Jump to content
The World News Media

SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)


JW Insider

Recommended Posts


  • Views 26.3k
  • Replies 679
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time.

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who

Most of what CC says is just bluster he finds randomly, evidently by Googling key words. And if it he doesn't quite understand it, he must think others won't understand it either, and therefore he thi

Posted Images

  • Member

JW Insider

57 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Does Jeremiah 25 say that only Judea will serve Babylon for 70 years, or does it say "these nations"?

Yes and No, depending on interpretation of this passage.

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations start? (or, When did these nations begin their servitude to Babylon?)

607 BCE when Babylon truly became the World Power

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations end? (or, When did these nations end their servitude to Babylon?)

For the Jews it would be 537 BCE with the Return and for the nations it would have 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

607 BCE when Babylon truly became the World Power

Can you explain how, for example, Tyre, Assyria, Egypt, and the Medes, and the Persians began their servitude to Babylon in 607? I'll make it even easier. Just tell me how Tyre began their servitude in 607 BCE?

 

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Does Jeremiah 25 say that only Judea will serve Babylon for 70 years, or does it say "these nations"?

Yes and No, depending on interpretation of this passage.

Does it say "these nations" or not? How do you interpret the passage? Through an interpretation of the LXX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

For the Jews it would be 537 BCE with the Return and for the nations it would have 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon

Why the difference? Did those other nations not have exiles to be released from Babylon?

(Jeremiah 46:13-19) . . .This is the word that Jehovah spoke to Jeremiah the prophet regarding the coming of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon to strike down the land of Egypt: . . . 19 Prepare your baggage for exile, O daughter inhabiting Egypt. For Noph will become an object of horror; It will be set afire and left without an inhabitant.

(Jeremiah 46:24-26) . . .The daughter of Egypt will be put to shame. She will be handed over to the people of the north.’ 25 “Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: ‘Now I am turning my attention to Aʹmon from No, to Pharʹaoh, to Egypt, to her gods, and to her kings—yes, to Pharʹaoh and all those trusting in him.’ 26 “‘And I will hand them over to those seeking to take their life, to King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and his servants. But afterward she will be inhabited as in times past,’ declares Jehovah.

Can you give the years when Egypt was without an inhabitant?

(Jeremiah 48:4-7) . . .Moʹab has been broken down. Her little ones cry out.  5 On the ascent of Luʹhith they weep continually as they climb. And on the way down from Hor·o·naʹim they hear cries of distress over the catastrophe.  6 Flee, escape for your lives! You must become like a juniper tree in the wilderness.  7 Because you trust in your works and in your treasures, You will also be captured. And Cheʹmosh will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes. . .

Can you give the years when Moab/Chemosh went into exile?

How can anyone say that a part of the answer is "No" to whether Jeremiah 25 mentions "these nations"? That sounds very evasive when you consider the rest of Jeremiah:

(Jeremiah 48:46-49:6) . . .Woe to you, O Moʹab! The people of Cheʹmosh have perished. For your sons have been taken captive, And your daughters have gone into exile. 47 But I will gather the captives of Moʹab in the final part of the days,’ declares Jehovah. ‘Down to this point is the judgment on Moʹab.’” 49 For the Amʹmon·ites, this is what Jehovah says: “Does Israel have no sons? Does he have no heir? Why has Malʹcam taken possession of Gad? And why are his people living in Israel’s cities?”  2 “‘Therefore look! the days are coming,’ declares Jehovah, ‘When I will cause the alarm signal of war to be heard against Rabʹbah of the Amʹmon·ites. She will become a desolate mound, And her dependent towns will be set on fire.’ ‘And Israel will take possession of those who dispossessed him,’ says Jehovah.  3 ‘Wail, O Heshʹbon, for Aʹi has been destroyed! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rabʹbah. Put on sackcloth. Wail and rove about among the stone pens, For Malʹcam will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes.  4 Why do you brag about the valleys, About your flowing plain, O unfaithful daughter, Who trusts in her treasures And who says: “Who will come against me?”’”  5 “‘Here I am bringing something dreadful on you,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, ‘From all those around you. You will be dispersed in every direction, And no one will gather those who flee.’”  6 “‘But afterward I will gather the captives of the Amʹmon·ites,’ declares Jehovah.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Satan can be an angel of light -because deceit comes in all kind of forms.  A polite man can be one who speaks his own thoughts - not that of Jehovah.  

