THE FALL OF BABYLON:

WAS IT 538 OR 539 BC?

 AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTORY LETTER
I want to be transparent. This paper will show why I state things in the manner I do and why I
mark October 539 BC as the fall of Babylon rather than 538, as is on the 1843 and 1850 charts. I realise
that there are many who do not understand the process and problems in locating biblical dates and
placing them on our calendar. I began studying biblical chronology in a defense of the chronology of the
2520. I did a thorough job. I was not satisfied with partial arguments. In working out the chronology of
the Bible, I have had to be true to all of the inspired statements. I could not allow one contradiction.
I find it odd that some try to paint me as an enemy of the charts. If we accept the 538 BC date for
the fall of Babylon, we have to also be able to reconcile this with the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy’s
chronological statements. If there is a way to do this and maintain the 538 BC date, I will be happy to
accept the solution. Dates do not exist in a vacuum. Each date connects with every other date. In
establishing 742, 723 and 677 BC for the commencement of the 65 year prophecy, the captivity of
Hoshea and the captivity of Manasseh, respectively, I could not avoid dealing with the whole chronology
of the kings and the captivity of Judah. In doing so, it became evident that there was much that has been
missed by us, and almost everyone, in the connexion between all of the prophetic periods. The 2520
was the key to unlock this puzzle, leading to a defense against the modern arguments that have
destroyed biblical chronology. I have made a clear defense of the chronology of the Bible as found in
Sister White’s writings. I have exposed the faulty arguments that have been brought into Adventism by
the papal education. Why would people who believe the 2520 reject the clear defense of our message?
I understand the desire to defend the charts. However, I do not think that we have to accept every
date as 100% accurate. Obviously, the dates that are connected to the prophetic periods must be
correct, if we are to accept Sister White’s inspired testimony. As far as I can see, the date 606 for the rise
of Islam has a problem, if this is to mark either the bringing of the black stone to Mecca, by Mohamed,
or to mark his first “visions”, as these happened in 605 and 610, respectively. Of course, this date is not
on the 1850 chart. The question then becomes, what does Ellen White’s endorsement of the charts
mean? As Jeff said in the March 2013 Future News,

“I have no problem understanding all the figures on the chart as correct

applications by the Millerites, but do not insist that the dates they placed on the charts as
necessarily the best historical dates, except when they refer to time prophecies. If they
had a date that was marked as the fulfillment of a time prophecy, then that date needed
to be accurate, but when they employed dates to represent prophecies that had no
element of time associated with them, then I see no need to argue that if a better date
was found at a later time, that this would invalidate their application of the prophecy.”

Jeff could have been wrong. However, this was the position I believed we had, in regard to the
charts. If I could have defended the 538 BC date from inspiration, I would have.
Another concern has been my scholarly approach. Some may have assumed that I was just some
theologian subverting our message. My intent was to present this message to those who are biased
against the charts by the misinformation that is out there. I used a language and approach to simply get
people to study the 2520. In putting together my paper, which was written for my Church elders, pastor
and a few officers at the Alberta conference, I may have stated things in such a way that I inadvertently
gave the impression that Miller was wrong about the 2520. My position is that Miller was correct in
some ways and made mistakes in others. We have always held this position for the 2300 days and the
70 weeks. Miller did not base his understanding of the 2520 on Leviticus 26 alone. The enemies of this
message only deal with Leviticus 26. They rarely look at Miller’s complete argument. Also, it is a fact
that we do not believe that there is a 2520 year period of continual punishment for literal Israel found
in Leviticus 26. Miller saw the connexion between the “seven times” and the prophecies of Daniel, even
if he did not elaborate upon it. My argument is that it is the prophecies of Daniel that transfer the
chastisement from literal to spiritual Israel and extend it to be completed in the Millerite time period. If
we are to take Leviticus 26 as it stands on its own, we cannot see a 2520 year period. It can only be
shown to be fulfilled by literal Israel from 677 to 457 BC. However, if we connect the captivity of literal
Israel to the period of probation given to literal Israel, as Daniel 9 does, and see that the 2300 days
connects the desolation and restoration of the earthly sanctuary to the cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary that commences in 1844, then we can see how Leviticus 26 is fulfilled in the two periods of
the 2520 for Judah and Israel.
This paper shows clearly my reasons for my position. If my reasons are faulty, this must be shown
from inspiration. This paper is to be examined. Nothing is hidden. Everything is to be criticised. If the
arguments cannot stand, they should be discarded. However, this should be done using Miller’s rules
and not the methods that our enemies have employed. I have a great deal of confidence in God’s ability
to correct us, to instruct us and complete His work in us. My confidence in man is less. God does not
need me or any of us. If we are not in line with the truth, it will be accomplished by someone else. That
is all.
I hope that all read this paper prayerfully and carefully and that all take into consideration this
quote,

If a brother differs with you on some points of truth, do not stoop to ridicule, do not
place him in a false light or misconstrue his words, making sport of them; do not
misinterpret his words and wrest them of their true meaning. This is not conscientious
argument. Do not present him before others as a heretic, when you have not with him
investigated his positions, taking the Scriptures text-by-text in the spirit of Christ to
show him what is truth. You do not yourself really know the evidence he has for his faith,
and you cannot clearly define your own position. Take your Bible, and in a kindly spirit
weigh every argument that he presents, and show him by the Scriptures if he is in error.
When you do this without unkind feelings, you will do only that which is your duty and
the duty of every minister of Jesus Christ. 12 Manuscript Releases, 376.

