AlanF

LOL at the projection here! COJ is a friend, who if he dies, I will be saddened. Mommy Watchtower is your god, with all that implies.

Anna, if you read this, you can see in real time how this pathological liar piles lie upon lie upon lie.

Obviously you continue to lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny, and totally fail to justify yourself. You're a lot worse than even Mommy Watchtower.

No. The Watchtower's claim has nothing to do with when the foundations of the temple were laid. 537 has only to do with their claimed date for when some of the Jews returned to Judah. Not that I'm aware of. See if you can find appropriate passages. Yes, but the Society claims it was 536.

Because nothing happened that Russell predicted based on his interpretations of the Bible and secular history, it should be obvious that the underlying chronological calculations were bogus. Not really. What happened is a lot more complicated. Rutherford used 1874 rather than 1914 until the early 1930s. Then over the next decade, Rutherford and Franz gradually migrated everything about 1874 to 1914. I cover some of this in a recent essay, if you're interested. But when a group of religious leaders claim to speak for God, and to be guided by him, and to be God's mouthpiece, and to receive angelic direction, that's a lot more significant than in other spheres of life. After all, scientists won't disfellowship you from some organization merely because you contradict the ideas of prominent scientists. And they don't claim to speak for God, but for themselves, by writing papers that marshal evidence and try to convince other scientists by weight of evidence rather than weight of authority.

Nonsense. Did Jehovah cause the 9/11 deaths in New York? By the same token, Jehovah is responsible for the horrible deaths of every prey animal on earth for half a billion years. And of course, Jehovah is responsible for all of the Watchtower Society's false predictions and false teachings.

Anna said: Actually, both dates are not only disputable, but flat out wrong. See below. How times have changed. When I was a teenager in the 1960s, the whole "Gentile times" doctrine was put constantly to the fore. Even as a young teen, I knew the basis for the entire doctrine front to back. I arrogantly thought that this was part of why we JWs were a religion so superior to all others -- we knew the Truth! Correct. And of course, both the 70 year figure and 537 are purely Watchtower interpretations of the underlying Bible verses and secular history. Those interpretations are demonstrably wrong. Indeed. You might start with my essay "Biblical Evidence Against Watchtower Society Chronology" ( https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ ). It's about as simplified as I know how to make a subject that the Watchtower Society has so badly convoluted. Look up the Scriptural passages, and make your own judgments. If you find something you disagree with, by all means bring it up in this thread. To date, not one JW apologist has published a refutation of my essay on any forum I'm aware of. Incompetent fakes like ScholarJW object to its conclusions, but only with a circular 'argument': "it's wrong because 607 is right." You'll probably see that here with ScholarJW. As for anything in 1914 being 'predicted' by C. T. Russell, he got nothing right. Everything he predicted that was supposed to be observable failed. Note his predictions (See https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/part-2-statements-concerning-1799-1874.html for more 😞 The Time Is At Hand, (originally published in 1889), said concerning the Times of the Gentiles, on pages 76-77 (early 1912 Edition): << God's Kingdom, the Kingdom of Jehovah's Anointed... will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion. In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove: -- Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government. Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member. Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed. Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected. Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) -- and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be" -- civil and ecclesiastical -- iron and clay. >> Note that the above is from a pre-1912 edition. Late 1912 and subsequent editions edited some of the statements thus: << In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established.... Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ.... >> On pages 98-99 The Time Is At Hand said: << True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved; but we are living in a special and peculiar time, the "Day of Jehovah," in which matters culminate quickly; and it is written, "A short work will the Lord make upon the earth.... In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914. >> The post-1912 editions edited the second paragraph to read: << In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915. >> The Society tends to minimize the certainty with which Russell published statements like these, but his express statement that "we consider it an established truth" clearly shows his intent. On page 101 the 1908 edition of The Time Is At Hand said: << Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 [Later editions of The Time Is At Hand changed this to 1915] with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word. If our vision be unobstructed by prejudice, when we get the telescope of God's Word rightly adjusted we may see with clearness the character of many of the events due to take place in the "Day of the Lord" -- that we are in the very midst of those events, and that "the Great Day of His Wrath is come." >> I challenge any JW apologist to show how anything observable in Russell's predictions came to pass in the sense his writings obviously meant. And I mean "meant", not with the hindsight of more than a hundred years of rationalizations by Russell's successors, but in the obvious sense that the Bible Students understood those predictions.

