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

[AlanF]

scholar JW mendacious wrote:

Quote

Could you have tried a much longer post?

Sure, if you like.

Quote

Methinks a touch of desperation is on the horizon.

LOL! This dainty was not for you, my sweet!
     

Quote

 

:: I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year?

I am fully aware of the 586/7BCE controversy within scholarship so I do not need information about it from you.

 

Then why did you challenge me about it? You're well aware that I'm fully cognizant of most details.

Quote

The simple fact of the matter is whatever the reasons scholars have not solved the problem.

Deny, deny, deny the facts; that's all you can manage.

Of course, you never offer any evidence.

What problems have real scholars not solved that "WT scholars" have?

Quote

WT scholars have solved the problem since 1944 using the same regnal data albeit with a different methodology. Neb's 18/19th year is well accommodated within our scheme of Chronology.

As I have already proved, they have not solved the problems -- they have ignored them.
That's easy to see by looking at the special problems tackled by Edwin Thiele, and tackled and solved by COJ and Rodger Young. Do you need help with this?
     

Quote

 

::  And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmH

No. Such discrepancies may have been resolved to Rodger Young's satisfaction but as his study was published in 2004 with his endorsement of 587 BCE

 

Right. And I've gone over this timetable and arguments carefully, and found that they indeed correspond with the Bible and solve the problems. You merely look at the final result and cry, "NO!"

Quote

for the Fall the question remains: Has this caused a change in OT Chronology? The answer is clearly NO!

For reasons that I've clearly explained, and you ignore.

Quote

for the simple reason that the scholarly literature published since then also endorses 586 BCE.

It took nearly a century for the scholarly community to absorb the information from cuneiform tablets brought to light in the 19th century that Nebuchadnezzar had his accession year in 605 BCE.

Quote

It is pointless providing sources that favour 587 when I could equally cite sources that prefer 586

So it's all about "authority", eh?

Wrong -- it's about evidence and valid arguments. Which you never engage in.

Quote

so we end up running around in circles for as far as I am concerned the debate continues.

That's because you rarely actually engage. Rather, you run away, hollering bare denials of facts known to all scholars. Just as you'll never engage with Rodger Young's arguments.

Quote

You say that biblical scholarship is glacial, moving slowly and I agree however it is some fourteen years since Young's thesis and nothing really has shifted.

Not a long time in scholarly circles. And as I showed, more and more scholars have taken notice.
     

Quote

 

:: We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21:

:: << Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >>

:: Going back 50 years from 537, we get to 587 BCE.

:: Given the above information, there is no reason whatsoever not to accept 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

Bunkum.

 

What's bunkum? Everything I said above is a fact. Josephus dated the Temple reconstruction to Cyrus' 2nd year. Do you deny that? Ezra dated the reconstruction to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Do you deny that? Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple was desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years. Do you deny that?

No, you can't deny those things, because they're right there in black and white in the Bible and Josephus' writings, and even Mommy Watch Tower agrees with them.

You simply don't like that these facts combine to disprove Watch Tower chronology.

Quote

Scholars prefer 537 as shown in research by Steinmann cited by you above.

That was not the point. The point was that Josephus proves 587 by simple calculation: 537 + 50 = 587.

Quote

SDA scholars prefer 536 and again Steinmann suggests 535 BCE

Argument from authority again, eh? Try using evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year?

:: This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems.

Can't you solve it? I thought you had the 'smarts'.

 

Following COJ and Young, yes, I can solve the problems.

Of course, neither you nor "Celebrated WT scholars" can even state them.

Quote

Perhaps you should research WT publications to see how the problem has been solved.

I already told you: I have, and they don't.
     

Quote

 

:: From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 186

What this table demonstrates and your comments preceding your table is the simple fact that Bible Chronology was in a state of flux and remained thus until 1994 when WT Chronology became more solidly based no doubt due to the pioneering work by Parker and Dubberstein in 1942.

 

Mostly nonsense. Watch Tower leaders claim, and have always claimed, to be guided by God. They've even claimed that some of their mistakes were due to divine providence. Obviously, they're no more guided by God than you or I. My table proves that correct chronological information has existed since the 1850s -- well before Russell or any of his sources began their prophetic speculations. If God failed to guide them to correct chronological dates and conclusions, then the best that can be said is that God does not care.

And of course, it's easy to demonstrate, simply by quoting the appropriate WTS literature from the 1940s and 1950s, that the "reasoning" used to change from 606 to 607 BCE was completely bogus.

Quote

 

:: Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article.

Correct and that was the scholarship that I alluded to

 

"Alluded to"? Such a liar! You stated:

<< and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>

This clearly implies that this reference was the basis for what "WT scholars" did.

Quote

and it is possibly the case that WT scholars were amongst the first to use such research.

"Possibly the case"? But you stated it as a fact!

Quote

Edwin Thiele published his seminal thesis on the Divided Monarchy in 1944 and that was the same year that WT Chronology was established.

