Foreigner

Then, according to this author, it shouldn’t matter how one views the 19 years. If it should be read as the hypothetical has become for VAT4956 to be 568BC-587BC, 567BC-586BC, and 569BC-588BC. Wait!!!
The author, even though doesn’t believe secular “facts” are interpreted, correctly? He does make a distinct observation with the 19 years.
1.       605-586-567BC possible date for VAT4956
2.       606-587-568BC possible date for VAT4956
3.       607-588-569BC off one year from a possible date for VAT4956. Providing 588BC is not adjustable.
Unless we use the ancient calendar of Lunar/Solar!
1.       606/7BCBC-586/7BC-567/8BC. Then, we can apply the 19 years, correctly as indicated by VAT4956 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as indicated by secular history. With the WT being off 1 year from the proposed secular chronology. So, where’s the famous “gotcha” moment? VAT4956 then actually agrees with all possible dates from 606/7BC to 568/9BC.
Is this why skeptics, are now leaning more toward 567BC rather than 568BC as originally applied?

LOL!! more of the same.
Such as the claim VAT4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587BC instead of 588BC
Are you a published scholar to make this claim?

It seems it has taken 6 pages to admit, everyone is entitled to their opinion published or not. Scholars do that every day without so much as scrutiny from outside sources, which the WT has had to endure.

Actually, you must have misunderstood. Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1st edition of the book. Your own link shows where the author was going with the idea.


I understand the author’s adjustment, however, that doesn’t explain why you and ANN have assumed this interpretation of events no better than any other interpretation given out there. That’s the point, that has been alluded by the remarks given. Everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply without having it scrutinized by interpretations that have "faults" of their own by secular reckoning. Even "Grayson" readjusted some mistakes in his earlier work. BM21901 etc have unreadable areas. The Babylonian Chronicles don't tell a "complete" story. Was the scribe with Nebuchadnezzar when writing those events? or were they dictated after as a matter of history? NONE of these hypotheticals have a 100% certainty.

So, does Darren Thompson. But thank you for agreeing with everyone is entitled to their opinion. The theory still stands as to why this person came to this conclusion since he obviously wasn’t looking at VAT4956 as it is normally seen. Yet, finds the 19 years accurate for 586BC to 605BC.

Actually, you must have misunderstood. Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1st edition of the book. Your own link shows where the author was going with the idea.


I understand the author’s adjustment, however, that doesn’t explain why you and ANN have assumed this interpretation of events no better than any other interpretation given out there. That’s the point, that has been alluded by the remarks given. Everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply without having it scrutinized by interpretations that have "faults" of their own by secular reckoning. Even "Grayson" readjusted some mistakes in his earlier work. BM21901 etc have unreadable areas. The Babylonian Chronicles don't tell a "complete" story. Was the scribe with Nebuchadnezzar when writing those events? or were they dictated after as a matter of history? NONE of these hypotheticals have a 100% certainty.

However, COJ, Doug Mason and Max Hatton do stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1.
1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources).
2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details.
Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK

This person doesn’t seem to imply VAT4956 to be substantial to the calculations, given. VAT 4956 seems to be a concern to other aspects, not driven by your assertion. But, the latter portion of your comment, becomes a matter of opinion, does it not? I could very well include COJ, Doug Mason, Max Hatton, etc. as poor resources to cite, wouldn't it?

I still don’t see the relevance of your claim. This person started his creative date at 3969BC, 57 years from the WT. 35 years from the infamous Ussher starting point of 4004BC.
The board claim of the “Exodus” Date: 1659BC- 1301BC seems to agree with secular chronology
The only difference I see with that opinion? The starting date of 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar’s reign minus the 19 years to 586 BC. The majority of secular chronology “accepts” this time frame does it not? Or are you now suggesting the year’s 605/4BC and 5867/6 are incorrect? Then, the methodology being used of inductive and deductive has no massive exclusion to the timetable.