ScholarJW said: What's your point? Not only do you contradict the entire narrative of the discussion in the Insight book about its justification for establishing the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE by reference to Cyrus' accession year, but Parker & Dubberstein's charts. Do you know better than P&D? I think not. Nor does Mommy Watchtower think so. Nor do any competent academic scholars. By claiming the possibility that Cyrus' 1st year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, you've contradicted the Insight book's argument that his 9th year was 530 BCE. Perhaps you should write to the Society and correct the Insight book. And by claiming that Cyrus issued his proclamation in or after Nisan, 537 BCE, you not only again contradict various discussions in the Insight book, but have eliminated your own argument that there is not enough time between Nisan and Tishri for the Jews to have returned to Judah. So which is it? Did Cyrus issue his proclamation in late 538, early 537 but before Nisan, or after Nisan 1, 537? Clearly, this ScholarJW Pretendus Moronicus can neither keep his arguments straight nor avoid the 'apostasy' of contradicting Mommy Watchtower.

Anna, I'm giving you an extended answer here, so that you can see clearly why ScholarJW and certain other JW apologists who post on this board are not only too incompetent to post anything correct, but too much pathological liars to be believed about anything. On 12/23/2020 at 12:46 PM, scholar JW had said: It was answered several times, at least in part, by several posters, including by ScholarJW himself. All he has been doing is playing games, as JW Insider well described in the quoted material below. If you really want to see what this charlatan has tried to be up to, you'll have to get down into the nitty gritty and carefully read the material below. QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS: Here we have ScholarJW admitting knowing about the dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152093 https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152094 Anna, you'll note that ScholarJW gave no proof, no source references -- only a bald claim.One of my responses: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152105 AlanF More responses: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152106 Here we find the first glimmerings of ScholarJW's "test": https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152112  What about the reign of Darius during this period and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months. Your timeframe is too short and impossible for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations. And another bit of "test": https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152121  Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius. 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. My response: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152133  Scholars, even the fake Watchtower ones, generally agree that the reign of Darius is too problematic to say anything substantive about. Yet  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. >> ScholarJW: 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. Soon, ScholarJW posted material from the Insight book: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152126 ScholarJW To which AlanF replied: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152138 Here I expand upon the events of Cyrus' 1st regnal year: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/ AlanF Now we get to ScholarJW's post of interest: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 To which I replied: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152189 After which followed several rejoinders: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152190 Later we have ScholarJW going at it with JW Insider: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-152280 To which JW Insider replied: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 A bit farther on: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152292 A little later we find: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152333 Another day, another lie: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152341 Forward a few days: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/39/?tab=comments#comment-152736 Later still: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-152762 END OF QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS So, Anna, it should be obvious by now that ScholarJW posed simple questions as a simple-minded trap of some sort, that all of us participants -- including he himself -- knew that all the others knew the answers to. That's why we refused, for awhile, to play his stupid game. Now that JW Insider has given an extensive answer to ScholarJW's challenge ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152809 ), and ScholarJW has replied in such a way as to 'spring' his laughable trap, surely you can see how stupid his entire game has been. His comments about Darius are common knowledge among everyone qualified to comment on the material of this thread. JW Insider again gave an insightful set of comments along these lines: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152808 So, Anna, by now I'm sure you see why several of us refer to ScholarJW as "ScholarJW Pretendus" and as a pathological liar.

I disagree. This moron hasn't the brains to duck and dive.

Hey, them's fightin' words!

Wrong as usual. Babylonian, Persian and Greek astronomers and astrologers kept up a running list of kings for centuries. By the time Ptolemy and his buddies wrote down the "Handy Tables" of kings and their reigns, along with the Royal Canon in the 2nd century CE, this king list had existed for at least 600 years. Try doing some real research for once.