Nice does not mean good!  Remember that!  I prefer someone who is honest and maybe unpleasant - because I may not be ready to hear the truth!  and I know what I am dealing with.  Model behavior  can be misleading!

I agree and disagree in the same time. :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Can you explain how, for example, Tyre, Assyria, Egypt, and the Medes, and the Persians began their servitude to Babylon in 607? I'll make it even easier. Just tell me how Tyre began their servitude in 607 BCE?

Too easy. The simple fact is that in 607 BCE, Babylon became the new World Power as foretold by Daniel the Prophet and it exercised complete domination over all those nations from that time forward. During Neb's reign he subjugated Tyre shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE- Ezek.26:1.

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Does it say "these nations" or not? How do you interpret the passage? Through an interpretation of the LXX

Yes this is the problem as to how to  translate the passage from Hebrew into English and how to interpret the passage . Rolf Furuli discusses the linguistic issues with this verse and I recommend that you consult leading Bible commentaries on this passage including the LXX. The said scholar unlike most Witnesses loves Bible commentaries and has the leading or major  commentaries of Jeremiah to hand and i would be happy to supply a reading list of such for you.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Why the difference? Did those other nations not have exiles to be released from Babylon?

(Jeremiah 46:13-19) . . .This is the word that Jehovah spoke to Jeremiah the prophet regarding the coming of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon to strike down the land of Egypt: . . . 19 Prepare your baggage for exile, O daughter inhabiting Egypt. For Noph will become an object of horror; It will be set afire and left without an inhabitant.

(Jeremiah 46:24-26) . . .The daughter of Egypt will be put to shame. She will be handed over to the people of the north.’ 25 “Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: ‘Now I am turning my attention to Aʹmon from No, to Pharʹaoh, to Egypt, to her gods, and to her kings—yes, to Pharʹaoh and all those trusting in him.’ 26 “‘And I will hand them over to those seeking to take their life, to King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and his servants. But afterward she will be inhabited as in times past,’ declares Jehovah.

The difference is because of interpretation for there is a clear distinction made in the Jer. 25 where Judah is first addressed from vs. 1-11 then later the Oracle to the nations commences from verse 12-26 specifically.

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Can you give the years when Egypt was without an inhabitant?

No, broadly speaking but here is a chronology based on Ezek.29:12, 17-18;30:10. Neb. attacks Egypt in his 37 th year-588 BCE and Ezekiel makes his final prophecy against Egypt in his 27th year of his exile in 590 BCE.

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Can you give the years when Moab/Chemosh went into exile?

How can anyone say that a part of the answer is "No" to whether Jeremiah 25 mentions "these nations"? That sounds very evasive when you consider the rest of Jeremiah:

No. No historical information available which is more of a problem for you than for WT scholars. No evasion just a working with what the Bible tells us in the absence of secular history.

scholar JW

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The simple fact is that in 607 BCE, Babylon became the new World Power as foretold by Daniel the Prophet and it exercised complete domination over all those nations from that time forward.

That's fine. It wasn't fully clear to me until now that you also reject the WTS interpretation of when Babylon became the new world power replacing Assyria (per INSIGHT). I also believe it was around 607, which was just a couple of years prior to the battle of Carchemish. INSIGHT uses Carchemish as one of the primary events marking the start of the Babylonian world power although, to make 1914 work, the Watchtower dates it to 625 instead of 605 BCE.

You are apparently using the much narrower definition of world power in the Bible when world power often refers to how Jehovah's people were affected. In this case I was asking about Jeremiah 25, which mentions "these nations" in addition to Judea.