And?

Quote

 

:: Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944

Well he did just that for the events in 1944 were most providential

 

LOL at the complete lack of self-awareness!

Quote

in not just in terms of the development of Bible Chronology but also in other areas that bore fruit with the production of the NWT first published in 1950.

I suppose you're alluding Fred Franz beginning his translation work for the NWT.

Quote

That decade was most fruitful for Scholarship as WT scholars had now turned Christendom's scholars upside down. Marvellous!!!!

LOL at the hyperbole.

AlanF

[AlanF]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have to agree. It's very clear that @scholar JW has been dishonest.

Based on a long record of his dishonesty, it does not look promising that he will come clean any time soon. Yet it is clear, too, that he is merely trying to express the Watch Tower Society's position. I think this makes it clear why the WTS has nearly always avoided the evidence, misrepresented the evidence, but usually just ignores the evidence. The WTS makes similar bald assertions without ever allowing the evidence to be close enough or clear enough to make a true comparison.

Well said!

AlanF

[AlanF]

JW Insider wrote:

Quote

 

And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:

• "STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914."

 

The 1925 date, of course, was the focus of the "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" campaign, and was promoted by Rutherford as the date of Armageddon, beyond any possibility of being wrong.

And of course, as was admitted in The Watchtower, Rutherford later apologized to the Bethel family for "making an ass of myself."

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

Then why did you challenge me about it? You're well aware that I'm fully cognizant of most details.

I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR.

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Deny, deny, deny the facts; that's all you can manage.

Of course, you never offer any evidence.

What problems have real scholars not solved that "WT scholars" have?

Neither do you. For starters a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, a precise date of 607 rather than the fuzzy dates of 586, 587, 588....a precise date for the Return, 537 rather than 538, 536, 535? all also fuzzy. A precise chronology of the seventy years and its description etc.

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

As I have already proved, they have not solved the problems -- they have ignored them.
That's easy to see by looking at the special problems tackled by Edwin Thiele, and tackled and solved by COJ and Rodger Young. Do you need help with this?

Well if they have provided a solid date, 607 and it must be solid because why did your guru COJ devote much of his life and his GTR of nearly 400 pages to the subject. Only a fool would devote so much for something so little. Thiele and Young have tackled issues that only arose because of the methodology they have employed.

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Right. And I've gone over this timetable and arguments carefully, and found that they indeed correspond with the Bible and solve the problems. You merely look at the final result and cry, "NO!

So now you are an expert in Decision Analysis and indeed if such an analysis has the solution then how come it has made little impact on scholarship over the last 14 years? We had the final result in 1944 and cried 'Prais Jah!'

34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

For reasons that I've clearly explained, and you ignore

You have explained the reasons but as I have said before nothing has changed within scholarship so the debates continues to rage. I do not ignore the matter because I have had a longtime interest in these debates and try to keep pace with biblical scholarship. Do you?

38 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It took nearly a century for the scholarly community to absorb the information from cuneiform tablets brought to light in the 19th century that Nebuchadnezzar had his accession year in 605 BCE.

Neb's acc year is falsified by the 'seventy years' so must be adjusted some twenty years in order to harmonize with the Bible Chronology.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So it's all about "authority", eh?

Wrong -- it's about evidence and valid arguments. Which you never engage in

It is authority rather than evidence that has always impressed you as shown in your Bio. Evidence and valid arguments can be simplistic because both sides claim to champion such tools rather it comes down to methodology and interpretation.

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's because you rarely actually engage. Rather, you run away, hollering bare denials of facts known to all scholars. Just as you'll never engage with Rodger Young's arguments.

How do then do you engage? Have you written to Young and Steinmann about some validation of your 538 BCE thesis? What commentaries have you consulted in relation to your thesis? I have no need to engage with Young at this point in time but I could if necessary.

51 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Not a long time in scholarly circles. And as I showed, more and more scholars have taken notice.

Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support.

53 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What's bunkum? Everything I said above is a fact. Josephus dated the Temple reconstruction to Cyrus' 2nd year. Do you deny that? Ezra dated the reconstruction to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Do you deny that? Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple was desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years. Do you deny that?

No, you can't deny those things, because they're right there in black and white in the Bible and Josephus' writings, and even Mommy Watch Tower agrees with them.

You simply don't like that these facts combine to disprove Watch Tower chronology.

Really, Josephus simply states the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year which would have been 536 BCE. Ezra dates the Temple's foundation in the second month not in Cyrus' second year but 'after they came to the house of the true God' which can be interpreted as the year of the Return. You assume that both are synonymous but all that can be said is that both give different time formulas from different perspectives of the same event-foundation of the Temple. We accept the regnal data supplied by Josephus relating to the Fall including the Temple laying in obscurity for fifty years but do you except the many references by Josephus about the nature and timing of the seventy years? Or do you 'cherry pick' Josephus?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

That was not the point. The point was that Josephus proves 587 by simple calculation: 537 + 50 = 587

No. It should be 537 + 70= 607

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Argument from authority again, eh? Try using evidence

Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Following COJ and Young, yes, I can solve the problems.

