AlanF

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

@Arauna@Arauna

[ The usual claptrap deleted ]

Just tell Arauana what bad error she has committed. Leave your Latin phrases at home with your atheist pals, who are all very impressed with them

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

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

This scripture in Jeremia also refers to the LAND -  also read Isiah 1 which I quoted earlier in a previous contribution - the LAND would be without the usual planting. 

The root cause::  Israel's problem was not hegemony - but religious.  God did not send them to Babylon because he wanted a new ruler for them on a whim - it was a punishment because they had defiled the LAND with bad religious practice and not keeping the Sabbaths.

So after 70 years when they return and the land is becoming active like before  

Already debunked.

AlanF

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

The most accurate way to test the date of 607 BCE is to go to the Greek sources (olympiads) - they are more accurate and the PIVITOL date is the death of Cyrus from which on can determine the length of his rule and how long it would take the Israelite nation to return to their LAND.

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

AlanF

Arauna wrote:

Quote

 

:: And if you claim that Darius ruled before Cyrus began his 1st regnal year in 538, y

If you read my contribution  (above) you will notice that Darius was appointed as soon as the city was taken  - it would become a satrap in a greater empire - hence the title of king of Babylon, Sumer and Akkad and of the four corners of the world - an imperial title. He took the title in Nissan 538 BCE.

 

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.

Quote

No proof of this unless you were one of the privileged to be there and hear the gossip!

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.

Quote

As a scholar you would know that besides those trained to do official work for the government - most of the other Jews were stationed at the river Chebar and they would not be privy to palace gossip!

Of course -- unless Daniel or other officials decided to tell them.

Quote

I have another hypothesis:  Daniel was a man to be trusted and knew when to speak and not to speak (otherwise he would not have survived so many years under the different tyrants ruling  Babylon) - a man to be trusted and who knew his place.

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.

Quote

I would say - there is a greater possibility that he would wait until he was "officially" allowed to speak.

Pure speculation.

But my speculation is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah!

AlanF

Foreigner wrote:

Quote

 

Nana Fofana:: And, so as not to neglect 538

Here lies "Alanf'" and JWinsider" argument. That 538BC shouldn't be overlooked. The Jews received the edict in early 538BC and returned and arrived in late 538BC, thus fulfilling the scriptual70 years in 539BC as indicated by ALANF's friend and colleague Jeffro, not 538BC.

 

So far so good.

Quote

Normal people should be able to add or subtract. 538BC+70=608BC. 1 year more than what the Watchtower has been claiming for a century. 539BC+70=609BC, NOT 608BC. 2 years more than what the Watchtower has been claiming for a century now.

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.

Quote

This whole time, COJ proved nothing since the GENTILE TIMES would have started with the death of King Josiah in 609BC.

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.

Quote

So, 1911 or 1914 when Jesus sat on the throne can still be applied, within a 3-year difference.

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!

Quote

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE RAYMOND FRANZ. That he jumped the gun, on sheer speculation.

Pure gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

23 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Just to put things into perspective to those that get confused. AlanF, Ann O'Maly, and JWinsider, claims from 609BC-587BC=22 years. Where does the 19 years in SCRIPTURE, the SAME 3-year difference being argued about for the WT chronology, fall, then? SPECULATION IS ALL YOU HAVE!!!!!

More incoherent gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

Arauna wrote:

Quote

AlanF is too quick to "poo" other people’s thoughts but I see he makes a lot of wild hmm… “scholarly” statements for which he has no proof for either!

I either have given or can give proof for what I say.

Quote

They just lived in cities??  LOL Get real AlanF...  it was not 2017 AD …..but 537 BCE.

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.

Quote

By your comments I can see that you do not have any understanding of how the people lived....

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.

Quote

 

Dear AllanF this is for you:

When one reads into the scriptures what you ‘want’ it is called speculation.

 

It's also called eisegesis -- something that Watch Tower followers are very good at.

Quote

I quoted several scriptures referring to ‘70 years’ and you concluded it only refers to ‘hegemony’.

Right, because that is what the appropriate scriptures actually say. Of course, I have repeatedly quoted them to prove this.

Quote

Please look again at:-  Jeremiah 25:11 refers to the LAND which must be desolate for 70 years. “And this whole LAND shall be a desolation.”

