Jump to content
The World News Media

AlanF

Member
  • Posts

    1,227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Already debunked.
    AlanF
  2. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I'm aware of when the Bible says that Darius began ruling -- in October, 539 BCE. After all it is well established that that is when Babylon fell to Cyrus' armies, and Dan. 5:30-31 states: "That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom." And the Bible gives no information about how long Darius the Mede was in power or exactly what his relationship to Cyrus was. We do know that even the Watch Tower agrees with these datings. Why don't you agree?
    AlanF
  3. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    And here I thought you were writing gobble-de-goop before.
    AlanF
  4. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    By all means, show us how this should be done. And again, give your source references.
    AlanF
  5. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Already debunked.
    AlanF
  6. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I'm aware of when the Bible says that Darius began ruling -- in October, 539 BCE. After all it is well established that that is when Babylon fell to Cyrus' armies, and Dan. 5:30-31 states: "That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. 31 And Da·riʹus the Mede received the kingdom." And the Bible gives no information about how long Darius the Mede was in power or exactly what his relationship to Cyrus was. We do know that even the Watch Tower agrees with these datings. Why don't you agree?
    AlanF
  7. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    And here I thought you were writing gobble-de-goop before.
    AlanF
  8. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Always a good policy. It results more often in intelligible writing.
    AlanF
  9. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Nana Fofana wrote:
    No one is saying that Jerusalem came under siege in 609. Where are you getting that from?
    If you claim that something I stated is a fact when it is not, then let's see if you can argue your point.
    In the meantime, note that I use "fact" in a practical way, not necessarily in a theoretical, absolute sense. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
    << . . . "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." >>
    The 70 years refers to a time of Babylonian supremacy, not of desolation of anything (Jer. 25:11-12; 27; 29:10)
    Since the 70 years were not a period of desolation, your point is moot.
    Besides, secular history is extremely well established on this point: Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, not 607.
    AlanF
  10. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.
    AlanF
  11. Like
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner wrote:
    Correct. That is what we have said.
    Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE.
    An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.
    To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly.
    A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating.
    However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians.
    So far so good.
    Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604.
    Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!"
    So far so good.
    Again we see ignorance of English on display.
    LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?
    It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused.
    Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st.
    To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no?
    The word is "prophesied".
    It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180.
    But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year!
    Wrong.
    Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme.
    Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land."
    Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".
    The word is "muddling" or "muddying".
    Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

     You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you.
    These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
     
    But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused.
     
     
    This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it.
    There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates.
    In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    AlanF
  12. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from AllenSmith in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.
    AlanF
  13. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from AllenSmith in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner wrote:
    Correct. That is what we have said.
    Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE.
    An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.
    To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly.
    A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating.
    However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians.
    So far so good.
    Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604.
    Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!"
    So far so good.
    Again we see ignorance of English on display.
    LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?
    It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused.
    Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st.
    To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no?
    The word is "prophesied".
    It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180.
    But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year!
    Wrong.
    Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme.
    Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land."
    Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".
    The word is "muddling" or "muddying".
    Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

     You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you.
    These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
     
    But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused.
     
     
    This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it.
    There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates.
    In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    AlanF
  14. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Always a good policy. It results more often in intelligible writing.
    AlanF
  15. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Nana Fofana wrote:
    No one is saying that Jerusalem came under siege in 609. Where are you getting that from?
    If you claim that something I stated is a fact when it is not, then let's see if you can argue your point.
    In the meantime, note that I use "fact" in a practical way, not necessarily in a theoretical, absolute sense. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
    << . . . "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. . . In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." >>
    The 70 years refers to a time of Babylonian supremacy, not of desolation of anything (Jer. 25:11-12; 27; 29:10)
    Since the 70 years were not a period of desolation, your point is moot.
    Besides, secular history is extremely well established on this point: Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE, not 607.
    AlanF
  16. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.
    AlanF
  17. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from DespicableME in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Foreigner wrote:
    Correct. That is what we have said.
    Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE.
    An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.
    To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly.
    A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating.
    However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians.
    So far so good.
    Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604.
    Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!"
    So far so good.
    Again we see ignorance of English on display.
    LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?
    It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused.
    Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st.
    To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no?
    The word is "prophesied".
    It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180.
    But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year!
    Wrong.
    Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme.
    Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land."
    Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".
    The word is "muddling" or "muddying".
    Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

     You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you.
    These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
     
    But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused.
     
