scholar JW

Many Miles

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

LOL. Complete dodge.

The said scholar is no dodger!

JW Insider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not the one saying it is significant. I'm only saying that all evidence so far consistently points to 587 BCE as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It's up to you to decide whether that fact has any significance:

Utter nonsense! The only significance of Neb's 18/19th year pertains only to the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE which event is only described in the Bible as the basis for prophecy and not in NB History or Chronology.

scholar JW

JW Insider

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's almost like I paid you to say that. But I know you say that as your opening "salvo" in every single discussion of NB chronology I have ever seen you join. What's funny though is that I just said the following in the Nineveh thread:

If you are going to talk about Neb's 18th or 19th year then you have to assign not just a calendrical year for each but also an event otherwise the matter is meaningless for the purpose of Chronology. Thus. this matter must be resolved whether you choose to ignore it or otherwise.  

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I keep finding that the question most Witnesses are afraid to answer and terrified to research is the question: What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?

Once that question is asked the evasion becomes too obvious.

You should be upfront and provide such astronomical evidence as far as I am concerned based on COJ's extensive discussion of the astronomical diaries for the NB Period there is none. You have to answer not only this question but also the other about a precise calendar date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

JW Insider

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose this new thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

The major problem that you have is that scholarship based on NB Chronology cannot resolve the 586/7 BCE date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it was in either Neb's 18th or 19th year. Until you have resolved this problem then any talk about the 'strength of secular evidence' is foolishness and futile. Such an unresolved dilemma proves the wisdom of WT scholars choosing a different methodology in the selection of the Fall of Babylon as a Pivotal Date for the purpose of constructing a practical scheme of Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

JW Insider

My summary of the biblical 70 years is as follows:

The 70 years was first prophesied by Jeremiah in 'the fourth year of King Jehoiakim (625 BCE) -  Jer. 25: 11,12; 29:10 witnessed and experienced by the prophet Daniel whilst exiled in Babylon in the first year of Darius the Mede(539-538 BCEca) -Dan.9: 2.  Later, in the second year of King Darius 1 (520 BCE) the prophet Zechariah received a vision, a message of comfort concerning the already expired 70 years -Zech 1: 12; and in Darius' fourth year (518 BCE), Jehovah's word through the prophet recalled the 70 years as a period of laments -Zech. 7: 5. Finally, the historian Ezra (460 BCE) described the 70 years in 2Chron 36: 21.

These seven '70 years' references show three distinctive elements characteristic of this definite historical period in Jewish history namely: a period of Exile. a period of servitude to Babylon, a period of desolation of Jerusalem, its Temple and the Land of Judah. Accurate Bible History and Bible Chronology prove that the 70 years began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE by King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon in his 18/19th year (607 BCE) and during the 11th year of King Zedekiah of Judah and ended with the release of the Jewish exiles in Babylon under the King Cyrus of Persia during his 1st Year (538-537 BCE) using an official Decree returning to their homeland in 537 BCE.

The subject of the 70 years has been and continues to be a most contentious within current scholarship with many interpretations offered as to the nature of the 70 years and its chronology. The most popular theory is that it represents only a period of Babylonian domination from either 605 BCE or 609 BCE until 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon, others refer to the period as that of the state of the Jewish Temple from 586 BCE the traditional date for the destruction of Jerusalem to the Temple's restoration in 516 BCE. All such popular theories fail because the interpretation of the 70 years does not consider the major elements as described by the Bible writers both in terms of its prophecy and history except the Jewish historian Josephus who discusses the 70 years in his Antiquities to the Jews in similar terms matching the above description as a period of Exile.

The 70 years has proven to be a 'stumbling block' for scholars and critics of Jehovah's Witnesses because they ignore the fact of the Jewish Exile a period that historians such as Rainer Albertz have regarded the Exile aa a 'catastrophe'. Such language is very much descriptive of the Exile for and in Babylon uttered by the prophet Jeremiah.

scholar JW

JW Insider

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

f only Jeremiah's prophecy had made the 70 years of Babylon's domination commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the populace as exiles. But instead Jeremiah merely says that Babylon will have 70 years of dominance so that all the nations around will serve them. Here are some of the problems with that theory:

Jeremiah did just that. He explained the 70 years in full that would be a period of Judah being made to serve Babylon, that the Jews left an empty, desolated land for 70 years. - Jer. 25:8-11; 29:10.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

1. Jeremiah NEVER says the 70 years are for Judah, the prophecy says those 70 years are for Babylon and about Babylon.

False. Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was a judgement against Judah, not Babylon. Jer. 25:2

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2. Jeremiah says that many nations will come under this servitude of Babylon. Note:

