607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[Ann O'Maly]

@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.

[scholar JW]

Ann

Huh!

No one introduced me to the subject of Methodology in Young's earliest articles for that is something that I realized myself However it is  possible that someone first mentioned Rodger Young on the JWD forum.Perhaps it was you?  I cannot recall anyone going into any depth regarding the use of Decision Tables which is nonsense anyway in trying to resolve the 586/7 dilemma.

scholar JW

 

[Foreigner]

59 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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.

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?

[scholar JW]

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.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

Boy, you know how to make a long-winded post!  I have no interest in posting a new topic but  am content in sticking to the topic of 607 BCE. By the way, a sense of humour develops when one encounters the desperation of critics of WT Chronology.

It is good that you have now been introduced to the value of METHODOLOGY and that you are now familiar with the controversy over 586/7 BCE through the prism of Rodger Young's efforts to resolve the problem. Yes Luke used a methodology insconstructing his history as recorded in his Gospel likewise WT  scholars have developed a methodology which constructs a simple scheme based mainly on the Bible.

I am glad that you have read all of Young's articles and that you fully understand his use of Decision Tables/Analysis. Now can you tell me on the basis of acquiring such new understanding do you agree with Young that Jerusalem fell in the fourth month, 587 BCE ? Now if you do agree with this date can you explain why it is the case that scholars from all disciplines still adhere to 586 BCE since March, 2004 which is when Young's research was published?

Why Rodger Young does not endorse 607 BCE is beyond me because I have not encountered in his many papers any discussion of the biblical 'seventy years' according to my memory but Ii could reexamine his papers to check. The date 607 BCE is not based on pseudo archaeology as you claim in fact it is consistent with the finds of modern archaeology as demonstrated by Avraham Faust's  Judah In the Neo-Babylonian Period:The Archaeology of Desolation, 2012, Society of Biblical Literature. Methodology permits one to accept one date, 539 BCE and reject another such as 586/7 and determine 607 BCE  for Neb's 18 th regnal year.. The nature of the audience that reads this online debate does not trouble me a bit because I have dealt with far more devious foes on the other forum over many years.

The date for the fall of Samaria is not the issue for the moment so let us stick with 607 BCE. I am sure that WT knows of Rodger Young as they do keep abreast of recent trends in biblical scholarship.Your statement that "WTS lacks methodology" Is nonsense and your following comment borders on hysteria. The WTS has explained in its publications the methodology for calculating 607 BCE and if you cannot see that then you have no business discussing this subject because your ignorance shows. 

Ann O Maly does not need to identify the problem for it has been clearly identified by many Chronologists but because of faulty methodolgies, the problem remains even to the present day. The biblical  regnal data is not at fault but our understanding of the calendrical systems is incomplete so hypotheses and different methodologies have to be employed to try to resolve the problem. WT Chronologies because of a superior methodology are not beset by these difficulties and that is why we can be secure in the knowledge that 607 is correct. The biblical date is not inconsistent, it is our interpretation of the biblical data  that is the problem.

Let us get get one thing straight. You, Ann o Maly and others would not be debating WT Chronology if it was not for the pioneering wresearch of Carl  O Jonsson so skip the pretence that somehow you and others could have originated such challenging ideas. Jonsson's methodology is clearly set out and so is ours and one sees the Babylonian Gap of twenty years because of his failure to properly interpret the seventy years and putting too much faith in the imperfect NB Period over the Bible. So now you are unsure about whether it is 587 or 586 BCE seeming to edge more to 586 yet you the hide to be so dogmatic about the error of 607 BCE

Your last statement baffles me. I simply realized that having exposed to myself to much of the literature on Chronology and the debate pver 607 BCE that Chronology was all about Methodology and Interpretation.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I am glad that you have read all of Young's articles and that you fully understand his use of Decision Tables/Analysis.

Have not completed all of them yet. Just all of "Samaria" and "Jerusalem." Portions of all the others.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Now can you tell me on the basis of acquiring such new understanding do you agree with Young that Jerusalem fell in the fourth month, 587 BCE ?

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.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Now if you do agree with this date can you explain why it is the case that scholars from all disciplines still adhere to 586 BCE since March, 2004 which is when Young's research was published?

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)

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 607 BCE is not based on pseudo archaeology as you claim in fact it is consistent with the finds of modern archaeology as demonstrated by Avraham Faust's  Judah In the Neo-Babylonian Period:The Archaeology of Desolation, 2012, Society of Biblical Literature. Methodology permits one to accept one date, 539 BCE and reject another such as 586/7 and determine 607 BCE  for Neb's 18 th regnal year.

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.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The nature of the audience that reads this online debate does not trouble me a bit

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!!!"

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The WTS has explained in its publications the methodology for calculating 607 BCE and if you cannot see that then you have no business discussing this subject

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.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Let us get get one thing straight. You, Ann o Maly and others would not be debating WT Chronology if it was not for the pioneering wresearch of Carl  O Jonsson so skip the pretence that somehow you and others could have originated such challenging ideas.

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.

