I’m not quite with you. It is the WTS that wants the earlier date of 607, whereas I and others agree that Jerusalem was destroyed 20 years later, in 587 BCE.

The Bible does not give BCE dates. If science and archaeology are wrong, then the BCE date that is taken from science and archaeology by the WTS in not reliable.

I have drawn a picture that shows the WTS’s “Bible Chronology”. You will find it at: http://www.jwstudies.com/WTS_Bible_Chronology.doc

Doug

You are absolutely on the ball! These numbers have no significance except to JWs. God did not provide these numbers nor did Scripture anywhere place any significance on them. These ideas, and those of other prophetic speculators such as the SDAs and the Dispensationalists, are a hangover from the 19th century.

As Claudia indicates, these numbers are of value to show JWs they are being lied to by their leadership. That’s their value.

Doug

(a) Although Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, the WTS says it happened 20 years earlier in 607 BCE.

(b) To arrive at its date, the WTS starts with 539, then it goes forward to 537 and then it jumps backwards to 607 BCE.

(c) This is based on its claimed ability to interpret Scripture.

(d) It has to ignore and denigrate the accepted chronology for the period.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. The WTS’s starting date depends on the neo-Babylonian dates and chronology that it does not accept. If the dates and the chronology are wrong, then the WTS’s starting date of 539 BCE is wrong.

2. The WTS cannot prove when Jews returned to the site of the destroyed Temple at Jerusalem. (Not that this event marked the end point of the “70 years”, but that’s a separate issue.)

3. The “70 years” did not start with the destruction of Jerusalem, or even shortly afterwards. It was not even necessary for the city to be destroyed for the 70 years to run its course.

4. A memorial tablet to Nabonidus’ mother lists the chronology for the period. She died in his 9th year, aged 104. The WTS says the neo-Babylonian chronology is 20 years short, which would have made her 124 years old when she died. Tom suggests the need to add a further 7 years.

5. Fiddling with the lengths of rulers before Nebuchadnezzar is irrelevant, since it is the dates between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus that the WTS needs to address.

6. Suggesting there were overlaps in reigns simply REDUCES the length of the period. The WTS is seeking to INCREASE the length of that period.

7. Thousands upon thousands of tablets are dated to the reigns of the Babylonian kings (including the continuous business tablets of the Hebrew business family, the Egibis). No tablet mentions a reign that is 20 years longer than the accepted chronology, and none inserts an extra king.

And that’s the end of the matter.

Doug

That was my whole point!! A couple days ago I presented 2 tablets that overlap 6 months between Nebuchadnezzar and Evil- Marduk. This give an indication of a possible another king or one ruled longer than expected!! Aslo, I presented that there is a strong possiblity that many tablets was address to Nabonidus was addressed to Belshazzar while he was king of Babylon.

So where do we get the facts Doug? Is it from Encyclopedia of History books?

Sorry, I need to express one of my statements a bit better.

I am saying that there are thousands upon thousands of tablets available from Babylon. To make the chronology longer you will need to find tablets that insert extra years into known reigns or you will need to find tablets that provide extra kings.

Regards,

Doug

I suggest that the real reason you do not provide me with proof that exiled Jews returned to their homeland in 537 BCE is that there are NO historical FACTS.

I assert that it is the WTS that is FIXATED on its date. Do you really think the WTS could change its mind?

When you asked me, I did provide you with the evidence that shows the WTS cannot prove the Exiles returned to the Temple site in 537 BCE. (They returned quite some time before they attended the temple site in the month of Tishri.) In any case, there is no Biblical evidence that this event marked the end of the 70 Years.

When you asked me about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, I did provide you with my material on the WWW. So I have answered you about his dates.

To say that “there might be another king that ruled in between them or Evil-Mardu was king twice” is based only on a MIGHT BE, not on any FACT.

Surely, if a couple of reigns overlap, that would SHORTEN the overall length of the period in question, not insert another 20 years. I suggest you need to find tablets – and there are thousands upon thousands of them – that ADD years to a reign or insert an additional king or two.

In any case, your questions are irrelevant. This is the way that the WTS gets its date for the Destruction of Jerusalem: They start with 539 BCE for Babylon’s Fall, then they go back to 537 BCE for the Jews’ return to the site of the Temple at Jerusalem, and then they jump back 70 years. Voila, it’s 607 BCE. So the WTS’s method depends on the correctness of the year that the Exiles worshiped at the Temple site.

If the dates for Nebuchadnezzar are wrong, then the date for the Fall of Babylon is wrong, because that date is calculated from Absolute dates for the period and then using the accepted chronology for the period to arrive at the date for Babylon’s fall.

And as far as Josephus is concerned, we both know that he said that Jerusalem lay in its devastated state for 50 years. Sorry, but you have lost me about Belshazzar.

Doug