(Jeremiah 25:9-26) . . .I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. . . . And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’  “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. I will bring on that land all my words that I have spoken against it, all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations.   . . . So I took the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and made all the nations to whom Jehovah sent me drink: starting with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, her kings and her princes, to make them a ruin, . . .  then Pharʹaoh king of Egypt . . .Uz;. . . the Phi·lisʹtines, Ashʹke·lon, Gazʹa, Ekʹron, . . . Ashʹdod;  Eʹdom, Moʹab,. . . Amʹmon·ites; . . .Tyre, . . .Siʹdon,. . . Deʹdan, Teʹma, Buz, . . . the Arabians . . .Zimʹri, . . . Eʹlam, . . .the Medes; . . . the kings of the north near and far, one after the other, and all the other kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; and the king of Sheʹshach will drink after them.

Correct! Jehovah's judgement against the nations is explained from vss. 12- 26. The expression 'these nations will have to serve Babylon for 70 years' can be rendered in different ways as shown by comparing other Bible translations. The problem is to whom or where are the 70 years applicable as set out in the Hebrew text so it is a matter of interpretation. We cannot know who these nations are as it is unspecified in this verse. Further, Rolf Furuli who is the first scholar to carry out a linguistic analysis of this verse suggests three possibilities as to the translation of this verse:

2. And they will serve these nations, the king of Babylon, seventy years

1. And these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years

3. And they will serve these nations together with the king of Babylon seventy years

The subject here is 'these nations' and are described as 'these surrounding nations' in vs. 9 or as 'nations round about'. Thus, I conclude that 'these nations' are simply those peoples living outside the border of Judah who also would be caught in the impending maelstrom.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it's pretty obvious that the devastating effects of Babylonian domination will come upon all the known lands around them "ALL these surrounding nations." Not just Judah. So the 70 years were about a Babylonian domination that would END after 70 years. True, it was Jehovah's purpose that Judea and Jerusalem will be desolated through that domination, seemingly in a worse way than any of the other nations, but after those 70 years FOR BABYLON their domination would end, and it would be Babylon's turn for desolation.

A linguistic analysis of this vs. 11 and vs.9 shows that 'these nations as 'surrounding nations' are simply peoples living in close proximity to the Land of Judah.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Now it was mentioned before that Isaiah uses an expression about Babylon and 70 years, too. The expression in the prophecy against Tyre was that she:

"will be forgotten for for 70 years, the same as the lifetime of one king.  . . . At the end of 70 years, Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she will return to her hire and prostitute herself with all the world’s kingdoms on the face of the earth. But her profit and her hire will become something holy to Jehovah. . . . Look! Jehovah is emptying the land and making it desolate. He turns it upside down and scatters its inhabitants.  It will be the same for everyone:. . .

The WT publications say that this "70 years" expression means "70 years, the same as the lifespan given to one KINGDOM, Babylon" who will desolate the prostitute, Tyre, but that after the 70 years are over, Tyre will prostitute herself again with all the nations. As you know, the WTS explains it more fully this way:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
 

These '70 years of Tyre' relate to their subjection to Babylon and were made by the prophet Isaiah and not Jeremiah so we should not conflate the two time periods. One remains unverified historically as in the case of Tyre where no specific dates are given whereas for Judah we have historical evidence for its start and end dates.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If this is true then the 70 years do not need to be associated directly with Judea's and Jerusalem's fall. It's the other way around, those 70 years for Babylon's domination would ultimately bring on a devastating effect in Judea and Jerusalem. It didn't need to be for the full 70 years that Babylon was given to begin it's period of greatest domination. So it also makes sense that we do not need to look for a specific date, exactly 70 years prior to October 539 BCE, or some arbitrarily chosen date within the first year of Cyrus. In fact most of Judea fell into exile a decade or more before Babylon tried to take the walled city of Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52)

Your argument fails because we have two specific time periods or events by two different prophets only fulfilled during the Babylonian period under Nebuchadnezzer represented as a period of servitude to that king. Jeremiah's 70 years applies to Judah alone whereas Isaiah's 70 years applies to Tyre alone.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But think about this: Tyre didn't come under the domination of Babylon for a full 70 years. In fact some of those nations in Jeremiah's list appeared to hardly come under domination at all. Some nations that once paid tribute to Egypt or Assyria would simply transfer that tribute over to Babylon. That's probably what Jeremiah had in mind for Judea when he said to just put yourself under the yoke of Babylon without rebellion and you'll save yourselves.

So it makes sense that Babylon has control for 70 years but not all nations need to come under their thumb instantly, or all at once. But what if Tyre had come under their control earlier in Nebuchadnezzar's reign and had been in servitude to Babylon for, say, 75, 80 or 85 years. Would the 70 year prophecy make sense if it were really 80 years for example?

