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

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus maximus said:
 

Quote

 

:: This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.

Grandstanding again, Alan?

 

Not at all. Educating.
     

Quote

 

:: Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.

No. Simply affirming the obvious, giving credit where credit is due.

 

Such a liar! Having been caught so many times lying about COJ's work, and how it reflects modern scholarship, you're finally admitting it.
     

Quote

 

:: You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.

Simply assertion.

 

Nope. This thread is full of examples.

Quote

You do not like it when someone else goes 'toe to toe' with you.

Actually I do, because it gives me another opportunity of showing up someone who lies or distorts the facts in the name of the Watch Tower Society.
     

Quote

 

:: More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.

No. Just a simple recognition that I have unlike yourself, have paid close attention to SDA scholarship

 

So what? SDA scholarship disagrees with WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology on most details. All you've done so far is brag that you've read SDA scholarship, and after repeated requests you continue to avoid quoting what they say. Just as you avoided giving any evidence for your false claims about what John Aquila Brown said.
     

Quote

 

:: Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus

Fine. Bring it on. I must remind you that this is SDA scholarship!

 

No need to. MacCarty's arguments closely reflect those of good modern scholarship, and so there is no need to repeat them.
     

Quote

 

:: < True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>

:: So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.

:: You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.

If you wish to discuss 'these nations' then let us proceed..

 

Go ahead with a new post on that subject. It'll be entertaining for those readers who haven't seen you dance and weave to your full potential.

Quote

Methodology of whatever type can be valid

"Can be" is rather different from "is".

Quote

and even Rodger Young used a methodology based on Decision Analysis in order to resolve the 586/7 debate.

Correct. But Young's, as opposed to WTS ad hoc "methodology", is demonstrably valid.

Quote

WT scholars have always had a well-defined methodology

Yes -- after about 1912, start with the magic date of 1914, and twist everything to fit.

Quote

and this stated in our publications.

Not really. Rather, WTS writers have simply dived in and made their ad hoc arguments. Apologists like you call this "methodology".

Quote

for it  nicely harmonizes both the scriptural and secular data.in  a well defined linear argument.

Disproved thousands of times.
     

Quote

 

:: Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.

No it does not. It does not need to misrepresent it because it does not wholly rely on it but rather relies on the biblical evidence.

 

I love it! You've managed to mix up your "its" here. What you've said is that "WTS Chronology does not need to misrepresent evidence because WTS Chronology does not wholly rely on misrepresentation but rather relies on the biblical evidence". LOL!
WTS chronology most definitely misrepresents evidence, both biblical and secular. If it doesn't outright ignore certain Bible passages, it twists them into saying something they don't. Secular evidence is filtered, and whatever doesn't fit is ignored or twisted. You're well aware of dozens of examples.
     

Quote

 

:: More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples

How can I acknowledge something that does not exist?

 

This is a good example of Orwellian doublethink.
     

Quote

 

:: Do you want me to list them again?

Yes, Please for scholar loves lists.

 

Once again, my essay on https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ contains a good list.
     

Quote

 

:: Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.

I have and do not ignore anything because I value and respect all of the Bible.

 

Nonsense. Just like the WTS, you respect the Bible only to the extent that it supports WTS Tradition.

Where have you discussed Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5? Show us the evidence.You deliberately ignore the clear statement in 2 Chronicles 36, that the Jews were captive to Nebudhadnezzar's dynasty until the Persians began to reign. You ignore the passages in Jeremiah 25 that clearly state that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy would end when God punished Babylon in 539 BCE. You ignore the parts of Jeremiah 27 that clearly say that the Babylonian empire would end when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended. You ignore the parts of Daniel 5 that explicitly state that the Babylonian empire ended the night that King Belshazzar of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was killed.
     

Quote

 

:: More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"

Nonsense. You would not what a critical commentary is.

 

I have many in my own library, and have consulted dozens.

Quote

Did you consult such commentaries when devising your 538 thesis?

We've already discussed this: My "thesis" is new, and has not been discussed in any commentaries I'm aware of.
     

Quote

 

:: Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Rubbish. List those texts that we have ignored.

 

See above for a link, for starters. Then reread "The Gentile Times Reconsidered", and reread the extensive material on COJ's website ( http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm ) for a comprehensive list.
     

Quote

 

:: Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.

Perhaps but that does not mean that such interpretations are correct.

 

Correct, but as always, the devil is in the details. And again, for your "thesis" that the Jews returned in 537 BCE, all we have is speculation based on WTS Tradition, tradition that interprets passages in Ezra. For my "thesis" we have that, PLUS the testimony of Josephus.

Quote

An argument based on authority is fallacious.

Not necessarily. You invoke authority right here:

Quote

Far better to base interpretation on God's Word rather than the opinions of men.

Furthermore, the arguments of modern scholars are not based on authority, but on actual evidence from various ancient written sources and archaeology, and usually represent the best "weight of evidence" from many such sources. WTS arguments, on the other hand, always go back to WTS Tradition begun by C. T. Russell, and modified somewhat as old claims became untenable in the face of evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.

Both schemes have their own merits. WT scholars have developed a Bible based Chronology and it is a 'stand-alone' Chronology.

 

Yes, just like Flat-Earthers have their own Bible based beliefs that contradict all manner of facts.
     

Quote

 

::: Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.

:: So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.

