AlanF

It's amazing how predictable many JW apologists are -- too ignorant to participate in the topic, so they resort to taking potshots (ad hominems) at the ones who are intelligent enough to participate. AlanF

Already debunked. AlanF

By all means, show us how this should be done. And again, give your source references. AlanF

Arauna wrote: Your statements appear to be self-contradictory among various posts. Please set forth a clear timeline showing which king you think was appointed when, his years of reign, and so forth. Back up your timeline with solid source references. In particular, give source references for your claim that Darius "took the title in Nissan 538 BCE." AlanF

Arauna wrote: :: scientifically competent people :: Unclear thinkers often spew out so many false or ridiculous ideas that debate, or even rational discussion, is impossible without clearing the field of the nonsense. :: Keep in mind that Daniel had been made third ruler in Babylon by Belshazzar, with great fanfare (Dan. 5:29), and continued in a high position under Darius, so Daniel could well have known about Cyrus' coming Decree before it was officially announced. Daniel would then have communicated the news to his fellow captives, and it would have been spread among the Jews in Babylon very quickly. Did I ever say that these notions constitute proof? No. What I've said or implied is that they constitute plausibility arguments that show why a scenario is possible. This is to contradict claims that the scenarios are impossible, made by Watch Tower apologists. Of course -- unless Daniel or other officials decided to tell them. Generally, of course. But when Cyrus' armies overthrew the city, and Belshazzar was killed, to whom would Daniel and his close associates owe loyalty? First and foremost, to Jehovah. And given the actual account of his praying to God shortly after Babylon's overthrow, he certainly was eager to see the prophecies fulfilled, and would naturally have expressed his eagerness to other Jews. Pure speculation. But my speculation is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah! AlanF

Foreigner wrote: So far so good. Duh. The point is not about adding 70 to some date to go back 70 years, but what that 70 years means. Mommy Watch Tower claims it means 70 years of captivity and exile of the Jews, and total desolation of Judah. The Bible says it means 70 years of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. Nonsense. The Watch Tower's and C. T. Russell's notion of "the Gentile times" is unbiblical nonsense, based on a weak chain of speculation about various unrelated scriptures. JW Insider has shown that when one combines the references in Luke and Revelation to get something like "the Gentile times", one comes up with 1,260 years -- not 2,520 years. This is pretty much what John Aquila Brown came up with in his 1823 book. More speculation contradicted by the Bible: << Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." >> -- Matt. 28:18 Yet the Watch Tower Society claims that Jesus was given MORE THAN "all authority" in 1914! Pure gobble-de-goop. AlanF