Theodore Turner,

September 28th, 2015

INTRODUCTION
The problems we face when trying to place the dates of the Bible and Bible prophecies into a
correct chronological framework are not to be solved by the casual reader. Many have tackled the
problem with varying degrees of success. The work conducted by James Ussher in the 1600’s is still the
best example. Ussher used his amazing grasp of languages to pour over every relevant document that
then existed. Many modern day chronologists merely follow the well-worn path trodden first by Ussher
and those who followed after him. There are others who see Ussher’s work as “out-of-date”, in that he
did not have access to much of the information that exists today. However, when we examine the recent
data, there is no contradiction with Ussher. The most we can do is refine Ussher’s dates. Ussher is found
to be within a year or two, and never more, while most of his chronology is bang on.
The main problem with the modern scholar is that he does not, for the most part, accept God’s
Word as infallible. Scholars, such as the Adventist Edwin Thiele, take many of the chronological
synchronisms as glosses added by editors and not part of the original text of Scripture. They get the
Bible to “fit” their theories, while claiming that they are being faithful to the Scriptures. Many are
deceived by this sophistry. The scholar claims that the Bible has many contradictions and that the only
way these contradictions can be resolved is by revising the text. They place man’s theories above the
Word of God. When confronted with an apparent contradiction, it is much better to say, “I don’t know”,
than to speculate by “correcting” the text. We may come to apparent contradictions that, for now, we
cannot answer. Further research (and time) will reveal that the problem has been in us and not in the
Scriptures.
This paper addresses one such problem, when did Babylon fall? The evidence we now have shows
that it occurred in October of 539 BC, while the pioneers and the 1843 and 1850 charts have 538.
Which is correct? As we can see, October of 539 BC is only three months away from 538. The
discrepancy is not large. To answer this question we will look at all of the problems that we must face
and the tools we have to tackle the problem. We cannot merely look for the date in the Bible. Even if we
have a Bible with dates in the margins, these are added by fallible men. We must compare Scripture
with Scripture. Sister White’s writings must also be accepted as correct. Commentaries and
archeological discoveries can be considered but must be weighed as to their reliability. The pioneers
are to be respected but are not infallible. Intellect alone, is not a safe guide. We must not only desire to
know the truth but live the truth. Sin, cherished and known, will weaken our sight. Human pride can
block us from seeing even the clearest teaching of Scripture. We must have faith and patience. God only
reveals what we need when we need it. The path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and
more unto the perfect day.

THE PROBLEM
Since August of 2013, Jeff Pippenger has been teaching that the four “seven times” of Leviticus 26
were fulfilled by four events in the progressive captivity of Judah. These events occurred in the reigns of
Manasseh, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah and cover the period of the last seven kings of Judah.
 This has become an integral part of our message. Many truths unfolded from this understanding.
This innovation in the understanding of Leviticus 26 came at the same time that Ezra 7:9 was beginning
to be understood. Also occurring (but not fully exposed until the following summer) was a division
developing around an understanding of the book of Joel. Those that left the message in 2014 never
accepted the advancing light that came from the four “seven times” or Ezra 7:9. To some degree, this
division caused a distraction and the separation that followed allowed clearer understanding to grow. In
August of 2014, the author presented series of eight lectures on the cycle of sevens at the Wabamun,
Alberta, Canada prophecy school. This series was reworked and presented in a series of three lectures on
biblical chronology at the Arkansas prophecy school in October that year. These lectures expanded the
understanding of the four “seven times” and showed clearly that the captivity of Judah was fulfilled by
periods that were based upon the sabbatical and Jubilee cycles. These presentations were complicated
and had many flaws. However, it was not meant to be a definitive study. These ideas needed to be
examined for their merit. The reception was mixed but the experience was helpful in pointing out the
weaknesses that need to be addressed.
The main objection that is being raised at this time is not in regards to the events of Leviticus 26
but to the chronology of those events. We are all agreed that the progressive destruction of the four
“seven times” is fulfilled in this manner. What we do not seem to be agreed upon is the placement and
duration of these periods. So far, we know of no one else besides the author of this paper who has
attempted to define these periods or their connexion to the 2300 days.
We first need to determine if this understanding of Leviticus 26 is correct, if we are to evaluate the
chronological considerations. That is, the issue of 538 or 539 BC for the fall of Babylon is not merely a
question of assigning dates to events. It is an issue of a fundamental interpretation of the Leviticus 26 and
the connexion to the prophetic periods. It is an evaluation of the basis of our entire message. Either God is
directing this movement or He is not. If He is, all new light will be an unfolding of establish truth. The old
truths will all be essential. New light is a refining of old light. It is not a rejection of establish truth. The
change from 538 for the fall of Babylon to October 539 is seen as a refining of our message and not as a
rejection. The Millerites and early Adventists did not attach 538 BC to a prophetic period. The date itself
was not seen as a truth but the event was. The placing of the fall of Babylon upon the timeline in the
charts was not a declaration that this date was infallible or immovable.
We will now proceed to show the periods that are fulfilled as a result of Israel’s transgression of
the sabbatical cycle. We will do this step by step, so that all can see our position.

LOOKING AT THE FOUR “SEVEN TIMES”

THE BREAKING OF THE PRIDE OF POWER (KINGSHIP)

Manasseh’s captivity occurred in 677 BC as a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah7. This 65 year
prophecy also commences the prophetic mirror that ends in 1863. We are all familiar with this
prophecy. The Millerites connected the prophecy of Isaiah 7:8, “within three score and five years shall
Ephraim be broken” to Leviticus 26:19, “I will break the pride of your power”. Shalmaneser V broke
Ephraim’s power when he carried Hoshea to Assyria prior to the siege of Samaria in 723 BC. “Within”
the 65 years allotted.
We know that the 65 years was fulfilled by the captivity of Manasseh in 677 BC for several reasons.
First, the prophecy was given to Ahaz the king of Judah at the beginning of his reign in 742 BC. That is,
the prophecy was for Judah and not for Ephraim. Also, the sign that was given in 7:14-16, “Therefore
the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou
abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings,” Though it is properly seen as a prophecy relating to Jesus
birth, it is also fulfilled in relation to the 65 year prophecy. The prophecy points to a period when the
land of Israel would be forsaken of both her kings. Israel was forsaken of its king in 723 BC. Judah was
 forsaken of its king when Esarhaddon carried Manasseh to Babylon. When the land is forsaken of both
her kings, the child that was to be born would experience a conversion due to the hardship he
experienced. The eating of butter and honey is a Hebrew idiom that refers to affliction. The virgin
referred to in the prophecy could be none other than Hephzibah, the mother of Manasseh. “Manasseh
was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his
mother's name was Hephzibah.” (2Kings 21:1) If we compare this with Isaiah 62:4, “Thou shalt no more
be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called
Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married”, we can
see that connexion between the land, king, son and mother take on a greater prophetic significance. In
this way, we can see that Manasseh is a type of Christ.
The sign, as it applied to the period of literal Israel, was not the virgin birth but the captivity of
Manasseh and his subsequent conversion. This can be seen further, when we consider the Hebrew of
Leviticus 26:18. Though the English translations do not show this, a Hebrew word is left untranslated. If
we were to translate this literally it would read “then more I will punish you [a sign] seven for your
sins.” The Hebrew word that we have translated as “a sign” (H853) is contracted from the same word
that is translated as “a sign” (H226) in Isaiah 7:14. The translators refuse generally to translate this
word into English. It is interpreted as the sign of the definite direct object that it generally precedes and
indicates the accusative case. We then could translate verse 18 as, “then more I will punish you [even]
seven for your sins.” The point is, there is a linguistic connexion between the first of the “seven times
and the sign of the 65 year prophecy of Isaiah 7.