It seems this point eludes you so it comes down to authenticity or credibility.

 

Completely ignoring the point.

Quote

Our Chronology works because it makes historical sense of OT history going back to Adam. In short, it works!

It works in the same sense Flat-Earthism works for Flat-Earthers: It ignores all facts that don't fit the preconceptions.
     

Quote

 

:: So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".

No, with the exception of your novelty you have provided no evidence just a rehash of COJ.

 

Since COJ's extensive writings represent the sum of a great deal of evidence accumulated by the best of modern scholarship, your statement is a flat-out lie.
     

Quote

 

:: Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence

I do believe that I put some words down on paper about your novelty.

 

Which amounted to nothing but handwaving.
     

Quote

 

:: I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.

No I do not think so but if that is your opinion then that is fine.

 

You can think what you like, but books and websites and online forums contain MANY examples of the WTS ignoring and twisting evidence.

Quote

Remember it took COJ, 400 pages to go through such a fine piece of long-argued scholarship.

So?

Quote

 

:::: No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

:: 'Very likely' does not cut it.
     
:: Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.

:: But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else

Yes it must be supported by good evidence and I find that in our 537 thesis and you have some good evidence in your 538 thesis but both have assumptions or speculation.

 

That's an honest admission, for once.

But again: the WTS's "thesis" is based on nothing but speculation; reasonable speculation but specularion nonetheless. My "thesis" is based on similar speculation PLUS the testimony of Josephus.

And of course, you've never been willing or able to present evidence against my "thesis", even though I and others like Jeffro have challenged you many times to do so. Your only argument is that WTS speculation magically trumps my "thesis" -- mere bald assertion.

Quote

 

:: False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.

:: No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times

Yes you have some evidence for your theory but so do we. WT scholars have published much on this subject going as far back as 1949 and have explained the evidence and assumptions required to arrive at a date for the Return.

 

Yes, all of which "evidence and assumptions" amount to pure speculation.

Quote

 

::: The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
     
:: False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.

:: Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.

False, Josephus only discusses the foundations of the Temple in Cyrus' second year not the Return.

 

You're deliberately being dense. If you say, "John bought a house in August, and then he bought a car in April", and I say that "John bought his car in April, 2017", then when did he buy his house?

My "thesis" is that simple.

Quote

The calculation is false because the beginning of that year is not established.

The beginning of both years of interest are well established. The 1st year of the Return ended in September of 538 or 537. We know that because Ezra explicitly states that the Jews were in their cities BY Tishri, which means they had returned BEFORE Tishri -- by August or September at the latest. Therefore the 2nd year of the Return began in Tishri of 538 or 537. Using this counting, and noting that when Jewish writers say "the 2nd month" they mean Iyyar, Ezra's statement that the Temple foundations were laid in "the 2nd month of the 2nd year" of the Return means that they were laid in Iyyar of 537 or 536. Got it so far? Think of John buying his car. It is well established that Cyrus' 1st regnal year, by Babylonian/Persian dating was Nisan, 538 up to Nisan 537 BCE. Thus, assuming Josephus used such dating, his statement that the Temple foundations were laid in "the 2nd year of Cyrus" means that they were laid in Iyyar of 537 BCE. Still with me?

Thus, the only question remaining is exactly what Josephus meant by "the 2nd year of Cyrus". Or, what kind of dating system did he use for the reign of Cyrus?

Quote

Did Josephus count from the Spring or the Fall?

I think it's more likely Spring, since Josephus used sources that seem to have used accession-year Nisan dating. But Fall dating -- non-accession-year Tishri dating -- works for my "thesis" as well.

But neither systems works for the Temple foundation being laid in 536. The only system that works is accession-year Tishri dating -- which is quite unlikely for Josephus, as Edwin Thiele argues.I'll leave you, oh great and wondrously competent scholar, to work out the details for youself.
     

Quote

 

:: You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.

I know and I accept that harsh reality so scholar just plods along.No we both do not agree that 538 could be the year of the Return for that was impossible

 

False. You've already admitted that.

Quote

and yes Ezra did give a specific year but only the month of the Return. Common sense proves on the facts as given Ezra the only possible year must have been 537.

"Common sense"? LOL! That's "common sense" for one indoctrinated with WTS Tradition. The facts are as I stated above and below.
     

Quote

 

:: Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?

The only scenario that we mutually agreed excluded the nature, timing of events of Cyrus' Decree and was only limited to the preparations and the journey.

 

Which is the whole point, you moron!
     

Quote

 

::  Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.

:: ||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
:: ||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
:: ||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
:: ||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||

Scholar loves pretty pictures, charts and diagrams. What is your point?

 

Lost track already, did you?

I already told you: the picture in print characters illustrates my word picture, for those too dumb to understand a word picture.There is nothing in the above picture that you can logically disagree with, because it simply diagrams what we all agree on -- the Bible, the WTS, you, and I.
     

Quote

 

::: The month of their actual arrival is not stated.

:: Correct, but irrelevant to this point

No for it is a very relevant historical factor when you consider Ezra 2:7-3:1.

 

Your usual contentless statement. The only relevant information from Ezra 2:7-3:1 is that the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month. We already know that -- it is the Julian year that is in question.
     

Quote

 

:: The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.

:: Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.

You have no basis for combining Ezra with Josephus because although the subject is similar the time factors are different thus both wrote from a different perspective.