Of course, neither you nor "Celebrated WT scholars" can even state them.

There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I already told you: I have, and they don't

Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Mostly nonsense. Watch Tower leaders claim, and have always claimed, to be guided by God. They've even claimed that some of their mistakes were due to divine providence. Obviously, they're no more guided by God than you or I. My table proves that correct chronological information has existed since the 1850s -- well before Russell or any of his sources began their prophetic speculations. If God failed to guide them to correct chronological dates and conclusions, then the best that can be said is that God does not care.

And of course, it's easy to demonstrate, simply by quoting the appropriate WTS literature from the 1940s and 1950s, that the "reasoning" used to change from 606 to 607 BCE was completely bogus.

1

Nonsense. You are quite prepared to acknowledge that scholarship evolves albeit slowly and even those early chronologies that you have tabulated and compare with current knowledge proves this and yet you are not prepared to give WT scholars the same benefit or courtesy. You chided WT on your website Bio for scholastic dishonesty but refuse to look at yourself in the mirror. Give me a break!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

"Alluded to"? Such a liar! You stated:

<< and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>

This clearly implies that this reference was the basis for what "WT scholars" did

No it does not. I am simply providing a context for the basis of a revised scheme of Chronology published in 1944. The fact is that there was scholarship emerging in relation to Bible Chronology first in 1942 and later in 1944 with Thiele's paper and continued into the fifties.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

And

Context, Alan, Context. Get it?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I suppose you're alluding Fred Franz beginning his translation work for the NWT

Correct

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL at the hyperbol

A little rhetorical flourish to entertain the reader.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW wrote:

Quote

 

:: Then why did you challenge me about it? You're well aware that I'm fully cognizant of most details.

I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR.

 

LOL! You challenge me, and then deny you challenged me, because you think that denial is a defense.
     

Quote

 

:: Deny, deny, deny the facts; that's all you can manage.

:: Of course, you never offer any evidence.

:: What problems have real scholars not solved that "WT scholars" have?

Neither do you.

 

So you admit that you never offer any evidence. I'll print out your admission and have it encased in gold.

Quote

For starters a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, a precise date of 607 rather than the fuzzy dates of 586, 587, 588....

Still lying. The evidence is in. 587 BCE is the date. Period.

Quote

a precise date for the Return, 537 rather than 538, 536, 535? all also fuzzy.

Still lying. Ezra and Josephus together pin it to 538. Period.

Quote

A precise chronology of the seventy years and its description etc.

The end date is pegged by Jeremiah and Daniel: 539 BCE. Period.

The start date is fuzzy because the Bible itself does not define it.

Remember that speculations by you and Mommy Watch Tower do not define what the Bible does not.

Quote

 

:: As I have already proved, they have not solved the problems -- they have ignored them.

:: That's easy to see by looking at the special problems tackled by Edwin Thiele, and tackled and solved by COJ and Rodger Young. Do you need help with this?

Well if they have provided a solid date, 607 and it must be solid because why did your guru COJ devote much of his life and his GTR of nearly 400 pages to the subject. Only a fool would devote so much for something so little. Thiele and Young have tackled issues that only arose because of the methodology they have employed.

 

Complete gibberish. You always resort to this when you know you've lost the battle.
     

Quote

 

:: Right. And I've gone over this timetable and arguments carefully, and found that they indeed correspond with the Bible and solve the problems. You merely look at the final result and cry, "NO!

So now you are an expert in Decision Analysis

 

That's Rodger Young's area, and I've simply checked that he made solid, biblical and secular arguments.

You've done no such thing, and you don't even claim you have.

Quote

and indeed if such an analysis has the solution then how come it has made little impact on scholarship over the last 14 years?

I already told you several times: for the world of scholarship to come up to speed on almost anything takes a long time.

But that's not the point. The point is that Rodger Young's arguments are demonstrably correct. And neither you, nor "celebrated WT scholars", nor anyone else I'm aware of, have proved his arguments wrong.

Quote

We had the final result in 1944 and cried 'Prais Jah!'

Riiiight. Just like Mommy Watch Tower had "the generation of 1914" tied up nice and tidy in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And then changed everything in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s.
     

Quote

 

:: For reasons that I've clearly explained, and you ignore

You have explained the reasons but as I have said before nothing has changed within scholarship so the debates continues to rage.

 

Not so far as I can see. What we do see is various current authors quoting outdated material, simply because there is so much outdated material out there that it takes a long time for people to realize it's outdated and come up to speed on the new stuff.

It's like how some people still use the outdated picture of an atom as a sort of miniature solar system, with a central nucleus and electrons spinning around in their orbits. But this picture was abandoned by physicists in the 1920s. Yet now, almost 100 years later, a lot of the public still hasn't got it right.

