JW Insider

All right then, I moved the BM 33041 post back here.

@George88, I moved your BM 33401 topic over to the new thread, too. If you think it should be discussed back over here, just let me know. For me it makes no difference, but I think it was a good question to get to at some point.

For anyone who is interested, I have moved several posts from here that deal more with the "20 year gap" over to a new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90908-the-watchtowers-20-year-adjustment-to-the-standard-neo-babylonian-chronology/

OK. I understand that. Thanks. And I meant something more like whether the Bible ever contains statements like this: "And Jerusalem and Judea began going into Exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" "And I will bring this nation into exile starting in the 11th year Zedekiah." You will be free from this Exile when the Persians conquer the Babylonians." "And I will free you from this Exile in the first year of Cyrus" "Two years and 3 months after Cyrus conquered the King of Babylon many of the exiled Jews began returning to their homeland and the Exile was declared completed." There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 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. 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. 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. For now, I'll start rambling off my thoughts about it. 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. I've tested about 8 different pieces of Babylonian astronomical evidence and my software programs always puts that in the year 598. The Babylonian Chronicles claim that it happened very late in that year and therefore probably included an early part of 597. So that would be 598/597 BCE. The next verse shows that a much smaller number of exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was the same year the city and the temple at Jerusalem was considered destroyed: (Jeremiah 52:29) . . .In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. All the astronomical evidence I have seen, and that I have tested myself, consistently places that 18th year as 587 BCE. The next verse shows a smaller number of people taken as exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year: (Jeremiah 52:30) . . .In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . . And, of course, all the astronomical evidence places this date as 582 BCE. 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.” 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.

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?

Yes, it does. There shouldn't be any confusion. It's a simple calculation. I'm planning on showing @xero exactly which document he can use, and how he can check it with easy to obtain astronomy software. And after his accession year is calculated, there is a way to double-check independently by using the actual date provided in the Insight book for that rare portion of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles where the Watchtower has not added the 20-year gap. From that point you can use the information taken from two other Babylonian documents --without even requiring astronomy software -- and see that it will easily provide the same accession year for Nabopolassar of 626 BCE. And for good measure, one could even then take an additional Babylonian inscription (stele), and double-check again using simple math, without requiring more astronomy software, and get the same year. But you do need to use the software at least once to start with at least one year within Nabopolassar's reign. From any known, it's simple to figure out his accession year. After all, if you know his first year was 625 BCE, then it's obvious his accession year must be 626. If you knew his 11th year was 615, then it would still be obvious you could calculate his accession year as 626. The best Babylonian tablet gives us the exact BCE date for his 16th year.

All right. I already provided a correct and complete response. But for you, I will try again. Why would you ask that? I have specifically claimed that it is NOT in the Chronicles. First, there no way to connect the regnal years in the Chronicles with BCE years. Second, as I have stated, the Chronicles only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign up to his 11th year. Evidence OUTSIDE the Chronicles would put this 11th year at 594 BCE, which stops several years short of 587 BC So please stop asking for something I have claimed is not even there. What if I said I am specifically asking for you to find Isaac Newton's writings in the Quran? If I asked you several times and you couldn't answer, would it be right for me to claim you are just being evasive? I don't work backwards from 568 BCE. OK. There you go again. It's the same answer I gave here and in threads going back for several years on this forum. The answer is: NOWHERE. Using distorted calculations, it's NOWHERE. Using perfectly sound calculations, the answer is still NOWHERE. It's as if I asked you again and again: I'm asking you specfically: Please don't be evasive and tell me where in the Quran does it specifically include Sir Isaac Newton's writings? Incorrect, I'm using all of Dr Wiseman's research but mostly concentrating on "Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British -- Wiseman, D. J. " That's good. I meant to say "the book you recently cited from" rather than "the book you most recently cited from." It even occurred to me that I may have noticed a more recent additional citing of "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings" which you had already quoted from a few times earlier. After I wrote that phrase, I even wondered if you might try to make an issue of it, but decided it was too trivial to go back and edit. Anyway, I meant the book you recently cited from here, about 16 hours ago from the time I'm writing this: I like these two books of his. He makes some connections I hadn't seen before. I'm glad you are going through them. But I agree wholeheartedly with that possibility. So how does agreeing with Dr Wiseman make my argument fall short? Are you saying his argument falls short? Why? It seems like you just want to play some kind of "tit for tat" game instead of having a serious dialogue about the evidence. There you go again with the same non-sensical question. Wiseman clearly states the same thing I have stated on this forum off and on for over 10 years now, that the portion of the Chronicles covering Nebuchadnezzar falls several years short of his entire reign. In fact there are parts of 33 years that are not in the Chronicle according to Wiseman, from part of the 11th on up to his 43rd year. If he somehow mentioned that something from his 18th year was there after all, that would be quite a contradiction for a scholar. And he has easily earned the right to be called one, not like me. Exactly. Now it seems you get it.