 

Another contentless statement that says nothing of significance.

Both Ezra and Josephus describe events around the time of the Temple's foundation being laid. THAT is the common factor.

Quote

Such texts do not establish the year of the Return

Combined, they certainly do, as described above. You cannot logically defeat this argument with bald assertions.

Quote

for this can only be established from Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23.

But those texts DO NOT establish the year of the Return. Neither you nor the WTS have given any arguments as to how they might -- you've offered only speculation that has nothing to do with COMBINING Ezra and Josephus.

Quote

The disqualifying assumption relates to the content of Ezra 1:1-3:1 which proves the impossibility of all events occurring in 12 months of Cyrus' first year.

I've already debunked this many times. More bald assertions by you doesn't cut it.

Continued

[AlanF]

Continuing:

Quote

 

:: Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words

I have already highlighted the three major problems with your thesis.

 

Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions.
You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.
     

Quote

 

:: Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details. The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.

Does it matter whether they are stated or not for the reader using discernment can identify such as is also indicated in our explanation of the Return in our publications over many years.

 

Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.
     

Quote

 

:: Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.

:: Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:

:: 1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

::  2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?

 

Wow, even with hints you got it wrong.

Quote

 

1. Yes

2. Yes

Did I pass?

 

No. You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:

1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?

3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?

Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine.

Quote

 

::: A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.

:: I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?

Simple: Literature Review indicating the scope and depth of your research and whether you have consulted Journals and views from Bible Commentaries on Ezra relating to Ezra 3;1 and 3:8 inclusive and Ezra 1;1-3:1 inclusive.

 

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.
     
 

Quote

 

:::: The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

::: Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.

:: False, as I've shown above and several other times

Are you really sure?

 

Of course. See above.
     

Quote

 

:: LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims. In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."

Scholarship means what has been published within the worldwide community of biblical scholars and presented in a academic format. Research means the accessing of such published materials.

 

Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology.
     

Quote

 

:::: So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere.

:::: And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS

::: This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.

:: Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.

That is your problem for it is based on its own merits. It has to be tested alongside other competing views and established facts, clearly identifying any underlying assumptions.

 

That has all been done since, as you point out, 2005.

Quote

You do not know what I will think

Of course I do. You've shown thousands of times that you reject anything that contradicts WTS Tradition.

Quote

but you need to do more work, get it peer reviewed.

Tell that to "celebrated WTS scholars". Hypocrite!
     

Quote

 

:::: So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

::: Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible.

:: Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this

False. Do the research! You really cannot be taken seriously.

 

Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this.
Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.
     
 

Quote

 

:: Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims

Why should I do your work for you. Are you lazy?

 

Same excuses you've given before. And you call yourself a scholar, when you refuse to back up your claims!
     

Quote

 

:: The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!

At least 537 is in the scholarly literature whereas 538 is missing in action.

 

Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.
     

Quote

 

::: Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.

:: Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence. And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.

So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.

 

Bald assertion. Try an argument for once.

Quote

Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum

Meaningless gobble-de-goop.

Quote

and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.

Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.

Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.

Your statement is more gobble-de-goop.

Quote

Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.

More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.

Quote

It is up to you to prove any connection for I can disprove your claim by simply saying 'what does the text actually say'.

More contentless gobble-de-goop.
     

Quote

 

:::: Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

::: True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious

:: Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors. If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.

No it is not decisive at all and that is your problem for one must have a degree of certainty as to which calendrical method Ezra used throughout his book so it when assigning a Chronology to Ezra one has to adopt a certain methodology.

 

As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.

Quote

You need to display an awareness of the issues raised.

I have. Your bald assertions to the contrary are mere blowing wind.

Quote

WT scholars have approached the Chronology quite differently to not so much Thiele but his contemporary, Siegfried Horn. These matters are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion and I am not a Chronologist so lack some competence in this area.

More irrelevant, meaningless verbiage.
     

Quote

 

:: Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.

:: In a later post I said:

:: << 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. >>  

Within the confines of year 538 or 537 then the Return would be possible

 

Exactly what I said, you moron.

Quote

but this excludes all of the other circumstances that occurred prior to their four month journey which makes on year far more likely than the other.

I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.

Quote

The timing and nature of the Decree with its proclamation renders 538 impossible as also noted by Steinmann with regard not to the date but to the substance of things.

Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.
     

Quote

 

::: Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.

:: So what?

Well this is another factor that gives one extra month for the returnees in order to make the journey and to be nicely resettled in their cities or homes so it takes the rush out of things and makes it comfortable for the oldies and the young-uns.

 

One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:

According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation.Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
     

Quote

 

:::: The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid

::: Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?

:: Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?

:: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.

Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE

 

That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.
     

Quote

 

:: Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?

Perhaps I am already there because of my human failures. The truth of an argument is not based on a personality or group

 

Really! Tell that to the Governing Body.

Quote

but rather should be based on following the evidence where it leads and unfortunately it leads directly to 607 BCE.

LOL!
     

Quote

 

::  More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!  

Well the matter of the zero year is troubling to you but I simply wave my hands and it disappears in the pursuit of sound biblical scholarship that began in 1944. No problem!

 

LOL! A better demonstration of how JW apologists blow off arguments they hate but know are true would be hard to find.
     

Quote

 

:::: Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient

::: Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement

:: Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.

Have not WT scholars inferred this?