More incoherent gobble-de-goop. AlanF

Arauna wrote: I either have given or can give proof for what I say. I didn't say "just". I said this: << The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. >> Probably I should have said, "The Jews lived mostly in the cities". This is based on the common understanding among historians that it was mostly the elite Jews who were deported. As this reference states ( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-babylonian-exile ): << The deportations were large, but certainly didn't involve the entire nation. Somewhere around 10,000 people were forced to relocate to the city of Babylon . . . Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, only deported the most prominent citizens of Judah: professionals, priests, craftsmen, and the wealthy. The "people of the land" (am-hares ) were allowed to stay. . . the deported Jews formed their own community in Babylon and retained their religion, practices, and philosophies. >> Here is another ( http://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/Ancient-tablets-reveal-daily-life-of-exiled-Jews-in-Babylon-2500-years-ago-389864 ): << Technically not slaves, Nebuchadnezzar allowed the Judeans in Babylonia to become merchants or assist administering his growing kingdom. “They were free to go about their lives; they weren’t slaves,” Vukosavovic said. “Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t a brutal ruler in that respect. He knew he needed the Judeans to help revive the struggling Babylonian economy.” >> And another ( http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html ): << The Jewish people survived in Babylon because the Babylonian policy allowed the Jews to settle in towns and villages along the Chebar River, which was an irrigation channel. The Jews were allowed to live together in communities, they were allowed to farm and perform other sorts of labor to earn income. Many Jews eventually became wealthy. This was probably because of the influence of certain Jews who ministered in the palace of Babylon, like Daniel and his friends. >> People who live "in towns and villages" are also known as people who live in cities in the Bible, since in OT usage a "city" can mean what we today call a village of a few dozen people. My above references prove that it is you who don't understand. The above quotations clearly show that farming by the Jews was a tiny part of farming in Babylonia. It's also called eisegesis -- something that Watch Tower followers are very good at. Right, because that is what the appropriate scriptures actually say. Of course, I have repeatedly quoted them to prove this. Let's look at the rest of the relevant context of Jer. 25: << 8 “Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘“Because you would not obey my words, 9 I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. 10 I will put an end to the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing from them, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 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. >> In context, then, and in view of my above-quoted references, the phrase "the land will become ruined (or desolated)" means that the land will become largely devoid of inhabitants and will contain a mere ruined shadow of its once vibrant community. Furthermore, verse 9 says that this happens to "this land and ... its inhabitants and ... all these surrounding nations." And "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years." Which nations? The Jews and the nations round about. Because we know that many of the "nations round about" did not go into captivity at all, much less for 70 years, the phrase "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years" cannot mean that they would all become captive for 70 years. And as I have repeatedly shown, Jer. 27 and 29:10 prove that neither the Jews nor any other nation round about were firmly destined to go into captivity, but were firmly destined to serve the Babylonian hegemony for 70 years: << 'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.' >> -- Jer. 27:11. << For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place. >> -- Jer. 29:10; ESV And of course, the fact that all these things happened to the Jews exactly as prophesied, after they failed to submit to Babylon, is shown by the following fulfillments of Jer. 25:12 described in Daniel and 2 Chronicles: << 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MEʹNE, MEʹNE, TEʹKEL, and PARʹSIN. 26 “This is the interpretation of the words: MEʹNE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. 27 “TEʹKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found lacking. 28 “PEʹRES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.” 29 Then Bel·shazʹzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and placed a gold necklace around his neck; and they heralded concerning him that he was to become the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom >> -- Dan. 5:25-30 << [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign . . . >> -- 2 Chron. 36:20 When was Belshazzar's kingdom divided and given to the Medes and the Persians? In October, 539 BCE. When did Jehovah "call to account the king of Babylon"? In October, 539 BCE. Until when were the Jews servants to Nebuchadnezzar "and his sons"? Until October, 539 BCE. Therefore, when were the 70 years "completed for Babylon"? In October, 539 BCE. Once again, it is you who are guilty of eisegesis. Yes, we know all that. Hmm, Jeremiah clearly states that if the Jews and other nations humbly submitted to Babylon, they would not have been deported, but would have been allowed to stay on their land. But that means Jehovah, through Jeremiah is contradicting himself by means of Isaiah! Wow, you've certainly solved many exegetical problems this way! Actually there is a very good explanation for the apparent contradiction. You can find it if you look hard. Hint: Jeremiah says nothing about a sabbath rest for the land. There is ZERO evidence, just speculation. And you've given zero evidence, just speculation that contradicts many clear scriptures. Continuing to contradict