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

[AlanF]

Foreigner wrote:

Quote

 

. . . fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. 2 So Jeremiah the prophet said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem: 3 For twenty-three years—from the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . until this very day—the. . .

. . . 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . .

AlanF/Jeffro: 609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering Assyria’s final capital, Harran.

 

Correct. That is what we have said.

Quote

Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin.

Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE.

An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.

To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly.

Quote

·  608 King Jehoiakim begins his 11-year rule in Jerusalem.

A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating.

However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians.

Quote

605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule

So far so good.

Quote

604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes vassal King to Babylon. Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures. . .

Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604.

Quote

(Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)

Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!"

Quote

 

·  598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar sieges Jerusalem.

·  597 (March) Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.

 

So far so good.

Quote

(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)

Again we see ignorance of English on display.

Quote

Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!!

LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?

Quote

1.       608BC-4=604BC Does this mean scripture has it wrong, since King Nebuchadnezzar accession year was in 605BC, or is that just rhetorical to mean 605/4BC with the official regnal year being 604BC, and the figure above is at best confusing.

It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused.

Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st.

To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no?

Quote

Jeremiah prophesized

The word is "prophesied".

Quote

23 years from the 13th year of King Josiah. Secular Chronology places this king at 641/0BC.

It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180.

But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year!

Quote

Jeremiah started his prophecy from 627/6BC for 23 years. 627-23=604BC

Wrong.

Quote

When, was King Nebuchadnezzar made King by secular reckoning JWinsider?

Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.

Quote

Isn’t it a failure to suggest the 70-year servitude started in 609BC when Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t king yet?

No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme.

Quote

How do you reconcile the same argument that faces the WT Chronology? Are we to understand, Captivity and Servitude don’t mean the same thing?

Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land."

Quote

 

Jeremiah 29:10-14 New International Version (NIV)

10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.

 

Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".

Quote

Isn’t all this mudding

The word is "muddling" or "muddying".

Quote

the waters to confuse people into believing something that is obviously NOT TRUE? When was Prince Nebuchadnezzar made KING? Therefore, wouldn’t it be conceivable, those who boast about their intelligence, are simply playing to an empty room? JTR!

Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

Quote

“IF” 607BC is NOT acceptable, and *impossible* because people use SECULAR HISTORY to show Prince Nebuchadnezzar was NOT KING in 607BC? And this is the sole reason why the Watchtower has been criticized and defamed? Then, when, did 609BC become acceptable to all the skeptics?

 You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you.

Quote

 

Jeremiah-2- 25.jpg

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-9/

 

These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
 

Quote

 

Dates for the 70 years

The first deportation of Jews to Babylon (which included Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego) began the 70 years of captivity. Bible commentaries identify this as occurring between 607 and 605 B.C. Various sources say the date of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem occurred between 539 and 536 B.C

 

But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused.
 
 

Quote

Since we are referring to BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and NOT secular chronology, then what kind of intelligence is being referred to here, when 607BC is flatly “denied” but 609BC is *perfectly* acceptable.

This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it.

There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates.

Quote

WHEN DID PRINCE NEBUCHADNEZZAR BECOME KING? BY SECULAR CHRONOLOGY*************

In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.

AlanF

[AlanF]

13 hours ago, Foreigner said:

. . . Or can we agree, suggesting intelligence is a futile endeavor, so, that, everyone can drop the sarcasm about being intelligent, when they show the contrary

 

The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

If it's "Babylon's domination" you really, really  think we must fulfill according to scripture {not saying you're wrong, btw} what about the  'fact'- ...  that Jerusalem came under siege in 609, and remained under siege until it fell in 607?

No one is saying that Jerusalem came under siege in 609. Where are you getting that from?

Quote

{to use the term in the way that AlanF does in a post above, though this 'fact' is not established as a fact in the way that AlanF establishes something as a fact, i.e. by simply stating something, thereby establishing an 'understanding', if you know what I mean? ,  an 'understanding'  that the something stated is a fact,  a hypostasis of its ousios, by virtue of who has stated it, when AlanF is the stater?}

If you claim that something I stated is a fact when it is not, then let's see if you can argue your point.

In the meantime, note that I use "fact" in a practical way, not necessarily in a theoretical, absolute sense. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

<< . . . "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." >>

Quote

And then, for fulfilling the 70 years of desolation

The 70 years refers to a time of Babylonian supremacy, not of desolation of anything (Jer. 25:11-12; 27; 29:10)

Quote

during which the land kept Sabbath to fulfill the 70 years, during the 70 years it was desolated, what if we considered 607 until 537 for that time period?

