The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Please do and recognize that such a discussion is only made possible by those 'celebrated' WT scholars!

I believe both of us are pretty much repeating ourselves at this point. Before this conversation winds down I will try to summarize the points I tried to make, without all the repetition. You might get a chance to do the same. If you don't wish to, I will probably try to do that for you.

But no rush. @George88 has made a few comments that I'd like to address and he has also asked about the actual tablet evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. I'd don't have much time, so I'd like to shift attention over to the points he has made and asked about.

[JW Insider]

39 minutes ago, George88 said:

Those who ignore the facts would be ignorant, while those who agree with such ignorance would be foolish.

I agree with that too. In fact, I think that when you consider everything that Jeremiah, Daniel, Chronicles/Ezra, Isaiah and Zechariah say about the term "70 years" it does give us a way to tie any of the "loose" pieces together in a reasonable fashion. 

52 minutes ago, George88 said:

Could it be possible that scribes based the calculation of King Mattanyahu's reign on his birthdate around 618 BC?

I need to ask you first: When do you think Zedekiah (Mattanyahu) was born? If we use the dating system that puts Josiah's death in 609 by Necho's army at Megiddo, and we believe that Josiah was about 39 at his death, born around 648 and put on the throne in 640, at a very young age, then this makes Zedekiah born (618/617) when Josiah was 30-ish, very reasonable, for a fourth son in those days. That also puts Zedekiah on the throne from around 597 to 586 using this chronology. So he'd be around 21 or so. Does that sound about right to you? 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, this observation has a minor detail missing from the story. 

It's possible that you mean the observation doesn't make any big deal about the physical destruction of Jerusalem at that particular time. Perhaps you are thinking that there could have been another point at which Jerusalem was considered already devastated. Perhaps this might cover a potential 20 year gap if we consider a scribal error. Perhaps it's related to the so-called correction to a king's young enthronement. 

Before you give away more details than you are ready, I wonder if the following verse does not give the theory a big problem:

(Ezekiel 33:21) . . .At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”

Although some might consider the BCE years attached to the event to be controversial, it does indicate that they are in the 12th year of an exile that was so great as to be named "our exile." The only exile the Bible gives the largest number to was the exile in the 7th/8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52) which puts this 12th  in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That 12 year gap (11 if using a non-accession style of counting) is accounted for perfectly in the description of the city being struck down in Jeremiah, 2 Chron, 2 Kings, etc.

I suppose one could say something like Sweeney is saying, that Jerusalem was effectively under Babylonian control as early as 605, and perhaps some kind of destruction accompanied what was done in this particular year. I would have a lot of trouble fitting Jeremiah's time related statements into this however. I do see a lot of the coincidences you have noticed. (e.g. 607 is not the 19th year of Nebu-, but it is in fact the 19th year of Nabo-. And the 20 year gaps are interesting. And the coincidence of the 37th year mentioned with respect to Jehoiachin and the accession year of Evil-Merodach, when the infamous tablet also concerns year 37. Don't know what anyone can make of that one though.)
 

[George88]

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I need to ask you first: When do you think Zedekiah (Mattanyahu) was born?

It is widely believed that this event occurred around 618 BC, suggesting that any scribe examining his date of birth would conclude that his reign would conclude in 607 BC.

Based on historical records, the indicated birth time is 618 BC.

When was King Josiah born versus at what point he took the throne?

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's possible that you mean the observation doesn't make any big deal about the physical destruction of Jerusalem at that particular time.

Your assumption is incorrect if you consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Historical evidence points to a different path and timeframe.

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Before you give away more details than you are ready, I wonder if the following verse does not give the theory a big problem:

(Ezekiel 33:21) . . .At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”

This also has its proper order.

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Although some might consider the BCE years attached to the event to be controversial, it does indicate that they are in the 12th year of an exile that was so great as to be named "our exile." The only exile the Bible gives the largest number to was the exile in the 7th/8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52) which puts this 12th  in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That 12 year gap (11 if using a non-accession style of counting) is accounted for perfectly in the description of the city being struck down in Jeremiah, 2 Chron, 2 Kings, etc.

While not confusing the issue, this would conclude in historical context the 19th year of Nabopolassar. One should focus not just on timeframe and terminology to properly set evidence following scripture and historical observations since this can easily end in 606 BC.

