AlanF

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

The said scholar is a devotee to Mommy Watchtower just as you are a devotee to COJ!!!

scholar Jw

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.

53 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Boy, isn't scholar a naughty boy for making Alan so angry. It is interesting that it was not Alan F that finally provided the answer to my little test but JW Insider and it is only WT scholars that have provided such information using P & D as a source of reference.

scholar JW

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

57 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

I accept fully the contents of the Insight book especially its articles on Chronology for these are scholarly and clearly written but I cannot be responsible for any deficiency on your part in understanding such information. WT scholars have used P& D in its publications from the time when it was first published so I do not believe there are any major issues except for the fact that it does not account foe the brief reign of Darius.

The Insight article under 'CYRUS' is of excellent scholarship and well balanced covering all factors that are relevant in the correct dating of the Return so there is no need to write to the Society at this time.

I simply affirm what is written in the above article which i believe fully answers your query. It is not known precisely when Cyrus made the public and written proclamation only that these two events occurred in his 'first year' but this is a bigger problem for you as you wish to compress matters too much.

scholar JW

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.

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

I know we arrive at that date by counting 70 years back from 537, (Cyrus' 'restoration of the Jews to their homeland and the start of the rebuilding of the temple (I think)).

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.

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

Doesn't Isaiah mention 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians and the desolation of the land?

Not that I'm aware of. See if you can find appropriate passages.

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

And didn't the rebuilding of the temple start in 537? 

Yes, but the Society claims it was 536.

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

Yes, I know.

But there was talk of 1914, and the gentile times ending, even though nothing like what he expected happened.

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.

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

I also know that since all expectations about it failed, 1914 got swept under the carpet for a long time, to be "resurrected" some time in the 1940's.

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.

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

JW history is not quite honest about that, and gives the impression that although Russell was disappointed, 1914 was always believed to be the year Jesus was enthroned, which as we know is not true. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much (the dishonesty does) because I expect understanding to progress over time. It's like that in every sphere of life, medicine, science, technology etc....

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.

12 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

The point really is that whatever Jehovah allows to happen can be said to be "done" by him.

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:

Quote

 

Outta Here said:

starting in 607BCE ending 1914CE

 

Quote

I think this happens to be the most disputable assumption in the whole discussion between Cameron and Jon.

Actually, both dates are not only disputable, but flat out wrong. See below.

Quote

I actually had a study where the lady, a science teacher, wondered about that date, since no one else except the Witnesses recognized it.....at the time I was not familiar with the topic at all, since like everyone else I assumed that was the date. We had other topics to discuss first, so we never really got into it. She moved, and I lost touch with her. (Although I did pass her onto someone in the area she moved to). Evidently, Jon was not knowledgeable about any other dates and of course we cannot blame him since ancient history, especially something as specific as the razing of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, is not common knowledge.

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!

Quote

I know we arrive at that date by counting 70 years back from 537, (Cyrus' 'restoration of the Jews to their homeland and the start of the rebuilding of the temple (I think)).

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.

Quote

For some reason this does not seem good enough, and I am sure we will find out why in this thread. Stay tuned 😁

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:

Quote

 

  On 12/25/2020 at 8:07 PM, JW Insider said:
These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian
. . .

 

Quote

 

Correct! These dates are based on the assumption that the reign of Darius the Mede reign was concurrent with that of Cyrus. However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

The first full year of Darius would be from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the end of the month of Adar in 537 BCE, or, about, March 24, 538 BCE to March 11, 537 BCE, Julian Calendar or March 18, 538 BCE to March 5, 537 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.- Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC- AD 45, 1942, R.A.Parker and W.H. Dubberstein

 

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:

Quote

 

Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success.

. . .

 

Quote

 

Anna said:

For anyone following this topic, they can see a question posed, but not answered. I haven't checked further down the thread, I am assuming it hasn't been answered, so if that is the case, I think for the benefit of the readers, it might be time that you answer it if no one else has.

 

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 

Quote

ScholarJW: ... the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152094

Quote

ScholarJW: The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.

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

Quote

 

Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

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.

You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.

And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:

https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

 

More responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152106
 

Quote

 

ScholarJW: The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan

AlanF: Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?

 

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW

Quote

 

 On 12/13/2020 at 6:11 PM, AlanF said:
Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

. . .

 



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

Quote

 

ScholarJW

Quote

On 12/13/2020 at 6:59 PM, AlanF said:
Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.



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
 

Quote

 

AlanF

Quote

ScholarJW: 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

Quote

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. >>

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

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?

 

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

Quote

 

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

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.

 

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

Quote

 

More on the Akitu festival so we're on the same page: This was held in early Nisan and was essentially a festival going back to the Sumerians celebrating the spring barley planting. So far as I can gather from my readings, this was also a time that various Middle Eastern rulers inaugurated their 1st regnal year. If this happened with Cyrus, then since his generally accepted accession was some time around October, 539, his 1st year would have begun Nisan 1, 538 and would therefore have corresponded with the Akitu festival, which would have been celebrated anyway. Such a big event would certainly have been accompanied by the grand gesture of Cyrus issuing his proclamation of release, along with many other significant events. According to this reasoning, that proclamation is unlikely to have been issued in late 538 -- what would occasion it? -- or early 537 but before Nisan 1 -- again what would occasion it? But as you imply, a Nisan 537 date is simply unreasonable if Arauna's point about the Akitu festival holds water.