You are trying to create history, best to just stick to what we know and what the Bible specifically states.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think you'll see what I'm getting at. The fact that Babylon was given 70 years to dominate would make no sense if some of those nations that came under the 70 years were actually dominated for 80 or even 85 years.

Yet this is what MOST of the Judeans were -- MOST were exiled for 80 or even 85 years according to the WTS chronology. 

Jeremiah's 70 years are for Judah alone and are historically specified but this is not the case with Isaiah's 70 years for all that these have in common is the same number and being dominated by Babylon for a period of time. The Jewish Exile was for a fixed period of 70 years and not 70 years or more. Those Jews who were earlier deported were of Jehoiachin's exile or 'the exile of King Jehoiachin' - Ezek.1: 2; 33:21; 40:1. Thus this deportation although termed as an 'exile' would be secondary to the EXILE in its fullest extent in accordance with the many prophetic warnings and judgements.

scholar JW

Screcko Sostar

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I remain to enjoy this academic discussion. 

Please do and recognize that such a discussion is only made possible by those 'celebrated' WT scholars!

scholar JW

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So it really makes no sense to start claiming that something called "The Exile" (as if there were only one) MUST have started ONLY in the year of the smallest number of exiles, what you call 607. It also flies in the face of Ezekiel's use of the term "in the 12th year of our Exile" to refer to a time starting 10 years before "the Exile" that you are arguing for.

Why do you need to start "the Exile" a decade LATER than Ezekiel starts "the Exile"? 

No problem as the Exile as to its nature and chronology are clearly defined as a fixed period of 70 years and consisted of two other elements namely a period of servitude to Babylon and a period of desolation of the Land of Judah which are characteristic of a 'exile' which of course would include a deportation of the remaining inhabitants. Such three elements are the Exile and only went into effect at the time of the Fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel along Daniel and others had already been deported some ten years earlier into Exile in Babylon thus it became their or 'our exile.

scholar JW

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Yeah!! I graciously accept your apology!! It took a while to convince you. Thank you for explicitly admitting that the years 586 or 587 are relevant! 

The only relevance applicable to these two proposed dates 586 BCE and 587 BCE for that event in Bible history- the Fall of Jerusalem is that it highlights the contention within scholarship as to which is the precise date for the Fall.

scholar JW

JW Insider

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I was surprised that you would say it's better to use a pivotal date tied to the Judean monarchy and then you still go right on and defend the ONE date in all of this discussion that is NOT tied to the Judean monarchy. The Nebuchadnezzar dates are explicitly tied to the Judean monarchy.

Only a few dates of Neb's reign are tied to the regnal years of the Judean Monarchy but such cannot be used as a pivotal date as such dates are contentious. It is far better to use the strongest and most celebrated candidate- 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon.

scholar JW

JW Insider

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But putting faith in the secular date 539, although it isn't necessary for Bible students, doesn't cause any real trouble because it is validated by the same evidence that validates Nisan 1, 586 BCE as the first day of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign. And this also perfectly fits the words of Jeremiah about Nebuchadnezzar being there at the start of the 70 years of Babylonian domination because it puts his accession year back in 605.   

The beginning of Babylon's domination is problematic even in the case of Judah thus it is best to heed Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years of Babylon's domination/servitude be commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th year and the deportation of the populace to Babylon as exiles leaving a desolated Land of Judah.

scholar JW

JW Insider

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And the problem with that is that you are putting faith in 539, then adjusting it as necessary to 537, and pretending that it is somehow better attested than 537 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

It is not an act of faith at all but simply using a sound and solid date that can serve as an anchor point for OT Chronology thus one can then reckon backwards and forwards to construct a valid scheme of Bible Chronology. The date 537 BCE is well attested than the problematic 19th or 18th year of Neb.

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't mind starting a Jewish Exile beginning around 607, because we know that Daniel claimed to be one of several exiles as early as Nebuchadnezzar's first or accession year, which is evidenced to be 605/4. So a period of Exile could well have matched the period of greatest domination of the Babylonian Empire. The Watchtower publications tell us that this period was the 70 years ending 539 and that different nations came under that yoke at different times. Same could be said for different parts of Judea and Jerusalem which also came under that domination and exile at different times during the 70 year period of their domination.

Well done in choosing 607 BCE as an Exilic beginning but you need to see that this year also was the date for the Fall which can only properly begin the Exile which was commensurate of not only Babylon's domination but also leaving a desolated Land of Judah for 70 years. This period did not end in 539 BCE but in 537 BCE with the Return of the Jews. There were no exiles but only ONE Exile with other deportations in biblical history of the Late Judean Monarchy.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

o clearly, according to the Watchtower's own publications, this particular 70 year period can remain intact without proposing that an event for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year actually happened BEFORE his own accession year!!