Daniel 5: << God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. . . That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom . >> Again contradicting Daniel, Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles -- and even the Watch Tower Society, which agrees that Cyrus began ruling over Babylon in October, 539 BCE. Again contradicting Mommy Watch Tower on the dates. There is a difference between an inauguration that occurs at the beginning of a king's 1st regnal year and an accession to the throne that occurs when he actually becomes king in his accession year. [ Mostly irrelevant exposition snipped ] Again disagreeing with Mommy Watch Tower that Cyrus began his rule in October, 539 BCE, and that his 1st regnal year began in Nisan, 538. Exactly the same logistics are involved in a 538 scenario and a 537 scenario, to within one month, as I've shown in my post above. Even scholar JW has admitted this. But we all, including Mommy Watch Tower, agree that the journey must have been about four months. Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. If you disagree with my argument, then by all means show why combining Ezra and Josephus is wrong, or shaky or whatever you like. But you already know you can't, which is why you haven't touched it. Indeed. It is a simple fact that the risk of death due to earthquakes in the 18th century was about 2 1/2 times as great as in the 20th century. That's easy enough to prove for yourself, by spending some time on the website of the National Earthquake Information Service and finding its calculator for earthquake statistics. The other major sorts of disasters -- famine, pestilence and war -- are more difficult to find statistics on, but any careful study will prove what I said. For example, it was fairly common before the 20th century for 10-30% of the population of a fairly large region to be killed by famine, pestilence and war. While the 20th century figures are large in an absolute sense, they are far smaller in percentage. Why do you think the world has a population explosion? In "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" Harvard author Steven Pinker marshalls a massive amount of proof that on the whole, violence in the world has declined. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature . Where's your evidence? I'll warn you, though: everything the Watch Tower has published on this has been thoroughly debunked. Actually it's the other way around. The complete failure of every visible thing that C. T. Russell predicted for 1914, and the total failure of the Watch Tower's claims about disasters since 1914, result in the claim that JWs are wrong about 1914. LOL! Which slave? Russell himself? The one that was comprised of all the anointed since 1919? Or the one that appeared sometime after 2000 (sorry, I don't keep up with the dizzying rate of changes). Remember that Russell got every prediction of visible events wrong. Some track record for "the slave", eh? So what? There have been many turning points in history. Some more significant than 1914. Why don't you write to Mommy Watch Tower and tell them to back off? It's no ploy. It's a sincere and concerted effort to show in what ways the Watch Tower has lied and lied about its history. This is really a public service. Do you really want to be part of a religion that has lied to you so broadly? Meaningless generic rationalizations. The fact is that at all times, Watch Tower leaders have claimed to be either inspired or totally guided by God himself, or Jesus, or the angels, for each action they've taken and each thing they've written. They continue in this tradition today by demanding that JWs treat their words and actions as if they came from Jehovah himself, even while admitting that they're fallible and have made many errors. This practice is called "talking out of both sides of your mouth". Of course, they're never in error right now, and God help the JW who disputes them. Actually there was much archaeology available by 1875 to guide them to conclusions accurate by today's standards. But it appears that God did not see fit to guide them to it. For example, it appears that God failed to guide them to the year 607 BCE for the start of the Gentile Times until 1943, and to 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction until 1944. Such a joker God is! Lots of people claim such love, and look what that has accomplished in the world. So what? The point is that they always claimed that God guided/inspired them and they treated those with different views as heretics. To a certain extent, yes. But plenty was available even before 1900 to allow the formation of accurate conclusions. For example, around 1912 one of Russell's closest advisors informed him that Russell's traditional date of 606 BCE was wrong, and gave him appropriate historical information to prove it. But Russell failed to update "Studies in the Scriptures" appropriately. The 1917 book "The Finished Mystery" also used 607 rather than 606. So did a 1931 booklet. So why did it take until 1943 and 1944 to get the date to what it is today? God certainly had nothing to do with guiding any of this nonsense, contrary to what Watch Tower leaders have always claimed. Again: Nisan 538 BCE was the beginning of Cyrus' 1st regnal year -- not his accession to the throne of Babylon. Try giving a source reference: "Antiquities of the Jews", Book 11, Chapter 1, Section 1 (a.k.a. "Antiquities", XI,1,1). Yet again mistaking the 1st regnal year for the accession to the throne. Nope. Again read my above quotations. This is similar to what I quoted above, but it does not contradict my basic point: most of the Jewish captives, being of the elite, were businessmen or artisans of some sort, not farmers. They would have been concentrated in and near Babylon, in villages and towns and in Babylon itself. Except that the many "people of the land" that remained in Judah forgot how to grow food, right? Nice speculation, but speculation nonetheless. The overall point I made is that the Jews were close enough to Babylon that news of an Edict of Release would have spread extremely rapidly. AlanF