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.

Quote

Most of the inhabitants were removed so there was no large scale planting and the land was not kept clean of wild animals.  When they went back to their land they had to clear it to start planting and get on with everyday life – as prophesied. It does not mean the land was barren of people but that  it was laid waste.

Yes, we know all that.

Quote

 

Why is your reasoning that these scriptures ONLY refer to ‘hegemony’ faulty?

When in doubt, always go back to :- root cause:  what was the root cause for their exile? Definitely not because Jehovah had a whim to put them under foreign hegemony without a reason…. The reason was because of the law regarding the LAND which must lie fallow every 7th year; together with this, they were not obeying other laws…. and the land on which they were living, was defiled – according to scripture above.

 

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.

Quote

From whatever angle one looks at this debate: from hegemony side, or the land (Jerusalem) being desolate, there is more than enough evidence for 537BCE.

There is ZERO evidence, just speculation. And you've given zero evidence, just speculation that contradicts many clear scriptures.

Quote

Cyrus entered from the north when the Tigris river was lower (September) and the battle of Opis took place in October 539 BCE so he could get control of the Median wall. Nabonidus fled to Sippar.  Cyrus followed him to Sippar and so the hegemony was not ‘complete’ while Nabonidus was free.

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 . >>

Quote

He later gave himself up in Babylon because he had no allies.  Cyrus went ahead and appointed his Satrap, Darius the Mede, and the administrators of the new government.  Then in, 538 BCE, when ALL Babylonia was in his control, Cyrus came back to assume the imperial title “King of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four corners of the world"”  ….

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.

Quote

All Babylonian kings were inaugurated ONLY in the temple of Marduk since the earliest of ancient times on New Year’s day – some of the Syrian kings were also inaugurated in this temple.  So it was on the following New Year that he took this title 538 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 ]

Quote

Cyrus thereafter issued his Decree in 538 BCE for the return of the Jews. This date is corroborated all over the internet…..go check it out.

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.

Quote

 

So what “process” did this repatriation involve?

In 538 BCE: . . .

 

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.

Quote

The date of 537BCE cannot be disproved because no one knows exactly how quickly the Jews moved to Jerusalem.

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.

Quote

Those moved by Jehovah’s spirit could have been so excited that they organized themselves faster than we would expect. Reasonableness and logical thinking of the steps needed to start a new life in a neglected place, helps to make the right conclusion.

Indeed.

Quote

But if you are not reasonable then one makes wild statements about 1914, for example:  the scope of disasters in the 100 years before 1914.

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 .

Quote

This has no substance

Where's your evidence? I'll warn you, though: everything the Watch Tower has published on this has been thoroughly debunked.

Quote

and comes from a deep desire to claim that JWs are wrong about 1914.

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.

Quote

Whether by accident or not – the evidence on ground zero proves that Jehovah helped the slave to understand this.

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?

Quote

Reputable historians that are scholars have said the 1914 was the year the world changed forever.

So what? There have been many turning points in history. Some more significant than 1914.

Quote

To watch these fights about 1914 by such early books as written in 1823 to me is silly (archeology was not properly established then).

Why don't you write to Mommy Watch Tower and tell them to back off?

Quote

So when you argue about these things it is a ploy away from the subject (but related) to discredit JWs early history…..

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?

Quote

If anyone looks back at the early history of any organization one can discredit it because we look at it with the knowledge we have at present…. which is not a fair and proper judgement because one should understand the ‘era’ they were living in to make this judgment.

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.

Quote

(I think they did pretty well if one thinks that they made many connections just on the knowledge from the Bible without archeology.)

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!

Quote

An awakening – but all the puzzle was not yet fitted……they did a good job with what they had….because they had a love for the bible and God.

Lots of people claim such love, and look what that has accomplished in the world.

Quote

At the time the early JWs wrote in all sincerity up to 130 years ago – they did not think that some ‘modern’ scholar would come a hundred years later and ‘nitpick’ every word to check out the ‘semantics’.

So what? The point is that they always claimed that God guided/inspired them and they treated those with different views as heretics.

Quote

The archeology available today has only come through the translation of thousands of tablets – especially the last 40 years…..  