It could be argued that the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned by Scholar Dr. Wiseman, who matches the timeframe, could be the 19th year of that Nebuchadnezzar within Nabopolassar's reign. This Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar (640 BC) and older than the Nebuchadnezzar described in scripture, could make all the difference.

[George88]

Something for everyone here to examine and contemplate without using preconceived notions. I'm not posting this to have a discussion.

In Dr. Wiseman's evidence, is the governor of Uruk BROTHER who is also named Nebuchadnezzar the one depicted in the bible, or is it the Nebuchadnezzar referenced by history and assumed by everyone to be the one mentioned in the bible?

Could it be that the brother was the one mentioned in the book of Judith as the King of Assyria? If it's the other person, where would the 19 years end up? Alongside Nabopolassar's reign, side by side. Where would that leave the famous 587 BC, since it would conclude both instances of (Nabo-Nabu) end in 607 BC using the 19th-year cycle?

 The Book of Judith 
"{1:1} In the twelfth year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor,  who reigned in Nineve, the great city; in the days of  Arphaxad, which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane, 
{1:7} Then Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians sent  unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, and to those that dwelt in Cilicia, and Damascus, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and to all that dwelt upon the sea coast" 

Does this mean the book of Judith is wrong? How about those historians that claim Nebuchadnezzar the 3rd in 604 BC? Are they wrong?

I am not using this as the foundation of my research; it is merely one of numerous potentialities. Familiar with that concept? 

When was the City of Uruk taken according to history?

Nebuchadrezzar’s Family 
Nebuchadrezzar had a brother Nabd-Suma-lisir described by his father as ‘his next succeeding brother, my favourite small child, the second born’ (talimsu serram sit libbiya duppusu dadua). Both were present to carry the symbolic basket and hoe when their father inaugurated new work on the ziggurat in Babylon.” In Nebuchadrezzar’s third year the _ broken Babylonian Chronicle makes another allusion to this brother Nabia-Suma-lisir.”” While it is possible to conjecture that this marks the commencement of political difficulties caused by a revolt within the palace, the reference could equally be to the death of this brother but not to both.* Both types of events are noted elsewhere in the Chronicle.” Another son _ of Nabopolassar, and so brother of Nebuchadrezzar, is Nabt-zér-uSab&i, named in a sale document dated in Nebuchadrezzar’s final (43rd) year. It should be noted that one Nabt-uSabsi governor of Uruk in 650 B.C. had a brother who was also called Nebuchadrezzar.” page 8 REPOST

** Grayson 1975, 71:11; 86:31; 127:29 cf. 85:22. ® Moore 1939, 58:11; ABL 859, 1106 (see Dietrich 1970, 89-96 for references). *! Burstein 1978, 25; the Armenian Version of Eusebius names her ‘the Amuhean’. COP Gr Hei Clposon7cde * Burnstein 1978, 25, n.g8 (F Gr H 3 Cl 688 F 9.1). Wiseman 1982, 313; Wiseman 1956, 58 (BM. 21901, 29); cf. Grayson 1975, 162 (ii 1 and n.); 166, ii 18 (‘entente cordiale’). ° Herodotus I 74. °° On Syennesis as a dynastic name see W.F. Albright BASOR 120 (1956) 25; Von Voigtlander 1964, 136. * Contra Von Voigtlander 1964, 116-7. 

Carl Olof Jonsson overlooked a great deal of evidence, to the point that it seemed comical to me in the 80s. It is possible to attempt to explain everything through the events in scripture, but none of the current strategies make any difference to the real facts.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

f only Jeremiah's prophecy had made the 70 years of Babylon's domination commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the populace as exiles. But instead Jeremiah merely says that Babylon will have 70 years of dominance so that all the nations around will serve them. Here are some of the problems with that theory:

Jeremiah did just that. He explained the 70 years in full that would be a period of Judah being made to serve Babylon, that the Jews left an empty, desolated land for 70 years. - Jer. 25:8-11; 29:10.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

1. Jeremiah NEVER says the 70 years are for Judah, the prophecy says those 70 years are for Babylon and about Babylon.

False. Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was a judgement against Judah, not Babylon. Jer. 25:2

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2. Jeremiah says that many nations will come under this servitude of Babylon. Note:

(Jeremiah 25:9-26) . . .I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. . . . 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.”’  “‘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. I will bring on that land all my words that I have spoken against it, all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations.   . . . So I took the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and made all the nations to whom Jehovah sent me drink: starting with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, her kings and her princes, to make them a ruin, . . .  then Pharʹaoh king of Egypt . . .Uz;. . . the Phi·lisʹtines, Ashʹke·lon, Gazʹa, Ekʹron, . . . Ashʹdod;  Eʹdom, Moʹab,. . . Amʹmon·ites; . . .Tyre, . . .Siʹdon,. . . Deʹdan, Teʹma, Buz, . . . the Arabians . . .Zimʹri, . . . Eʹlam, . . .the Medes; . . . the kings of the north near and far, one after the other, and all the other kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; and the king of Sheʹshach will drink after them.