 

Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
     

Quote

 

:: As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory. So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.  

The problem lies in the equating an expectation with actual time of preparation and the unknowing precisely when Cyrus' decree would be promulgated. Such a scenario sounds good on paper

 

It certainly does.

Quote

but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra

What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery.

Quote

and it these facts that must take priority when assigning a precise date for the Return.

By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.

Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked.

Quote

Meanderings are helpful but have little place in Chronology.  One could argue that with such tumultuous events after Babylon's Fall the last thing on the minds of the Jewish exile was a sudden trip home.

One could argue exactly the opposite, too.
     

Quote

 

:: As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.

I would if I could

 

We already know that.
     

Quote

 

:: Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.

At least I am aware of such.

 

LOL! Like Mother like son.
     

Quote

 

:: When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.

That is your opinion.

 

Indeed it is. And the opinion of every JW critic you've gone up against.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

"70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.

"70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.

'Le' the Hebrew preposition can have either meaning and in the case of Jer.29:10 both contextually and logically.

70 years at Babylon  simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years. which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles. Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.

70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves. Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve, be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon  was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination  whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.

An exaggeration to boot! It is simply a direct reference to Dan.9:2 and supports all of the other Quotes from the Chronicler and Jer. 25:11-12.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.

WT scholars interpret the 70 years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile in and for Babylon. Such a holistic interpretation of all of the 70 year corpus is the only logical, compatible view that is consistent with biblical history. The 70 years was indeed a precise length period running from the Fall in 607 until the Fall in the Return-right down to the very day and month. Jehovah God is indeed the Great Timekeeper!. You need to reset your watch.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".

Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon' for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters. It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus. In short, scholars cannot believe that such an event could have occurred thus leading to the 'Myth of the Empty land' hypothesis first developed by Hans Barstad in 1996.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Logically impossible, and biblically and historically wrong.

Logically possible, biblically and historically correct.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

he fall was 587/586 as all modern scholars agree.

Scholars cannot agree as to the precise date. WT scholars have determined precisely 607 BCE

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Standard WTS speculation based on handwaving. Real evidence indicates 538 for the Return.

WT scholars have provided evidence based on Ezra's account that 537 BCE is the only date for the Return. The date 538 is rejected by scholarship and is impossible.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong, as shown above

Correct, as shown above in my rebuttal.

14 hours ago, AlanF said:

Finally, one thing more or less right, even though stated in language close to gobble-de-goop.

Glad to have an admission. Alan does not like to be corrected or to think' outside the square'

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Alan F

27 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions.
You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.

I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.

Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar. Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:

o. You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:

1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?

3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?

Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine

I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman. Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.

37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.

You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals. This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation. Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology

So what? It says something when the WTS  can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world but also the most accurate Bible Chronology based on sound biblical scholarship.

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

hat has all been done since, as you point out, 200

You have had plenty of time to write up a decent article on the subject so hop to it!

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

f course I do. You've shown thousands of times that you reject anything that contradicts WTS Tradition

I am an independent thinker otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Tell that to "celebrated WTS scholars". Hypocrite!

Peer review Alan, Peer review.

55 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this.
Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.

You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder, if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.

I have not seen such a list. If there is one then that is fine but have you also provided a list for 537, 536 BCE?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Bald assertion. Try an argument for once

Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment. If you believe that there is need for an argument then provide it with scholarship. I wish to inform you that I am in the process of writing a scholarly paper on this subject and I will be examining all aspects of the Return:

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Decree of Cyrus

Ezra 1;1-2; 3:1; 3:8; Josephus

537 Methodology

538 Methodology

536 Methodology

Conclusion

Bibliography

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Meaningless gobble-de-goop

You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.

Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.

Your statement is more gobble-de-goo

I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.

Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More contentless gobble-de-goop.

Simply an observation.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.

Nonsense. Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return. You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return' and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I have. Your bald assertions to the contrary are mere blowing wind.

You have not demonstrated careful background reading or research depth so it is you that is 'blowing in the wind'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking. Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.

Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.

No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty. At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:

According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation.Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.

The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree. There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense. They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2. Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history. Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery

The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.

Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked

I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Indeed it is. And the opinion of every JW critic you've gone up against.

Fine with me because I like to play, HARD!!!!

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus maximally stupidus said:

:: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.

But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment.

Quote

 

:: "70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.

:: "70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.

 

Quote

'Le' the Hebrew preposition can have either meaning and in the case of Jer.29:10 both contextually and logically.

Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?

Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.

"John is AT the grocery store."

"John is FOR the grocery store."

Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.

I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store".

The following rationalizations are called "dancing the Watch Tower two-step". It's entertaining to watch Neil at work:

Quote

 

70 years at Babylon  simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years. which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles. Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.

70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves. Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve, be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon  was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination  whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE

 

The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:

<< “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>

The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.

Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.

Now let's examine "scholar JW's" claims in more detail:

Quote

70 years at Babylon simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years.

Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).

Quote

which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles.

Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.

Quote

 

Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.

 

So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.

Quote

70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves.

Yes, everyone knows that.

Quote

Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve,

Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.

Quote

be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.

Wrong. Even the WTS, in the "Isaiah" book, admits that Tyre and other nations did not serve for 70 years.

And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.

Quote

from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon  was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.

Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.

Quote

Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years

You're contradicting yourself.