I'm aware of when the Bible says that Darius began ruling -- in October, 539 BCE. After all it is well established that that is when Babylon fell to Cyrus' armies, and Dan. 5:30-31 states: "That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom." And the Bible gives no information about how long Darius the Mede was in power or exactly what his relationship to Cyrus was. We do know that even the Watch Tower agrees with these datings. Why don't you agree? AlanF

And here I thought you were writing gobble-de-goop before. AlanF

Always a good policy. It results more often in intelligible writing. AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote: No one is saying that Jerusalem came under siege in 609. Where are you getting that from? If you claim that something I stated is a fact when it is not, then let's see if you can argue your point. In the meantime, note that I use "fact" in a practical way, not necessarily in a theoretical, absolute sense. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: << . . . "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." >> The 70 years refers to a time of Babylonian supremacy, not of desolation of anything (Jer. 25:11-12; 27; 29:10) Since the 70 years were not a period of desolation, your point is moot. Besides, secular history is extremely well established on this point: Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, not 607. AlanF

The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW. AlanF

Foreigner wrote: Correct. That is what we have said. Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE. An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself. To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly. A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating. However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians. So far so good. Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604. Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!" So far so good. Again we see ignorance of English on display. LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh? It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused. Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st. To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no? The word is "prophesied". It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180. But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year! Wrong. Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE. No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme. Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land." Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon". The word is "muddling" or "muddying". Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help. You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you. These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted: But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused. This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it. There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates. In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE. AlanF

scholar JW wrote: :: The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus. Wrong, as shown in my post above. What of it? Except that, all by themselves, those passages provide no information on the date of the Return. One is forced to combine them with other Bible passages to get any date -- just as Carl Jonsson, I and many other JW critics have been doing for decades. Talk about nonsense! As I have repeatedly explained, the texts of Ezra and Josephus together provide the ONLY clear date for the Return -- Tishri, 538 BCE. Ezra alone provides no clear date. Do remember that speculation is no substitute for two witnesses. AlanF

scholar JW wrote: :: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE? Wow! Finally we see a response that isn't a misrepresention, bald assertion or flat out lie, but recognizes the logic of my post. Yes, and I've repeatedly argued and given evidence, for a dozen years now, why that's perfectly reasonable. You and other JW defenders, on the other hand, have only given excuses that amount to The Argument From Personal Incredulity -- "I can't believe it, so it ain't so!" And of course, "Tain't so cuz Mommy Watch Tower sez different!" By that "reasoning", every date in 538/537 should be rejected. But finally we see a bit of rational argument: That's a valid argument in favor of the Decree being made later in 538 than Nisan, or even as late the early months of 537, in the months immediately before Nisan, 537. But it's not a definitive argument. Keep in mind that Daniel had been made third ruler in Babylon by Belshazzar, with great fanfare (Dan. 5:29), and continued in a high position under Darius, so Daniel could well have known about Cyrus' coming Decree before it was officially announced. Daniel would then have communicated the news to his fellow captives, and it would have been spread among the Jews in Babylon very quickly. And of course, you've failed to rationally deal with the fact that, as I have repeatedly argued, all captives in Babylon would have known of Cyrus' habit of releasing captives quite soon after conquering some region, so they would naturally expect also to be released soon. Since they had nearly six lunar months between Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon in October, 539, and the beginning of his 1st regnal year in Nisan (~ late March) 538, they would theoretically have had nearly eight months of preparation time for their journey to Judah. The Jews would also have been well aware of Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer. 29:10) that when Babylon's 70 years of supremacy were over, Jehovah would bring them back to Judah. And they certainly knew that those 70 years were finished, since Dan. 5:26-28 states: << This is the interpretation of the words: ME′NE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . “PE′RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. >> And 2 Chron. 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar: << carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign. >> What we know for certain from Ezra's account is that the Decree was issued in Cyrus' 1st regnal year, which even the Watch Tower Society admits was Nisan 538 through Adar 537. You want to argue, without any real justification, that preparations for the journey to Judah could not have begun before Cyrus issued his decree. But that's pure speculation, as I've argued above. This is no problem at all, for the following reasons: The Watch Tower Society officially admits that Cyrus' accession year was Nisan, 539 through Adar 538, and his first regnal year was Nisan, 538 through Adar, 537 BCE. Do you dispute that? It also admits that identification of Darius the Mede is uncertain, allowing that: << some scholars consider it likely that Darius the Mede was in reality a viceroy who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans but as a subordinate of Cyrus, the supreme monarch of the Persian Empire. >> -- Insight, Vol. 1, "Darius", p. 582. Nonsense. If Darius (whoever he was) ruled concurrently with Cyrus, Cyrus' 1st regnal year still began Nisan 1, 538 BCE. And if you claim that Darius ruled before Cyrus began his 1st regnal year in 538, you're disagreeing with the Society and with virtually all modern scholars. AlanF

The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English. AlanF

The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus. AlanF

allensmith28 The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE? See Insight, Vol. 1, "Captivity", p. 417, which states: << Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) Preparations were soon under way. With the direction of Governor Zerubbabel and High Priest Jeshua, “the sons of the Exile” (Ezr 4:1), . . . made the trip of about four months. . . By the seventh month, in the fall, they were settled in their cities. (Ezr 1:5–3:1) >> AlanF