Correct! Jehovah's judgement against the nations is explained from vss. 12- 26. The expression 'these nations will have to serve Babylon for 70 years' can be rendered in different ways as shown by comparing other Bible translations. The problem is to whom or where are the 70 years applicable as set out in the Hebrew text so it is a matter of interpretation. We cannot know who these nations are as it is unspecified in this verse. Further, Rolf Furuli who is the first scholar to carry out a linguistic analysis of this verse suggests three possibilities as to the translation of this verse:

2. And they will serve these nations, the king of Babylon, seventy years

1. And these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years

3. And they will serve these nations together with the king of Babylon seventy years

The subject here is 'these nations' and are described as 'these surrounding nations' in vs. 9 or as 'nations round about'. Thus, I conclude that 'these nations' are simply those peoples living outside the border of Judah who also would be caught in the impending maelstrom.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it's pretty obvious that the devastating effects of Babylonian domination will come upon all the known lands around them "ALL these surrounding nations." Not just Judah. So the 70 years were about a Babylonian domination that would END after 70 years. True, it was Jehovah's purpose that Judea and Jerusalem will be desolated through that domination, seemingly in a worse way than any of the other nations, but after those 70 years FOR BABYLON their domination would end, and it would be Babylon's turn for desolation.

A linguistic analysis of this vs. 11 and vs.9 shows that 'these nations as 'surrounding nations' are simply peoples living in close proximity to the Land of Judah.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Now it was mentioned before that Isaiah uses an expression about Babylon and 70 years, too. The expression in the prophecy against Tyre was that she:

"will be forgotten for for 70 years, the same as the lifetime of one king.  . . . At the end of 70 years, Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she will return to her hire and prostitute herself with all the world’s kingdoms on the face of the earth. But her profit and her hire will become something holy to Jehovah. . . . Look! Jehovah is emptying the land and making it desolate. He turns it upside down and scatters its inhabitants.  It will be the same for everyone:. . .

The WT publications say that this "70 years" expression means "70 years, the same as the lifespan given to one KINGDOM, Babylon" who will desolate the prostitute, Tyre, but that after the 70 years are over, Tyre will prostitute herself again with all the nations. As you know, the WTS explains it more fully this way:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
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.
 

These '70 years of Tyre' relate to their subjection to Babylon and were made by the prophet Isaiah and not Jeremiah so we should not conflate the two time periods. One remains unverified historically as in the case of Tyre where no specific dates are given whereas for Judah we have historical evidence for its start and end dates.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If this is true then the 70 years do not need to be associated directly with Judea's and Jerusalem's fall. It's the other way around, those 70 years for Babylon's domination would ultimately bring on a devastating effect in Judea and Jerusalem. It didn't need to be for the full 70 years that Babylon was given to begin it's period of greatest domination. So it also makes sense that we do not need to look for a specific date, exactly 70 years prior to October 539 BCE, or some arbitrarily chosen date within the first year of Cyrus. In fact most of Judea fell into exile a decade or more before Babylon tried to take the walled city of Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52)

Your argument fails because we have two specific time periods or events by two different prophets only fulfilled during the Babylonian period under Nebuchadnezzer represented as a period of servitude to that king. Jeremiah's 70 years applies to Judah alone whereas Isaiah's 70 years applies to Tyre alone.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But think about this: Tyre didn't come under the domination of Babylon for a full 70 years. In fact some of those nations in Jeremiah's list appeared to hardly come under domination at all. Some nations that once paid tribute to Egypt or Assyria would simply transfer that tribute over to Babylon. That's probably what Jeremiah had in mind for Judea when he said to just put yourself under the yoke of Babylon without rebellion and you'll save yourselves.