WT publications well describe the 70 years in its nature and chronology which began in Neb's 18th/19th year and Zedkiah's 11 th year for no other interpretation works. One Exile of 70 years beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That would make the Bible correct, but the Watchtower interpretation wrong, therefore non-Biblical.

Both the Bible and WT interpretation are in sync.

scholar JW

JW Insider

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

False. That's like saying that the first year or seventh year is contentious. You are only talking about the attempts to calculate the fall of Jerusalem with the Bible's data, NOT the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. There is no question at all that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 586 BCE. There is no question at all that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 587 BCE.

I am talking about the dates 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which the Bible states happened in the 18/19th year of Neb. That is what is contentious! These two regnal years of Neb are irrelevant unless are tied to an event in biblical history such as the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

JW Insider

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Haven't you read the WT explanation for it's computation? It is NOT immediate and NOT simple. Yet, the computation of any year within Nebuchadnezzar's reign is much more immediate and simple, however

Indeed I have all of the WT explanations right up to the present and I disagree with you. For example, the explanation in Insight, Vol.1, pp. 568-569 is simple and immediate or specific dealing with all of the attendant circumstances. Try finding in any other reference work a discussion of the year of the Jewish Return for there is no adequate treatment.

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And just like 539,  587 BCE also has universal acceptance as the date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As you said in your first sentence "Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem." And the Bible is the primary source of the question about which one to choose, because the Bible gives both year 18 and year 19. 

Most definitely not. For the date, 586 BCE for the Fall remains the view of leading chronologists, historians and archaeologists right up to the present and Lipschit's published research into this era is a good example of this fact. There is no way one can compare 586 or 587 BCE with the established date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon wisely chosen by WT scholars in 1949 some 75 years ago. What genius! What a masterstroke in biblical scholarship! A fact in which I repeatedly informed the late Alan F on this and other forums. May he rest in peace.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

he Bible, by the way, does NOT say it was the first year of Cyrus, or the accession year of Cyrus when Babylon fell in 539. As you are aware, of course, Cyrus had already been ruling for the past 20 years before 539 BCE, as the ruler of the Persian Empire since c. 559 BCE, and the ruler of the Medes since 549 BCE, and the ruler of Lydia since 547 BCE. 

Noted

37 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In fact, didn't I recall you conjecturing on this very forum about whether a certain Darius the Mede had either an interregnum rule before Cyrus or a co-rule with Cyrus starting immediately after the 539 capture of Babylon? The Bible does say that the decree went out to release the Jews in the first year of Cyrus, and yet the Watchtower puts that within a few weeks of his SECOND year starting in Nisan 537 instead of his first year 538 as the book of Ezra says. This additional stretch of what Ezra simply calls the "first year of Cyrus" allows the Watchtower to minimize the adjustment from 606 to 536, which were Russell's (Barbour's) original assumptions about the fall of Jerusalem and the first year of Cyrus. At the time, most of the reference books already had the two events correctly dated at 587/6 and 538, respetively, but Russell and Barbour misread the Cyrus date, and used a reference that had already confused the first years of Nebuchadnezzar's domination (and taking of exiles) with the destruction of Jerusalem. If one looks at the fine print footnote about it in Bishop Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae (a huge standard work for Bible chronologist study) it becomes understandable how such a mistake could be made.

No it wasn't me. Whatever the case as with all good scholarship improvements or adjustments are made and that too is part of the history of our wondrous WT Bible Chronology.

39 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So basically, the Watchtower is dependent, not on a tablet about Cyrus, but a clay tablet about the 7th year of a different king and the measurement and interpretation of a couple of lunar eclipses, to give a BCE date for that other king, which is then tied to Cyrus through a separate traditional "Kings List" that matched the one that Ptolemy used. Problem is, this would be the exact same Kings List as the one that gives us all the information about Nebuchadnezzar and all the other Neo-Babylonian kings. In fact, Cyrus' dates were originally considered accurate by Russell because he praised how good and reliable Ptolemy was -- that is until Russell realized that this was the same evidence that would demolished 606 (and 607). Then he trashed Ptolemy, but didn't have a good replacement for it and kept Cyrus' dates anyway. If we can have faith in this data for 539 then it's the same data that gives us 587 for the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar.  

