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

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I think it might be more disrespectful to ignore so much of  what's in the Bible, for instance, that Judah "will be desolated for 70 years" and then in effect, claim 50 years is 'close enough'? 

This idea that the desolation was only 50 years is not the right way to look at it anyway in my opinion. It comes from the same kind of thinking that the Watchtower used when the researchers realized that the 70 years of desolation of Tyre might have lasted less than 34 years. (That's sometimes 54 years in Watchtower-speak) Or even less than that for the island-city itself.

*** it-2 p. 531 Tyre ***

• Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12.

*** ip-1 chap. 19 pp. 253-254 pars. 21-23 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. 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. What will then happen to Tyre?
• Isaiah continues: “At the end of seventy years it will happen to Tyre as in the song of a prostitute: ‘Take a harp, go around the city, O forgotten prostitute. Do your best at playing on the strings; make your songs many, in order that you may be remembered.’ And it must occur at the end of seventy years that Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she must return to her hire and commit prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the surface of the ground.”—Isaiah 23:15b-17.
• Following the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Phoenicia becomes a satrapy of the Medo-Persian Empire. The Persian monarch, Cyrus the Great, is a tolerant ruler. Under this new rulership, Tyre will resume her former activity and try hard to regain recognition as a world commercial center—just as a prostitute who has been forgotten and has lost her clientele seeks to attract new clients by going around the city, playing her harp and singing her songs. Will Tyre succeed? Yes, Jehovah will grant her success. In time, the island-city will become so prosperous that toward the end of the sixth century B.C.E., [520 B.C.E.] the prophet Zechariah will say: “Tyre proceeded to build a rampart for herself, and to pile up silver like dust and gold like the mire of the streets.”—Zechariah 9:3.

The 13 years of the "Siege of Tyre" is usually dated from 586–573 BC. In fact, I'm sure you have noticed that the Babylonian Chronicle doesn't mention that Nebuchadnezzar was overtaking Jerusalem in 587/6 only mentioning Nebuchadnezzar at the siege of Jerusalem in 598/7 which was 11 years earlier. This makes sense in light of the most probable time for the preparations for the campaign against Tyre. This is also in accord with the testimony of Scripture which tells us that Nebuchadnezzar didn't show up for the breaking of Jerusalem's wall in the fourth month and burning of the temple in the seventh month.

• (2 Kings 25:8-12) 8 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. 9 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. 10 And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. 11 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. 12 But the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers.

You will notice, too, that if you truly believe the Bible account, that you also cannot claim that the country was left completely desolate, without an inhabitant, at the time when the city and temple were desolated. Nebuzaradan left some of the poorest people to be vinedressers and compulsory laborers.

A much more sensible way to look at the prophecy, which fits all the scriptures is to see that Babylon was given 70 years of ascendancy in order to inflict desolations and deportations and destruction upon Judea and Jerusalem which would finally result in the complete desolation she deserved during that 70 year period. Part of the punishment was the fear that Babylon began to inflict upon them immediately, knowing that one of Babylon's armies under Nebuchadnezzar was already in the area of Hattu-land (which would include Judea) causing destruction and desolation even before he became king in 605 B.C.E. In this sense, of course, the Watchtower is absolutely right that the 70 years of desolation began around 607. Babylon's reputation after 609 B.C.E. was unavoidable and, as said before, even the fear that caused fleeing to Egypt and other places was included as part of the punishment upon Judea. Note:

• (Leviticus 26:33-38) 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after you; and your land will be made desolate, and your cities will be devastated. 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it. 36 “‘As for those who survive, I will fill their hearts with despair in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a blowing leaf will cause them to flee, and they will flee like someone running from the sword and fall without anyone pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another like those running from a sword, though no one is pursuing them. You will not be able to resist your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you.

 

Another point that some people think is the key is this idea that Isaiah adds: that 70 years is the "days of a king" which is taken to mean the "days of a kingdom" in the "Isaiah" book. The book correctly points out that this is what Jeremiah meant in Jeremiah 25. This might imply that there was an expression whereby the term "70 years" had a kind of figurative meaning, implying that empires around these parts would rise and fall after just 3 generations for example. This point is made in another scripture that emphasizes that the time period was about Babylon's domination, not the exact length of time of Judea's decline:

• (Jeremiah 27:5-8) 5 ‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’ 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’

It wasn't literally Nebuchadnezzar's son and grandson that followed him in a physical sense, but in any case, the nations would serve "him" until "his" time also came a couple generations down the line and the "yoke of Babylon" (after 70 years) was broken, even though some nations, like Tyre, may have only come directly under that yoke for 30 to 50 years. Of course, if you claim that Tyre came under that yoke from the start of the siege against it, then you would need to admit that Jerusalem came under that yoke 11 years earlier, too.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Does it denigrate the evidence to present more evidence and, even if so, might denigrating inferior evidence in favor of superior evidence be preferable to not denigrating?