Quote

and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination  whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE

So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date.

Quote

 

:: The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.

An exaggeration to boot!

 

What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.

Quote

It is simply a direct reference to Dan.9:2 and supports all of the other Quotes from the Chronicler and Jer. 25:11-12.

Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims.
     

Quote

 

:: Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.

WT scholars interpret the 70 years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile in and for Babylon.

 

They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon.

Quote

Such a holistic interpretation of all of the 70 year corpus is the only logical, compatible view that is consistent with biblical history.

It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?

Quote

The 70 years was indeed a precise length period

Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

Quote

running from the Fall in 607 until the Fall in the Return-right down to the very day and month.

Again, is it 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

Quote

Jehovah God is indeed the Great Timekeeper!. You need to reset your watch.

LOL!
     

Quote

 

:: Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".  

Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'

 

Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources.

Quote

for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.

Quite the contrary.

Quote

It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.

Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.

Quote

In short, scholars cannot believe that such an event could have occurred

Utter nonsense. Most modern scholars accept the basics, as stated above.

Quote

thus leading to the 'Myth of the Empty land' hypothesis first developed by Hans Barstad in 1996.

The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
     
Further already-debunked nonsense from Neil deleted.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

22 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

There were also several periods of service, some longer and some shorter.

For instance both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah "served" Babylon ,paying tribute during part of their respective reigns before rebelling .  Even after Jerusalem and temple desolated ,and all the desolationS prophesied  ,like this one-

I agree completely. There were several different periods of exile of varying lengths depending on which group of persons any particular person was exiled in. Apparently there were 4 that were significant enough to get a Biblical mention:

• Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (Daniel 1)
• Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (Jeremiah 52)
• Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (Jeremiah 52)
• Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year (Jeremiah 52)

And there were several different periods of servitude during the 70 years of Babylon's hegemony, as you already mentioned.

So if it is also true that we can also speak of multiple desolations leading up to the most significant desolation I would think we should be able to agree that there is nothing in Jeremiah that ties a 70-year period to a single instance of those desolations. Just because there was a single desolation that might have been worse than all the others, or one that finally rid the land of the most significant final threshold of inhabitants, this doesn't mean that a 70-year clock starts counting at that event.

You have given additional evidence of this yourself, and I'm sure you are aware that there is plenty more in the book of Jeremiah that confirms that Jeremiah carried on a theme about 70 years of Babylonian domination that was poised to produce punishments all around and which would ultimately result in complete desolation of Judea as a country. Judea collapsed. Judea's capital city, religious center, independence, self-governance, peace and safety were so devastated that the people could not remain on the land in any sustainable fashion. This was punishment from Jehovah that they could have avoided.

The wording of Ezekiel 21 is another point of interest. Notice that you quoted several verses, even from Jeremiah 25 that shows that punishment is being brought upon Judea and the nations around them. With reference to the earliest of these punishments mentioned in Daniel, we should notice the time and specifics mentioned here. When a nation creates incursions that kidnap persons from Judea, this is part of the punishment, too. Ending up in a nation where you are liable to be thrown into a lion's den or a fiery furnace at the whim of some high officials should be seen as a terrifying consequence of Jehovah allowing Babylon to rise in power over the nations all around. Yet this obviously happened well before the "final punishment" to the kingdom of Judea itself, as you quoted from Ezekiel 21:25.

I am merely repeating the point that the 70 years of power that Jehovah gave to Babylon obviously resulted in a long process that ultimately resulted in complete devastation of the population of Judea. In this way the 70 years for Babylon were obviously very closely related to Judea's ultimate and final desolation. It makes perfect sense that the process of punishment, exile, and desolation could go on or a period of 70 years and that the "final punishment" could occur closer to the end of that time, not the beginning. At it happened, evidently, the "full and final punishment" reached its peak only about 20 to 25 years into the 70, leaving about 50 years or at least 45 of  those years for Judea to have reached that peak of punishment.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.

But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment

A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?

Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.

"John is AT the grocery store."

"John is FOR the grocery store."

Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.

I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store

Yes indeed both have different meanings. No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:

<< “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>

The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.

Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.

The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support. The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home which proves the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years. The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years. The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired. In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had  almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).

The 70 years ended at Judah. There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.

No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.

Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Yes, everyone knows that.

That is reassuring.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.

Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Even the WTS, in the "Isaiah" book, admits that Tyre and other nations did not serve for 70 years.

And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.

Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah. Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.

The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign. Babylon lost its power in 539 BCE as the Bible attests.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're contradicting yoursel

No. Read more carefully what I have written.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date

Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years. But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.

Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims

No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon

Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?

There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

The period was a full 70 years with zero months.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Again, is it 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

See above!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources

Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Quite the contrary.

No.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.

The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years  of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Utter nonsense. Most modern scholars accept the basics, as stated above

Scholars do not accept that the land was totally devastated as described in the bible regarding it as a myth.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

he Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.

The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Further already-debunked nonsense from Neil deleted.

Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus biggus dummus:

You completely ignored my post which debunked more of your nonsense.

Quote

 

:: Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions. You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.

I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.

 

I've made very few bald assertions. Most assertions are accompanied by detailed explanations or source references. You have yet to debunk any of them -- and your bald assertions are not debunking.
     

Quote

 

:: Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.

Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar.