Quote

I do not ignore the matter

Yes you do. I doubt that you can point to any forum where you've gone over any actual arguments made by Rodger Young.

Quote

because I have had a longtime interest in these debates and try to keep pace with biblical scholarship. Do you?

I'm trying, so far partly unsuccessfully, to move on to more interesting things.  When people like you show up, I just can't help myself.
     

Quote

 

:: It took nearly a century for the scholarly community to absorb the information from cuneiform tablets brought to light in the 19th century that Nebuchadnezzar had his accession year in 605 BCE.

Neb's acc year is falsified by the 'seventy years'

 

Back to your standard circular argument.

Quote

so must be adjusted some twenty years in order to harmonize with the Bible Chronology.

Wrong. Both the Bible and secular history agree that the 70 years ended with the overthrow of Babylon in October, 539 BCE. The book of Daniel -- which you obviously reject -- is quite clear on this, and so is Jeremiah.
     

Quote

 

:: So it's all about "authority", eh?

:: Wrong -- it's about evidence and valid arguments. Which you never engage in

It is authority rather than evidence that has always impressed you as shown in your Bio.

 

Nonsense. If my bio shows anything, it's that I respect only evidence, and not authority.

Only a reprehensible, pathological liar like you could turn that on its head without blushing.

Quote

Evidence and valid arguments can be simplistic because both sides claim to champion such tools rather it comes down to methodology and interpretation.

Except, of course, that we've seen little from you of methodology and valid interpretation -- all you can manage is "Mommy says so!"
     

Quote

 

:: That's because you rarely actually engage. Rather, you run away, hollering bare denials of facts known to all scholars. Just as you'll never engage with Rodger Young's arguments.

How do then do you engage?

 

Mostly on Internet forums.

Quote

Have you written to Young and Steinmann about some validation of your 538 BCE thesis?

I don't need to. The evidence is simple and speaks for itself. And I've seen scholars point out the same thing.

Quote

What commentaries have you consulted in relation to your thesis? I have no need to engage with Young at this point in time but I could if necessary.

Again, Josephus and Ezra alone validate what I've said. You have yet to offer a single valid objection. All you manage is pure denial. Mommy has taught you well.
     

Quote

 

::  Not a long time in scholarly circles. And as I showed, more and more scholars have taken notice.

Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support.

 

Sigh. Repeating defeated arguments will not make them true.
     

Quote

 

:: What's bunkum? Everything I said above is a fact. Josephus dated the Temple reconstruction to Cyrus' 2nd year. Do you deny that? Ezra dated the reconstruction to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Do you deny that? Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple was desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years. Do you deny that?

:: No, you can't deny those things, because they're right there in black and white in the Bible and Josephus' writings, and even Mommy Watch Tower agrees with them.

:: You simply don't like that these facts combine to disprove Watch Tower chronology.

Really, Josephus simply states the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year which would have been 536 BCE.

 

Lying by omission yet again. Even Mommy Watch Tower acknowledges that Cyrus' 2nd year ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE through the end of Adar, 536 BCE, by Babylonian-style dating. And we all agree that the Return occurred in Tishri, 538 or 537 BCE, which means that the FIRST year of the Return ended immediately before Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE. Thus the SECOND year of their return ran from Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE until immediately before Tishri 1 of 537 or 536 BCE. Thus the 2nd month (always numbered with Nisan = 1) was Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE. But Iyyar of 536 comes in the THIRD year of the Return, and Iyyar of 537 comes in the SECOND year of the Return, so a claim of Iyyar of 536 contradicts Ezra. Therefore you cannot have an objection, since my "thesis" meets the Biblical and secular criteria.

If you disagree with the above, then see if you can come up with your own timetable for these events. I.e., exactly when was the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return, and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus, and how do they all fit together?

Quote

Ezra dates the Temple's foundation in the second month not in Cyrus' second year but 'after they came to the house of the true God' which can be interpreted as the year of the Return.

Exactly. Since Ezra clearly indicates that by the FIRST month of the year after the Return, namely Tishri (which is counted as month 7 of the Jewish calendar year), the Jews were "in their cities", the previous month Elul must have been in the FIRST year of the Return. Thus, because the Jews were in their cities by Tishri, that was in the SECOND year of the Return. And the 2nd month of that calendar year, using Jewish month counting, was seven months later, namely, Iyyar of the following calendar year. Hence we again arrive at Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE, and since 536 is in the THIRD year of the Return, that dating is impossible because it contradicts Ezra.

Quote

You assume that both are synonymous

I do not, and I proved this to you years ago. See above. Furthermore, even if Josephus used Jewish Tishri-Tishri dating rather than Nisan-Nisan dating, my scenario still works. Diagram it on paper and you'll see.

Quote

but all that can be said is that both give different time formulas from different perspectives of the same event-foundation of the Temple.