Since the 70 years were not a period of desolation, your point is moot.

Besides, secular history is extremely well established on this point: Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, not 607.

AlanF

[AlanF]

8 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

. . . I will try to document better so as not to be subject to  gobble-de-goop missiles . . .

 

Always a good policy. It results more often in intelligible writing.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then why single out one person, when others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of calling themselves within the same level of expertise and portray that same intellectual perception.

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . .  intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.)

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I believe, the POSTING on the MAIN PAGE of this WEBSITE, shows what you are attempting to single out one person with your statement.

That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. 

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, either you are deliberately being selective, and hate this person, which is against all that Jesus taught?

I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

or you are defending those that reject the Watchtower chronology, Which is another view Jesus taught against.

Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. 

Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You can’t imply, you have no problem with the WT chronology, and then reject the WT chronology and allow your views of rejection be POSTED in AD1914, as though, it is something, factual.

I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Many scholars agree, those that present an objection, are obligated to show SOLID proof of their objection. Thus far, the objections have been met with speculation, where’s the intellectual mind?

I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You are confident that 607BC in NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, and have cited with, secular chronology, of 587BC, yet you give a vague response that it COULD VERY WELL BE?

Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

If 607BC is farfetched

It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

then 609BC is FAR WORSE

Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This whole time, COJ proved nothing since the GENTILE TIMES would have started with the death of King Josiah in 609BC.

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long,  and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."

[Foreigner]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long,  and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."

This is what it all boils down to, doesn’t it? The Rejection of 2520. I suggest you and your friend try to understand, the education behind, what that time represented. Perhaps the attempt, at reformation by King Josiah will enlighten you, and why they paid the price for Manasseh, that ended all legitimacy of Judah and ended the freedom they once enjoyed after the Exodus.

Start by reading: The-Pedagogy-of-Shalom-Theory-and-Contemporary-Issues-of-a-Faith-based-Education 2017

Taking Shalom into Exile
The literary production that is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah becomes significant at this point, where there is much use of shalom. Due to a fairly consistent slide into moral and spiritual infdelity, the southern kingdom of Judah, from Jeremiah’s historic vantage point, has been in political trouble for 200 years. As a result, she has wound up a vassal to Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon. Even with the reprieve during which young King Josiah sought religious, spiritual, and moral reforms, their unfaithfulness was never really abandoned. As a lone authentic prophet, “Jeremiah saw through the whole sham of external conformity without inward change” (Thompson 1980, p. 22). They were going through the motions of religious practice and some of the prophets were saying “Peace, peace” (“All is well! Trust me, all is well”). But the encroachment of their enemies was imminent
and Jeremiah speaks out:

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

How would you answer the question, based on the Isaiah's Prophecy book about the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination? Would you start it in 607? Do you think that Babylon's domination continued after 539?

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.

And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?

• (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.

• (Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . .

And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.

10 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, what would be the reason to use 609BC if you want to be precise? 608BC, then, you end up in 538BC, 1 year after the fall of Babylon. So, what would be the reason to use another speculative view about Isaiah’s Prophecy, if this claim can’t be added, either? Don’t you think, you are attempting to make things fit, just as the Watchtower is being defamed for?

You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.

Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

This is what it all boils down to, doesn’t it? The Rejection of 2520.

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers.

• (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.

It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him.

• (Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.”

I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question.

• (Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

37 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Start by reading: The-Pedagogy-of-Shalom-Theory-and-Contemporary-Issues-of-a-Faith-based-Education 2017

I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

RATS!   I lost my Captain Midnight Babylonian Calendar Decoder Ring!

[Arauna]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:12 AM, AlanF said:

And if you claim that Darius ruled before Cyrus began his 1st regnal year in 538, y

If you read my contribution  (above) you will notice that Darius was appointed as soon as the city was taken  - it would become a satrap in a greater empire - hence the title of king of Babylon, Sumer and Akkad and of the four corners of the world - an imperial title. He took the title in Nissan 538 BCE.

 

[AlanF]

6 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

There you have it, folks! In black and white. The MOST BRILLANT person of all time, just SOLVED this century-old QUESTION. When did the GENTILE TIMES, began?

I

And here I thought you were writing gobble-de-goop before.

AlanF