So it makes sense that Babylon has control for 70 years but not all nations need to come under their thumb instantly, or all at once. But what if Tyre had come under their control earlier in Nebuchadnezzar's reign and had been in servitude to Babylon for, say, 75, 80 or 85 years. Would the 70 year prophecy make sense if it were really 80 years for example?

You are trying to create history, best to just stick to what we know and what the Bible specifically states.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think you'll see what I'm getting at. The fact that Babylon was given 70 years to dominate would make no sense if some of those nations that came under the 70 years were actually dominated for 80 or even 85 years.

Yet this is what MOST of the Judeans were -- MOST were exiled for 80 or even 85 years according to the WTS chronology. 

Jeremiah's 70 years are for Judah alone and are historically specified but this is not the case with Isaiah's 70 years for all that these have in common is the same number and being dominated by Babylon for a period of time. The Jewish Exile was for a fixed period of 70 years and not 70 years or more. Those Jews who were earlier deported were of Jehoiachin's exile or 'the exile of King Jehoiachin' - Ezek.1: 2; 33:21; 40:1. Thus this deportation although termed as an 'exile' would be secondary to the EXILE in its fullest extent in accordance with the many prophetic warnings and judgements.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

My summary of the biblical 70 years is as follows:

The 70 years was first prophesied by Jeremiah in 'the fourth year of King Jehoiakim (625 BCE) -  Jer. 25: 11,12; 29:10 witnessed and experienced by the prophet Daniel whilst exiled in Babylon in the first year of Darius the Mede(539-538 BCEca) -Dan.9: 2.  Later, in the second year of King Darius 1 (520 BCE) the prophet Zechariah received a vision, a message of comfort concerning the already expired 70 years -Zech 1: 12; and in Darius' fourth year (518 BCE), Jehovah's word through the prophet recalled the 70 years as a period of laments -Zech. 7: 5. Finally, the historian Ezra (460 BCE) described the 70 years in 2Chron 36: 21.

These seven '70 years' references show three distinctive elements characteristic of this definite historical period in Jewish history namely: a period of Exile. a period of servitude to Babylon, a period of desolation of Jerusalem, its Temple and the Land of Judah. Accurate Bible History and Bible Chronology prove that the 70 years began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE by King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon in his 18/19th year (607 BCE) and during the 11th year of King Zedekiah of Judah and ended with the release of the Jewish exiles in Babylon under the King Cyrus of Persia during his 1st Year (538-537 BCE) using an official Decree returning to their homeland in 537 BCE.

The subject of the 70 years has been and continues to be a most contentious within current scholarship with many interpretations offered as to the nature of the 70 years and its chronology. The most popular theory is that it represents only a period of Babylonian domination from either 605 BCE or 609 BCE until 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon, others refer to the period as that of the state of the Jewish Temple from 586 BCE the traditional date for the destruction of Jerusalem to the Temple's restoration in 516 BCE. All such popular theories fail because the interpretation of the 70 years does not consider the major elements as described by the Bible writers both in terms of its prophecy and history except the Jewish historian Josephus who discusses the 70 years in his Antiquities to the Jews in similar terms matching the above description as a period of Exile.

The 70 years has proven to be a 'stumbling block' for scholars and critics of Jehovah's Witnesses because they ignore the fact of the Jewish Exile a period that historians such as Rainer Albertz have regarded the Exile aa a 'catastrophe'. Such language is very much descriptive of the Exile for and in Babylon uttered by the prophet Jeremiah.

scholar JW

 

 

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

It becomes recognizable to me as follows. There are scholars, archaeologists, historians and others involved in looking at historical events and dating them. These are people who independently or within the framework of recognized institutions research the matter and draw conclusions. All such individuals should have, and probably have, diplomas from higher educational institutions, so you can have confidence in their work and expertise.
 
On the other hand, we have "esteemed" researchers whose names we do not know, nor their diplomas, because they work in anonymity as individuals or as unitary teams of a religious community. It is necessary to strongly emphasize the fact that this same religious community, as a non-profit body, strongly appeals before various other "secular bodies", such as courts and other institutions dealing with religious and human freedoms (and the like), appeals for its complete independence when it comes to religious doctrines and interpretations. They refer to their constitutionally guaranteed right that no one, not even the courts, have the right to engage in assessments or judgments as to whether certain theological interpretations are legal or not, right or wrong.