23 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

During Neb's reign he subjugated Tyre shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE- Ezek.26:1.

No. The prophecy against Tyre came shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, but that specific prophecy began fulfillment years later. (This is one of the ways we know that the nations served Babylon for 70 years, but the specific length of any one nation's complete servitude could have been much shorter, less than 40 years for Tyre.) But you already indicated, above, that you rejected the Society's interpretation of this in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book

(Ezekiel 26:1-9) . . .In the 11th year, on the first day of the moth, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, . . . 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers. 8 He will destroy your settlements in the countryside with the sword, and he will build a siege wall and throw up a siege rampart against you and raise up a great shield against you. 9 He will pound your walls with his battering ram, and with his axes he will pull down your towers.

A siege wall is an indication that this did not happen overnight, but may have taken years, and may not have started until years after 587/6.  This is what INSIGHT says, too:

*** INSIGHT-2 p. 531 Tyre ***
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12.

According to INSIGHT, the prophecy was fulfilled at least 13 years after Jerusalem fell. But the power of Babylonian domination on the whole region, including Tyre, would have been felt from at least the time of the battle of Carchemish. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's fine. It wasn't fully clear to me until now that you also reject the WTS interpretation of when Babylon became the new world power replacing Assyria (per INSIGHT). I also believe it was around 607, which was just a couple of years prior to the battle of Carchemish. INSIGHT uses Carchemish as one of the primary events marking the start of the Babylonian world power although, to make 1914 work, the Watchtower dates it to 625 instead of 605 BCE.

You are apparently using the much narrower definition of world power in the Bible when world power often refers to how Jehovah's people were affected. In this case I was asking about Jeremiah 25, which mentions "these nations" in addition to Judea

Our publications indicate that in relation to God's people Babylon became the World Power in 607 BCE with the overthrow of the Judean Monarchy.

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No. The prophecy against Tyre came shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, but that specific prophecy began fulfillment years later. (This is one of the ways we know that the nations served Babylon for 70 years, but the specific length of any one nation's complete servitude could have been much shorter, less than 40 years for Tyre.) But you already indicated, above, that you rejected the Society's interpretation of this in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book

(Ezekiel 26:1-9) . . .In the 11th year, on the first day of the moth, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, . . . 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers. 8 He will destroy your settlements in the countryside with the sword, and he will build a siege wall and throw up a siege rampart against you and raise up a great shield against you. 9 He will pound your walls with his battering ram, and with his axes he will pull down your towers.

A siege wall is an indication that this did not happen overnight, but may have taken years, and may not have started until years after 587/6.  This is what INSIGHT says, too:

*** INSIGHT-2 p. 531 Tyre ***
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12.

According to INSIGHT, the prophecy was fulfilled at least 13 years after Jerusalem fell. But the power of Babylonian domination on the whole region, including Tyre, would have been felt from at least the time of the battle of Carchemish. 

No, the prophecy against Tyre occurred after the fall not in 586/7 BCE but in 607 BCE according to Ezekiel. 26:1 which prophecy was given in the 11 th year of Ezekiel's exile. Isaiah 23:14-18 simply shows that Tyre was forgotten for 70 years which had been besieged by Nebuchadnezzar thus coming under the yoke of Babylon's domination during that period of Jeremiah's 70 year period of servitude to the nations.

 

46 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

According to INSIGHT, the prophecy was fulfilled at least 13 years after Jerusalem fell. But the power of Babylonian domination on the whole region, including Tyre, would have been felt from at least the time of the battle of Carchemish. 

The date is the fall of 607 BCE not the earlier date of Carchemish for that is the time dated by Ezekiel

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Anna, I'm giving you an extended answer here, so that you can see clearly why ScholarJW and certain other JW apologists who post on this board are not only too incompetent to post anything correct, but too much pathological liars to be believed about anything.