So what. Better than plucking figures out of thin air and ignoring obvious historical and biblical facts about the Jewish Exile and Jeremiah's 70 years as presented in current scholarship. The data is similar being of a secular nature, the two events namely the Fall of Babylon under Cyrus and the Fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer are of similar biblical-historical and theological significance but it is the latter date that is contentious- 586 BCE? 587BCE? resolved by the establishment of 607 BCE which is incontravertible.

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So, although we have some convolutions to go through to get the regnal years of Cyrus, we have no such issues with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar because much of the tablet evidence goes directly and simply to his regnal years. No assumptions necessary. 

Well if NB Chronology with its regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar is without issues, with no assumptions then how come it omits any reference to Neb's missing 7 years of dethronement and how is it that the 70 years is not mentioned in the NB historical record thus proving a Babylonian Gap of 20 years? I say bunkum!

scholar JW

JW Insider

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You have that wrong. He absolutely does! Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587/6 BCE. Just as he believes his 19th year was 586/5 BCE, his 23rd year was 582/1, etc. 

Correct. Oded Lipschits gives the beginning of the siege in Neb's 18th year- 587 BCE and its ending in 586 BCE in his 19th year with the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and not 587 BCE.

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps you thought I was referring to the date for the more complete destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. I also would put this more complete destruction of the city and temple almost as likely in 586, and we should recall not just the two different "new year" dates that are six months apart, and the difference in counting even a partial accession year as a full year with some Bible writers, but also the fact that the siege lasted about a year and a half. (Yes, I have read Rodger Young and Edwin Thiele on the matter of regnal year counting.)

Noted

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was asking, not about the destruction itself, but what was the BCE YEAR that Oded Lipschits identifies as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. So the answer is definitely 587 BCE. (Using the usual Spring/Nisan start of the new year, 587 starts in the spring, and therefore will contain about 3 months of 586. This is one of the main reasons we'll often see a BCE date written, for example, as 587/6 instead of just 587.

Again noted!

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, you seemed to miss the point of the question. Even if you thought that Lipschits used a different year-to-year schema, my question means the same thing as if I had asked:

 

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 [586] BCE?

I would think that his understanding of this subject is based on current scholarship as noted in his extensive footnotes throughout his seminal work The Fall and Rise of JerusalemI, 2005, Eisenbrauns of which i have a copy.

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If the Neo-Babylonian regnal years of the NB kings were open to interpretation, why does he not admit that anywhere? Do you think that all these professors and historians and archaeologists of the period are just going along with what they've heard the way most Witnesses do? Or do you think they do a little research before making such definitive use of the NB chronology?

Because scholars believe and trust the current chronology but what they all have in common is to properly interpret and understand the importance of the Jewish Exile and the biblical 'seventy years of Jeremiah'.

scholar JW

Screcko Sostar

17 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please, who are WT scholars?

Then, since when have they been operating within WTJWorg?

Who chose them and appointed them to do this kind of work?

On the basis of which credentials were they chosen?

The 'celebrated' WT scholars wish to remain anonymous and that is also the stated policy of the NWT Committee by way of comparison. Their origin remains unknown but they no doubt have been chosen by means of the Holy Spirit and were originally of the Anointed. Their qualifications also is unknown at this time suffice to say they both as a class and as individuals champion the Bible as God's Inspired Word. I hope this helps!!

scholar JW

JW Insider

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. As we've already established NONE of them are, not as BCE dates. We are ONLY talking about how you might determine that a certain reference to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar (in this case) has been assigned a valid BCE date. After you assign any ONE of them to a regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar, you have just assigned BCE dates to ALL the known years of his reign, even ones I didn't mention. (I only focused on ones where I had already personally checked astronomical data that was related to major events of interest or referenced on Babylonian tablets.)

The Bible mentions only the following years in Neb's reign: 1st, 7th, 18th/19th, and 23rd each of which can be assigned a valid BCE with the first three of which were synchronized to that of the Late Judean Monarchy. These are the only dates that are of importance in constructing a valid scheme of Bible Chronology in my opinion.

scholar JW

JW Insider

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And it's also a fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE also enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship.

No. Both Neb's 18th and 19th year for our modern calendar along with 586 or 587 remain contentious within scholarship.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And although the event of the fall of Babylon by Cyrus was NOT a fully described in the context of the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic monarchy, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year absolutely WAS described in pretty much exactly those terms.

Both the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18/19th year and that of Zedekiah's 11th year are well described in the biblical account.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

539 is surely no less open to interpretation than the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. According to your listed criteria, that would make Nebuchadnezzar's reign much more pivotal. Besides the fact that we can double-check the evidence for MANY MORE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign than for Cyrus, and each year strengthens the evidence for all the other years. If a three-fold cord cannot easily be broken, then an eight-fold cord ought to be even stronger than that. 