In light of such a context and the claim of "independence in interpreting the biblical text" JWs (read, religious leaders) can, if they want to, say and teach what they like and see fit for their own theological consistency and doctrinal purpose while leading their believers with specifically chosen direction of one's own religious thought.
In other words, this means that any teaching of a religious community, even if it is contrary to official science and and as such recognized by the academic community, cannot be considered  as"wrong", because this right and freedom to "interpretation/s" is guaranteed by constitutional freedoms and charters.

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, George88 said:

When was King Josiah born versus at what point he took the throne?

If he died in 609 BCE, as Pharaoh Necho was passing north through Megiddo, then he was born around 648 BCE. Josiah became king at 8 years of age in about 640/639 and reigned 31 years until 609.

TMI:

Apparently, Josiah's wife was pregnant with Johanan when Josiah was somewhere between 8 and 12 years old. Johanan never became king, but Josiah's other 3 sons all became kings of Judah. 

His second son, Jehoiakim/Eliakim was born in Josiah's 6th year as king (634 BCE), meaning when Josiah was about 14, so Josiah most likely fathered the child his second son when he was 13. 

When Josiah was about 16 (632 BCE), his third son Jehoahaz/Shallum was born.

About the 22nd year of his reign, Mattaniah/Zedekiah was born, around 618 BCE.

Zedekiah would be about 9 years old when his father died, and very shortly afterwards was himself made king around 609 BCE

22 hours ago, George88 said:

It is widely believed that this event occurred around 618 BC, suggesting that any scribe examining his date of birth would conclude that his reign would conclude in 607 BC.

It's hard to see why someone being born in 618 might influence a scribe to think his reign concluded 11 years later. You are evidently thinking it's possible that some scribe somewhere mixed up his birth-year with his first year of reign, counting 11 years from the wrong date. This seems a little less likely to me when you think about the method they used for counting years. It wasn't a matter of mixing up numbers like 618, 607, 597, 586, because counting calendar years didn't use numbers like that. You merely added up the length of all official kings' reigns between "king A' and "king B" and then used expression like "in the 3rd year of king A. . . " or in "10th year of king B." to add or subtract for the exact number of years. 

22 hours ago, George88 said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's possible that you mean the observation doesn't make any big deal about the physical destruction of Jerusalem at that particular time.

Your assumption is incorrect if you consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Historical evidence points to a different path and timeframe.

I merely acknowledge that you were saying it was possible that historical evidence points to a different time frame from 587, and you say my assumption is incorrect but then go on to say almost the exact same thing I just said. So I guess I missed what part of my assumption was incorrect.

22 hours ago, George88 said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Jeremiah 52) which puts this 12th  in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. . . . accounted for perfectly in the description of the city being struck down in Jeremiah, 2 Chron, 2 Kings, etc.

While not confusing the issue, this would conclude in historical context the 19th year of Nabopolassar.

It sounds like you are not saying that Nabopolassar can also be called Nebuchadnezzar, but that perhaps there was a co-regency of a certain Nebuchadnezzar of the same regnal length as Nabopolassar's or that Nabopolassar's regnal year numbers were used during a time when this Nebuchadnezzar was also a king (or effectively the king from the Biblical perspective?) during that same 19th year.  

22 hours ago, George88 said:

It could be argued that the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned by Scholar Dr. Wiseman, who matches the timeframe, could be the 19th year of that Nebuchadnezzar within Nabopolassar's reign. This Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar (640 BC) and older than the Nebuchadnezzar described in scripture, could make all the difference.

There were others named Nebuchadnezzar, especially after the first "great" Nebuchadnezzar from 400 years earlier. The name according to Wiseman was little used elsewhere (if at all) by others in the second millennium, meaning prior to the first Nebuchadnezzar. But he believes that Nabopolassar, once established in his throne, thought it good to name his first son Nebuchadnezzar as a kind of throwback to that first Nebuchadnezzar to remind Babylonians of the old classical "dynasty". But others had used the name, since 'Neb the First' or names similar enough to swap with it. 

The other Nebuchadn(r)ezzar, however, was NOT the son of Nabopolassar as you say. You must have read it wrong. That would mean Nebuchadnezzar had a brother named Nebuchadnezzar. Note that Wiseman says that Nebuchadn(r)ezzar II had a brother named Nabuzerusabsi, named in a document almost NINETY YEARS AFTER the governor of Uruk (also named Nabuzerusabsi). It was that Uruk governor from 650 BC (not 640) who also had a brother named Nebuchadrezzar. 

according to:

which I didn't look up to double-check.