Already answered. I don't know where you got the idea that Wiseman ever cited the 18-19 year number. Look back at my posts. I said Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years at 587 and 586. The Chronicles themselves do not contain any BCE-numbered years. They include Nebuchadnezzar's reign from the accession ("zero-th") year to his 1st year, his 2nd, etc., on up to his 11th year. Wiseman calls this 11th year 594 BCE and he elsewhere acknowledges that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years. He also dates his 37th year to 568 BCE: So, yes indeed, Wiseman uses the chronology that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE and his 19th year in 586 BCE. Can you calculate some OTHER BCE year that Wiseman's chronology indicates for those regnal years? You should also check the book you most recently cited from Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon) which states the following: Note that this quote above from page 11 gives the reference to Jeremiah and shows again that Wiseman uses the chronology that puts the destruction of Jerusalem (which Jeremiah says is in the 18th year) as 587 BCE. In fact, Wiseman starts the initial siege late in the year 588 so that the entire operation ends in the 18th year 587 BCE (using Nisan to Nisan reckoning), but the footnote also included below shows that by Tishri to Tishri reckoning some have argued for 586: And on page 38 and 39 Wiseman cites the verse from Jeremiah 52:30 that I quoted above and naturally assigns that 23rd year to 582. So it should be pretty obvious that he consistently used the same chronology that puts years 18 and 19 at 587 and 586 BCE.

Let's hope someone won't be afraid to point out an example, rather than just making empty claims.

This was the chronology that Wiseman himself provided on page vi, page 2 and page 32 of "Chronology of Chaldean Kings." Wiseman, as I have said, doesn't use the Babylonian Chronicle to produce "BCE" dates. Neither do I. It doesn't contain any such dates. The point was about the chronology he accepts, and that I accept, and that you reject. After all these studies in 1956, you can see that he continues to support this same chronology in 1985. As I said before, that chronology is not in the Chronicles, it's in the astronomical diaries and astronomical tables, many of which were originally produced at the very time that Nebuchadnezzar himself was alive. I am not interpreting it. I let my astronomy software interpret it. If it is flawed, it means that the 539 date for Cyrus' conquering of Babylon is also flawed because the software gets that perfectly, too. And I've checked it against several different reports from others who use different astronomy software. It perfectly matches the other software too. It's misleading to continue acting as if you can find 587 in the Chronicles. It's in the Babylonian astronomy diaries and tables. Just because the astronomy tables happen to fit several of the descriptions about what happened in the accession year, first year, seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar doesn't mean that this is where the BCE dates come from. There are no BCE dates in the Chronicles. As I said, I don't have to consider the Chronicles, or the military campaigns, or "my account" of anything. I only have to look at the Bible where it says that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year. Then the astronomical tablets tell me that those years were 587 and 586. They also tell me, of course, that his 7th year was 598. If you think the Bible was wrong and that the exiles taken in his 7th year refers to the full destruction of Jerusalem, that's your prerogative. If you think the Bible was wrong when it says he sieged and destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year, that is also your prerogative. If you want to mix up those two events and add something to the evidence based on speculation that's also your prerogative. You mean the numbers of exiles that the Bible mentioned? Maybe they only counted the most elite of the exiles. It doesn't matter, I still accept the Bible's account. Same here. It's also what my astronomy software gives me for the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign. I see no reason or purpose for any misinterpretation, either. Why would anyone want to "misinterpret" those years? Unless of course they need his 14th year to be 632 when Wiseman's calculation (and my astronomy software) will give us 612. And I can think of only one place where that interpretation is found.