 

I agree that you're knowledgeable enough that your denial of facts is nothing but lying.

Quote

Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.

Nonsense. You can find precious few supporters of the WTS "explanation" about this. You have yet to cite a single source reference.
     

Quote

 

:: You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:

:: 1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

 

You again failed the test. This time you failed even to answer the question. Try again.

Quote

 

:: 2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?

:: 3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?

:: Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine   

I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman.

 

Surely that's no impediment to a great scholar.

But you're wrong. The article is not that technical, and SA has always been specifically written for the layman.

Quote

Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.

Actually he does define it, but implicitly and throughout the article. Of course, that must be understood by actually reading and understanding the article -- not merely skimming to mine for quotes.

The very first sentence in the article, in the summary at the top of the page (213), states:

<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>

According to this, does Lewontin view this "manifest fit" as a product of evolution or of a Supreme Designer?

Here's more:

pp. 214-215
<< Much of evolutionary biology is the working out of an adaptationist program. Evolutionary biologists as­ sume that each aspect of an organism's morphology, physiology and behavior has been molded by natural selection as a solution to a problem posed by the environment. >>

Does Lewontin accept evolution or design?

p. 220
<< The mechanism by which organisms are said to adapt to the environment is that of natural selection. The theory of evolution by natural selection rests on three necessary principles: Different individuals within a species differ from one another in physiology, morphology and behavior (the principle of variation); the variation is in some way heritable. so that on the average offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble other individuals (the principle of heredity); different variants leave different numbers of offspring either immediately or in remote generations (the principle of natural selection). These three principles are necessary and sufficient to account for evolutionary change by natural selection. >>

How does Lewontin view the origin of adaptation? Through evolution by natural selection, or by Design?

p. 230
<< Adaptation is a real phenomenon. It is no accident that fish have fins, that seals and whales have flippers and flukes, that penguins have paddles and that even sea snakes have become laterally flattened. The problem of locomotion in an aquatic environment is a real problem that has been solved by many totally unrelated evolutionary lines in much the same way. >>

Given the above, try answering the questions again:

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?

3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?

Quote

I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.

Totally wrong. Neither Lewontin nor Darwin made any such "admission". You cannot produce any quotations to support your claim.

Quote

 

:: How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.  

You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals.

 

Nonsense. As I've said several times now, I've consulted many commentaries and other reference works. None contain anything related to my "thesis"; therefore there is nothing to report.

Quote

 

This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation.

 

I've gone over this in detail several times now. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand it?

Quote

Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?

No, because the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537/536 BCE, and the 2nd month of that year was Iyyar of 537 -- not 536. But I already told you this.
     

Quote

 

:: Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology

So what?

 

For one thing, it shows your gross hypocrisy in demanding peer review from your opponents, but excusing Mommy Watch Tower for not having peer review.

Quote

It says something when the WTS  can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world

The most accurate? Don't make readers laugh. It's reasonably accurate most of the time, but also contains deliberate mistranslations when doctrinal expediency required Fred Franz to do it.

Quote

but also the most accurate Bible Chronology based on sound biblical scholarship.

LOL!
     

Quote

 

:: Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this. Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.

You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder,

 

Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references.

Oh yeah, but we see your usual double standards at work again.

Quote

if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.

Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.
     

Quote

 

:: Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.

I have not seen such a list.

 

Rather, you've ignored it.

Quote

If there is one then that is fine but have you also provided a list for 537, 536 BCE?

Only for 537. I consider people who advocate any year but 538 or 537 as crackpots, not because they choose that year, but because they choose so many other dates at odds with accepted scholarship.

Quote

 

::: So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.

:: Bald assertion. Try an argument for once

Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment.

 

More meaningless verbiage.

Quote

If you believe that there is need for an argument then provide it with scholarship.

I've told you repeatedly: the basics are already done and available online. You know where.

Quote

I wish to inform you that I am in the process of writing a scholarly paper on this subject and I will be examining all aspects of the Return:

I'm sure it will be of similar quality to what you normally produce.

I suggest you get help with your English. It's in no way the quality needed for a real scholarly paper. Even WTS writers would reject it on that basis alone.

And I have no doubt that your paper will be peer reviewed by real scholars.

Quote

 

::: Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum

:: Meaningless gobble-de-goop

You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!

 

Your statement at the top of the quote above contains English words but is not an English sentence. Not a good sign for your paper.
     

Quote

 

::: and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.

:: Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.

:: Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.

:: Your statement is more gobble-de-goop

I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.

 

More nonsensical gobble-de-goop. Try answering the questions.
     

Quote

 

::: Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.

:: More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.

Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.

 

Since the date of the Return cannot be established directly, via Bible statements alone or via secular history alone, an indirect approach is necessary. Combining Ezra and Josephus is a valid indirect approach, and the combination directly provides the date of the Return -- 538 BCE.
     

Quote

 

::  As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.

Nonsense.

 

What sentences above do you disagree with?

Oh yeah -- none. You just disagree with the conclusion because it contradicts Mommy.

Quote

Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return.

A meaningless generality. You're just full of them!

Quote

You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return'

Already done many times. See the parts of my posts that you ignored.

Quote

and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?

Since I've already done this, and you have not argued your case -- bald negative assertions are not arguments -- the onus is on you.
     

Quote

 

:: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking.

 

Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.

Quote

Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.