Have not completed all of them yet. Just all of "Samaria" and "Jerusalem." Portions of all the others.
It seems very probable. But, no, I can't simply agree. He's very likely right but I believe he took a shortcut. There is another methodology which is slightly better in my opinion. It takes a lot longer, is less practical, but might be rewarding. It makes use of the decision table, not just to filter out one hypothesis or another, but to go ahead and calculate all the reasonable possibilities (including changes in data) that the decision table makes available.
The calculations will then result, not in specific answers, but in the possible range of each answer with a terminus on each end. It's not an unknown method, but few would have the patience to test it against the entire king lists of of Israel and Judea, for example, and also throw in about a dozen pieces of Babylonian evidence into the mix. In this method, which makes use of ranges (terminus ante quem, terminus post quem, terminus ad quem and terminus a quo) you can even test what might appear to be unreasonable possibilities along with the reasonable ones, such as testing if Xth year could mean x, x-1, x+1, or even x+3 or x+20. If there is a questionable text that is different in the LXX or MT or DSS you could test special ranges here too. Believe it or not the possibilities will start resolving themselves much earlier than you might guess if you merely set limits to the number of inconsistencies you are willing to test for. Or you could test for a nearly infinite set of possibilities and keep only the solutions that produced the least inconsistencies.
I am not at all worried about that. From what I can surmise so far, the range for when Jerusalem's Temple was burned falls on either the fifth month and 7th day of 587 or 586. These two dates can be potentially 13 months apart, and that is therefore the range that fits the most evidence, the most data, and therefore the most reasonable hypothesis.
As you know, it shouldn't even matter if you could pinpoint a specific day or year. The siege started as much as two years earlier. The wall was broken in the fourth month, about three months earlier. The famine lasted for months. In fact, the judgment itself was announced to come through Babylon decades earlier. There were several deportations going all the way back to a time when Nebuchadnezzar had just taken over as the official king. According to the "Insight" book:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim . . . .—Jer 46:2. The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat . . .he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” . . . in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1) That's always been our "holy grail" to see if we could find a reputable sounding title that allows for 607 as a possible date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So, I don't even have to look it up to know that either you or Faust are completely wrong. But if you can quote the evidence I'll read it and give it a benefit of the doubt if it's true. Of course, it's best, as you said to someone else, to read the entire book before judging specific points made in it.
It looked like you were talking down to this audience when you implied that no one here could understand decision tables when you said "...Young's use of Decision Tables or Analysis . . . Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!"
I've seen this "so-called" methodology hundreds of times, and I think you know it doesn't stand up, or else you would probably have had a response to its weaknesses after all these years. Defending someone else (Rodger Young) who uses a methodology that gets him to a very reasonable 587 is hardly evidence that the WTS used a methodology to reach 607.
Who's pretending now. Several others DID originate such challenging ideas. Russell even dealt with some of them prior to 1916. Rutherford dealt with them especially from 1922 to 1925 -- several of the very same issues. This includes the so-called 20 year gap, too. Jonsson is a latecomer to this.
Also, you should understand that my interest is not about the chronology itself, but because we need to clean up all forms of dishonesty. The primary point should be keeping the congregation clean. We also have the direct statements of Jesus that we should not be looking for signs in order to try to understand the times and seasons. In times such as this we could all be better Christians if we followed the counsel of Paul, Peter, and Jesus.
(Luke 21:8, 9) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 Furthermore, when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified. For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately.” It has resulted in dishonest scholarship about the "parousia" the "synteleia" among many other doctrines. Bible chronologies depend directly upon genealogies:
(1 Timothy 1:4-7) nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. Really, the reason Jesus gave us these instructions was clearly so that we would be better Christians at all times not because we knew the about the times and seasons. That's what all the illustrations of Matthew 24 and 25 are about. Peter summed it up well too:
(2 Peter 3:8-18) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. And of course one of the most famous lines that the apostle Paul wrote about the "times and seasons" is this:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Please don't mix up the reasons why this discussion is important from a "Christian" perspective. All this so-called knowledge about chronology and Bible genealogies, and the resolution of what king ruled when, it's all foolishness. It's disrespectful to the very claim in the Bible that:
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. How disrespectful it must be to Jehovah who tells us that the Bible makes us fully competent and completely equipped, but then be told that we must also understand that 539, a secular date never mentioned in the Bible, is something like an absolute date, a touchstone that is necessary to understand an important doctrine for our day. These secular dates like 607, 539, 537, are somehow required to be fully competent about our doctrines, and required to set things straight about the final generation, to pinpoint important events that must have happened in 1914, 1919, 1922 -- all secular dates, too. Then there are the dozens of problems with related doctrines, such as the need to make wicked Nebuchadnezzar represent God's righteous kingdom. etc. etc. etc.

