Was Jerusalem Destroyed in 607 BCE Jer 32

Was Jerusalem Destroyed in 607 BCE? Jer. 32: 1 -3

We live in 2014! Is old history like 607 BCE still important? *** bh p. 215 - 218 1914 *** 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy … what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Luke 21: 24: „the appointed times of the nations” …How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B. C. E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians… Daniel chapter 4 … “seven times”…

Conclusion? 607 BCE still is important in 2014! *** bh p. 215 - 218 1914 *** The 2, 520 years began in October 607 B. C. E. , when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.

How did we get to the year 607 BCE? - Gen. 1: 14, 15 Since 1582 CE we are acquainted with the Gregorian calendar (si p. 281). With this we are able to “count back” in time! ‘In the neighborhood’ of 607 BCE we even have a “date that can be used as a pivotal point … the year 539 BCE” *** it-1 pp. 458 -459 Chronology ***

539 BCE: let’s start here, and go back in time. 539 BCE

539 BCE – The fall of Babylon. - Dan. 5: 30 Who was then king? How did he reign? Dan. 5: 30 Belshazzar was the last king … and … he reigned together with his father: Nabonidus

Time for “chronology!” CHRONOLOGY *** it-1 blz. 447 *** The English word “chronology” comes from the Greek khro·no·lo·gi′a …, that is, “the computation of time. ” Chronology makes possible the placing of events in their orderly sequence or association and the assigning of proper dates to particular events.

Nabonidus, how long did he reign? - Dan. 5: 1 ftnt Rbi 8 *** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus *** NABONIDUS (Nab·o·ni′dus) [from Babylonian meaning “Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted”]. Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556 -539 B. C. E. ). He was given to literature, art, and religion. Just remember: 539 BCE – 17 years = 556 BCE

539 BCE and before Nabonidus & Belshazzar 17 years 556 BCE 539 BCE

Who were the kings of the neo. Babylonian empire before Nabonidus? *** it-1 p. 425 *** - CHALDEA (Chal·de′a), Chaldean (Chal·de′an) … “… Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi. Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon. … That dynasty came to its end when “Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. ” (Da 5: 30) Darius the Mede was “made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. ” —Da 9: 1; see BABYLON No. 2. ”

What do we know about Labashi-Marduk? *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon *** “Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk. ” Is this then the end of our “computation of time? ” Not at all! Thanks to the Watchtower 1965 January 1 p. 29 Thanks to the and *** it-1 p. 452 -453 Chronology ***

What do we know about Labashi-Marduk? Watchtower 1965 January 1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived: “Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until fell in 539 BCE. ”

What do we know about Labashi-Marduk? Compare w 65 1/3 blz. 157, par. 7 with Wikipedia http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Labashi-Marduk “Labashi-Marduk, was king of Babylon (556 BC), BC and son of Neriglissar. Labashi-Marduk succeeded his father when still only a boy, after the latter's four-year reign. Most likely due to his very young age, he was unfit to rule, and was murdered in a conspiracy only nine months after his inauguration. Nabonidus was consequently chosen as the new king. ” So, we are on the right track!

What do we know about Labashi-Marduk? *** it-1 blz. 452 -453 Chronology *** “For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2 Ki 25: 27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. ” Not a word about Labashi-Marduk. In the mean time, we know why. So, let’s hold it on nine months we can almost neglect.

Again, time for “chronology!” We already had: Nabonidus: 17 years – 556 BCE up to 539 BCE Labashi-Marduk: 0 years – 556 BCE up to 556 BCE Neriglissar: 4 years – 556 BCE up to 560 BCE Evil-Merodach: 2 years – 560 BCE up to 562 BCE Remember: we arrived yet in 562 BCE

539 BCE and before Evil-Merodach 2 years Neriglissar 4 years + Labashi-Marduk 0 years 562 BCE 556 BCE 560 BCE 539 BCE Nabonidus & Belshazzar 17 years

And before Evil-Merodach? Nebuchadnezzar - Dan. 1: 1 Nebuchadnezzar [from Akkadian, meaning “O Nebo, Protect the Heir!]. Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624 -582 B. C. E. ), … *** it-2 p. 480 ***

Nebuchadnezzar … What did we read now in *** it-2 p. 480 *** ? ? ! We were properly following all we could find to do the finest ‘computation of time’ and we landed in the year 562 BCE as being the end of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar and, at the same time, the start of the reign of king Evil-Merodach. And right now we read in *** it-2 p. 480 *** “Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624 -582 B. C. E. )” Someone created an “it-hole” from 20 years! And we barely started with the ‘computation of time’! Who then ruled from 582 BCE to 562 BCE? ?

