607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[Witness]

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

We have clear instructions on how elders must be chosen - no females.  So if an anointed were on earth now in human form (before obtaining her heavenly calling where there will be no biological females - should they then serve as elders - now? 

Firstly, anointed ones can be sealed while on earth. 2 Cor 1:22; 2 Pet 1:19

Secondly, we have the example of Deborah, a prophetess.  Judges 4:4

In 1 Cor 14:34, Paul says, women cannot teach, “according to the law”. He eventually drew away from teaching according to the Jewish law, which viewed women as unclean. 

The examples we have that Jesus abolished this practice is found in Matt 9:20-22 (Eph 2:15,16)

In Gal 2:21 and 3:1,2 Paul said it is through the hearing of faith, not the works of the law that the Spirit is received. 

Col 2:20-22 – “If you died with Christ to the elements of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations; “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”?  All these regulations refer to what is destined to perish by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines.”

I can’t see the law which was embellished with Pharisaical doctrine phasing out immediately.  But through Paul’s writings, we see the change.

Rom 16:1,2 -  “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.  So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help. For indeed she has been a benefactor of many—and of me also.”

1 Cor 11:4 - "Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head;  but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head”  

In 1 Cor 11:2-15, you’ll see that Paul began rationalizing on the need for woman to wear a head covering.  Her hair is a symbol of glory; a symbol of authority.  “For her hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.” 

A prophet teaches, and it is one of the many gifts within anointed Body.  Rom 12:6-8 

“The next day we left and came to Caesarea, where we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the Seven, and stayed with him.  This man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.”  Acts 21:8,9

"I wish all of you spoke in other tongues, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up."  1 Cor 14:5

Gal 3:28  "There is no (literal) Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This wasn’t written in the future tense, but the present.

 

[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

[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

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Firstly, anointed ones can be sealed while on earth. 2 Cor 1:22; 2 Pet 1:19

Secondly, we have the example of Deborah, a prophetess.  Judges 4:4

In 1 Cor 14:34, Paul says, women cannot teach, “according to the law”. He eventually drew away from teaching according to the Jewish law, which viewed women as unclean. 

The examples we have that Jesus abolished this practice is found in Matt 9:20-22 (Eph 2:15,16)

In Gal 2:21 and 3:1,2 Paul said it is through the hearing of faith, not the works of the law that the Spirit is received. 

Col 2:20-22 – “If you died with Christ to the elements of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations; “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”?  All these regulations refer to what is destined to perish by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines.”

I can’t see the law which was embellished with Pharisaical doctrine phasing out immediately.  But through Paul’s writings, we see the change.

Rom 16:1,2 -  “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.  So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help. For indeed she has been a benefactor of many—and of me also.”

1 Cor 11:4 - "Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head;  but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head”  

In 1 Cor 11:2-15, you’ll see that Paul began rationalizing on the need for woman to wear a head covering.  Her hair is a symbol of glory; a symbol of authority.  “For her hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.” 

A prophet teaches, and it is one of the many gifts within anointed Body.  Rom 12:6-8 

“The next day we left and came to Caesarea, where we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the Seven, and stayed with him.  This man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.”  Acts 21:8,9

"I wish all of you spoke in other tongues, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up."  1 Cor 14:5

Gal 3:28  "There is no (literal) Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This wasn’t written in the future tense, but the present.

 

This is all very nice but waaaaay off topic

[scholar JW]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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?

 

 

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. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. 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. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538  or before the spring of 537BCE

scholar JW emeritus

 

[scholar JW]

allensmith28

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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

This is nonsense. 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. 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. 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.

scholar JW emeritus

[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

[Witness]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

This is all very nice but waaaaay off topic

Can't argue that at all.  

[TrueTomHarley]

42 minutes ago, Anna said:

This is off topic too. There is a point at which one realizes there is absolutely no point in discussion.

As I recall, there was also something about the composition of the driveway, too. It was not the ordinary blacktop. 

and......the house number.....was........607!

Take it, guys! I'm off this thread!

[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

[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

[Foreigner]

Jeremiah 25:1-11New International Version (NIV)

Seventy Years of Captivity

25 The word came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the (1)fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, 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 son of Amon king of Judah until this very day—the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened.

^4 And though the Lord has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention. ^5 They said, “Turn now, each of you, from your evil ways and your evil practices, and you can stay in the land the Lord gave to you and your ancestors for ever and ever. ^6 Do not follow other gods to serve and worship them; do not arouse my anger with what your hands have made. Then I will not harm you.”

^7 “But you did not listen to me,” declares the Lord, “and you have aroused my anger with what your hands have made, and you have brought harm to yourselves.”

^8 Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: “Because you have not listened to my words, ^9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,” declares the Lord, “and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy^[a] them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. ^10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. ^11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

AlanF/Jeffro: ·  609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering Assyria’s final capital, Harran. Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin.

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

605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule

604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes vassal King to Babylon. Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.* (Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)
* The ‘Daniel’ character is presented as a representative of the captives as a literary device.

·  598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar sieges Jerusalem.

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

(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)

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

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.

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

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

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

IsnÂ’t it a failure to suggest the 70-year servitude started in 609BC when Nebuchadnezzar wasnÂ’t king yet? How do you reconcile the same argument that faces the WT Chronology? Are we to understand, Captivity and Servitude donÂ’t mean the same thing?

Jeremiah 29:10-14New 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.

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

 “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?

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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