[DefenderOTT]

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=GGM2HAuQv3AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+the+Bible+Is+Historically+Accurate+2006&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi324r2-47YAhVB44MKHVY2DE4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006&f=false

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=GGM2HAuQv3AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+the+Bible+Is+Historically+Accurate+2006&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi324r2-47YAhVB44MKHVY2DE4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006&f=false

Unfortunately the most relevant parts of the book are not available for free on Google Books. His first edition, however, will return the relevant passages that would date VAT 4956 to 364 BCE (see also 374 BCE). You can see those passages here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=J44xsGrt9oUC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=Darren+Thompson+The+Fourth+Day&source=bl&ots=ZJGNisimOJ&sig=gR-IZeCylTJhQb5xvVamsrubwkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVzr36jY_YAhUJ2oMKHZYnB0EQ6AEIXDAN#v=onepage&q=VAT&f=false

A passage is quoted from this first edition here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/wine-and-passover-t2842.html . Note especially the excellent summary of the Neo-Babylonian period by ProfBenTziyyon on the same page just above the quote from Thompson. The quote, btw, says:

• .four astronomical bodies, the Moon, Mercury, Mars and Venus match the observations of VAT 4956 for the astronomical year 567 BC(E) very well. Jupiter and Saturn however appear to be marginally out of position. The observations for 567 BC(E) appear to be very close tot he observations of VAT 4956, but not an exact match. Is there an astronomical year with a better match? Consider hte year 364 BC(E). ". . .the position of Saturn in the astronomical year 364 BC(E) is consistent with the observations of VAT 4956. So it is apparent that the year 364 BC(E) matches the position of 6 heavenly bodies as described in VAT 4956 (Moon, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn) while the year 567 BC(E) only matches 4. . ."

Another link by the same person who provided that quote also linked to a b-Hebrew discussion that Rolf Furuli had been involved in. Furuli is not the only one to play with the similarities that will occur every few years as the moon and planets align. 

If this book's take on VAT 4956 was correct (and it isn't) the 2520 years after Jerusalem's fall would be somewhere around the year 2137 -- slightly beyond the maximum anyone could reasonably squeeze out of an "overlapping generation." Of course, if it were true, there would be no "overlapping generation" starting in 1914 because 2137 (minus 20 years) would become the new 1914, and a new overlapping generation starting in 2137 (minus 20 years) could last until the year 2357 (minus 20 years).

The real problem here is that VAT 4956 could be thrown out and we'd still know from other evidence that Jerusalem fell around 587/6. VAT 4956 is not as important as people pretend it is.

[DefenderOTT]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Unfortunately the most relevant parts of the book are not available for free on Google Books. His first edition, however, will return the relevant passages that would date VAT 4956 to 364 BCE (see also 374 BCE). You can see those passages here

Then I would have to ask the same question the poster, (Foreigner) made. These pages show a preference not associated with his earlier claim of 605BC-586BC.

The author doesn’t seem to link the two. However, you are correct. VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC. Then, the dilemma for secular chronology continues.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Then I would have to ask the same question the poster, (Foreigner) made. These pages show a preference not associated with his earlier claim of 605BC-586BC.

Which question was that? Whose earlier claim of 605 to 586? Foreigner's or the author of the book? As you can probably see now, the author of the book was only admitting that these were the standard dates that scholars agree to. The author wanted to move them by about 200 years. This was done for the same purpose I mentioned earlier when I said that many people look for a scheme wherein Adam was 6000 years ago, Abraham was 4000 years ago, David was 3000 years ago, and Jesus was 2000 years ago, with a Millennium starting before the 7000 years of a "Great Week" is completed. In addition, some people want Nebuchadnezzar to be 200 years later, so that with Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jehoiachin as the starting point, they can make the "70 weeks" of years work out from that point. Some pick a date so that they can start it with Cyrus' Edict, which seems a better fit for Daniel's words:

• (Daniel 9:25) You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si?ah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks.. . ."

All this is related to what the author states on page 39 attached at the end of this post.

If you'll notice, all these attempts to denigrate the evidence are exactly what the Watchtower (and Furuli, etc) have attempted to do with the same evidence because of an interpretation of the 70 years. In Thompson's case it was about an interpretation of the 70 weeks of years.

In both cases, they seem to have forgotten that even without VAT4956, the evidence is still overwhelming that VAT4956 would put Nebuchadnezzar's19th year at 587/6.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC. Then, the dilemma for secular chronology continues.

Not at all. There is no dilemma for either secular chronology or Bible chronology. They match up perfectly well. There is so much evidence for this particular time period from so many different angles that you can use VAT4956 and get the answer, or skip VAT4956 and get the same answer. There never was a dilemma.

page 39 from Darren Thompson's book:

 

 

[DefenderOTT]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As you can probably see now, the author of the book was only admitting that these were the standard dates that scholars agree to.

Then your observation would be a provocative one just like ANN’s. You are supporting your conclusion from another source of the same author. Your opinion is based on the author’s book: The Fourth Day: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate, while Foreigner’s question is on the same author’s book: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.)

 

The author is not looking at VAT4956 on the posted question, by foreigner. Then, the author’s opinion runs independently from you’re observation. The author then makes a calculation for VAT4956 that would be “separate” from that theory. I believe, we all know where secular history stands with VAT4956, but that’s not what the author implies in the first title of the book posted. Meaning, making an observation from 605BC minus the 19 years to conclude in 586BC. Now, isn't 604/5BC and 586/7BC standard dates?

[Ann O'Maly]

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:18 PM, scholar JW said:

No one introduced me to the subject of Methodology in Young's earliest articles for that is something that I realized myself However it is  possible that someone first mentioned Rodger Young on the JWD forum.Perhaps it was you?  I cannot recall anyone going into any depth regarding the use of Decision Tables which is nonsense anyway in trying to resolve the 586/7 dilemma.

I already said that I was tipped off about Young's articles by you. You, however, learned of them by Carl Jonsson during a discussion with him in c. 2004, were you not?