So from Nisan to Tishri of 537 or 538 would be six months (although Parker and Dubberstein assign the intercalary month Ululu II between Elul and Tishri in 537, making it seven months). Either way, six months is plenty of time for a journey from Babylon to Judah, especially if, as seems extremely likely, the Jews knew very well that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives soon after he conquered some city, and therefore would have begun preparations for their return to Judah soon after Babylon's fall, giving them 5-6 months of preparation time even before the proclamation.

So in terms of preparation time plus journey time, a journey in 538 or 537 is equally possible. The deciding factor, if any, between the two must be something else. Which I have shown, with strong likelihood, is Josephus' statement about laying the foundation of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which Ezra also pegs as the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return, i.e., Iyyar 537 BCE. This works whether Josephus used Nisan or Tishri dating.

 

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW: Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:

Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars?

 

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

Quote

Alan F: Already done in the Julian calendar. Conversion to the Gregorian calendar is easily found with a search engine.

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW: You cannot answer this question or you refuse to answer the question!

AlanF: Already done a number of times.

ScholarJW: Well answer the question. Show the postings

AlanF: You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.

ScholarJW: What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly?

AlanF: Hypocrite! You complain when others use your own tactics on you.

 

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

Quote

ScholarJW: Your reply is just what i expected. Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender?

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

Quote

 

JW Insider: I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years."  After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.

 

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW: Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance.

AlanF: Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here.
Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science.

 

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW: The so-called error that Alan F in his ignorance and cannot even give the modern calendation for the first year of Cyrus is simply facile.

AlanF: . . . As for your lie that I cannot give such a "calendation", that's nonsense. I repeat: I'm not playing your games. The date is given in Julian years in almost all sources, of which you're well aware. Conversion from Julian to Gregorian dates is trivially accomplished by various means, the simplest being to find a website that does it. There are dozens. Here: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227757509

 

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

Quote

 

ScholarJW: It is not a lie for I am asking you a simple question,

AlanF: Which I and others have answered several dozen times now.

AlanF: You're lying because you know perfectly well that I most certain can answer your questions, but until a few posts ago have refused to play your game. Big difference between "can't" and "won't". Such a complete dipshit!

ScholarJW: So give the Julian date if you dare!

AlanF: Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 BCE through Addaru 29/30 (March 11), 537 BCE, according to Parker & Dubberstein.

AlanF: Now you look up the Julian to Gregorian converter website I told you about and see if you can plug in the numbers and find your Gregorian date. If you dare. Which you won't.

 

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

Quote

 

On 12/23/2020 at 1:47 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
That is rich coming from you, Neil, as somebody who said he could not be bothered learning how to use an astronomy program to check the celestial positions on VAT 4956 for himself, and prefers instead to wallow in his own ignorance and self-admitted incompetence while hurling insults at those who have actually done the work. Why should I or AlanF or JW Insider or anyone else spoon-feed easily Googleable answers to someone who is too bone-idle to find the answer for himself, despite boasting about how great a scholar he is? Let me know when you can be bothered, Neil. Until then, hooroo.

. . .

AlanF: 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.

 

Later still:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-152762

Quote

 

ScholarJW: You have not completed the answer so try again!!!

AlanF: 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.

 

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.

23 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Hey, I've been keeping this issue to the fore. You have been ducking and diving away from the obvious conclusion. 

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

46 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Good. Three questions.

Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I have so far proposed a couple of dozen questions about the differences between the Watchtower chronology and the Bible chronology. Several of them were directed to you personally and you have either not seen them or ignored all but two of them. So let's start in order. Answer three of the chronology issues I have presented, and I will answer yours, the best I can.

Your several counter-questions were in response to the idea that I wrote as follows:

So let's start from there and see if you will attempt to answer these questions:

Does Jeremiah 25 say that only Judea will serve Babylon for 70 years, or does it say "these nations"?

For reference, I'll quote the verse:

(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) . . .And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ ¹² “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

And, if you can see that the answer is "these nations" and not just Judea, then the next question would be:

From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations start? (or, When did these nations begin their servitude to Babylon?)

and

From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations end? (or, When did these nations end their servitude to Babylon?)

Hey, them's fightin' words!

55 minutes ago, Arauna said:

pity their king lists and the dates had to be inserted by the Greeks who came centuries later- lol

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.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

As usual you change the subject.

Wrong as usual. You're simply too stupid to know what the subject is.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Most ancient buildings are totally covered up and have to be excavated .....especially those in Babylon.  Pasargadae was merely an example ........ and by the way ... I went to the article you sent me to .....and it seems that you are the one who has comprehension problems. English being your first language I am quite shocked at your sloppy comprehension.  I have at least an excuse!  You do not!