Gobble-de-goop. Produce a diagram, just as I did years ago, and let's see what you come up with.

Quote

We accept the regnal data supplied by Josephus relating to the Fall including the Temple laying in obscurity for fifty years

Nope. The Watch Tower completely ignores this data, so far as I remember. Can't you even count? If Jerusalem's fall were in 607, the Temple would be unobscured 50 years later in 557 BCE. But not even the Watch Tower claims that. But a fall in 587 directly yields 537, consistent with my thesis and contradicting Watch Tower claims.

Quote

 

but do you except the many references by Josephus about the nature and timing of the seventy years? Or do you 'cherry pick' Josephus?

 

Josephus' mention of 70 years has been a vexing problem for scholars for a long time. There are two points of interest that I can remember. First, after close to 700 years from the fall of Jerusalem, the notion of "70 years of captivity" seems to have taken on legendary status, and its exact meaning was lost. Josephus may have simply repeated the commonly accepted legends of his time. This makes sense because he gives no source references for this notion, whereas he gives Babylonian historian Berossus as a reference for his statements in Against Apion I,21. Second, Jewish elites like Daniel were taken captive in about 605 BCE, and released about 68 years later. We do not know for sure when the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy began, but we know that they ended in 539 BCE. Assigning a starting date of 609 down to 605 gets us to exactly or approximately 70 years, and so if over the more than 600 years between the Return and Josephus' writing, the two 70-year periods got mixed up, that's perfectly understandable. So no cherry picking is required, just a bit of thinking about real history.
     

Quote

 

:: Argument from authority again, eh? Try using evidence

Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann.

 

Give us a hint what he says, and I might. Otherwise, I don't trust you one bit.
     

Quote

 

:: Following COJ and Young, yes, I can solve the problems.

:: Of course, neither you nor "Celebrated WT scholars" can even state them.

There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications.

 

Wrong. It has been shown thousands of times, on many different forums and essays, that the Watch Tower decidedly does NOT follow the Bible. Again, both you and WTS writers think that "these nations" means "the Jews", contradicting not only what your eyes tell you when you read the words, but other parts of the Bible.

Quote

 

:: I already told you: I have, and they don't

Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference?

 

Yes, because scholars support their claims with evidence. Oh yeah. You're not a scholar.
     

Quote

 

:: Mostly nonsense. Watch Tower leaders claim, and have always claimed, to be guided by God. They've even claimed that some of their mistakes were due to divine providence. Obviously, they're no more guided by God than you or I. My table proves that correct chronological information has existed since the 1850s -- well before Russell or any of his sources began their prophetic speculations. If God failed to guide them to correct chronological dates and conclusions, then the best that can be said is that God does not care.

:: And of course, it's easy to demonstrate, simply by quoting the appropriate WTS literature from the 1940s and 1950s, that the "reasoning" used to change from 606 to 607 BCE was completely bogus.

Nonsense.

 

Far from it. Let's see anyone make sense of the following, from the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free, pp. 238-239, where the beginning of "the Gentile times" was changed from 606 to 607 BCE:

<< Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. >>

According to this book, when was Jerusalem destroyed? When did "the Gentile times" begin?

I can't wait to see how "scholar" tries to wiggle away from this WTS nonsense.

A detailed look at all of the WTS's nonsense about this is here: https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html#n12

Quote

You are quite prepared to acknowledge that scholarship evolves albeit slowly and even those early chronologies that you have tabulated and compare with current knowledge proves this and yet you are not prepared to give WT scholars the same benefit or courtesy.

Of course I am. What I am not prepared to do is acknowledge their claim that WTS leaders speak for God, or that everything they write is a product of divine direction, when it is self-evident that they have gotten so much wrong for so long, and that they lie through their teeth whenever they feel like it. Just like Fred Franz lied in his above nonsense.

Quote

You chided WT on your website Bio for scholastic dishonesty but refuse to look at yourself in the mirror. Give me a break!

Give me some instances of dishonesty or mistakes in my writings, and I will take a look.
But be forewarned: mere bald assertions will not cut it.
     

Quote

 

:: "Alluded to"? Such a liar! You stated:

:: << and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>

:: This clearly implies that this reference was the basis for what "WT scholars" did  

No it does not.

 

Yes it does. You had no idea what references the WTS writers used, but you pretended you knew exactly.

Quote

I am simply providing a context for the basis of a revised scheme of Chronology published in 1944.

LOL!

Quote

The fact is that there was scholarship emerging in relation to Bible Chronology first in 1942 and later in 1944 with Thiele's paper and continued into the fifties.

Yes, scholarship that was available long before 1944.
     
:: And?

Context, Alan, Context. Get it?It's your responsibility as a writer to make the connections. You all too often make unspecific implications that allow you to wiggle out of responsibility for your words.
     

Quote

 

:: LOL at the hyperbole

A little rhetorical flourish to entertain the reader.

