chronology. In fact, I have probably made a lot of mistakes on this very thread/topic. I keep catching my own typos.  I don't have much interest in whatever this was you are talking about with AlanF.

I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years."  After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

I have never claimed to be clever or expert on Chronology. In fact, I have probably made a lot of mistakes on this very thread/topic. I keep catching my own typos.  I don't have no interest in whatever this was you are talking about with AlanF.

That is not the impression that you create on this forum. Remember when someone claims to debunk WT chronology which Alan F does and you appear to be a co-conspirator then that question I have asked is like the sword of Damocles which i will present to any so-called expert.

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years."  After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.

So what! The simple fact that NB Chronology and its History does not account for the 70 years nor does it account for Neb's regnal vacancy.

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.

Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? 

Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!!

scholar JW

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Reminder of basic facts:

4 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

  12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:

1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young

2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis.

3. The first scholar in company with Leonard Tolhurst to have the first translation of the German original into English of the VAT 4956 paper by Ernst Weidner

So my time has not been wasted but very fruitful indeed.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

34 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!!

Rubbish! I already told you: your questions were completely irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology, and all of us already know the answers. You're dissembling to try to confuse the dummies on this forum.