@Foreigner - I was commenting on the book you quoted. The author wants to make radical changes to biblical chronology which means the established, historically-verified 7th-6th century dating for the last Judahite kings and the neo-Babylonian empire goes bye-bye. It's a poor resource to cite.

Foreigner
You ask for my opinion about the book Why The Bible Is Historically Accurate , 2006, 2nd edn. by a Darren Thompson. I have not heard of this  book and I would have to read it entirely rather than comment on a single page however interesting it may appear, I sourced the book from Amazon Books and I am not impressed by it at this stage. from how it is promoted.. I would question its scholarship and that of the Author.
scholar JW.

Now you’re confusing me. What would the revision of VAT 4956 from 568/7 to 364 have to do with the timeline in question? That wasn’t adjusted.

Scholar JW
What do you think of this:
Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006 (2nd Ed.) p.35

King Nebuchadnezzar (actually known as Nebuchadnezzar II by historians) of Babylon and the events that surround him will lay the foundation for the discussion in this chapter. King Nebuchadnezzar's rise to power is quite amazing. Nabopolasser, his father, had successfully conquered Assyria and obliterated Nineveh the Assyrian capital. Shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar had successfully beaten back Egypt as a general* in his father's military and controlled Syria and Phoenicia after that victory. Consequently Judah became a vassal nation to Babylon at that time. Three years later, King Jehoiakim of Judah aligned himself with Egypt because Egypt had been able to rise up against Nebuchadnezzar during this period. Nebuchadnezzar then besieged Jerusalem in that year to put down Jehoiakim's rebellion (he later defeated Egypt for a second time). Nebuchadnezzar captured King Jehoiakim and took him to Babylon. This marked the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. Jehoiakim remained the king of Judah for eight more years living in Babylon until his death. Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, then reigned for three months as king of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar then took Jehoiachin prisoner and sent him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king of Judah and Zedekiah reigned for eleven more years. Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar was captured while Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in the 19th year of his reign (see Jeremiah 52:12).

It is important to understand what historians believe to be true about history at the time of Babylonian Captivity before we analyze what the Bible has to say. Most Biblical chronologists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in the year 586 B.C. This time is partially based on tracing the reigns of the kings of the Persian and Babylonian empires as outlined in Ptolemy's book Almagest. The Almagest was written to describe a mathematical model for predicting the motion of heavenly bodies. This book documented eclipses that occurred during the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings that Ptolemy used to demonstrate his model. Therefore Almagest was not so much a history book as it was a book on mathematics. Also, Ptolemy was not regarded as an expert on history, if anything he was known as a reputable mathematician and astronomer. The Almagest presents the reigns of the Babylonian and Persian kings without assuming any co-regencies (that is to say, none of the kings' reigns overlapped each other), as follows:

 

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE
Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.
SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942
CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956
For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75
Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

Scholar JW

I believe we can start the criticism of time chronology just a little earlier than Max Hatton with AARON NYMAN. I can also see where others doing research would come across such evidence to attempt to disprove the WT Chronology.

THE PROPHETIC MESSAGE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF PASTOR C. T. RUSSELL IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY AND BIBLE KNOWLEDGE

Those who have written on this subject have begun their calculations at various times: B. C. 536, 519, 457, 454 and 444.The Adventists say that it is "one" message, thereby meaning that the beginning can be anywhere between B. C. 536 and 444. There is a difference of 92 years between 536 and 444. The word of the Lord says that the seventy weeks shall begin at the time the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem went forth, not from those "times." The time of the angel cannot be counted from more than one starting point. Therefore only one can be right of those who have started from five various points.

But, you are correct. Rodger C. Young fairs no better with bible understanding than those other critics of the WT Chronology.