If we are to take the breaking of the pride of the power of Judah as the commencement of the first “seven
times”, when does it end? Obviously, it should be when the next chastisement begins.

THE WILD BEASTS (PEOPLE & LAND)

And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven
times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among
you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in
number; and your high ways shall be desolate. (Leviticus 26:21-22)
 The second of the progressive destruction of the four “seven times” commences in the third year of
Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar carries the first Hebrew captives to Babylon. Thus begins the first
stage of the Babylonian captivity proper. There is still room for repentance. Judah can turn again to God.
The captivity itself can be turned.
The language differs from that of the first “seven times”. “Sign” is absent. A literal translation of the
verse is, “Then I will add unto you a wound seven for your sins.” Though the first “seven times” is a
sign, this “seven times” is added unto the first. That is, they run back to back. For us it is an inescapable
conclusion that the first two seven times are a pair of sevens. We know that the captivity lasted seventy
years. It makes sense that the first period also lasted seventy years. Together the first two “seven times”
are 140 years.
The book of Daniel gives very little detail in regards to the siege of Jerusalem that began in the
third year of Jehoiakim. What we do know is that there is a span of time. It is our suggestion that the
carrying away of the vessels did not occur at the same time of the first carrying away of the Hebrew
captives. This would have occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. The Babylonian Chronicle says
nothing about the crown princes’ activities during this period. It is our suggestion that the period of the
captivity of the vessels is 70 years, as these were returned when Israel returned in the first year of
Cyrus.

THE SIEGE (CITY)

Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for
your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my
covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the
pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. And when I
have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and
they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
(Leviticus 26:24-26)

The third of the “seven times” describes the siege and captivity of Jehoiachin. First, some
background. In spite of Jeremiah’s efforts in bringing a message of reform to the king, Jehoiakim
remains unrepentant. At the time of the first siege mentioned in Daniel 1:1, Jehoiakim anointed his son
Jehoiachin king at the age of eight, presumably to take his place should he be killed. When Jehoiakim
dies Jehoiachin is once again anointed as king and immediately rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. The
events connected with Jehoiachin’s rebellion and captivity are both well documented in the Babylonian
 Chronicle and agree 100% with the biblical account. Jehoiachin immediately surrendered to
Nebuchadnezzar and was carried away to Babylon where he was imprisoned for 36 years. It is this
event that fulfills the third “seven times”. Jehoiachin’s “bread” was delivered “by weight” and is recorded
in the Babylonian Chronicle.1
Of note, the third “seven times” does not contain the word “more” but another word, “yet” replaces
it. This means that while the second “seven times” is still in progress, the third chastisement will
commence. At this stage of the Babylonian captivity there is still room for repentance.
This “seven times” marks the commencement of three separate periods. There are 140 years from
Jehoiachin’s captivity to the decree of Artaxerxes. Jehoiachin, himself, is held captive in Babylon for 36
years. There are 666 years from this event until the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD, 36
years after the close of probation for the Jewish nation. This also ties the prophecy of Leviticus 26 to
Deuteronomy 28, in the relationship between the siege of 597 BC by Babylon and the destruction of
Jerusalem by Rome, as mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:48-52 and Daniel 8:23-24.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (KINGSHIP, PEOPLE, CITY AND TEMPLE)

The Destruction of Jerusalem completes the progressive destruction of four. In the fulfilment of
this event, there is now no opportunity for repentance, until the 70 years that began under the second
“seven times” is fulfilled. It is here that the basis for the length of the 70 years captivity is defined.

And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and
your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths,
as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest,
and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in
your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. (Leviticus 26:33-35)

This passage is quoted in 2Chronicles 36:21, “To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to
fulfil threescore and ten years.”

The Babylonian captivity is seventy years, because the period of transgression of the Sabbath rest
of the land was neglected for 490 years. The 70 years and the 490 years are based upon the sabbatical
and Jubilee cycles.

1
“10 to the king of Judah, Yaukin; 2 1/2 sila to the offspring of Judah’s king; 4 sila to eight men from Judea.” Another reads, “1 1/2
sila for three carpenters from Arvad, 1/2 apiece; 11 1/2 sila for eight wood workers from Byblos. . .; 3 1/2 sila for seven Greek
craftsman, 1/2 sila apiece; 1/2 sila to the carpenter, Nabuetir; 10 sila to Ia-ku-u-ki-nu, the son of Judah’s king; 2 1/2 sila for the five
sons of the Judean king.” Babylonian Chronicle (grain ration tablet)
 The events that marked in the fulfilment of the fourth “seven times” are the subject of many of the
prophets. One of the striking examples is that that is found in Ezekiel 4:4-7.2

Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it:
according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their
iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of
the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of
Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt
bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a
year. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall
be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. (Ezekiel 4:4-7)

The eighteen-month siege that is here alluded to begins in January of 587 BC marks the end of the
390 years from Israel’s apostasy and the dividing of the kingdom of Israel The 40 years are marked
from the beginning of the failed reform of Josiah ending with the same siege. Among other things, these
chronological anchors help confirm the chronology of the period of the kings, which we will show later,
that is deduced from the application of the 490 years of transgression of the sabbatical cycle. We
suggest that these chapters be studied in connexion with Leviticus 26. It will be seen that all the aspects
of the four “seven times” of Leviticus 26 are repeated in the events of the siege and final destruction of
Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar.