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.

Quote

Reign of Cyrus (538BCE when he was crowned king of all the earth):

Again: Nisan 538 BCE was the beginning of Cyrus' 1st regnal year -- not his accession to the throne of Babylon.

Quote

Excerpt from Josephus: In the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity

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.

Quote

Conditions during the captivity - ALLEN F has it wrong!

Nope. Again read my above quotations.

Quote

The boys from the ruling class were trained at the palace of Nebuchadnezzar.  The largest settlements were villages located along the Chebar River (which was an irrigation channel for agriculture).  The Jews (Juda) were allowed to live together in communities and they were allowed to farm and make all sorts of things to earn a living.  Some became rich…  They needed to keep their farming skills for their return…to work the land again.  They would have planted vegetables and feed for animals.

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.

Quote

One can get almost 4 generations in 70 years – if they did not keep up their skills for farming their children will go back to Israel with no skills to sow etc.

Except that the many "people of the land" that remained in Judah forgot how to grow food, right?

Quote

I see Jehovah’s hand in the circumstance that many of the Judeans were placed at the Chebar River and Ezekiel was there with them - if I remember correctly.

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

35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

If you read my contribution  (above) you will notice that Darius was appointed as soon as the city was taken  - it would become a satrap in a greater empire - hence the title of king of Babylon, Sumer and Akkad and of the four corners of the world - an imperial title. He took the title in Nissan 538 BCE.

 

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

6 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

There you have it, folks! In black and white. The MOST BRILLANT person of all time, just SOLVED this century-old QUESTION. When did the GENTILE TIMES, began?

I

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

AlanF

8 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

. . . I will try to document better so as not to be subject to  gobble-de-goop missiles . . .

 

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

AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

If it's "Babylon's domination" you really, really  think we must fulfill according to scripture {not saying you're wrong, btw} what about the  'fact'- ...  that Jerusalem came under siege in 609, and remained under siege until it fell in 607?

No one is saying that Jerusalem came under siege in 609. Where are you getting that from?

Quote

{to use the term in the way that AlanF does in a post above, though this 'fact' is not established as a fact in the way that AlanF establishes something as a fact, i.e. by simply stating something, thereby establishing an 'understanding', if you know what I mean? ,  an 'understanding'  that the something stated is a fact,  a hypostasis of its ousios, by virtue of who has stated it, when AlanF is the stater?}

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." >>

Quote

And then, for fulfilling the 70 years of desolation

The 70 years refers to a time of Babylonian supremacy, not of desolation of anything (Jer. 25:11-12; 27; 29:10)

Quote

during which the land kept Sabbath to fulfill the 70 years, during the 70 years it was desolated, what if we considered 607 until 537 for that time period?

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

13 hours ago, Foreigner said:

. . . Or can we agree, suggesting intelligence is a futile endeavor, so, that, everyone can drop the sarcasm about being intelligent, when they show the contrary

 

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

AlanF

Foreigner wrote:

Quote

 

. . . fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. 2 So Jeremiah the prophet said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem: 3 For twenty-three years—from the thirteenth year of Josiah . . . until this very day—the. . .

. . . 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . .

AlanF/Jeffro: 609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering Assyria’s final capital, Harran.

 

Correct. That is what we have said.

Quote

Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin.

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.

Quote

·  608 King Jehoiakim begins his 11-year rule in Jerusalem.

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.

Quote

605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule

So far so good.

Quote

604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes vassal King to Babylon. Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures. . .

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.

Quote

(Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)

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!"

Quote

 

·  598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar sieges Jerusalem.

·  597 (March) Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.

 

So far so good.

Quote

(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)

Again we see ignorance of English on display.

Quote

Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!!

LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?

Quote

1.       608BC-4=604BC Does this mean scripture has it wrong, since King Nebuchadnezzar accession year was in 605BC, or is that just rhetorical to mean 605/4BC with the official regnal year being 604BC, and the figure above is at best confusing.

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?

Quote

Jeremiah prophesized

The word is "prophesied".

Quote

23 years from the 13th year of King Josiah. Secular Chronology places this king at 641/0BC.

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!

Quote

Jeremiah started his prophecy from 627/6BC for 23 years. 627-23=604BC

Wrong.