On 12/23/2020 at 12:46 PM, scholar JW had said:

Quote

 

Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success.

. . .

 

Quote

 

Anna said:

For anyone following this topic, they can see a question posed, but not answered. I haven't checked further down the thread, I am assuming it hasn't been answered, so if that is the case, I think for the benefit of the readers, it might be time that you answer it if no one else has.

 

It was answered several times, at least in part, by several posters, including by ScholarJW himself. All he has been doing is playing games, as JW Insider well described in the quoted material below.

If you really want to see what this charlatan has tried to be up to, you'll have to get down into the nitty gritty and carefully read the material below.

QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS:

Here we have ScholarJW admitting knowing about the dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152093 

Quote

ScholarJW: ... the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152094

Quote

ScholarJW: The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.

Anna, you'll note that ScholarJW gave no proof, no source references -- only a bald claim.One of my responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152105
AlanF

Quote

 

Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.

You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.

And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:

https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

 

More responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152106
 

Quote

 

ScholarJW: The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan

AlanF: Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?

 

Here we find the first glimmerings of ScholarJW's "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152112

Quote

 

ScholarJW

Quote

 

 On 12/13/2020 at 6:11 PM, AlanF said:
Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.

. . .

 



What about the reign of Darius during this period and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months. Your timeframe  is too short and impossible for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations.

 

And another bit of "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152121

Quote

 

ScholarJW

Quote

On 12/13/2020 at 6:59 PM, AlanF said:
Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.



Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius. The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE. 

 

My response:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152133
 

Quote

 

AlanF

Quote

ScholarJW: Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius.



Scholars, even the fake Watchtower ones, generally agree that the reign of Darius is too problematic to say anything substantive about. Yet

Quote

they almost all agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE.



Even the Watchtower more or less agrees (Insight Vol. 1, p. 568):

<< if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E. >>

ScholarJW: The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE.

Saying "problematic" is not an argument. There is no real justification for late 538. If you think there is, then lay it out. But again no one will be holding his breath.

 

Soon, ScholarJW posted material from the Insight book:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152126
ScholarJW

Quote

 

Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 2

In view of your paper on this subject what then is wrong with the content, facts and reasoning of this information?

 

To which AlanF replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152138

Quote

 

ScholarJW quoted [the above] from the Insight book, Vol. 1, "Cyrus", pp. 568-569, but is too incompetent as a claimed scholar to have given the citation:

Nothing insofar as the reasoning goes, but it's pure speculation masquerading as solidly established fact and is designed to deceive naive JW readers.

And as I have explained in my paper ( https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf ) it is only one of two competing theories, and it entirely ignores the evidence brought in by Josephus -- which breaks the tie between the otherwise possible theories.

Since this is all laid out in my paper, with nice pictures and formatting and such, there is no need to repeat it here.

On the other hand, since you've not produced a similar paper refuting mine, here is a good place to bring up points from my paper that you think are wrong and let the mob discuss them. If you dare. Which you won't.

 

Here I expand upon the events of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/
AlanF

Quote

 

More on the Akitu festival so we're on the same page: This was held in early Nisan and was essentially a festival going back to the Sumerians celebrating the spring barley planting. So far as I can gather from my readings, this was also a time that various Middle Eastern rulers inaugurated their 1st regnal year. If this happened with Cyrus, then since his generally accepted accession was some time around October, 539, his 1st year would have begun Nisan 1, 538 and would therefore have corresponded with the Akitu festival, which would have been celebrated anyway. Such a big event would certainly have been accompanied by the grand gesture of Cyrus issuing his proclamation of release, along with many other significant events. According to this reasoning, that proclamation is unlikely to have been issued in late 538 -- what would occasion it? -- or early 537 but before Nisan 1 -- again what would occasion it? But as you imply, a Nisan 537 date is simply unreasonable if Arauna's point about the Akitu festival holds water.