Wrong as usual. You're simply too stupid to know what the subject is. Of course, you can point out where my comprehension is lacking. NOT. I already explained this so simply that even a small child could understand.

You're far from dumb. Just miseducated by the Watchtower Society. Here's a simplified explanation of why Watchtower chronology is wrong: "Biblical Evidence Against Watchtower Society Chronology" : https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/

Yet another contentless diatribe.

Wrong. Quit lying.

Still you lie. Go back page by page and search for "Nisan 1" in my postings. In at least one post, you'll find my answers. Of course, this is rocket science for someone too stupid to figure out how to Copy/Paste.

I already did it for you, you fucking liar. You're just too stupid to know it.

This moron is not only irredeemably lazy, but stupid enough to think that he can lay a trap for JW critics by proposing a silly task that, as you and I have pointed out, can easily be accomplished via Google. I even pointed him to a website that does Julian to Gregorian conversion, etc., as well as to definitive Watchtower statements about the 539 date. I don't know what this charlatan's game is here, but I ain't playing along anymore.

CC is too stupid to be confused.

Wrong. Only parts of the place were buried. Excavations were done on the buried parts. Yet again you demonstrate atrocious reading comprehension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasargadae Wrong again. Most of Troy was never buried. It was so badly ruined that no explorers recognized it. So? There are only dry riverbeds in Sinai. Apples and oranges. So you actually think that ALL TRACES of 3 million people wandering in a desert wilderness for 40 years could magically disappear. That is called rationalization -- rationalization on a massive scale. Keep in mind that explorers have searched for evidence of the Exodus in Sinai for well over 200 years. Archaeologists who were extremely eager to find something. Even today, with satellite imaging, eager Israeli and Bible-believing Christians can find nothing. Not even though satellite imaging has revealed all manner of buried structures in Egypt proper. Desperation to believe in myths is a great motivator for creative rationalization.

Typical incoherent gobble-de-goop.

You're welcome. Now that this material has been posted -- and it contains everything relevant from the 2016 Watchtower CD Library -- those posters too lazy or too stupid or too afraid to look for themselves have no excuse.