 

You entertain readers, alright. But not the way you'd like to think.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You challenge me, and then deny you challenged me, because you think that denial is a defense.

We both challenge each other.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Still lying. The evidence is in. 587 BCE is the date. Period

Sorry, the overwhelming evidence demands 607 BCE . Period.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Still lying. Ezra and Josephus together pin it to 538. Period

Nonsense, Scholars favour 537 BCE. Your date of 538 BCE is impossible.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The end date is pegged by Jeremiah and Daniel: 539 BCE. Period.

The start date is fuzzy because the Bible itself does not define it.

Remember that speculations by you and Mommy Watch Tower do not define what the Bible does not

The end date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel, and Josephus.

The start date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Josephus.

Your Daddy, COJ has developed a theory that does not honour the Bible as God's Word. It is nice to see that your start date is fuzzy just as the said scholar has maintained for sometime.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Complete gibberish. You always resort to this when you know you've lost the battle.

Methodology is not gibberish for it is the basis of both Thiele and Young's research.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

That's Rodger Young's area, and I've simply checked that he made solid, biblical and secular arguments.

You've done no such thing, and you don't even claim you have.

I can well imagine how thorough your checking was. I have done no such thing because I simply believe that Young is totally wrong in regards to the precise date for the Fall.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I already told you several times: for the world of scholarship to come up to speed on almost anything takes a long time.

But that's not the point. The point is that Rodger Young's arguments are demonstrably correct. And neither you, nor "celebrated WT scholars", nor anyone else I'm aware of, have proved his arguments wrong.

So now you use such delay as an excuse but it simply does not wash for it does not explain the continued debate in scholarship regarding 58/587 BCE. How can Young's arguments be demonstrably correct when it conflicts with the plain statements regarding the seventy years and his thesis about 587 has not been universally accepted?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Riiiight. Just like Mommy Watch Tower had "the generation of 1914" tied up nice and tidy in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And then changed everything in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s

That is simply a 'red herring'. Are you changing the subject Alan?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Not so far as I can see. What we do see is various current authors quoting outdated material, simply because there is so much outdated material out there that it takes a long time for people to realize it's outdated and come up to speed on the new stuff.

It's like how some people still use the outdated picture of an atom as a sort of miniature solar system, with a central nucleus and electrons spinning around in their orbits. But this picture was abandoned by physicists in the 1920s. Yet now, almost 100 years later, a lot of the public still hasn't got it right

In relation to Chronology, history of its development is instructive for it makes us cautious and humble. A consideration of older materials can be instructive for one cannot know where one is going unless he knows where he has been.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I'm trying, so far partly unsuccessfully, to move on to more interesting things.  When people like you show up, I just can't help mysel

That is commendable. You should be pleased that scholar is around to push you a bit.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Back to your standard circular argument

 

 

 

 

I would not have thought that our argument for the seventy years is circular for it works nicely as a linear model.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Both the Bible and secular history agree that the 70 years ended with the overthrow of Babylon in October, 539 BCE. The book of Daniel -- which you obviously reject -- is quite clear on this, and so is Jeremiah

That is impossible because the seventy years were still continuing right up to the first year of Darius who reigned post 539 BCE- Daniel 9:1,2; Jeremiah 25:11,12.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. If my bio shows anything, it's that I respect only evidence, and not authority.

Only a reprehensible, pathological liar like you could turn that on its head without blushing.

Reading your bio does not give me confidence that you respect evidence perhaps evidence like beauty lies with the mind of the beholder. If I am truly a liar then why do you continue to dance with me?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Except, of course, that we've seen little from you of methodology and valid interpretation -- all you can manage is "Mommy says so!"

Do you want me to write a book or publish a thesis on WT Chronology? I have thought about it or even a scholarly article on the 'seventy years'. Perhaps one day, who knows!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Mostly on Internet forums

Likewise.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I don't need to. The evidence is simple and speaks for itself. And I've seen scholars point out the same thing

Quote the scholars that have pointed out the same thing. Name them.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Again, Josephus and Ezra alone validate what I've said. You have yet to offer a single valid objection. All you manage is pure denial. Mommy has taught you well

Nonsense. Ezra and Josephus simply describe when the Temple foundation was laid from a different perspective and different dating/regnal formula.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Sigh. Repeating defeated arguments will not make them true

Sigh. The presence of a closed mind here at work.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Lying by omission yet again. Even Mommy Watch Tower acknowledges that Cyrus' 2nd year ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE through the end of Adar, 536 BCE, by Babylonian-style dating. And we all agree that the Return occurred in Tishri, 538 or 537 BCE, which means that the FIRST year of the Return ended immediately before Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE. Thus the SECOND year of their return ran from Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE until immediately before Tishri 1 of 537 or 536 BCE. Thus the 2nd month (always numbered with Nisan = 1) was Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE. But Iyyar of 536 comes in the THIRD year of the Return, and Iyyar of 537 comes in the SECOND year of the Return, so a claim of Iyyar of 536 contradicts Ezra. Therefore you cannot have an objection, since my "thesis" meets the Biblical and secular criteria.