Nabopolassar's son, Nabuzerusabsi, would have been born well before 605 and so was already at least 44 when he was mentioned on a tablet in the year 562 BCE. The brother of the governor of Uruk's back around 650 would have been nearly a century earlier, and this would be, not impossible, but very difficult to see as "a Nebuchadnezzar" co-ruling with Nabopolassar, whose reign started in about 626 BCE. Not because it's impossible based on the dates, but because we have so much trivial information known about even obscure people from these years. Even people who reigned only a few months, even people who tried to usurp the kingship, and even details about co-rulers from Assyrian times just a few years prior to Nabopolassar. So it seems odd that we wouldn't have details about a brother of a governor co-ruling at the time history assigns solely to Nabopolassar. 

[George88]

50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So it seems odd that we wouldn't have details about a brother of a governor co-ruling at the time history assigns solely to Nabopolassar. 

It's quite remarkable that even the Babylonian Chronicles contain a 37-year gap. At that time, a governor, crown prince, or even a high-profile "General" could easily be regarded as a king, providing clarity on the perception of lordship during that period. There is nothing unusual about a person not being mentioned in detail. What truly matters is the linguist's ability to read the tablet and interpret its contents accurately, without making any adjustments to conform to the biased narrative of tainted secular history.

I won't engage in a debate with you about the "why" behind it. Instead, I'll focus on highlighting the flaws in Carl Olof Jonsson's past actions, which deceived all those who read his nonsensical claims.

Debate ScholarJW about justifying your viewpoint by mixing secular and biblical facts in support of your perspective, similar to COJ. 

[Pudgy]

To me, this is not a math problem, this is a perception problem.

I made my living doing calculations for 40 years, but it was always an adjunct to proving something that existed or would exist in the real world. Train tracks that lined up, bridges that didn’t collapse, sewers that would not overflow, refineries that worked efficiently, and sites that drained properly etc. etc.

I have argued with other engineers about how much precision was necessary in calculations, as I always used six decimal places, to avoid creeping truncation errors, but the calculation was NOT THE END PRODUCT.  The End Product was something important in the REAL world.

So …. what’s important about one or two or 20 or 70 years …2600 or so years ago, on the other side of the planet, by peoples and nations … whole civilizations that don’t exist anymore?

It is perceived that this is important because when you add up a whole bunch of numbers it either succeeds or fails in getting you to 1914, which without the slightest infinitesimal shred of REAL evidence is when Christ established his Kingdom … or something along those lines. It’s hard to keep up ‘cause the goalposts are constantly being moved.

100.000000% of hard facts say WWI, the “Great War” was a 1914 coincidence.

Looking at real evidence, NOTHING supports the idea that Armageddon occurred, and Christ established ANYTHING in 1914.

if the elements being intensely hot had melted, etc., SOMEONE would have noticed.

The Bible actually describes EXACTLY what humans would see when Christ returns in Kingdom Power.

The destruction of all competing governments!

                     Armageddon.

Please correct me if you have any evidence Armageddon has already occurred.

Remember evidence?

If your extensive calculations, checked and double checked, PROVE a chicken is spherical …. LOOK AT THE CHICKEN!

[George88]

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There were others named Nebuchadnezzar, especially after the first "great" Nebuchadnezzar from 400 years earlier. The name according to Wiseman was little used elsewhere (if at all) by others in the second millennium, meaning prior to the first Nebuchadnezzar. But he believes that Nabopolassar, once established in his throne, thought it good to name his first son Nebuchadnezzar as a kind of throwback to that first Nebuchadnezzar to remind Babylonians of the old classical "dynasty". But others had used the name, since 'Neb the First' or names similar enough to swap with it. 

Why bring this up when we are focusing on Judah's timeframe up to 587 BC, starting with Nabolopassar, and trying to justify that specific year? The mention of Nebuchadnezzar I is irrelevant to this period. So, you shouldn't cloud the issue.

What is the reason for Dr. Wiseman's confusion between the Nebuchadnezzar he refers to and the one located in Uruk? Are you insinuating that the mistakes pointed out in past claims by scholars should discredit their credibility? Are you suggesting that only illogical non-scholars should be deemed trustworthy? This seems like quite a demand.