Several of our less enlightened posters have made claims that are quite ridiculous, and indicate a nearly complete lack of familiarity with what they're talking about. Arauna, for example, focuses on the vague notion -- which she never explains coherently -- that the Greek Olympiads are somehow a better source for dating the reign of Cyrus the Great than are astronomical tablets in conjunction with Persian contract tablets and other contemporary documents. But the Watchtower Society disagrees, as I will now show. Watchtower publications contain several mentions of the Greek Olympiads, such as these: Insight, Vol. 1, p. 447 << The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. >> Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566 << Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >> Note that the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus is referenced as the source of the statements about the Olympiads. A question that arises is, How reliable are the histories of Diodorus Siculus? Note what the Watchtower Society had to say about these: The Watchtower, April 1, 1969, pp. 222-223 << But what about the later historians of the Greeks and the Romans? Do they supply chronology that is sufficiently exact that it poses a serious challenge to the Bible’s record? Among them we may consider Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.). Of the original forty books of his history, only fifteen have come down to us. Five of these deal with the mythic history of Egypt, Assyria, Ethiopia and Greece, and the remainder chronicle the second Persian war and extend to the time of Alexander the Great’s successors. It is said of Diodorus that “he has been at little pains to sift his materials, and hence frequent repetitions and contradictions may be found in the body of the work. . . . In the chronology of the strictly historical period he is occasionally inaccurate.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 7, page 245. >> So the Society itself argues that Diodorus' histories must be taken with a good grain of salt. Nevertheless, any ancient source like Diodorus can be quite accurate in its chronology. Diodorus, it turns out, is accurate for at least the period in question here, 539 BCE through about 485 BCE. Note what the Society said about how Diodorus' dating by Olympiads matches up with dating by various other ancient documents: The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316 << Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E. Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. >> Next note what the Insight book had to say about this: Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454 << The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >> Pretty much the same as the above 1971 Watchtower said. However, this description of the evidence for 539 BCE was incomplete (more complete information was given on page 453). Another Watchtower publication also gave more complete information: The Watchtower, October 1, 2011, p. 28 << A PIVOTAL DATE IN HISTORY The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of: Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) wrote that Cyrus became king of Persia in “the opening year of the Fifty-fifth Olympiad.” (Historical Library, Book IX, 21) That year was 560 B.C.E. The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) stated that Cyrus was killed “after he had reigned twenty-nine years,” which would put his death during his 30th year, in 530 B.C.E. (Histories, Book I, Clio, 214) Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. Thus, nine years prior to his death in 530 B.C.E. takes us back to 539 B.C.E. as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. >> Note clearly that the second point uses astronomical dating to arrive at 539 BCE for the first year of Cyrus' ruling Babylon: Two eclipses, 523 and 522 BCE, point to the 7th year of Cambyses, so his 1st year was 529, and the 9th year of his predecessor Cyrus was 530 BCE, thus arriving at 538 BCE as Cyrus' 1st year, and 539 as his accession year (counted as year zero in the Babylonian dating system). Thus, this 2011 Watchtower article was forced to admit that a contemporary Persian astronomical tablet, along with cuneiform documents and contract tablets that establish that Cambyses reigned for seven years and Cyrus reigned for nine years, solidly point to the date that the Watchtower Society uses as "a pivotal date in history". Also note that the above Watchtower material admits that the Royal Canon of Ptolemy accurately shows the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. That these sources all converge on 539 BCE as the date of Babylon's overthrow is agreed to in the following Watchtower material: All Scripture Is Inspired, pp. 282-283 << 28 Pivotal Date for the Hebrew Scriptures. A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at Daniel 5:30. Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar. 29 Following the overthrow of Babylon, and during his first year as ruler of conquered Babylon, Cyrus issued his famous decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In view of the Bible record, the decree was likely made late in 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would give ample opportunity for the Jews to resettle in their homeland and to come up to Jerusalem to restore the worship of Jehovah in “the seventh month,” Tishri, or about October 1, 537 B.C.E.—Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6. >> Insight, Vol. 1, p. 454 << The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; see comments above under “Babylonian Chronology,” also PERSIA, PERSIANS. >> Insight, Vol. 1, p. 458 << Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.) >> Insight, Vol. 1, p. 566 << Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. >> The Watchtower, May 15, 2003, p. 4 << One pivotal date is 539 B.C.E., the year when Persian King Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Secular sources for the time of his reign include Babylonian tablets and documents of Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy. >> Quoted above, but here it is again: The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316 Other sources, including Ptolemy’s canon, point to the year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). (The years of the olympiads ran from approximately July 1 to the following June 30.) Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E. Though the year is not found in the Nabonidus Chronicle itself, the available evidence is nevertheless sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. And finally we have the Society's authoritative and more detailed statement summarizing the above information: Insight, Vol. 1, pp. 452-453 << Babylonian Chronology. Babylon enters the Biblical picture principally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II onward. The reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar marked the start of what is called the Neo-Babylonian Empire; it ended with the reigns of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar and the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. This period is of great interest to Bible scholars since it embraces the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the greater part of the 70-year period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah 52:28 says that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) the first group of Jewish exiles was taken to Babylon. In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II. Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >> Note that all of the above material proves that the Watchtower Society agrees that Cyrus' accession year began about October 539 BCE, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE. The poster "ScholarJW" has vaguely implied that in some unspecified way the rule of Darius the Mede must be fit in with that of Cyrus. Obviously, the Society disagrees, since it says nothing about Darius the Mede in any of the above material. In some older Watchtower publications the identity of Darius the Mede is discussed, but in no case does that change the dates for Cyrus' reign. I hope this material provides some useful source material for our astute posters.

I know you don't actually expect this ignorant, arrogant moron to understand any of that.