No, the Return occurred before Tishri 1, 537 BCE which would have been in the Cyrus' 2nd year if we use spring to spring dating or in his first year if we use the fall to fall dating system. The second month wherein the Temple foundation was laid was in the year following which would have been in 536 BCE. Your use of a second or third year of the Return is rather ambiguous because it must be established first, the precise year in which the Return occurred then from this one can then proceed with interpreting Ezra 3:8 and the text from Josephus.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

If you disagree with the above, then see if you can come up with your own timetable for these events. I.e., exactly when was the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return, and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus, and how do they all fit together?

My timetable is what has been published in our literature from 1949, The second month of the 2nd year of the Return is not mentioned by Ezra nor is the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus. You are simply deluding yourself, concocting a fiction without any scholarly support.

SDA scholars have laboured over this matter since 1953 and they have determined that 536 is the date with all of their scholarship to boot so they would not missed your nonsense.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly. Since Ezra clearly indicates that by the FIRST month of the year after the Return, namely Tishri (which is counted as month 7 of the Jewish calendar year), the Jews were "in their cities", the previous month Elul must have been in the FIRST year of the Return. Thus, because the Jews were in their cities by Tishri, that was in the SECOND year of the Return. And the 2nd month of that calendar year, using Jewish month counting, was seven months later, namely, Iyyar of the following calendar year. Hence we again arrive at Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE, and since 536 is in the THIRD year of the Return, that dating is impossible because it contradicts Ezra

Your reference to a 'first year of the Return' or a second year of the Return is misleading for the first year of their Return could just as easily have begun in Tishri 1, 537 BCE but Ezra does not use this terminology nor is it clear what calendar he used. You assume that Ezra used the Fall to Fall system and base your opinion on that method but is this wise. Scholarship remains uncertain about this subject but WT scholars have selected much simpler methodology which harmonizes with Ezra's stated data thus fixing the seventh month, 537 BCE for the Return.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I do not, and I proved this to you years ago. See above. Furthermore, even if Josephus used Jewish Tishri-Tishri dating rather than Nisan-Nisan dating, my scenario still works. Diagram it on paper and you'll see

You have to very careful with these issues of Calendation because scholars have not proved the matter. The Chronology of Ezra is very problematic and many of the issues raised center on what calendar Ezra used. A much simpler methodology must be sought. A diagram on paper can simply be a contrivance, designed to conform to some view or opinion based on certain assumptions.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Gobble-de-goop. Produce a diagram, just as I did years ago, and let's see what you come up with

Years ago you produced a chart purporting to prove absolutely 538 for the Return but again it was based on assumptions, so-called facts without evidence such as stating the precise month of Cyrus's decree and the exact month of their Return. This is simply plain and utter nonsense. What is your specific objection to the methodology that WT scholars have used in their publications? What is wrong with 537 BCE and how come COJ has not attended to this matter properly?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nope. The Watch Tower completely ignores this data, so far as I remember. Can't you even count? If Jerusalem's fall were in 607, the Temple would be unobscured 50 years later in 557 BCE. But not even the Watch Tower claims that. But a fall in 587 directly yields 537, consistent with my thesis and contradicting Watch Tower claims.

Nonsense. You claim to have 'excellent reading and comprehension skills' so do just that. Josephus simply states that the Temple lay in obscurity for fifty years' What did he mean? Could he have meant that he was simply making an observation about the condition of the Temple within his previously and often stated 'seventy years' about the Temple and the Land? Could not this also be a valid interpretation considering his previous comments?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

osephus' mention of 70 years has been a vexing problem for scholars for a long time. There are two points of interest that I can remember. First, after close to 700 years from the fall of Jerusalem, the notion of "70 years of captivity" seems to have taken on legendary status, and its exact meaning was lost. Josephus may have simply repeated the commonly accepted legends of his time. This makes sense because he gives no source references for this notion, whereas he gives Babylonian historian Berossus as a reference for his statements in Against Apion I,21. Second, Jewish elites like Daniel were taken captive in about 605 BCE, and released about 68 years later. We do not know for sure when the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy began, but we know that they ended in 539 BCE. Assigning a starting date of 609 down to 605 gets us to exactly or approximately 70 years, and so if over the more than 600 years between the Return and Josephus' writing, the two 70-year periods got mixed up, that's perfectly understandable. So no cherry picking is required, just a bit of thinking about real history

Now we are embarking on a course of historical revisionism. Josephus' comments on the seventy years is a major difficulty for scholars because it deconstructs the accepted Chronology but nicely supports WT Chronology with its straightforward understanding of the seventy years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return. If the facts do not suit your views then it becomes the stuff of legends and then you dare to accuse WT of scholastic dishonesty!!!!!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Give us a hint what he says, and I might. Otherwise, I don't trust you one bi

Get real. If you want to debate Chronology with me then do some research.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. It has been shown thousands of times, on many different forums and essays, that the Watch Tower decidedly does NOT follow the Bible. Again, both you and WTS writers think that "these nations" means "the Jews", contradicting not only what your eyes tell you when you read the words, but other parts of the Bible.