The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is universally accepted within scholarship whereas Neb's regnal years remain contentious unless synchronized to the regnal years of the Late Judean Monarchy.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Since currently we are asked to reject the evidence for all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign which are MUCH better documented, why don't you just use the Bible's date of Nebuchadnezzar 19th year, and reject the secular date of 539 for Cyrus? Just make the claim that since we KNOW Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a PIVOTAL year, and that it's even more pivotal than 539 for Cyrus, then just start claiming that Cyrus captured Babylon in 519. You get to keep the 70 year period intact, just as you do now. It's EXACTLY what's being done at the OTHER end. Why does it matter so much which secular date we put faith in and which secular date we dismiss?  

The regnal years of Neb's reign may well be documented in the Babylonian record but not in the Biblical record and the Biblical record proves a gap of some 20 years in the NB Chronology by means of the 70 years of Babylonian rule and Exile. Neb's 19th year or 18th year whether 586 or 587 BCE is problematic in its relation to the Fall of Jerusalem and thus cannot be used as a pivotal year. The only way that the 70 years remains intact is to view it quite properly as the period of Jewish Exile beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We'd be doing exactly the same thing we are doing now except that we would then be saying that 539 is just a secular date but that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is a Bible date, and that we'll choose the Bible's dates over Secular dates every time.

Your methodology is flawed. The date 539 BCE remains the only pivotal date for the OT for no other date is its equal. Neb's 19th or 18th year is problematic for the Bible uses both as regnal data in relation to the Fall of Jerusalem thus creating a problem of methodology which has been noted by chronologists such as Rodger Young.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

Why are you surprised? I am simply using common sense and utilizing all of the biblical data. Not all dates have to be synchronized to another system to be validated. Cyrus only reigned for 9 years and the only significance is that he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and released the Jews from Exile in 527 BCE.

scholar JW

JW Insider

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's my point. Most of us (Witnesses) in my experience have never personally arrived at a conclusion about 539 except by simply READING the explanation in WT publications. In your case you also have a lot of books by current scholars on the subject but I think you've already admitted before that EVERY one of them puts the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar within a few months of 587 and 586 BCE. 

Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And most Witnesses if you ask them will THINK that the explanation about 539 is somehow better and more direct than the ways in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are associated with BCE dates. 

Correct because 539 BC has universal acceptance as a date for the fall of Babylon and the WT explanation for its computation is both immediate and simple.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The reason I asked how you personally arrived at it was because I figured you might have checked it out for yourself and realized that more recently even the WT publications themselves now ADMIT that the method for figuring out CYRUS' regnal years are indirect and makes use of additional assumptions -- assumptions which are not necessary with much of the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. 

Bible Chronology should be simple and easily understood and that is why WT Bible Chronology is more credible than secular NB Chronology as it has an inbuilt complexity that has caused innumerable problems as it is based on regnal years which is its focus. WT chronology is based more on events in Bible history than regnal years. Of course, the latter has its due place in the construction of any scheme of Chronology but it does create many assumptions which of course are part and parcel of any Chronology for have I not said that Chronology is about interpretation and methodology.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sure you already know exactly what I'm talking about since you have read the explanations in WT publications. I would be very surprised if you didn't know this already.

Correct!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, almost NO Witnesses I have ever spoken to, with only a very few current exceptions have ever admitted going to the trouble to use an astronomy program to check it out for themselves. As simple as this is to do, and with all the importance so many Witnesses attach to chronology.

Guilty as charged for even though I have such programs on my computer I have not used them because I do not know how to use such programs relying on others with some caution.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do think it's an indication that there is a real FEAR of what they might find out. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's FEAR because if we thought we might find out something that might bolster our teaching about 607 we'd be anxious to see for ourselves. We'd be thrilled to see if those claims by Furuli were really true: that the evidence is questionable. Instead, it's easier to have faith in someone who claims that the evidence for all of these dates is open to question. Yet they forget that that this includes 539 which somehow still remains "pivotal." 

I disagree that knowledge and use of such programs are not necessary for an understanding of Bible Chronology for a knowledge of history is far more important and in this regard, WT publications have served us very well. It is my opinion that the use of astro programs is best left to experts as these can become very problematic. I do not believe that we have cause to fear from such programs. Furuli's claims should be tested along with all other hypotheses so only time will tell but there remains sufficient biblical, secular and historical evidence to validate 607 BCE for the Fall.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Deep down, I'm starting to believe that NO ONE really looks at the evidence, and if anyone knows ANYTHING about the evidence they don't really believe the evidence is going to go our way and that's why we avoid it.