As you indicate, it all depends on the value of the evidence. For some reason the Watchtower writers thought they were dependent only on Ptolemy for many years and thought that they could speak about how accurate Ptolemy was when they liked a date, and then denigrated Ptolemy as inaccurate when they didn't like a date.

Also, for some time, especially with the early 1960's release of a public talk outline on the "Gentile Times," the Watchtower, perhaps inadvertently, began a kind of competition between VAT 4956 and BM 33066, by often mentioning how this tablet proved that Cyrus' first year was 539. (In the talk outline, it was not called BM 33066, but "Strm Kambys 400" which speakers just called "Strom Cambyses" for some reason. I heard the talk from 3 different speakers over the years.)

But it turned out that every possible way in which attempts were made to denigrate VAT 4956 would have just as troublesome, if not more so, for BM 33066. More recently, this has been admitted, better in "Insight" than in the "Aid" book, and better, even in the infamous 2011 articles where Furuli's roughshod ride over the VAT 4956 evidence somehow went unchecked.

*** w11 10/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***

• Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon.

Not that there is any real reason to doubt the overall value of either VAT 4956 or BM 33066 in helping to confirm the dates for the Neo-Babylonian/Persian empire. But if the same kind of looseness of interpretation and inaccurate analysis had been allowed on BM 33066 that the Watchtower publications (and Furuli) had already imposed on VAT 4956, then this tablet would be considered to be of even less value than the already denigrated VAT 4956.

[Ann O'Maly]

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:12 PM, Foreigner said:

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?

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.

[Ann O'Maly]

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

12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Does it denigrate the evidence to present more evidence and, even if so, might denigrating inferior evidence in favor of superior evidence be preferable to not denigrating?

VAT 4956 ....

 

[Foreigner]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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.

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.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

So, does Darren Thompson.

His dates do not agree with the archaeological and historical evidence. He believes Azariah reigned during the 605 - 586 BCE period, that Josiah died in 412 BCE, and he dates Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to 390 BCE. So no, he does not stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety but makes up his own timeline according to his biases and presuppositions.

[scholar JW]

Ann

 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?

...................

I do not believe so because I cannot recall any discussion or what type it would have been because COJ did not engage in online forums. Further, he makes no reference to Young's articles in his writings at that time.

scholar JW

 

[Ann O'Maly]

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I do not believe so because I cannot recall any discussion or what type it would have been because COJ did not engage in online forums. Further, he makes no reference to Young's articles in his writings at that time.

You have forgotten ChannelC?

[scholar JW]

Ann

Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

On 12/15/2017 at 2:08 PM, Foreigner said:

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.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 4:37 PM, DefenderOTT said:

VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC.

 

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

On 12/16/2017 at 6:17 PM, 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.

I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

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.)

Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. 

At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

The author is not looking at VAT4956 on the posted question, by foreigner.

I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . .

On 12/14/2017 at 6:13 PM, Foreigner said:

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

Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

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.

Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

Now, isn't 604/5BC and 586/7BC standard dates?

Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

[Foreigner]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition

Actually, you must have misunderstood. Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1^st 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.

[JW Insider]

49 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1^st edition of the book.

LOL. I never thought or claimed that you were referring the 1st edition, that's why I made that clear from the very start and have continued to make it clear. The claim I made is still true. I don't think there was any misunderstanding even on the part of those who wanted to make it look like they were misunderstanding. Red herrings are often dangled in such discussions when facts become uncomfortable. Nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected. It's been a large part of our own Watchtower's history on the 607 teaching for decades, which is why it was a good thing that it showed up here, too, in an even more blatant example. 

49 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Your own link shows where the author was going with the idea.

Thank you for seeing this.

49 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

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.

True. Your understanding of the author's adjustment doesn't explain why I have assumed this author's interpretation of events is not better than any other interpretation given out there. This is why I have explained the reasons quite separate from your own understanding of them. I only assume this author's interpretation is no better based on the author's own explanation of them. His idea is a schema, required to make a certain interpretation of the 70 weeks of years and Ezekiel's 390 years work in a way that tries to override all evidence. In the second edition, he pretends there is only one major piece of secular evidence to overcome, when this is obviously false. 

49 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

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.

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. This is a claim most people, especially Witnesses, believe is false. You and I probably both believe that everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply. I'm all for that. But everyone is NOT entitled to publish that standard and claim it's true "without having it scrutinized." If anyone puts an idea out there, just like you or me, they are really asking for it to be scrutinized. This is what I welcome. It's why I'm here.

And yes, the secular reasoning and interpretations through secular reasoning will have "faults" of their own, but everyone should admit that, and it's often the very basis for such scrutiny.