607 B.C.E - Is there any SECULAR support for the Watch Tower's view?

[JW Insider]

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.

I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.

The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:

 

[JW Insider]

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it.

Here it is...

neobabylonian.mp4

[JW Insider]

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king.

The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:

The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.

30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.

Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.

There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:

• 539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598. 
• If you accept one, you are accepting them all.

So, 539, the start of CyrusÂ’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:

•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar

•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple

•        537 for Cyrus’ 2^nd full year over Babylon

Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to CyrusÂ’ 2^nd-3^rd year.

Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to the 2^nd-3^rd year of Cyrus.

 

[AlanF]

No, there is no secular support for the Watch Tower's view that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.

There exists some secular information against modern secular historical consensus, as compiled by Watch Tower supporters, but none of this supports the 607 view.

And of course, JW critics have published extensive material, online and in books and articles, that shows why the WTS's criticisms of solid secular history are invalid.

AlanF

[Jack Ryan]