2
The author has made a chart comparing Ezekiel 4-6 to the prophecy in Leviticus 26. This can be found in the paper, Why There is
not a 2520 Year Period of Continual Punishment for Literal Israel Found in Leviticus 26.
 We have observed that from the destruction of temple to its rebuilding is also a period of 70 years.
This fulfilment of the fourth “seven times” was understood to be a period of seventy years, prior to its
completion. The rebuilding commenced under the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah from the
second year of the reign of Darius to the completion of the temple in Darius’ sixth year. The angel who
comes to Zechariah in the second year of Darius refers to a period of the desolation of the temple as 70
years, even though 70 years had not yet been completed from the destruction of the temple. “Upon the
four and twentieth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Sebat, in the second year of Darius
[February 16, 519 BC], came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo
the prophet, saying.… Then the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt
thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation
these threescore and ten years?” (Zechariah 1:7, 12) This statement of the angel was made only 66
years and 7 months after its destruction. Many assume that this is a reference to the 70 years of the
Babylonian captivity itself. However, when this is compared with a similar statement in chapter 7:5, it is
seen that this is a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary. The fasts of the fifth and seventh months
are commemorative of the destruction of the temple and the death of Gedaliah, respectively. “And it
came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the
fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chisleu [December 7th, 518 BC]…. When ye fasted and mourned
in the fifth and seventh month, even those [Heb. these3] seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to
me?”(Zechariah 7:1, 5) Since the angel made this statement less than 68 years and 5 months after the
temple’s destruction, this means that it was understood that the period was to be 70 years, even before
it ended. What was the basis for this knowledge? It could have been knowledge given to the angel by
God but it is more likely that this understanding was based upon the prophecy of Leviticus 26, since it
was not being revealed as a prophecy but as an accepted fact that the period was to be 70 years.4

3
There is no distinction in the Hebrew between these and those, here and there, this and that, etc.
4
There are two options in sorting out the chronology of the rebuilding of the temple. The temple could have been finished in the end
of the Jewish year in either 516 BC or 515 BC. Since, either way, the period of desolation is 69 years and 7 months or 70 years and 7
months. However, we know the 515 BC date is the correct one, as it is the only one that accords with all of the facts. As a
simplification, I merely use the date 516 BC for the rebuilding of the temple. It is our understanding that Darius’ decree marks the
completion of the 70 years. This would have occurred in the summer of 516 BC and this would then mean that the temple was
completed on March 11, 515 BC, though, since is recorded in Ezra 6:15as being the on the third day of the month Adar (the 12th
month), it still falls in the Jewish year 516 BC.
THE THREE DECREES THAT END THE FOUR “SEVEN TIMES”
The most important light that comes from an understanding of the periods of the four “seven
times” is that these periods end with the same decrees that commence the 2300 days. These decrees
are connected with the ends of these periods, even if they do not fall exactly at the point where the
periods end. Adventists, typically, focus only upon the decree of Artaxerxes. Sister White clearly shows
that all three decrees are needed to commence the 70 weeks and the 2300 days.

In the seventh chapter of Ezra the decree is found. [Ezra 7:12-26.] In its completest
form it was issued by Artaxerxes, king of Persia, B. C. 457. But in Ezra 6:14 the house of
the Lord at Jerusalem is said to have been built “according to the commandment
[margin, decree] of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” These three kings,
in originating, re-affirming, and completing the decree, brought it to the perfection
required by the prophecy to mark the beginning of the 2300 years. Taking B. C. 457, the
time when the decree was completed, as the date of the commandment, every
specification of the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks was seen to have been
fulfilled. The Great Controversy, 326.

This language is very similar to that which Ellen White applies to the three angels’ messages.

The first and second messages were given in 1843 and 1844, and we are now under
the proclamation of the third; but all three of the messages are still to be proclaimed. It is
just as essential now as ever before that they shall be repeated to those who are seeking
for the truth. By pen and voice we are to sound the proclamation, showing their order,
and the application of the prophecies that bring us to the third angel's message. There
cannot be a third without the first and second. These messages we are to give to the
world in publications, in discourses, showing in the line of prophetic history the things
that have been and the things that will be. {2SM 104.3}

The point is that the three decrees hold a similar relationship to the commencement of the 2300
days as the three angels’ messages do to the termination of that period. We have come to understand
that the reform line of the three decrees is parallel to the reform line of the Millerites. We will not take
the time to discuss this in detail but will only draw your attention to the diagram below.
 This allows us to see clearly that we can connect the 220 year period of the captivity of Judah, as
fulfilled in the four “seven times” and the reform line of Cyrus, to the 2300 days.

Of course, the 220 years exists without understanding these periods completely. We can still see
the three decrees connecting the four “seven times” to the 2300 days, even if they are not all periods of
70 or 140 years. There could be different ways we understand the commencement and termination of
the periods.

CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
How do we place a biblical event in our calendar? When we say an event occurred in the year 538,
for instance, are we speaking of a Julian, Gregorian, Hebrew or some other year? There are some who
try to place all biblical events in the Hebrew calendar. However, there was more than one calendar used
by the Hebrews in biblical times. They counted the years from either from spring to spring (religious),
fall to fall (civil) or event to event. They also counted inclusively or full years.
The reigns of the kings of Judah, for instance, are counted as a running total. That is, when it says
that a king reigned 11 years, this could be more or less than eleven years and is not the number of
regnal years. Though many assume that the number of years listed refers to the number of regnal years,
this can be demonstrated to be false, in that it causes irreconcilable contradictions. The reigns of the
kings of Judah ran spring to spring, at least, to the end of Hezekiah’s reign. From Amon or Manasseh on,
they ran fall to fall. The kings of Israel’s reigns always ran fall to fall. This is the opposite of what
modern chronologists assume. Jehoiakim and Zedekiah both have reigns listed as being 11 years in
length. Jehoiakim reigned 11 years and 3 months; Zedekiah reigned 11 years and five months. However,
Jehoiakim died in the beginning of his 12th regnal year while Zedekiah died in his 11th regnal year. If
the Bible writers had given 12 years for the reign of Jehoiakim, the running tally would have been off by
one year. In using the biblical synchronisms supplied by the Bible writers, we can create a chronology of
the kings of Judah and Israel that has no contradictions within the biblical text. We merely need to
understand the system used.

THE PERIODS OF 490 YEARS

This paper cannot address all of the details here but we can look at how the captivity of Judah
must fall within our calendar. As we have seen, the various periods are all connected. Another detail
that ties these chronologies together is the three periods of 490 years. When we understand that 1097
BC marks the anointing of Saul, we can then know that the first temple was completed in 1006. That is,
they began laying the foundation of Solomon’s temple in the fourth year of his reign commencing with
 the second month and the finished building in the eleventh year of his reign in the eighth month. This
means that it took seven years and six months to build Solomon’s temple. More than that, we can see
that there are 420 years that intervene between the temple’s completion to its subsequent destruction.
An additional 70 years are allotted for its desolation. This means that there are 490 years between the
building of the first and second temple.
That this same pattern exist with the period of the kingship (420 years from Saul to Manasseh and
490 from Saul to the captivity) makes this more significant. These two periods of 490 years, are the
pattern that is the basis for the 490 years of Daniel 9. We expand upon the relationship between the
characteristics of the various “seven times”, and their relationship to the prophecies of Daniel in the
notes from the Sylvan Lake, Alberta Prophecy School 2013. You can find this on the internet with the
title, Leviticus 26 and the Book of Daniel. We explore the linguistic, typological and structural connexion
between these books. Leviticus 26 is the prophecy that is fulfilled in the captivity of Judah; the
prophecies of Daniel address the ending of the captivity.

THE PROPHECY OF EZEKIEL 4 CONSIDERED

We have already looked at this. We take the position that the 390 years span backwards from the
beginning of the 18-month siege that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem and the Solomon’s temple
in 586 BC to the dividing of the kingdom of Israel. The siege of Jerusalem began on January 6th of 587
BC. This brings us to the beginning of 977 BC for the dividing of the kingdom to occur. The forty years
goes back to the commencement of Josiah’s reforms in the 12th year of his reign. This chronology
accords perfectly with the chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel.5 This means that 40 years span
from January 427 BC to January of 587 BC. Josiah’s reforms began in late 426 BC, prior to the start of
427 BC but still in the Jewish year 427 BC. The point being, these periods are not exact as to the day but
are periods that are close enough to be 390 and 40 years. When we are placing these dates into our
calendar, they may appear to be off by a year, while they are correct according to Jewish reckoning. We
can be only as accurate as our tools and information will allow.

5
The author has worked this out in detail and will be published in two separate volumes sometime in 2016. One is called A Do-It-
Yourself Guide to Biblical Chronology and the other is called Biblical Chronology and the Prophetic Periods. The former volume will
provide the lay reader tools needed to work it out the chronology of the Bible on his own. The latter volume will deal with the
chronology of the prophetic periods starting from the 1097 BC.
THE 65 YEAR PROPHECY (742 BC)
This date is not supported by the majority modern scholarship but is clearly supported by the
biblical chronology. Instead of making the Bible fit a supposed Assyrian chronology, which is a
reconstruction that is unreliable, it is preferable to accept the Bible record. The assumptions of Thiele
destroy the biblical chronology and are tenuous, at best, in solving the problems of Assyrian
chronology. Most of these innovations of Thiele’s have been rejected, due to the many inconsistencies
and conflicts created in the biblical text, in spite of the fact that his dates are still used.

THE CAPTIVITY OF HOSHEA (723 BC)

Hoshea’s captivity occurs two years before the destruction of Samaria. This is plainly stated in the
Bible but is rejected by most scholars. We know from the Assyrian records that Samaria fell in 721 BC.
This date is confirmed by a lunar eclipse that is recorded in the first year of Sargon II on the night of
March 19.6 The siege lasted two years and Samaria fell in Nisan of 721 BC. This establishes that fact that
the 2520 for Israel begins when the pride of their power is broken and not when the city fell. Ephraim
experienced the four “seven times” in the same order as Judah but they occurred in rapid succession.
Northern Israel was scattered, never to be gathered as literal Israel. However, the end of this period
marks the rise of the spiritual counterpart of the two-horned false prophet, in the form of Protestant
America.

THE CAPTIVITY OF MANASSEH (677 BC)

The opponents of the 2520 have furiously attacked this date. There is nothing more certain than
that Manasseh was carried away to Babylon by Esarhaddon in 677. We have Esarhaddon’s own records
of this event, in Prism B.7 Esarhaddon, after rebuilding Babylon, sends out his captains to bring 22 kings
to Babylon to view his handy-work and demonstrate his power. He then sends them out to Nineveh to
haul timbers for work on Esarhaddon’s construction projects in that city. It would have been during this

6
In that year the Assyrian year began one month earlier (March 5) than the Jewish year (April 6).
7
I compelled the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the riser (Euphrates) (to wit): Ba'lu. king of Tyre,
Manasseh (Me-na-si-i), king of Judah (Ia-u-di) Qaushgabri, king of Edom, Musuri, king of Moab, Sil-Bel, king of Gaza, Metinti, king
of Ashekelon, Ikausu, king of Ekron, Milkiashapa, king of Byblos. Matanba'al, king of Arvad. Abiba'al, king of Samsimuruna, Puduil,
king of Beth-Ammon, Ahimilki, king of Ashdod - 12 kings from the seacoast...10 kings from Cyprus (Iadnana) amidst the sea.
together 22 kings of Hatti, the seashore and the islands; all these I sent out [from Babylon?] and made them transport under terrible
difficulties, to Nineveh. the town (where I exercise) my rulership, as building material for my palace: big logs, long beams (and) thin
boards from cedar and pine trees, products of the Sirara and Lebanon (Lab-na-na) mountains, which had grown for a long time into
tall and strong timber, (also) from their quarries (lit.: place of creation) in the mountains, statues of protective deities (lit.: of Lamassu
and Shedu)... Prism B v (ANET 291)
 time that Manasseh experienced his conversion as recorded in 2Chronicles 33:12-13, “And when he was
in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
And prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again
to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God.”