As we can read, even encyclopedia’s like Britannica is vague in its interpretation of events with this “the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest” Are they referring to the first encounter King Jehoiakim’s of Judah had with Nebuchadnezzar? Even if the stipulation was with the secular chronology of 605 BC, the WT chronology would only be off 2 years. If the same stipulation is made to the end of the desolation period, then the WT chronology would be off 1 year. A total of 3 years by secular reckoning.

As in everything. It boils down to interpretation. Those 3 years can be explained. Even if we use Furuli’s account that Nebuchadnezzar reign started in 625 BC? It has certain attainable elements through past writings.

Babylonian Exile, also called Babylonian Captivity, the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest of the kingdom of Judah in 598/7 and 587/6 bce. The exile formally ended in 538 bce, when the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus the Great, gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine. Historians agree that several deportations took place (each the result of uprisings in Palestine), that not all Jews were forced to leave their homeland, that returning Jews left Babylonia at various times, and that some Jews chose to remain in Babylonia—thus constituting the first of numerous Jewish communities living permanently in the Diaspora.

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE
Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.
SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942
CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956
For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75
Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

?
Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah


This would be a matter of interpretation just like the first part. However, my statement included the phrase “I don’t doubt” which can lead to scrutiny.


Scholar JW

Rightfully so. However, I find it, coincidental that none of the previously published treatises would, not have been available or known to others. Especially, when that research is part of a subject matter.

Scholar JW
Correct. 607 BC would be the determined year. After the death of King Josiah. His son took over. Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC. Then Jehoiakim became the puppet king to Babylon in 609 BC. Scripture relates to what happened next. This is why that period ran concurrently without no accession year attached

Max Hatton wrote a treatise in 1965 or book. Most of what is quoted come from there. I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

?
Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah


This would be a matter of interpretation just like the first part. However, my statement included the phrase “I don’t doubt” which can lead to scrutiny.


Scholar JW

Rightfully so. However, I find it, coincidental that none of the previously published treatises would, not have been available or known to others. Especially, when that research is part of a subject matter.

Scholar JW
Correct. 607 BC would be the determined year. After the death of King Josiah. His son took over. Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC. Then Jehoiakim became the puppet king to Babylon in 609 BC. Scripture relates to what happened next. This is why that period ran concurrently without no accession year attached

Max Hatton wrote a treatise in 1965 or book. Most of what is quoted come from there. I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

This is correct. King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian. The crossover was King Jehoiakim. That in effect makes it easier to explain secular chronology with their own timeline.

Scholar JW
This is an honest assessment for the year 609BC. 2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.
In my opinion, certain people are having a hard time grappling with secular chronology, and how the Watchtower is interpreting it. Honestly, there is enough information to support both theories. The easier chronology to explain would be, secular chronology with the date 609BC.

..So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Thanks for the underwriter of the word *speculation* and its relevant point of view. The fuller view if we can call it, the complete picture was a simple *adjustment* made to Ussher’s creation timetable of 4004BC to 4026BC as it was *explained* in detail. Serious Bible Students wouldn’t have gone beyond that speculation of adjustment to include armageddon in 1975 as indicated by opposer’s that have *readjusted* that sequence to read something else.

However, the breakaway evidence makes an assumption that the Watchtower articles don’t. This is why it’s important for any serious Bible student to read everything fully in its proper context.


 
*** w68 8/15 p. 501 par. 37 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

37 So too with Jehovah’s faithful witnesses in this latter half of the twentieth century. They have the true Christian point of view. Their strenuous evangelistic activity is not something peculiar to this present decade. They have not dedicated their lives to serve Jehovah only until 1975. Christians have been running this way ever since Christ Jesus blazed the trail and commanded his disciples, “Follow me!” So keep this same mental attitude in you that was in Christ Jesus. Let nothing slow you down or cause you to tire and give out. Those who will flee Babylon the Great and this Satanic system of things are now running for their lives, headed for God’s kingdom, and they will not stop at 1975. O no! They will keep on in this glorious way that leads to everlasting life, praising and serving Jehovah for ever and ever!


 
Then, if no one was coerced to speculate as indicated by ex-JW’s point of view; those that speculated did so out of their own volition….