Quote

When, was King Nebuchadnezzar made King by secular reckoning JWinsider?

Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.

Quote

Isn’t it a failure to suggest the 70-year servitude started in 609BC when Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t king yet?

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.

Quote

How do you reconcile the same argument that faces the WT Chronology? Are we to understand, Captivity and Servitude don’t mean the same thing?

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."

Quote

 

Jeremiah 29:10-14 New International Version (NIV)

10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place.

 

Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".

Quote

Isn’t all this mudding

The word is "muddling" or "muddying".

Quote

the waters to confuse people into believing something that is obviously NOT TRUE? When was Prince Nebuchadnezzar made KING? Therefore, wouldn’t it be conceivable, those who boast about their intelligence, are simply playing to an empty room? JTR!

Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

Quote

“IF” 607BC is NOT acceptable, and *impossible* because people use SECULAR HISTORY to show Prince Nebuchadnezzar was NOT KING in 607BC? And this is the sole reason why the Watchtower has been criticized and defamed? Then, when, did 609BC become acceptable to all the skeptics?

 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.

Quote

 

Jeremiah-2- 25.jpg

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-9/

 

These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
 

Quote

 

Dates for the 70 years

The first deportation of Jews to Babylon (which included Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego) began the 70 years of captivity. Bible commentaries identify this as occurring between 607 and 605 B.C. Various sources say the date of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem occurred between 539 and 536 B.C

 

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.
 
 

Quote

Since we are referring to BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and NOT secular chronology, then what kind of intelligence is being referred to here, when 607BC is flatly “denied” but 609BC is *perfectly* acceptable.

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.

Quote

WHEN DID PRINCE NEBUCHADNEZZAR BECOME KING? BY SECULAR CHRONOLOGY*************

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.

Quote

This is nonsense.

Wrong, as shown in my post above.

Quote

Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it.

What of it?

Quote

This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return.

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.

Quote

The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context.

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?  

Quote

Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.

Wow! Finally we see a response that isn't a misrepresention, bald assertion or flat out lie, but recognizes the logic of my post.

Quote

However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year'

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!"

Quote

but the Chronicler does not state what month it was.

By that "reasoning", every date in 538/537 should be rejected.

But finally we see a bit of rational argument:

Quote

Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made.

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.

Quote

The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it

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.

Quote

so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE

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

4 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

I read it before. There’s someone out there, which goes by *RIVERS* that has made the same sales pitch... Of course Darius the Mede is important, even by scholar standards.

. . .

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

AlanF

15 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

But, until Darius, the Mede can be, factually, identified? It doesn’t matter what theories are available.

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

3 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Yes, ANNA, and JWinsider, and James have told me. I write on the fly. Your ignorance is your own stupidity. If I get "deleted" for insulting this person, see you in court!!!!! PETE!!!

Continuing to entertain us.

AlanF

5 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

ON the rest of you egotistical claims, I will state, the same thing you stated to Scholar? word, for word.

Don't bother me with nonsensical calculations.  It's clear you haven't done enough research just like COJ, and your bluster is meaningless to argue.

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

Quote

JEFFRO: ALANF: 539 Darius the Mede conquers Babylon (September). Cyrus becomes King (October). Persia replaces Babylon as world power. Seventy years of nations serving Babylon ends.

Wow! You do have a modicum of reading comprehension.

Quote

This has always been your problem, hasn’t it?

It's not a problem for me, Jeffro or any competent scholar.

Quote

What was Cyrus accession year, versus the first regnal year in EZRA?

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.

Quote

If Newton hypotheses for the Accession year in 539BC fell in January,

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.

Quote

and Cyrus entered Babylon in October, then, where does that leave the accession year, NOT in Nisan 538BC?

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).

Quote

Then, Cyrus first regnal year in Ezra would fall on October 538BC. That has been the worse contradiction by researchers. Then Cyrus 2nd year would be what? 537BC

Again you prove to have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

 

Zondervan illustrate bible dictionary

. . .

Babylon fell to the Persians on October 12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus in the first year of his reign issued a decree permitting the Jews to return and rebuild the temple (2 Chr. 36:22; Ezra 1:1). On the basis of Nisan regnal years, this would have been 538. [p.1104]

 

Again consistent with the dates I've given.