THE DEATH OF JOSIAH AND THE FALL OF ASSYRIA (OCTOBER 609 BC)
We can mark these events with great certainty and accuracy. We know that Josiah died in late May
or early June of 609 BC. We have the Babylonian Chronicles’ account of the battle, in which Josiah dies,
as beginning in May. Josiah died at the beginning of that war. The Chronicle gives an account of the fall
of Assyria in October of 609 BC. This then also marks the rise of Babylon, as it is the empire that follows
Assyria.

THE THREE-MONTH REIGN OF JEHOAHAZ (MAY/JUNE TO AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 609 BC)

We can then mark the 3 months that Jehoahaz reigned as being from May/June to no later than
early September (and most likely ending in August).

THE THIRD YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM (FALL 607 TO FALL 606 BC)

Based upon a fall-to-fall reign for Jehoiakim, Jehoiakim’s reign during his accession year was no
more than a month or so. Since the civil year (from which his reign is counted) fell on September 21st in
that year, his first regnal year would be reckoned from September 21st, 609 BC. This would mean that
Jehoiakim’s third year began in the fall of 607 and ended in the fall of 606 BC. Daniel’s captivity, and the
commencement of the 70 years, would have begun sometime during this year, according to Daniel 1:1.

JEHOIACHIN ANOINTED KING(607 BC)

2Chronicles 36:9 tells us that, Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign and that he
reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. We are also told in 2Kings 24:8 that Jehoiachin was
eighteen years old when he began to reign and that he reigned in Jerusalem three months. The
discrepancy here is apparent. Why would Jehoiachin be anointed as king when he was only eight years
old? One solution is that his father anointed him king during the siege recorded in Daniel 1:1 in the
event of his death. He was anointed a second time on December 9th (Kislev 23) 598 BC and reigned
until March 16th of 597 BC (three months and ten days). Simply put, the only way that He could have
been 18 years old in December of 598 is if his birthday fell sometime between September 29th (one day
after Tishri 1) and December 17th (one day before Kislev 23). The solution that is not acceptable is the
proposition that this is a typo in the Bible. For one thing, the copyists have never tried to correct it. For
another, God promises to preserve His Word.
 The fact that the solution to this apparent contradiction yields a date for the captivity that other
sources already attest to is evidence that God placed this puzzle in the Bible for a reason. This is just
one of many examples of evidences that need we need to consider. Our opponents bring arguments
against the 2520 that do not consider all of the evidence. When we answer the objections raised, by
bringing supporting arguments from other places, they throw up their hands and demand a clear and
plain statement. The fact is that we must search out these things as for buried treasure. They do not lie
on the surface and the careless surface reader cannot find them. We must be careful that we do not
make the same mistakes as our opponents. We must be open to all of the evidence. We should consider
all new evidence, even if at first glance it does not fit with positions that we have taken.

THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GREAT JUBILEE (607 BC)

The reason we first considered 607 BC for the commencement of Daniel’s captivity was the
recognition that Miller understood their were 50 Jubilee cycles from 607 BC to 1844. He originally
marked the termination of this 2450-year period as one of the evidences that Christ would return
sometime about the year 1843. He did not base this on any particular prophecy but from the fact that
these cycles do exist. We could dismiss this as coincidence, if it merely stood on its own. However, the
whole package becomes compelling. It is one more weight to be placed upon the balances.

THE FOURTH YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM (FALL 606 TO FALL 605)

It was in this year (Jehoiakim’s fourth), according to Jeremiah 46:2, that the battle of Carchemish
ensued. During this battle, Nebuchadnezzar received news that his father had died (August 15). After
the defeat of Pharaoh Necho, he returned (sometime after September 8) to Babylon to take his throne.
These events are well documented. The only apparent discrepancy is the biblical reference in Jeremiah
25:1 that refers to the fourth year of Jehoiakim as being the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Technically, it
was his accession year. There is no way to have the battle of Carchemish occur in both the fourth year of
Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, unless we take the first year to mean the first year from
when he began to reign, ie. his accession year. Even if we were to make Jehoiakim’s reign run spring to
spring, as some suppose, this still would not solve the problem. Nebuchadnezzar’s first full year would
simply be Jehoiakim’s fifth year. Some have tried various solutions but these create other
contradictions.
THE CAPTIVITY OF JEHOIACHIN (MARCH 16, 597 BC)
There is almost unanimous agreement upon this date. There are so many synchronisms that come
from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the other prophets, they are too numerous to deal with here. As mentioned
earlier, this date ties together several periods.

THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM (JANUARY 6, 587 BC)

There are divided opinions regarding this date. Some have tried to place the siege one year earlier.
There are some good arguments that can be used on both sides. However, we cannot reconcile all of the
dates in Ezekiel, and Jeremiah with an earlier date. This would push the dividing of the kingdom of
Israel to 1098 BC, as well. Though it could be reconciled with Josiah’s reforms, in our chronology there
is room.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (JULY 19, 586 BC)

This occurred on the ninth day of the fourth Jewish month. Ezekiel 40:1 gives us a synchronism
that helps us place this event as occurring in 586, rather than 587. “In the five and twentieth year of
our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that
the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.” If
we count Ezekiel’s captivity as occurring at the same time as Jehoiachin’s, we need merely to subtract
14 years from 25 years to find the span between the two events, which yields 11 years. If Ezekiel was
taken captive in 597, Jerusalem was destroyed 11 years later in 586 BC.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE (AUGUST 16-19, 586 BC)

On the seventh day of the fifth month (answering to Thursday, Aug. 16) Nebuzar-adan made his
entry into the city, having spent two days in making provision, on the tenth day of the same month
(Sunday, August 27). He set fire to the temple, the king’s palace and the houses of the nobility, burning
them to the ground (Jeremiah 52:13 as compared with 39:8). Thus, the temple was destroyed in the
eleventh year of Zedekiah, the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, four hundred and twenty years from the
completion in 1006 BC. The Jews fasted in the fifth month in commemoration of this event for 70 years,
according to Zechariah 7:5.

THE DEATH OF GEDALIAH (OCTOBER, 586 BC)

According to 2Kings 25:25, Gedaliah, the governor of Judah was killed by one named Ishmael, in
the seventh Jewish month. This was commemorated by an annual fast for seventy years, according to
Zechariah 7:5.

JEHOIACHIN’S CAPTIVITY ENDS (APRIL 3, 561 BC)

Since Jehoiachin was taken captive on March 16, 597 BC. His captivity lasted for 36 years. He was
released in the 37th year of his captivity by Evil-Merdoch, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, according
to 2Kings 25:27.

THE FALL OF BABYLON (OCTOBER 13, 539 BC)

This is where we come to the much disputed date. We do not think that there is anything more
certain than the fact that Babylon fell in October of 539 BC. First, it fulfills the Prophecy of Jeremiah 25
quite literally.

And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations
shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy
years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the
LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual
desolations. And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced
 against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against
all the nations. For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also:
and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their
own hands. (Jeremiah 25:11-14)

If the seventy years here referred to are merely the seventy years of the captivity, then the captivity
must have ended when Babylon fell. Since the captivity began in the fall of 607, the captivity would only
have been 69 years in 538 BC. The Jews would not have returned to the land of Israel until the fall of
536 BC at the earliest, using this chronology. This would accord with a 606 BC captivity date but would
have to answer all of the other reasoning for 607 as the commencement of the captivity. The simplest
solution is to accept the overwhelming evidence that Babylon fell in October of 539 BC 8 and that
Jeremiah is referring to the period from the fall of Assyria to the fall of Babylon as being 70 years. It is
true that we sometimes conflate these two periods, as they are connected.

CYRUS’ ACCESSION TO THE THRONE OF PERSIA (537 BC)

Sister White clearly marks this as the point where the 70 years captivity is complete,

“Upon his death, within about two years of the fall of Babylon, Cyrus succeeded to
the throne, and the beginning of his reign marked the completion of the seventy
years since the first company of Hebrews had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar from their
Judean home to Babylon.” Prophets and Kings, 551-556.

What we do not know is exactly when this occurred. Sister White here says, “within about two
years”. We also have this quote that places the decree of Cyrus about two years after Babylon fell.

“The seventy years' captivity dated from the time when the Babylonian kings
began to hold universal sway. God gave Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, much
"majesty, and glory, and honor." "All people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared
before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he
would he set up; and whom he would he put down."
“This same universal sway was exercised by Nebuchadnezzar's descendants until,
nearly seventy years later, in the days of Belshazzar, because of the wickedness of the

8
“In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad inOpis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus]
massacred the inhabitants. The fifteenth day [October12th], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day [October
13th], Gobryas [litt:Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was
arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody
carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.” Nabonidus Chronicle
 nation, the kingdom was "divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Thus arose the
second universal monarchy, Medo-Persia.
“It was only about two years afterward that Cyrus, king of Medo-Persia, issued
the remarkable decree providing for the restoration of all the Israelites, "the
children of the captivity," to their home in the land of Canaan.” Review and Herald,
January 23, 1908.

We would have to conclude that the decree followed the accession of Cyrus by a few months, since
the decree happened about two years after the fall of Babylon. We also see that there is a distinction
between the 70 years of Babylon and that of the captivity, though a careless reader would miss it. The
70 year captivity dates from the time when Babylon “began to hold universal sway” (a clear reference to
Jeremiah 25:14); not from the point where Babylon begins. That is, this period, the beginning of the
captivity to the end of Babylon, is less than 70 years (ie. 68 years).

THE EXILES RETURN (536 BC)

Further, the Israelites did return in early 536 BC after Cyrus’ decree was enacted. They did so
carrying the vessels that Nebuchadnezzar removed from the temple in the third year of Jehoiakim in
early 606 BC. This clearly marks a 70 year captivity for the vessels.

THE DECREE FOR THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE (536 BC)

Isaiah prophesies that it would be Cyrus who would decree that the foundation of the temple be
laid. “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to
Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” (Isaiah 44:28) Its
fulfilment is recorded in 2Chronicles.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by
the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus
king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in
writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the
LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in
Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his
God be with him, and let him go up. (2Chronicles 36:22-23)

The first year of Cyrus spans from the spring of 536 to spring of 535 BC. The Israelites would have
travelled to Jerusalem in the spring of 536; we know that they arrived before the seventh month and
celebrated the feast of tabernacles that fall, according to Ezra 3:1.

THE TEMPLE FOUNDATION LAID (MAY 535 BC)

In the second month of the Jewish year 535 they began to lay the foundation of the temple under
the leadership of Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel. This work gradually ceased, coming to a
complete stop under the reign of Bardiya (False Smerdis)9 in 522 BC.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE (520 – 515 BC)

Under the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah, the rebuilding of the temple resumes. Many
commentators assume that the decree of Darius occurs in the second year of his reign. We can see in the
chart below that the decree happens in 516 BC.

9
“During the reign of Cambyses the work on the temple progressed slowly. And during the reign of the false Smerdis (called
Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7) the Samaritans induced the unscrupulous impostor to issue a decree forbidding the Jews to rebuild their temple
and city.” Prophets and Kings, 572.
 The chronology is clearly marked. Sister White also tells us that Darius’ decree happens more than
20 years after Cyrus’. “A score [20] or more of years passed by, when a second decree, quite as favorable
as the first, was issued by Darius Hystaspes, the monarch then ruling.” Further Sister White marks the
point from the return to the second decree as “nearly twenty years” and the distance between the two
decrees as “over twenty years”.

“Nearly twenty years passed by. Many of the remnant who returned to Judea, had
fallen into a backslidden condition, and were doing no more to restore the house of God
than were their brethren living elsewhere in the Medo-Persian realm. But as the result
of the appeals of Haggai and Zechariah, the returned exiles repented before God,
and labored diligently to complete the temple. The Lord blessed them, and they were
greatly prospered. Their efforts were brought to the notice of Darius Hystaspes, who
was the monarch ruling at that time; and he was impressed to issue a second decree,
fully as favorable as the one issued by Cyrus over twenty years before. Review and
Herald, January 23, 1908.

This fits perfectly with the chronology that we have established so far. If we mark Babylon’s fall in
538 and Cyrus coming to the throne and issuing a decree in early 535 BC, there would not be more than
twenty years between the two decrees. We would have to try to push the rebuilding of the temple to
514 BC. Also, you would have to push the decree of Darius too close to the completion of the temple, to
have any real meaning. It was issued to support the Jews finishing of the temple that was being
hampered by the opposition of their enemies. It must have been issued several months prior to
completion.
We realise that this may seem rather complex. Simply put, all of the statements of Sister White and
the Bible must be taken into consideration. When this is done, there are no contradictions with the fall
539 BC date. The only apparent contradiction is her endorsement of the figures on the charts. This we
accept. We see October 13, 539 BC as a refining of the date for the fall of Babylon and not a rejection of
the charts.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
The dates 1097, 742, 723, 677, 607, 597, 586, 539, 537, 516, 457, etc. are all interconnected. If we
try to move one of these dates, the whole structure fails. Even if the four “seven times” were not taken
into consideration, we would be hard pressed to reconcile Ellen White’s statements with a 538 BC date
for the fall of Babylon. Further, the biblical chronology holds together with no contradictions. If we use
the 538 BC date, again, contradictions abound. Once we see the structure of the entire chronology of the
captivity and its connexion to the periods expressed in Leviticus 26, it seems foolish to hang onto the
538 BC date. We understand the reasoning and the desire to have the charts be correct but see no real
reason that this date MUST be accepted. The solution proposed by Jeff, satisfies the problem. Some may
see that this is a step in the wrong direction, leading to apostasy. However, we do not see it that way.
Any real problem lies in us and our understanding. To accept 538 is to put a disproportionate
weight upon a single piece of evidence. Perhaps the reason that this is done is that it is simpler to have a
date on our modern calendar that needs no interpretation than a date on some other calendar that
needs interpreting. This is the only reason we can see why this single piece of evidence is held onto so
tenaciously. To do the work we have done, in establishing the chronology of the prophetic periods,
seems an insurmountable task for the average person. Even after reading this paper, many will not have
understood all of the arguments. They may feel they have had no way of telling whether or not the
conclusions we have drawn are correct. It took the author over 1800 hours of work to get this far. He
does not think that he is done. How is someone who does not have that amount of time sort these
things out?

A PROPOSED SOLUTION (JEWISH YEAR 538)

The only solution we see, if one wants to maintain the 538 BC date, is to accept it as a Jewish date.
We have done this for a number of dates (1843 is one example). Miller understood this as going from
the spring of 1843 to the spring of 1844. Why not take 538 BC date we find on the charts and
understand it as going from September 28, 539 to September 17, 538?
If someone has a better solution, we will accept it. Also, even if one does not accept any revision or
fine-tuning of the 538 Date, why should the whole structure be discarded? We still need to decide if
there is any merit in the understanding of the four “seven times” as periods, even if they are not the
periods laid out in this paper.

FURTHER STUDY ON CHRONOLOGY NEEDED

Some may feel that they have a sufficient understanding of the dates connected with the prophetic
periods and that no further study is needed. This is not the case. There are many honest hearted souls
looking for solid reasons to accept the 2520. When we cannot defend our chronology, how can we
expect them to accept the other aspects of our message? The Millerites worked hard to have a factual
basis to their message. They sought to find the truth. They did not hold on to long held assumptions, if
they did not accord with the facts before them. They progressed in their understanding as the LORD led.
There may be things we do not yet understand. It is the truths that were established in 1840-44 that are
our guide. Biblical chronology gives us a greater understanding of these truths. It should not neglect its
study.
THE 1863 CHART
There is no doubt that the 1863 chart is a rejection of the prophetic foundation that was laid down
and is expressed on the first two charts. However, the LORD, in His providence, hid the 2520 and the
prophetic mirror on the 1863 chart, as the prophecy of Isaiah 7 demands. If the events of 742 BC are
mirrored in the events of 1863, this means that the prophecy that is revealed in 742 must be hidden in
1863. This is what was in the 1863 chart. We can see that the 2520 is plainly represented in Christ’s
final week.

We are all familiar with the prophetic mirror. That spans from 742 BC to1863.

We see this represented on the 1843 chart - 7 x 12 = 84 x 30 = 2520.

This calculation cannot be found anywhere in the pioneers writings. Why was it
chosen? We believe it was in the LORD’s providence. Daniel 9:27 says, “And he
shall confirm the covenant [12] with many for one week [7]: and in the midst of
the week [31 AD] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”. This
means that we could do this calculation - 7 x 12 = 84 x 31 = 2604 years. We
could also multiply the number of months 84 x 31 to get 2604. The point is,
there are 2604 years from 742 BC to 1963. That means that the whole period
from the time the prophecy was given, to when it was rejected, is represented on
the 1863 chart.

A Question
Are these other evidences to support the 2520 welcome by this movement or
are they seen as a distraction? Should these things be pursued? We need to have
an answer. Time should not be wasted on frivolous matters.