So from Nisan to Tishri of 537 or 538 would be six months (although Parker and Dubberstein assign the intercalary month Ululu II between Elul and Tishri in 537, making it seven months). Either way, six months is plenty of time for a journey from Babylon to Judah, especially if, as seems extremely likely, the Jews knew very well that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives soon after he conquered some city, and therefore would have begun preparations for their return to Judah soon after Babylon's fall, giving them 5-6 months of preparation time even before the proclamation.

So in terms of preparation time plus journey time, a journey in 538 or 537 is equally possible. The deciding factor, if any, between the two must be something else. Which I have shown, with strong likelihood, is Josephus' statement about laying the foundation of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which Ezra also pegs as the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return, i.e., Iyyar 537 BCE. This works whether Josephus used Nisan or Tishri dating.

 

Now we get to ScholarJW's post of interest:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184

Quote

 

ScholarJW: Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:

Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars?

 

To which I replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152189

Quote

Alan F: Already done in the Julian calendar. Conversion to the Gregorian calendar is easily found with a search engine.

After which followed several rejoinders:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152190

Quote

 

ScholarJW: You cannot answer this question or you refuse to answer the question!

AlanF: Already done a number of times.

ScholarJW: Well answer the question. Show the postings

AlanF: You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.

ScholarJW: What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly?

AlanF: Hypocrite! You complain when others use your own tactics on you.

 

Later we have ScholarJW going at it with JW Insider:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-152280

Quote

ScholarJW: Your reply is just what i expected. Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender?

To which JW Insider replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284

Quote

 

JW Insider: I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years."  After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.

 

A bit farther on:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152292

Quote

 

ScholarJW: Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance.

AlanF: Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here.
Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science.

 

A little later we find:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152333

Quote

 

ScholarJW: The so-called error that Alan F in his ignorance and cannot even give the modern calendation for the first year of Cyrus is simply facile.

AlanF: . . . As for your lie that I cannot give such a "calendation", that's nonsense. I repeat: I'm not playing your games. The date is given in Julian years in almost all sources, of which you're well aware. Conversion from Julian to Gregorian dates is trivially accomplished by various means, the simplest being to find a website that does it. There are dozens. Here: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227757509

 

Another day, another lie:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152341

Quote

 

ScholarJW: It is not a lie for I am asking you a simple question,

AlanF: Which I and others have answered several dozen times now.

AlanF: You're lying because you know perfectly well that I most certain can answer your questions, but until a few posts ago have refused to play your game. Big difference between "can't" and "won't". Such a complete dipshit!

ScholarJW: So give the Julian date if you dare!

AlanF: Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 BCE through Addaru 29/30 (March 11), 537 BCE, according to Parker & Dubberstein.

AlanF: Now you look up the Julian to Gregorian converter website I told you about and see if you can plug in the numbers and find your Gregorian date. If you dare. Which you won't.

 

Forward a few days:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/39/?tab=comments#comment-152736

Quote

 

On 12/23/2020 at 1:47 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
That is rich coming from you, Neil, as somebody who said he could not be bothered learning how to use an astronomy program to check the celestial positions on VAT 4956 for himself, and prefers instead to wallow in his own ignorance and self-admitted incompetence while hurling insults at those who have actually done the work. Why should I or AlanF or JW Insider or anyone else spoon-feed easily Googleable answers to someone who is too bone-idle to find the answer for himself, despite boasting about how great a scholar he is? Let me know when you can be bothered, Neil. Until then, hooroo.

. . .

AlanF: This moron is not only irredeemably lazy, but stupid enough to think that he can lay a trap for JW critics by proposing a silly task that, as you and I have pointed out, can easily be accomplished via Google. I even pointed him to a website that does Julian to Gregorian conversion, etc., as well as to definitive Watchtower statements about the 539 date. I don't know what this charlatan's game is here, but I ain't playing along anymore.

 

Later still:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-152762

Quote

 

ScholarJW: You have not completed the answer so try again!!!