Sorry about that. What have I denied that you presented? Examples? Just one? Well you should if that's what I'm doing. But I don't think it will mean as much if you won't produce a single example.

I also think of PIMO as the younger ones who sneak the iPhone down low between their knees and begin texting in the middle of a meeting. I ended up driving a couple of them in the back of a pickup truck a couple weeks ago to help a sister with a yard cleanup project. The truck had a backseat where they both sat while I was alone in the front. They didn't realize I could hear them whispering as they also had to whisper rather loudly to hear each other. But other people whispering always perks up my hearing capabilities. One is an MS, the other handles microphones. They are both freshly graduated from HS but were talking about dating girls in their school and not telling them about being JWs. Although I had a feeling (or a hope) that it might have been about their recent past and not the present. But If I snitch to their parents I wouldn't get any help lifting things next week when we do this again. J/K. Actually, I dropped some very general hints to the parent of the MS that we have to watch our young ones closely especially around that age, but probably didn't say enough. Haven't done anything Matthew 18-ish.

I have to point out that your continued insults about me using manipulative language appear to still be empty claims where you make the claim but won't point to any actually manipulative language. Unless of course you just mean that any statements or evidence you don't with to deal with are "manipulating" you towards accepting statements or evidence you don't want to deal with. I've mentioned before that some of your insults that that don't make sense at face value actually do make perfect sense if I consider them to be psychological "projections" of concerns about yourself onto others. There are hundreds of previous examples shown on the forum, but in this case, you've given a couple more. Hopefully you can explain them in a way that doesn't infer your own projections onto others of whatever you feel is more true of yourself. For example: I have often been insulted here for acknowledging [so-called] irrefutable evidence presented by scholars, yet here you say I am choosing NOT to do so. You indicate that I believe Dr. Wiseman is NOT a scholarly authority, even though I am the one who is FULLY accepting what he is saying and yet you are the one REJECTING his chronology. Do you think these insults of yours really make for a mature conversation?

Should be easy to check. Let's see if Dr Wiseman believes that the 18th and 19th years of King Nebuchadnezzar landed in 587 and 586 BCE. I see that he puts Neb's 1st year in 605. So his 18th year would be 605-18=587. So 587 BCE. That would make his 19th year 586 BCE. (605-19=586). So far, Wiseman agrees with the evidenced chronology of Neo-Babylon. Just as I would expect. Also the Bible says that in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year he took exiles from Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. The 7th year is not missing from the Chronicles. So let's see what year Wiseman thinks that is: So WIseman identifies the 7th year with 598/7 BCE. That would make the 19th year only 12 years later. 598-12=586. So again, Wiseman agrees that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. The Bible identifies the 19th year with the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. When Wiseman has trouble pinning it down to either Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, that's not because of the Neo-Babylonian Chronology. It's because of the fact that the Bible presents both of those years: the 18th and the 19th. As you can see from the scriptures from Jeremiah 32 and 2 Kings 25 that I referenced in previous posts. ----- While we're at it, I think you've already noted that he also agrees with 612 BCE for the fall of Nineveh

No. That's completely false. I'm glad you admitted that this is what you were thinking, because it's easy to correct. It's not at all because it is generally accepted. Only because 100% of the Neo-Babylonian astronomical diaries that touch upon Nebuchadnezzar's reign consistently point to 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. (19th if you include counting his accession year.) There are at least EIGHT separate references to his king years. And ALL of them indicate that 587 was his 18th year -- with no exceptions and no inconsistencies. (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .

For anyone else who is interested, two of Wiseman's books that have been quoted here by George are very relevant to some of these issues. Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon by Wiseman, D. J. (Donald John) Both books can be found at archive.org where you only need a free account and can usually check out the books for an hour at a time with no issues. https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofchal0000unse/page/44/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/nebuchadrezzarba0000wise/page/n9/mode/2up You can also find free PDFs of each although I doubt this is a legal way of accessing them. Here's one: https://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/20337.pdf The actual Babylonian Chronicles in translation are available at livius.org such as the example below: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ There are literally hundreds of fairly relevant documents that show up on JSTOR or specific Biblical/Archaeology/History Journals. I think it's still possible to get a free limited access which gets to many of them, but not all. (It's something they started during COVID.) If anyone finds an article they want from JSTOR, those with access are not supposed to share those articles. But if anyone here needs a specific page copied from one of those articles, I have full access to all JSTOR documents through an alumni account. That account also gets me full access to other academic journals, too, but I won't break the rules by copying more than one page at a time, and only for discussion purposes. This should keep it within "fair use" limits. Examples are: Chronology of the Medes, from the Reign of Deioces to the Reign of Darius, the Son of Hystaspes, or Darius the Mede I. W. Bosanquet In fact, if you can get to the search bar, but can't get to the actual document, that's where I can probably help out. Here's an example showing just the first of 1,399 results for a search on "Chronology of the Fall of Nineveh:"

That's the same thing I always say about 607 BCE. I have no issue with the date at all. In fact, I think it's a fairly good date with which to start the 70 years of Jeremiah 25. It can't be more than a couple of years off. In fact, the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book pretty much indicates that the end of the 70 years of Jeremiah 25 was in 539 when Babylon's power "crumbles." That would start them in 609. But full Persian domination as a world empire might be considered to not have started until Carchemish in 605. 607 is right in the middle, so it seems like a pretty good place to start the '70 years for Babylon' as Jeremiah calls it. *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . 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. I think it's telling that no one seems to like the direct and excellent evidence for identifying the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, but would rather try to mix in the Babylonian Chronicles and various tablets that recount military triumphs. The Bible account makes it clear that it happened in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So if you don't have a problem with it, which year(s) of Nebuchadnezzar did you think 587/6 BCE was? Which year did you think 606 BCE was?

George88: You told me I was sharing distorted views, and I asked you what they were. You answered with . . . Since I have never said anything about that particular gap between the Babylonian and the Persian empire, who is making the distortion? If it's not me, who were you talking about when you said I was sharing distorted views? Are you saying you have NO examples of views I have distorted, but that you made the claim anyway? This is in full agreement with what I said very early on in the discussion. That when most Witnesses are aware of the direction the evidence leads to, they no longer wish to consider the specifics, and prefer to divert to other types of evidence. It seems like a kind of fear. I don't see a need to fear it. For me, the tradition about chronology that we have latched onto here is not the core of what we stand for as Jehovah's Witnesses. It's fine for any of us to believe it if we wish, but we shouldn't get too attached to it, because it's not the core of our worship, our love for God and neighbor, the ransom, nor does it change anything about the last days or the good news of the Kingdom.

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.

As soon as he answers, or if he decides to ask his question again in the closed club, I'll be happy to participate there. In the meantime, you might want to show exactly which view was distorted. I'm always happy to correct any of my distorted views. But I'll need to know what they are first.

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

What does it matter what critics say? We should focus on the evidence. As you have shown. Making a dogmatic claim as you just did proves nothing. Just as you cannot prove that the fall didn't happen in 587 BCE.

I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. This is exactly correct. Thank you.

Why would anyone want to try something as silly as trying to disprove a negative? That would be like someone asking if you could disprove 587 BCE or disprove 586 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You would look foolish to try. Exactly correct. Thanks. So it meaningless to keep bringing up his name unless one has the motive of trying to attach the label "apostate" to a rehash of research that has been around for over 100 years, completely separate from Witnesses or ex-Witnesses.

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates. Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike. If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument.