SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[scholar JW]

Alan F

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You've descended to complete gobble-de-goop now.

like your 5 page nonsense

[scholar JW]

Alan F

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.

Watchtower is not in the science business and neither are you.

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

JW Insider already covered that.

I doubt that

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No, it's just the WRONG methodology and interpretation. But Russell and his Adventist mentors really had no such things. It was all flying by the seat of their pants.

On what basis can you say that it is the wrong methodology and interpretation? Again you talk nonsense.

36 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.

You said it so just remember it!!

39 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Several have already told you: buy a program and try it out for yourself. After you've learned how to use it in a decade or two, come back here and present your results.

I already have two programs installed on my computer so in coming years i might be able to make some sense of it.

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

He is demonstrably so. I think he's sincere in a way, but sincere people can convince themselves that lies are true if they try hard enough. The Watchtower Society calls sincere believers of the Trinity doctrine liars. Same for Furuli.

Your opinion

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which I think you're afraid to do. I really don't think you're so mentally deficient that you can't manage to operate a simple astro program. Rather, you don't want to take a chance on destroying many of your cherished rationalizations.

There is no such thing as a simple astro program but the problem is in the interpretation of the data

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.

Agreed

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

32 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.

What about interpreting the data?

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

There is no technical controversy.

There is with Furuli's research

34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.

Where did he say that? I think you are misquoting him for did not claim to be a'professional archaeo-astronomer'.

39 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.

i think you will find it is more than two centimetre of distance involved.

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?

But Furuli consulted with such scholars as part of his research so read his Bibliography.

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You're not competent to judge.

true

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.

Do not need to for i can read his books

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.

I call it intellectual honesty

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.

Says the one majoring in bias and prejudice

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 2

In view of your paper on this subject what then is wrong with the content, facts and reasoning of this information?

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
But for those deported and made captive for awhile, they are BY DEFINITION in exile. Do I really need to point you to a dictionary?

Quote

Agreed

That should be the end of the story.

Quote

but let us not confuse the exile/deportation of the few with the EXILE of the greater number in order to be historically correct.

The "few"?

You obviously neither know nor believe the Bible. And of course, you refuse even to quote the Bible. So let me do if for you.

The Bible clearly states that the deportation of 597 BCE was much greater than the one of 587 BCE:

2 Kings 24:12-16 describes the deportation of 597 BCE. It reads:

<< 12  King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign. 13 Then he took out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house. He cut into pieces all the gold utensils that Solʹo·mon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah, just as Jehovah had foretold. 14 He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land. 15  Thus he took Je·hoiʹa·chin into exile to Babylon; he also led away the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his court officials, and the foremost men of the land, taking them into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 The king of Babylon also took into exile to Babylon all the warriors, 7,000, as well as 1,000 craftsmen and metalworkers, all of them mighty men and trained for war. >>

2 Kings 25:11, 18-21 describes the deportation of 587 BCE. It reads:

<< 11  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population.

18  The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah the second priest, and the three doorkeepers. 19  And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, five close associates of the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city. 20  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Ribʹlah. 21  The king of Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath. Thus Judah went into exile from its land. >>

Jeremiah 52:15-27 describes the deportation in 587 BCE:

<< 15  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers.

24  The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah the second priest, and the three doorkeepers. 25 And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, seven close associates of the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city. 26  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Ribʹlah. 27  The king of Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath. Thus Judah went into exile from its land. >>

So according to the Bible, upwards of 18,000 people were taken in 597 BCE from Jerusalem and its surroundings. Only "the poorest people of the land" were left. But in 587 BCE, only a relative handful were taken captive, leaving only "the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers."

Consistent in relative terms with the above, Jeremiah 52:28-30 states:

<< 28  These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

29  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

30  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.

In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. >>

So in 597 BCE, 3,023 Jews were deported, and in 587 BCE 832 were deported. It is unknown what the deportation of 582 entailed.

While these figures are problematic (which is neither here nor there for our dicussion), the point is again that about FOUR TIMES AS MANY were taken captive in 597 as in 587.

Now note Ezekiel 1:1:

<< . . . while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar . . . >>

That's not talking about an exile of the Jews? THE most important one, since about four times as many were exiled in 597 as in 587?

You are completely wrong, Neil. You should display some honesty and admit it.

Quote

 

ScholarJW: An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

AlanF: LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.

No it is not

 

Sure it is, especially since you've proven to know neither the Bible nor logical reasoning.

And note that ALL FOUR exiles ended with the Return in 538. At least, for the relatively small number who did not remain in Babylon.

Quote

and i checked a number of reference works which state similarly.

State what? Quote them -- if you dare.

Quote

But speaking of dictionarys, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'exilic'-"to that of the Jews in Babylon'.

So what? "Exile" is a general term and does not apply exclusively to the exile of the Jews in Babylon.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
A few? What garbage! The exile of 597 was actually bigger than that of 587. Not only Ezekiel, but all of the important people in the country were exiled -- artisans, all of the elite, etc. The 587 exile was of the leftovers.

Do you need me to quote Ezekiel and other sources on this?

 

Since ScholarJW is afraid to quote the Bible, above I've done it for him.

Quote

So if the population was so small or minimal in number why did Neb bother?

You'll have to ask him about that in the resurrection.

Quote

And was not king Zedekiah present in the city at that time?

Yeah. So?

Quote

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
There were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?

Quote

Only ONE Exile in the OT

Shown above by the Bible to be false.

Quote

and recognized by historian for that

False again.

Quote

it is why it is described as catastrohe  and Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations as a consequence thereof.

Complete nonsense. ALL FOUR DEPORTATIONS resulted in four distinct exiles, all of which were eventually lumped together by blurred history into a vague "one exile" that ended when the Jews returned to Judah.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?

Quote

You have not established 605 BCE

Read my above material again that establishes 621 as Nabopolassar's 5th year and 568 as Nebuchachadnezzar's 37th year by means of lunar eclipses that fit no other dates.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.

Correct

 

So you have no point.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!

Thanks

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for substantive comment from you.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong

Matter of opinion

 

When the entire world of academic opinion is against some religious tradition like Watchtower chronology, you can bet it's wrong.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Wrong. That's exactly like claiming that the fact that the earth is a ball is merely the product of bias on the part of most of the world.

Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

Science proves that but not the case with NB Chronology falsified by the 70 years

 

Correction: historical science proves it. The 70 years are irrelevant to establishing the secular history.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

That is why i do not get into those astro programs

 

But you constantly utter ridiculous opinions as if you do.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM

Nile's thesis is a good example.

 

Already discounted a dozen times.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?

Which all WT critics choose to ignore.

 

False. They are NOT new findings, not by a long shot. And these terms are NOT ignored. I could quote a few dozen commentaries which discuss them. But you already know that, so I won't bother.

Quote

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? I thought not.

And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology".

Quote

COJ did no such thing

Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93:

<< . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >>

Read it and weep, Neil.

Quote

and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years.

Utter nonsense.

Quote

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.

Quote

Neither do you or COJ have the facility to properly examine Furuli's research.

Of course we do. I certainly have the professional capacity, demonstrated by a degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT, a Masters Degree in the same from Oregon State University, by straight A's in a pile of graduate courses in mathematical physics, classical physics, quantum mechanics, etc. Plus a highly successful 33-year career designing all manner of microchips for prominent electronics companies, which also entailed a good deal of scientific computer programming. And I have thousands of pages of often highly technical written material available on my website https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/ . And again, of course, Ann O'Maly's excellent papers speak for themselves, as does pretty much everything written here by JW Insider. And then we have the many excellent websites that thoroughly debunk all of Watchtower chronology, such as https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/ , https://ad1914.com/ , https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ , https://jwfacts.com/ and a host of others.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
How about using "Watchtower Library" like I do? Or is that too complicated for your little brain? Do you know how to copy/paste using Control-C/Control-V in Windows, or Command-C/Command-V in Macs, or the equivalent in any other operating system? NO WONDER you can't manage to quote people properly! OR THE BIBLE ITSELF!

Are you telling me that for 20 frigging years you haven't QUOTED THE FRIGGING BIBLE because you can't figure out how to copy/paste text? How about just typing? I've typed literally thousands of passages from various Bibles?

. . .

 

Quote

Bully for you!!

Correction: Woe is you! You're demonstrably not competent to comment on anything in this thread, since you're incapable of reading, understanding and analyzing the Bible, or quoting it, or properly understanding or summarizing academic papers or any other scholarly material.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.

Quote

Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius.

Scholars, even the fake Watchtower ones, generally agree that the reign of Darius is too problematic to say anything substantive about. Yet they almost all agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE. Even the Watchtower more or less agrees (Insight Vol. 1, p. 568):

<< if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E. >>

Quote

The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE.

Saying "problematic" is not an argument. There is no real justification for late 538. If you think there is, then lay it out. But again no one will be holding his breath.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
discussed those things above

Those things are given scant attention in your paper

 

False. Read it for once.

Quote

and that is the problem, too short for all that needed to happen within a period of 12 months or less. makes no sense at all.

False again. And briefly explained above. Your blithely refusing to make actual arguments shows nothing.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.

it is relevant to the matter as an adequate time of resettlement is essential

 

False yet again. The Jews were in their cities by Tishri; they had six months of travel time plus an additional 5-6 months of preparation time -- exactly what you claim for your precious 537 date. If what you claim for my arguments is right, then it is equally true that there was not enough time for your 537 scenario.

But yet again we see no actual argument from ScholarJW here -- just unargued dismissals and denials of facts.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Did I not say that? What's your point?

Good to see some recognition that our theory has some validity.

 

I've never said different. I have said that it is WRONG and shown why.

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above.

All that you have presented is a contrivance with no attention to the history and circumstances of the Decree.

LOL! Another manifestation of your growing dementia and inability to reason. And saying "contrivance" is not an argument.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which my above-referenced essay shows is the absolute proof that the Return was in Tishri, 538.

Since I've used Josephus to prove that the Return was in 538, the temple foundations must have been laid in 537. This perfectly lines up with Josephus' statement in Against Apion that the temple lay in ruins for 50 years, along with his giving a list of kings and their reigns during that time. Read it and weep, ScholarJW.

 

Quote

Utter nonsense for Josephus simply states that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid which also can be used in our chronology of the period for this occurred in the following year of 536 BCE

Wrong again. Josephus ALSO says that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return, and equates that with the 2nd year of Cyrus. Those two items do not fit a 537-Return scenario. That's why Josephus is the tie-breaker.

[AlanF]

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

like your 5 page nonsense

English, Neil, English.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.

I'm not sure you noticed, but I saw your question to @Arauna about the festival of Akitu.  @Arauna has repeatedly berated me for not accepting the idea that Cyrus must have made his proclamation at the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538. I believe she has thought that this is a similar argument to the one "scholar JW" is making that somehow proves that the Jews must have arrived back on Tishri 537. I'm not sure most Witnesses realize that this is a year and half, between those two points, and yet the WTS is quite happy with the possibility that the proclamation could have happened a full year later leaving six months or less.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

 4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.

Watchtower is not in the science business and neither are you.

 

Of course I am. Or was, until I retired. What do you think a career designing microchips requires? A degree in basket weaving?

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
JW Insider already covered that.

I doubt that

 

No, you simply dismiss it without argument.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
No, it's just the WRONG methodology and interpretation. But Russell and his Adventist mentors really had no such things. It was all flying by the seat of their pants.

On what basis can you say that it is the wrong methodology and interpretation? Again you talk nonsense.

 

Wrong because it's contradicted by all secular information. Just like Flat-Earthism is wrong for the same reason.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.

You said it so just remember it!!

 

Wow. You get 100 points!!!

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Several have already told you: buy a program and try it out for yourself. After you've learned how to use it in a decade or two, come back here and present your results.

I already have two programs installed on my computer so in coming years i might be able to make some sense of it.

 

Let's see you try. Tell us when you've done it. In the meantime, shut the f*** up!

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
He is demonstrably so. I think he's sincere in a way, but sincere people can convince themselves that lies are true if they try hard enough. The Watchtower Society calls sincere believers of the Trinity doctrine liars. Same for Furuli.

Your opinion

 

As well as that of various scholars who have examined his works. Mostly they dismiss him as a religiously ideological crackpot.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which I think you're afraid to do. I really don't think you're so mentally deficient that you can't manage to operate a simple astro program. Rather, you don't want to take a chance on destroying many of your cherished rationalizations.

There is no such thing as a simple astro program

 

Easy for YOU to say!

Quote

but the problem is in the interpretation of the data

Nope. I won't explain this a fifth time.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.

Agreed

 

Then shut up, for God's sake!

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

 4 hours ago, AlanF said:
I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.

What about interpreting the data?

 

Already explained about five times now. I won't do it again.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
There is no technical controversy.

There is with Furuli's research

 

Furuli's "research" is ideological, not technical.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.

Where did he say that?

 

Read Ann O'Maly's posts.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.

i think you will find it is more than two centimetre of distance involved.

 

I'm talking about two centimeters on a video display, you moron. Are you really this stupid?

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?

But Furuli consulted with such scholars as part of his research so read his Bibliography.

 

Only with regard to things irrelevant to his claims about matching texts with VAT 4956 via astro programs.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
You're not competent to judge.

true

 

Then shut the f*** up!

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.

Do not need to for i can read his books

 

You do if you want to independently verify his results. Otherwise you're treating him as your god.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.

I call it intellectual honesty

 

Oh, the Orwellian doublethink! Black is white! Laziness is honesty! ScholarJW is Honest!

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.

Says the one majoring in bias and prejudice

 

Ridiculously false ad hominems like that only prove you know you're on your last legs here. It's not even worth my thinking about a snappy rejoinder.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW quoted the following from the Insight book, Vol. 1, "Cyrus", pp. 568-569, but is too incompetent as a claimed scholar to have given the citation:

Quote

 

<< Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 2 >>

In view of your paper on this subject what then is wrong with the content, facts and reasoning of this information?

 

Nothing insofar as the reasoning goes, but it's pure speculation masquerading as solidly established fact and is designed to deceive naive JW readers.

And as I have explained in my paper ( https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf ) it is only one of two competing theories, and it entirely ignores the evidence brought in by Josephus -- which breaks the tie between the otherwise possible theories.

Since this is all laid out in my paper, with nice pictures and formatting and such, there is no need to repeat it here.

On the other hand, since you've not produced a similar paper refuting mine, here is a good place to bring up points from my paper that you think are wrong and let the mob discuss them. If you dare. Which you won't.