To say that WT does not follow the Bible is an absurdity and this is coming from a person who does not even believe in the Bible. You need to be more specific about 'these nations', perhaps you are referring to Jer. 25:11. If so, you have history with this and scholar can help you unlike many others who have failed.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

es, because scholars support their claims with evidence. Oh yeah. You're not a schola

Childish!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Far from it. Let's see anyone make sense of the following, from the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free, pp. 238-239, where the beginning of "the Gentile times" was changed from 606 to 607 BCE:

<< Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. >>

According to this book, when was Jerusalem destroyed? When did "the Gentile times" begin?

I can't wait to see how "scholar" tries to wiggle away from this WTS nonsens

You are the one that possess excellent reading and comprehension skills so why ask for my help. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE and the Gentile Times began in that year from October.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Of course I am. What I am not prepared to do is acknowledge their claim that WTS leaders speak for God, or that everything they write is a product of divine direction, when it is self-evident that they have gotten so much wrong for so long, and that they lie through their teeth whenever they feel like it. Just like Fred Franz lied in his above nonsense.

You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but the proof is in the pudding but the WTS must have God's blessings because they have produced a superior Bible Chronology and translation of the Bible and that is not accidental but providential.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Give me some instances of dishonesty or mistakes in my writings, and I will take a look.
But be forewarned: mere bald assertions will not cut it

Thanks but no thanks for I am to busy with Chronology. Perhaps later!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes it does. You had no idea what references the WTS writers used, but you pretended you knew exactly.

I do not know exactly but what I do know is that WT scholars used the 1942 material in 1949 and as this related to significant changes in Chronology it must have been a resource on hand during the mid-forties whereupon our Chronology was adjusted/corrected in 1944.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, scholarship that was available long before 1944.
     

Indeed and well utilized by the Bible Students and WTS.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

You entertain readers, alright. But not the way you'd like to think

Like you Alan I am here to entertain.

scholar JW emeritus

[JW Insider]

On 1/23/2018 at 7:48 PM, AllenSmith said:

What does, any of your long explanation have to do with the “fact” secular chronology is based on a 2 point theory? 598, and 587, and not 3.

The N-B secular chronology is probably based on a 30,000 point theory. When I was at the British Museum last year, I asked how many different clay cuneiform documents exist that can help us to reconstruct the Neo-Babylonian period. The number 30,000 came up a couple of times. This is a good portion of the clay documents mentioned here on their site. They claim about 50,000 items in their own Neo-Babylonian collection. Iraq has at least 10,000 more.

• Studying cuneiform tablets

  The department’s collection of cuneiform tablets is among the most important in the world. It contains approximately 130,000 texts and fragments and is perhaps the largest collection outside of Iraq.

  It can be separated into the following main groups (all numbers below are approximate):

• Early Dynastic (c.3200–2500 BC) - 500 items from Ur, Fara
• Old Akkadian (c. 2500–2200 BC) 150 items
• Ur III (c. 2200–2000 BC) - 30,000 items from Lagash, Umma, Ur, Drehem
• Old Assyrian (c. nineteenth–eighteenth centuries BC) - 700 items from Anatolia
• Old Babylonian (c. 1900–1650 BC) - 20,000 items from Sippar, Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Kutalla, Kisurra
• non-Mesopotamian - 400 items including Alalakh in Syria, Amarna in Egypt, Elamite texts from Iran and Hittite texts from Anatolia
• Neo-Assyrian (first millennium BC) - 25,000 items from Kuyunjik, Nimrud
• Neo-Babylonian (first millennium BC) - 50,000 items from Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, Kutalla.

 

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Sorry, the overwhelming evidence demands 607 BCE . Period.

What is the opposite of a scholar?

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

What is the opposite of a scholar?

A fool.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

53 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Like you Alan I am here to entertain.

I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Just like Mommy.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Have you taken flight, Alan?  You do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say. You preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver. I have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis, it lacks peer review, based on assumptions and uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research. In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.

The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case.

scholar JW emeritus

University of Sydney

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The biggest evidence has just been handed to you. 604BC. I just find it amusing that you now, RESORT to the Bible Student era, once again to make your argument. However, it doesn’t surprise me.

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The continued assumption is on 2 different ideologies.

1.       The revised WT chronology after 2011

2.       The Standard WT Chronology before 2011

You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar?

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Did these proposed errors come from the author's (Scholars) or script? Does it matter,

Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask?

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 

So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting https://books.google.com/books?id=yJLccBK6cDoC is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation.

But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. 

The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.