Of course, you can point out where my comprehension is lacking. NOT.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

So you claim this to be proof that we are supposed to find Israeli POOP in the wilderness where they wandered for 40 years?   If buildings have to be dug up ....then maybe you should have searched for the poop a bit deeper !   dont you think? 

I already explained this so simply that even a small child could understand.

On 12/26/2020 at 9:24 AM, Anna said:

I saw you mention to someone that the whole thing could be figured out in less than a day. This is proof that I must be dumb and need an"explanation for dummies" like the type they do on YouTube, with diagrams and cute pictures 😂

I would not expect something like that from you since you are well above that. Perhaps if you viewed me as your 6 year old grandchild it might work 😁

 

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/

On 12/25/2020 at 12:51 AM, Arauna said:

CC let them stew in their own " self-importance" and self-deceit....... and go and mislead others.   They will not mislead us.  I have looked at this again and again and found their nit-picking to be without substance.  I have actually lost some  respect for them, that which I had when I started on this forum.

The reason, they only debate, but do not fully understand the main theme of the bible and the importance if the chronology time line as the JWs understand it (with the help of Jehovah) right now.  They give credence to secular scholars but reject the bible's own chronology. This is why they come up with ideas which say that 1914 is bogus, the interpretation of nebuchadrezzar dream is bogus, the signs of 'perousia' are bogus etc. Etc. ...... and some dare to think of themselves as "enlightened" or scholarly witnesses.

JW teachings are crucial to understand the thinking of jehovah and how jehovah cares about us. He wants us to understand where we are in the stream of time to keep active and our hope secure.

Our timeline  fits in with the time-line of the 7 heads of the beast - something which they have not looked at or consider important because they do not accept WW1 and league of nations as a "sign"  they do not accept WW2 and creation of UN as part of the "sign"....  .during perousia..

We are already living under the "image if the beast" ...... which soon will receive more power (like an 8th king) and they do not even consider how this fits into what ithey are debating. They are focussing on only one room of an entire ocean liner (Titanic) while the entire boat is sinking. They are so busy debating about one room that they do not notice the final signs, which is part of this time-line of succession of the "beasts" and image of the beast which takes place during the "perousia".  

Then you have " self-heroes like alanf" with his scoffing and name-calling ( like an off-key chorus in the background.)..... quite a crazy way to dominate a conversation...... lol. 

Does this bring them in line for life under Jehovah's government?  Definitely not.  This is a futile exercise ........ being an expert in one part of the boat and not taking note of the ENTIRE boat. 

Yet another contentless diatribe.

On 12/24/2020 at 1:24 PM, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

Your answer was incomplete so again try again!!!

scholar JW

Wrong. Quit lying.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

You have not completed the answer so try again!!!

scholar JW

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.

28 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan de Fool

It would appear that you have something to lose, afraid to put your supposed scholarship to the test. If it is so simple as you claim by simply asking Doctor Google then why has not this data been provided in any academic scholarship published or otherwise?

scholar JW

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

35 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That is rich coming from you, Neil, as somebody who said he could not be bothered learning how to use an astronomy program to check the celestial positions on VAT 4956 for himself, and prefers instead to wallow in his own ignorance and self-admitted incompetence while hurling insults at those who have actually done the work. Why should I or AlanF or JW Insider or anyone else spoon-feed easily Googleable answers to someone who is too bone-idle to find the answer for himself, despite boasting about how great a scholar he is? Let me know when you can be bothered, Neil. Until then, hooroo.

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.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Really? You seem to thrive on it.

CC is too stupid to be confused.

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

I have read a lot about archeology (biblical and other empires). Pasagarde has massive columns standing up about 40 feet high...... nothing was visible..... it had to be dug up.

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

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

Troy was not seen.  Schliemann went searching for it and followed the indications given by Homer......... they dug up a lost city which had disappeared.

Wrong again. Most of Troy was never buried. It was so badly ruined that no explorers recognized it.

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

Rivers have also changed their routes...... such as the Euphrates and many others. 

So? There are only dry riverbeds in Sinai. Apples and oranges.

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

The surface of the earth can change in 3500 years and covered up deep in sand.  Anything lost in well traversed areas would be picked up an reused. Stones, jewellery etc. Organic materials rarely last long, especially shoes and clothing. Looting of graves also took place.  Archeologists are ecstatic when they find clothes or jewellery which miraculously have survived due to e exceptional conditions.  

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.

23 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

That's good, in a few days, AlanF will be given a felony charge for copyright infringement.

Keeping Watch in Babylon: The Astronomical Diaries in Context 2019

Try reading and understand Chapter 5, page 49, paragraph 2, lines 9-15

You can also see the chart in page 45

 

Let, that jerk read:

Who Was “Darius the Mede”? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)

To redirect that fools assumption.

Typical incoherent gobble-de-goop.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for providing those details. I certainly didn't want to dig up all the nitty-gritty that you did, but without it, my simple version was still open to misunderstanding.

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.

35 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time. . .

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