The challenge for those who support 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall is that there remains no single line of evidence that proves either of these two dates or conversely disproves 607 BCE only many pretensions that there are multiple lines of evidence such as that of COJ. The fact is that there is at least one line of evidence that proves 607 BCE and falsifies 586/587 BCE and that is the biblical-historical-theological fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years reckoned from 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return of the Jews in 537 BCE.

scholar JW

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?

WT scholars in our publications have well explained the relationship and use of astronomical tables in the construction of our scheme of biblical chronology. In fact, when Parker and Dubberstein published their Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C - A.D. 45 in 1942 and 1946, WT scholars made use of this new material using establishing 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon as a useful date for this purpose in 1949 later be termed as an 'Absolute Date' and now termed as a 'Pivotal Date'. The reason why WT scholars champion 539 BCE as a 'pivotal date' is that it enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship and was a pivotal event in Bible history being fully described as being well placed in the context of the fall of Jerusalem- the end of the Davidic Monarchy.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:

• 604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and
• 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and
• 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and
• 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and
• 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and 
• 580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and
• 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and
• 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and
• 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and
• 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and
• 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore
• 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year .

Only a few of these dates are mentioned in the OT and the astronomical evidence for all of these dates is open to question as shown by Rolf Furuli's research.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?

Only those dates that are synchronized to the Judean Monarch reigns should be used for Chronology. WT publications have well explained how the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is determined and such an explanation is both accurate and reasonable.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?

By reading such explanations in WT publications which are in turn based on scholarship.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)

Agreed, for very few Witnesses are interested or know Chronology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications?

Both. I have an extensive library of books on Chronology as well as journal articles on Chronology back to the fifties as well as almost fifty years of experience in dealing with this subject.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself?

By extensive reading of all WT publications dealing with Chronology, reference books on Chronology such as Finegan, Anstey, Thiele, Jonsson, Furuli, James Ussher, Isaac Newton, Hughes and many Journal authors.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

He does not. He gives 586 BCE and not 587 BCE as do most historians and archaeologists following the tradition of Edwin Thiele.

scholar JW

JW Insider

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 

There is no doubt at all that you can fix the dates of Neb's reign by other means namely with NB Chronology and astronomical methods and arrive at various dates such as 586 or 587 BCE converted to our calendar. But the problem is that such a methodology does agree with the Biblical record which also provides historical data about events in Neb's reign synchronized to that of the Late Judean monarchy.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.

Yes, the contradiction between the two chronologies- WT biblical Chronology and NB Chronology amounts to a difference of 20 Years and this is because of the 70 years which fact is omitted in the secular chronology except Josephus. If you argue that the 70 years is applicable from 586BCE? to 516 BCE then you are interpreting the 70 years only about the destruction and restoration of the Jewish Temple but such an interpretation ignores the description by Jeremiah that the yo years was a period of Exile-a period of servitude to Babylon and period of desolation of Judah.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:

(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”

*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 

Zechariah's 70 years are identical to that of Jeremiah in terms of their nature, description and chronology which no sense applies to the restoration of the Temple in 516 BCE which is not shown either by Zech 1:12 or by the quoted Insight reference. Zechariah received his first vision in Darius' second year in 519 BCE but the 70 years described by the angel had finished in 537 BCE. Thus, the angel was simply recounting the already accomplished fulfilment of the 70 years. Further, those 70 years were to have been a period of the desolation of the Land of Judah but now at this time, the Jews had already resettled in the land.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year?

Do nothing. The astronomical evidence is also open to interpretation as shown by the research by Dr. Rolf Furuli but simply rely on biblical evidence as God's Word is the most sure foundation for faith.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.

The only adjustment that needs to be made is a full recognition of the fact of the Jewish Exile which disp[laces NB Chronology leaving the biblical record to properly fix the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Such secular chronology fixes the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE as a Pivotal Date used by WT scholars and all other scholars and this is simply methodology.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

o keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

WT scholars are not afraid but have and continue to examine all evidence that scholarship provides either past, present or future. I myself have completed a course in the archaeology and history of the late Judean /Babylonian period of the sixth=fifth century BC under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits- 'The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem which was the textbook for this university course.

scholar JW

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 

I disagree. The biblical accounts in 2 Ki. 25: 8-17; 2 Chron. 36: 11,20 are very descriptive of the beginning of the exilic 70 years.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 

This is expected as any scheme of chronology requires an interpretation of a historical record along with a methodology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 

The problem with this methodology is that you have chosen to ignore a major piece of the biblical/historical record namely 70 years which logically is the Exile proper and a period of the Jewish nation in servitude to Babylon whilst the Land of Judah lay desolate. The fixing of Neb's 19th year and that of Zedkiah's 11th year can only be determined if due consideration is given to the 70 years as these regnal years were commensurate with fixed events namely Neb's final assault on Jerusalem and its destruction, the deportation of the populace in Jerusalem and Judah, the dethronement of the Judean king etc, etc. An appeal to an external NB Chronology which has little to say in terms of history regarding these events is simply nonsense creating a false and misleading chronology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.