Continuing to entertain us. AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible. The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar. More abysmal reading comprehension on display. AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote: I thought last week's WT lesson might apply to why the land had to be desolated for 70 years despite Manasseh repenting and being allowed to live longer and continue as king, even though- The land did not have to be desolated at all, much less for 70 years. Do you not accept what the Bible says about this? "'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11. AlanF

allensmith28 wrote Wow! You do have a modicum of reading comprehension. It's not a problem for me, Jeffro or any competent scholar. You yourself provided the answer by quoting from "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)": << If we look at Cyrus as king of Babylon, however, then the Persians conquered that city on October 7, 539 BC. The Persian year ran from spring to spring and the Persians used the Accession Year method of reckoning, so probably October 539 to March 538 was Cyrus' Accession Year and his first year ran from March 538 to March 537, his second year was 537/536 and his third year would be 536/535. >> Exactly as I have said. By the way, your presentation of source references is atrociously bad. You give no source reference information -- just jpg images. The Watch Tower Society agrees with these dates: << 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. >> -- Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453. So some time between March 538 and March 537 Cyrus issue his decree of release. Again the Watch Tower Society agrees: << In “the first year” (evidently as ruler over Babylon) of Cyrus the Persian (538 B.C.E.) the royal decree went forth freeing the exiled Jews to “go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel.” (Ezr 1:1-4) >> -- Insight, Vol. 2, p. 44. So at this point in my reply, we know that Mommy Watch Tower agrees with the dates I've given for the reign of Cyrus. It seems quite obvious that you don't know that Julian/Gregorian calendar years do not coincide with Jewish or Persian or Babylonian years. Thus, while Cyrus actually became ruler over Babylon in October, 539 BCE, his accession year ran from Nisan (~ March) of 539 up to the next Nisan, in 538. This statement is proof that you don't understand the calendars. Nor do you seem to understand that Isaac Newton wrote around 1700, when far less historical information was available than today. And of course, you give no reference to your sources for Newton. First, an accession year cannot occur in one month. Second, as shown above, Cyrus' accession year began Nisan 1, 539 and ended the last day of Adar, 538. That's so even though his physical rule began in October (Heshvan) 539 (assuming Cyrus was credited with beginning his rule when his army overthrew Babylon and killed king Belshazzar). Again you prove to have no idea what you're talking about. Again consistent with the dates I've given. Based on what reasoning, in view of the Watch Tower approved dates shown above? This sentence fragment is gobble-de-goop. Not according to recognized historians and Mommy Watch Tower. Another meaningless sentence fragment. So Mommy Watch Tower is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. I certainly agree, but not on this basis. You have a better method? Let's see you explain it. Another ignorant sentence fragment. Perhaps you should take a hint from scholar JW and use Grammarly. Wrong, in view of the above information. How about after number 1? So does Mommy Watch Tower. What of it? Yep, totally clueless. Proved by your quotation of "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)", which I partially reproduced above. You other jpg here is unreadable, and since you don't even give a source reference, irrelevant. That's neither here nor there. We're talking about Cyrus. No one knows, since the Bible given virtually no information, nor do secular sources. Darius is irrelevant. [ Irrelevant information regarding Darius snipped ] What an ignorant claim. That's not even what I said. I said this: The Jews and other captives would have known that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives, based on knowledge of his military conquests all around the Near East. This misrepresentation is sterotypical of JW apologists. Sometimes it's done because the apologist has little reading comprehension. Sometimes it's done out of sheer malice and desperation. LOL! LOL even more! In addition to Grammarly, you need a spell checker. AlanF

TrueTomHarley wrote: :: You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower. "With thankful hearts we acknowledge God’s mercy and gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah’s organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God."--"The Watchtower", May 1, 1957, p. 285 :: Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action! "Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?"--Matt. 33:23 See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely. Done. :: You obviously have no clue what evidence is. "these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."--Jer. 25:11 "Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation."--scholar JW Evidence: "these nations" is plural and refers both to the Jews and to the nations round about. From one paraphrase of Hitchens you manage to make this conclusion? You haven't even read their books. "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating."--Prov. 18:13 AlanF

Both Jeffro and I have explained all this in great detail. The fact that you don't read it at all, or that you don't seem to retain what you read, does not change that. As I've explained above and in the link I've given a dozen times, there were up to nearly six months for the preparation and the journey from Nisan 538 BCE. The journey was about four months, assuming that other biblical references to a similar journey can be used. That leaves nearly two months for preparation. And that assumes that the Jews were unaware of Cyrus' general practice of releasing captives, which they would have known of since Cyrus had been marching around the Near East for quite a few years. So they could have had a preparation time of up to seven months. What do you think could not be accomplished in two to seven months? Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action! AlanF