539 BCE and before according to “it-2” Neriglissar 4 years+ Labashi-Marduk 0 year Evil-Merodach 2 years Nebuchadnezzar II 43 years “It”-hole 624 BCE 607 BCE 582 BCE 562 BCE 556 BCE 18 th regnal year 560 BCE 539 BCE Nabonidus & Belshazzar 17 years

Let’s reconsider things *** it-2 p. 480 *** “Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624 -582 B. C. E. )” q q We believe the Insight-book eyes closed. Don’t we? At least, NOW the 18 th reignal year of Nebuchadnezzar really IS 607 BCE. It HAS to be. We SHOULD arrive in 1914 !! What historical or archeological proof do we have? Who cares about such? Do you REALLY need such?

Be warned! A Denish brother, Carl Olof Jonsson also examined the archeologic proof, in order to answer some questions of his ‘bible student’! What he discovered made him write dismayed to the Governing Body. To cut a long story short: Carl was shortly after that disfellowshipped for “apostasy. ” His reply was published in his book: “The Gentile Times Reconsidered”. www. amazon. com/Carl-Olof-Jonsson/e/B 001 KMSHX 4

539 BCE : what if we close the “it-hole” archeologically ? Neriglissar 4 years + Labashi-Marduk 0 year Evil-Merodach 2 years Nebuchadnezzar II 43 years it-HOLE 624 BCE 607 BCE 582 BCE 562 BCE 556 BCE 18 th regnal year 560 BCE 539 BCE Nabonidus & Belshazzar 17 years

If we close “the hole” archeologically, this is what we get. Nabopolassar 21 years Evil-Merodach 2 years Nebuchadnezzar II 43 years 626 BCE 605 BCE 607 BCE 587 BCE Neriglissar 4 years + Labashi-Marduk 0 year 562 BCE 556 BCE 18 th regnal year 560 BCE 539 BCE Nabonidus & Belshazzar 17 years

We computed time following the “state of the art” – the consequences. 1. 2. Unless we overlooked something, according to WTpublications and archeology, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar started in 605 BCE, whatever WT claims in it-2 blz. 480. 607 BCE is 2 years BEFORE the start of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar! Compare this with Jer. 32: 1 -3 The 18 th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar according to this computation of time, is not 607 BCE, but (605 BCE minus 18 =) 587 BCE.

A reassurance! Josephus Flavius Against Appion, Book I, 21 http: //www. gutenberg. org/dirs/2/8/4/2849. txt http: //www. ccel. org/j/josephus/works/apion-1. htm 21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

A reassurance! Josephus Flavius Against Appion, Book I, 21 http: //www. gutenberg. org/dirs/2/8/4/2849. txt http: //www. ccel. org/j/josephus/works/apion-1. htm The Temple was in a state of obscurity for fifty years! Let’s calculate again: 587 BCE – 50 jaar = 537 BCE And here we agree again with the it-book: the Jews arrived back in Jerusalem in 537 BCE.

The consequences of 607 BCE With 607 BCE Watchtower was lying to everybody. They predetermined to arrive in the year 1914 CE! If 607 BCE is NOT correct, but 587 BCE is, then 1914 CE makes a shift to 1934 CE!! In 1914 CE: No “Slave” to be found! Those who claim to be that “Slave” in 1914, can only questionably be described as genuine!

The consequences of 607 BCE On what base then, now we know Christ didn’t return yet in 1914, was the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” identified? ? Is this a scam?

Questions? patrick@haeck. org