AlanF: Still you lie. Go back page by page and search for "Nisan 1" in my postings. In at least one post, you'll find my answers.
Of course, this is rocket science for someone too stupid to figure out how to Copy/Paste.

 

END OF QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS

So, Anna, it should be obvious by now that ScholarJW posed simple questions as a simple-minded trap of some sort, that all of us participants -- including he himself -- knew that all the others knew the answers to. That's why we refused, for awhile, to play his stupid game.

Now that JW Insider has given an extensive answer to ScholarJW's challenge ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152809 ), and ScholarJW has replied in such a way as to 'spring' his laughable trap, surely you can see how stupid his entire game has been. His comments about Darius are common knowledge among everyone qualified to comment on the material of this thread.

JW Insider again gave an insightful set of comments along these lines: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152808

 

So, Anna, by now I'm sure you see why several of us refer to ScholarJW as "ScholarJW Pretendus" and as a pathological liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

  On 12/25/2020 at 8:07 PM, JW Insider said:
These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian
. . .

 

Quote

 

Correct! These dates are based on the assumption that the reign of Darius the Mede reign was concurrent with that of Cyrus. However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

The first full year of Darius would be from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the end of the month of Adar in 537 BCE, or, about, March 24, 538 BCE to March 11, 537 BCE, Julian Calendar or March 18, 538 BCE to March 5, 537 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.- Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC- AD 45, 1942, R.A.Parker and W.H. Dubberstein

 

What's your point? Not only do you contradict the entire narrative of the discussion in the Insight book about its justification for establishing the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE by reference to Cyrus' accession year, but Parker & Dubberstein's charts. Do you know better than P&D? I think not. Nor does Mommy Watchtower think so. Nor do any competent academic scholars.

By claiming the possibility that Cyrus' 1st year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, you've contradicted the Insight book's argument that his 9th year was 530 BCE. Perhaps you should write to the Society and correct the Insight book.

And by claiming that Cyrus issued his proclamation in or after Nisan, 537 BCE, you not only again contradict various discussions in the Insight book, but have eliminated your own argument that there is not enough time between Nisan and Tishri for the Jews to have returned to Judah.

So which is it? Did Cyrus issue his proclamation in late 538, early 537 but before Nisan, or after Nisan 1, 537?

Clearly, this ScholarJW Pretendus Moronicus can neither keep his arguments straight nor avoid the 'apostasy' of contradicting Mommy Watchtower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Alan de Fool

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

What's your point? Not only do you contradict the entire narrative of the discussion in the Insight book about its justification for establishing the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE by reference to Cyrus' accession year, but Parker & Dubberstein's charts. Do you know better than P&D? I think not. Nor does Mommy Watchtower think so. Nor do any competent academic scholars.

I accept fully the contents of the Insight book especially its articles on Chronology for these are scholarly and clearly written but I cannot be responsible for any deficiency on your part in understanding such information. WT scholars have used P& D in its publications from the time when it was first published so I do not believe there are any major issues except for the fact that it does not account foe the brief reign of Darius.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

By claiming the possibility that Cyrus' 1st year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, you've contradicted the Insight book's argument that his 9th year was 530 BCE. Perhaps you should write to the Society and correct the Insight book.

The Insight article under 'CYRUS' is of excellent scholarship and well balanced covering all factors that are relevant in the correct dating of the Return so there is no need to write to the Society at this time.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

And by claiming that Cyrus issued his proclamation in or after Nisan, 537 BCE, you not only again contradict various discussions in the Insight book, but have eliminated your own argument that there is not enough time between Nisan and Tishri for the Jews to have returned to Judah.

So which is it? Did Cyrus issue his proclamation in late 538, early 537 but before Nisan, or after Nisan 1, 537?

I simply affirm what is written in the above article which i believe fully answers your query. It is not known precisely when Cyrus made the public and written proclamation only that these two events occurred in his 'first year' but this is a bigger problem for you as you wish to compress matters too much.

scholar JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mic Drop

      Mic Drop 95

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.