You need to as most historians have done, focus on the Exile as to its history and its theological significance unless you do this then you will remain distracted by the NB Chronology with its history and the interpretation and use of astronomical tables. The priority must be and can only be the Bible of the first order anything else is secondary.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."

The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:

(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

The biblical record shows that there was a first deportation of Jews to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzer in his 7/8th year but the Exile proper did not begin then as the land had not been desolated which would be descriptive of a nation in Exile.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:

(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:

But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 

(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 

So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.

(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”

This information only shows that there was a deportation of Jews to Babylon which for those who would be in exile in Babylon thus described as exiles but this was not the Exile proper which only occurred some ten years later in Neb's 18/19 year.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

Indeed but this interpretation is consistent with the biblical record, an accurate translation of malkut as 'kingship in Dan 1:1, Josephus and Jewish tradition.

scholar JW

JW Insider

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Earlier you agreed that it didn't.

What exact date does it give for the beginning of the Jewish exile?

What exact date does it give for the end of the Jewish exile? 

Correct. What I mean to say is that the Bible does not give such dates in a modern calendar such as BCE dating.

The Bible dates the beginning of the Exile in 607 BCE which represents Zedekiah's 11th year and Neb's 18/19th year

The Bible dates the end of the Exile in 537 BCE which represents the 1st year of Cyrus.

Now it is your turn:

What is the exact date for the beginning of the Exile?

What is the exact date for the end of the Exile?

scholar JW

JW Insider

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for admitting that. If one is looking for the date for the destruction of Jerusalem you can therefore ignore the Exile. The Bible never says it started exactly in a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar, and it never says that it ended in exactly a specific year of King Cyrus. The Watchtower claims it was not 539 when he captured Babylon, nor in 538 which was the first year of Cyrus over Babylon, but in 537, and they may have good reasons for interpreting that way. Prior Watchtowers placed Cyrus accession year in 537, and thus put his first year in 536, and used this method. If Russell had used the current Watchtower's methodology of adding several months after the beginning of that first regnal year, they would have been claiming that the Exile ended in 535 BCE. But instead they used the beginning of the first regnal year which they thought at the time was 536. From 536 they counted back 70 years and got 606 as a date for the fall of Jerusalem.

In trying to determine a modern BCE date for the Fall of Jerusalem one cannot the historical and biblical fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years duration. The Bible gives the precise dates for its beginning and end along with its description including the experience of the Exiles whilst in captivity. The Bible states that it began in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Zedekiah, King of Judah - Neb's reign, 2Ki. 36:8, Jer. 52:29; Zedekiah's reign, 2Chron 36:11, 2Ki. 24:18;25:2 thus in the BCE dating was 607 BCE for the beginning of the Exile.

Similarly, the Bible dates the precise end of the Exile by means of the first year of Cyrus - 2Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1.which has the BCE date of 537 BCE for the end of the Exile.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But all that is unnecessary and required interpretation instead of methodology. 

A competent scholar requires both in order to construct a valid scheme of Chronology.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What do we have is the Bible's statement that the destruction and fall of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So we can ignore the undefined 70 year exile and just use the Bible's statements. 

Do not forget that Neb's regnal data is synchronized with that of Zedekiah's 11th year thus ensuring a precise definition of the Jewish Exile of 70 years. Ignoring the defined 70 year Exile disproves not only the reliability of NB Chronology but any date based on that chronology which would include 586 and 587 BCE.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If you want to describe a methodology, just consider the most direct and obvious way to find the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? 

The most obvious and accurate way to fix the reigns of Neb is to rely on the Bible and not the NB historical record which is falsified by the biblical account.

scholar JW

JW Insider

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It may very well have been. But if you don't have the Bible to tell you the exact beginning or ending of that event, why don't you go ahead and use what the Bible DOES say? That is, find the BCE equivalent for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 
 

The Bible does give the exact date for the beginning and end of the Jewish Exile which lasted for exactly 70 years. The above cited scripture along with the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 36:11-21 along with 2 Ki. 25: 8,21. WT scholars have done just that and have determined that the BCE equivalent is indeed 607 BCE for Neb's 18/ 19th year - 2 Ki.25: 8; Jer. 52:18 inc. his acc. and regnal years.

scholar JW