Quote

If Cyrus made his edict in 538BC, it would have been after October 538BC,

Based on what reasoning, in view of the Watch Tower approved dates shown above?

Quote

Cyrus Official Regnal year recorded in EZRA.

This sentence fragment is gobble-de-goop.

Quote

It is seer speculation what Cyrus accession year was, and who recorded it by what MEANS.

Not according to recognized historians and Mommy Watch Tower.

Quote

Babylonian, Persian, Hebrew time reckoning.

Another meaningless sentence fragment.

Quote

It’s an intellectual DISHONESTY to say Cyrus accession year was reckoned from spring to spring,

So Mommy Watch Tower is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. I certainly agree, but not on this basis.

Quote

and then suggest the chronicler of the bible used that SAME METHOD.

You have a better method? Let's see you explain it.

Quote

According to this hypothetical Nisan regnal year.

Another ignorant sentence fragment. Perhaps you should take a hint from scholar JW and use Grammarly.

Quote

Then you can use your frivolous attempt of synchronizing your fast-paced theory. There, goes 1 of your 7 months that ends up in 537BC.

Wrong, in view of the above information.

Quote

Where, could, you possibly put, number 2?

How about after number 1?

Quote

Once again, this is SECULAR DATA that every opposer embraces!!!

So does Mommy Watch Tower.

Quote

It would also sync to the time of the Olympiads. OCT-539BC to OCT-538BC 1 year, OCT-538BC-OCT-537BC year 2. By your rules of secular chronology.

What of it?
 
 

Quote

So, even if we went with your theory, you and Jeffro are completely WRONG!!!! By biblical standards of EZRA that you claim to defend.

Yep, totally clueless.

Quote

 

JEFFRO_ALANF: ·  538 Cyrus makes decree for Jews to return home. End of the ‘7 weeks’, Cyrus acts as ‘Messiah‘ (literally “anointed one”), per Isaiah 45:1.

·  538 (October) Jews repatriated in cities, back in land 49 years after Jerusalem destroyed (seven Sabbaths of years), making the following year a Jubilee year.

 

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.

Quote

 

Ezra 5:13 Context: Tattenai's Letter to Darius

13However, in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, King Cyrus issued a decree to rebuild this house of God.

This means what about Darius? HE WAS NO LONGER IN CHARGE OF BABYLON by October of 538BC.

 

That's neither here nor there. We're talking about Cyrus.

Quote

Now if you want to get technical? Then look at the inscription of Darius the Mede. Who was this person? Technically, Darius held the Kingship under the direction of Cyrus until October of 538BC. This would also confirm Cyrus first official regnal year. Or coregency.

No one knows, since the Bible given virtually no information, nor do secular sources. Darius is irrelevant.

[ Irrelevant information regarding Darius snipped ]

Quote

Now, as for the Jewish people knowing ahead of time what Cyrus was going to declare, it’s NOT what is written in scripture. If Cyrus didn’t know until God moved his heart to declare the edict, then and only then would the Jews, have been made aware.

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.

Quote

Even critics of other published works! Get it right once in a while.

LOL!

Quote

So, you’re WRONG!! To think you have it down pat with Cyrus 1st regnal year. Don’t you ever use God’s word in vain with me, junior? Your computations and bible understanding belong in the kiddy table.

LOL even more!

Quote

Just like I told *JEFFRO* in JWN, if you have a degree or doctorate, RETURN it. I will extend the same curtesy to you.

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!

Quote

See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely.

"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.

Quote

Quick, someone find me a scripture of how a contemptuous person comes to ruin.

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.

Quote

The fact that he worships the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens Trinity makes it even more interesting.

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

45 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

[ Gobble-de-goop snipped ]

Then it becomes, what happened between Nisan 538BC March/April to Nisan 537BC March/April.

Here, a great opposer, JEFFRO proposes, that in Nisan 538BC the Jews left home, and they arrived on OCT-538BC. This has been the theme. All in one year. So, this means, as soon as Cyrus declared his DECREE, everyone packed and rushed home in one day. If Cyrus didn’t know what God had in store for him until HE received the inspiration? Once again, how would the Jews know, when to get ready, get set, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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