I already explained this to you: the difference between 11 months for a 538 Return and 20 months for a 537 Return is immaterial: both 11 and 20 months are more than sufficient preparation time.
     

Quote

 

:: I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.

Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.

 

Yet another meaningless generality.
     
 

Quote

 

:: Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.

No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty.

 

Yes. Do you need me to quote Steinmann at you?

Quote

At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.

Sure. And you'll duly reject it for the good reason that he favors a 533 Return.
     

Quote

 

:: One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:

:: According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation. Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.

The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree.

 

I've been saying this in this entire thread. Having memory problems again?

Quote

 

There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense.

 

Of course they wouldn't have known for certain! So what? I already brought that out. The point here is deciding what are the maximum and minimum times available for preparation, and then arguing for what is the most likely. If we had definite information, none of this would have to be considered.

Quote

They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2.

Wrong. They would have had to wait for an official decree to DEPART, but not to prepare. After all, Daniel was among the highest officials in the Empire, and would have done all he could to prepare his people for the Return that he knew was inevitable.

Quote

 

Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?

 

I already told you: Darius is irrelevant, because we know Cyrus' years of rule.
     
 

Quote

 

:::: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.

::: Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE

:: That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.

 

It's a false statement, and it has no relation to what I said. Another red herring.
     

Quote

 

:: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history.

 

Still speculation, unless there are specific statements in the Bible or secular sources that pinpoint the date.

Oh yeah, we already have those by combining Ezra and Josephus.

Quote

Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.

LOL! Continuing to equate WTS speculation with hard fact.
     

Quote

 

::: but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra

:: What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery

The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.

 

You're repeating yourself. And I've already explained in some detail why these passages are exactly in harmony with my "thesis". You have not, and you can not, show different.
     

Quote

 

:: By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.

:: Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked

I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.

 

Suuuure. But you should submit part of your personal "thesis" to this forum for a sort of peer review, just as I have. After all, if it can't stand the scrutiny of a handful of knowledgeable amateurs, it certainly won't stand up to that of peer-reviewing scholars.

But no one will be holding their breath. After all, after nearly a dozen years, you still can't produce a simple timeline of a 537 Return. Nor can you read and understand slightly technical literature, such as is required to understand the Creation book's misrepresentation of a Scientific American article.
     
AlanF

[AlanF]

scholar pretendus ludicrus wrote:

Quote

 

:: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

::  This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.

:: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment

A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.

 

Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.
     

Quote

 

:: Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?

:: Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.

:: "John is AT the grocery store."

:: "John is FOR the grocery store."

:: Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.

:: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store

Yes indeed both have different meanings.

 

Very good! You're not quite as dumb as you let on.

Quote

 

No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.

 

Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wrong.
     

Quote

 

:: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:

:: << “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>

:: The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.

:: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.  

The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.

 

"Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.

Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.

Quote

The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home

You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.

Quote

which proves the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years.

Duh.

Quote

The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon

Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.

Quote

and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.

No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.

Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.

However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.

Quote

In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had  almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.

Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.
     

Quote

 

:: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?

:: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).  

The 70 years ended at Judah.

 

But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?

If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.

Quote

There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.

More gobble-de-goop.

Quote

 

:: Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.

No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.

 

Still rejecting the Bible, eh?

Jer. 52:28-30 clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar's forces took 3,023 exiles in his 7th year (597), 832 in his 18th year, and 745 in his 23rd year. Which number do you conclude is the largest?

2 Kings 24:14 states that 10,000 exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (7th by Jer. 52 counting):

<< He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land. >>

But only a relative few were taken in 587 in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th by Jer. 52 counting), according to 2 Kings 25:11:

<< Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. >>Do you actually believe the Bible, Neil?
     

Quote

 

:: So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.

Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.

 

Except that your entire presentation is an attempt to deceive naive readers into thinking that "le" is used to refer to Babylon, but it is not, except in Jer. 29:10. You are a deliberate deceiver, Neil.

Quote

 

:: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.

Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.

 

Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".
     

Quote

 

:: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.

Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.

 

Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25).

Quote

Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.

Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.
     

Quote

 

:: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.

The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.

 

Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.

Quote

Babylon lost its power in 539 BCE as the Bible attests.

Wow! Another true statement!
     

Quote

 

:: You're contradicting yourself

No. Read more carefully what I have written.

 

I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?
     

Quote

 

:: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date

Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.

 

So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.

Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.

Quote

But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.

Still begging the question.
     

Quote

 

:: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.

Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.

 

Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.
     

Quote

 

:: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims

No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.

 

Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.
     

Quote

 

:: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon

Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.

 

Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah.

Quote

 

:: It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?

There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.

 

Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.
     

Quote

 

:: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

The period was a full 70 years with zero months.

 

Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.

Quote

 

::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'

:: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources

Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.

 

Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.
     

Quote

 

::: for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.

:: Quite the contrary.

No.

 

Prove it by citing source references.
     

Quote

 

::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.

:: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.

The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years  of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.

 

Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.

Quote

 

:: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.

The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.

 

That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.

Quote

Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval

Good! Then you'll approve of the many debunkings you're going to continue to experience.

And of course, you're really bad at debunking, because you confuse bald denials and assertions with real arguments.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

AND I DISAGREE THAT "HISTORICALLY"  [sorry caps] there wasn't  "a 70-year period between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Cyrus' accession year."  There is Biblical evidence, and that's  this thread title.

I will happily admit that there is a small measure of Biblical evidence that there could have been 70 years between Nebuchadezzar's 18th and Cyrus' accession. (Which could also be known as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th and Cyrus' 1st, depending on your counting method.) That particular understanding of the evidence is called into question by additional Bible evidence, not just by secular evidence.

But this thread was more specifically about whether 607 is supported Biblically. And of course it isn't. No secular date is supported Biblically. We have to consider why we think (or why we ever thought) that 607 might be supported. Our reasoning is clear: it's because we accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon on a certain secular date, 539, and then we count back 70 years from that secular date and say that the fall of Jerusalem must have been the exact start of the time when the 70 years were given to Babylon.

It's easy to see what's wrong with that reasoning, and why 607 is not Biblically supported. It's because it requires us to accept the secular date 539. So then we need to consider why we accept the date 539. There is absolutely no Biblical support for it, because the Bible gives us no secular dates. If we were to admit why we accept 539 this would be a disaster for 607. We accept 539 only if we are accepting that it is part of the Neo-Babylonian/Persian timeline that has been built up and verified by tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. It's part of a block of time based especially on lines of evidence running from about 626 to 522. There is no 539 without accepting this block of evidence. It is simply not honest to claim that one particular date is better than others for any year of the reign of any king in this period. The Watch Tower publications imply that there must be an unknown or yet undiscovered king in this period, or that any of the kings of this period may have had a reign longer than what the evidence shows. In other words, the Watch Tower publications indicate that they doubt this same evidence, yet ask us to be certain about one particular date within the block of evidence they are uncertain about. This is dishonest. It's using two sets of scales, or "a cheating pair of scales."

• (Proverbs 11:1,3) A cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.. . . 3 The integrity of the upright ones is what leads them, but distortion by those dealing treacherously will despoil them.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

What I don't understand [oh, wait...maybe I do?] is why, if 607 is the year, as I believe, of wall breached , Zedekiah escapes, is caught, blinded, after seeing his sons killed, taken into exile, and temple , houses, and almost everything in Jerusalem leveled, two months prior to the last Judeans going to Egypt, leaving land desolated,  -why 609, Zedekiah's 9th year, the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem that had parents eating their children, yet most starving to death anyway [as an example of how horrible], until 539, can't be the 70 years of Babylon's DOMINATION some are so dead keen on, and insistent over?

By your words here you appear to misunderstand WHY you believe 607 is the year the wall was breached, and the temple burned, etc. You believe Zedekiah's 9th year was 609, and was the beginning of the siege, and that 607 was his 11th year. So then you question why the 70 years of domination would not run from 609 to 539. You seem to forget WHY you believe in 539. How did you get that 539 date? If you would ever look into it and admit WHY you personally concluded that it's a reasonable date, then you would immediately realize why 609 could NEVER be the 9th year of Zedekiah.

Any of us who admit that we think that Jerusalem could have been destroyed in 607 or that the preceding siege started in 609 are inadvertently admitting that we have never looked into the matter of why we accept 539. EVERYONE who knows why we accept 539 knows that it is dishonest to accept 607 and 609 for those particular events that came upon Jerusalem. This is how and why it is instantly possible to tell that someone who claims to have truly looked into the matter is being dishonest if they still insist that both 539 is correct and this view of 607 is correct. This is why someone who has claimed to study the issue for several decades and who touts their secular degrees and scholarship should be immediately called out for hypocrisy, sloppiness, or dishonesty. You can see on this very thread that those claiming to be scholars, but who have accepted 607 to 537, have learned to avoid evidence altogether. 

ON THE OTHER HAND. . .

I think that 609 to 539 is perfectly adequate as the secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination, although I have no real use for the specific secular years. I think that 607 to 537 is also an adequate secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination since the greatest effect upon Judea from Babylon was likely felt from about 606 to 538, which includes about 69 years. Now that I have looked into it carefully I see it would be dishonest for ME to attach the same events to those years as you attach to them, but of course, I can see your reasoning. You would claim, as most all Witnesses have claimed at some point, that this period of greatest desolation on Judea in particular could be Biblically dated from about the 18th year of Nebuhadnezzar to the accession year of Cyrus. It could be tempting to name this period as the same as the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination, and several commentators, especially in previous centuries did just that. In the same way, several commentators thought that the beginning of the 70 weeks of years (Daniel) must have started with Cyrus' decree, rather than in the years of Artaxerxes. Secular data got in the way and commentators had to adjust. It turned out not to be what had seemed like the simplest and most obvious interpretation.

But it can also be shown that we should have questioned this "most simple and obvious interpretation" even without the secular data, but just on Bible data alone.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know which commentators had to adjust after secular data got in the way, but I see WT's 70 weeks begins at the same time as Ussher's  date that he established in 1613.-

Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. And, of course, there have been many attempts by Jewish persons going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus and several more attempts among Jewish scholars and commentators and the dates are all over the place. Of course, even though we generally keep to the explanation from the Watch Tower you quoted, this particular theory for the date has had even more damaging evidence against it which continues to pile up. What some other Bible commentators have done is to keep a similar set of dates and count them with 360 day years. Some allow them to land closer to 70 C.E., and some still look for ways to dismiss the Persian chronology to start the 70 weeks closer to 539 B.C.E as seen in sources that AllenSmith has repeatedly posted.