     
    This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it.
    There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates.
    In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
    AlanF
  18. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    scholar JW wrote:
    :: The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus.
    Wrong, as shown in my post above.
    What of it?
    Except that, all by themselves, those passages provide no information on the date of the Return. One is forced to combine them with other Bible passages to get any date -- just as Carl Jonsson, I and many other JW critics have been doing for decades.
    Talk about nonsense! As I have repeatedly explained, the texts of Ezra and Josephus together provide the ONLY clear date for the Return -- Tishri, 538 BCE. Ezra alone provides no clear date. Do remember that speculation is no substitute for two witnesses.
    AlanF
  19. Like
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    scholar JW wrote:
    :: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?  
    Wow! Finally we see a response that isn't a misrepresention, bald assertion or flat out lie, but recognizes the logic of my post.
    Yes, and I've repeatedly argued and given evidence, for a dozen years now, why that's perfectly reasonable. You and other JW defenders, on the other hand, have only given excuses that amount to The Argument From Personal Incredulity -- "I can't believe it, so it ain't so!" And of course, "Tain't so cuz Mommy Watch Tower sez different!"
    By that "reasoning", every date in 538/537 should be rejected.
    But finally we see a bit of rational argument:
    That's a valid argument in favor of the Decree being made later in 538 than Nisan, or even as late the early months of 537, in the months immediately before Nisan, 537. But it's not a definitive argument.
    Keep in mind that Daniel had been made third ruler in Babylon by Belshazzar, with great fanfare (Dan. 5:29), and continued in a high position under Darius, so Daniel could well have known about Cyrus' coming Decree before it was officially announced. Daniel would then have communicated the news to his fellow captives, and it would have been spread among the Jews in Babylon very quickly.
    And of course, you've failed to rationally deal with the fact that, as I have repeatedly argued, all captives in Babylon would have known of Cyrus' habit of releasing captives quite soon after conquering some region, so they would naturally expect also to be released soon. Since they had nearly six lunar months between Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon in October, 539, and the beginning of his 1st regnal year in Nisan (~ late March) 538, they would theoretically have had nearly eight months of preparation time for their journey to Judah.
    The Jews would also have been well aware of Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer. 29:10) that when Babylon's 70 years of supremacy were over, Jehovah would bring them back to Judah. And they certainly knew that those 70 years were finished, since Dan. 5:26-28 states:
    << This is the interpretation of the words: ME′NE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . “PE′RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. >>
    And 2 Chron. 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar:
    << carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign. >>
    What we know for certain from Ezra's account is that the Decree was issued in Cyrus' 1st regnal year, which even the Watch Tower Society admits was Nisan 538 through Adar 537.
    You want to argue, without any real justification, that preparations for the journey to Judah could not have begun before Cyrus issued his decree. But that's pure speculation, as I've argued above.
    This is no problem at all, for the following reasons: The Watch Tower Society officially admits that Cyrus' accession year was Nisan, 539 through Adar 538, and his first regnal year was Nisan, 538 through Adar, 537 BCE. Do you dispute that? It also admits that identification of Darius the Mede is uncertain, allowing that:
    << some scholars consider it likely that Darius the Mede was in reality a viceroy who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans but as a subordinate of Cyrus, the supreme monarch of the Persian Empire. >> -- Insight, Vol. 1, "Darius", p. 582.
    Nonsense. If Darius (whoever he was) ruled concurrently with Cyrus, Cyrus' 1st regnal year still began Nisan 1, 538 BCE. And if you claim that Darius ruled before Cyrus began his 1st regnal year in 538, you're disagreeing with the Society and with virtually all modern scholars.
    AlanF
  20. Haha
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
    AlanF
  21. Upvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?
    See Insight, Vol. 1, "Captivity", p. 417, which states:
    << Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) Preparations were soon under way. With the direction of Governor Zerubbabel and High Priest Jeshua, “the sons of the Exile” (Ezr 4:1), . . . made the trip of about four months. . . By the seventh month, in the fall, they were settled in their cities. (Ezr 1:5–3:1) >>
    AlanF
  22. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
    AlanF
  23. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28
    The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?
    See Insight, Vol. 1, "Captivity", p. 417, which states:
    << Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) Preparations were soon under way. With the direction of Governor Zerubbabel and High Priest Jeshua, “the sons of the Exile” (Ezr 4:1), . . . made the trip of about four months. . . By the seventh month, in the fall, they were settled in their cities. (Ezr 1:5–3:1) >>
    AlanF
  24. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus.
    AlanF
  25. Downvote
    AlanF got a reaction from Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    allensmith28 wrote
    Wow! You do have a modicum of reading comprehension.
    It's not a problem for me, Jeffro or any competent scholar.
    You yourself provided the answer by quoting from "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)":
    << If we look at Cyrus as king of Babylon, however, then the Persians conquered that city on October 7, 539 BC. The Persian year ran from spring to spring and the Persians used the Accession Year method of reckoning, so probably October 539 to March 538 was Cyrus' Accession  Year and his first year ran from March 538 to March 537, his second year was 537/536 and his third year would be 536/535. >>
    Exactly as I have said.
    By the way, your presentation of source references is atrociously bad. You give no source reference information -- just jpg images.
    The Watch Tower Society agrees with these dates:
    << Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >> -- Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453.
    So some time between March 538 and March 537 Cyrus issue his decree of release. Again the Watch Tower Society agrees:
    << In “the first year” (evidently as ruler over Babylon) of Cyrus the Persian (538 B.C.E.) the royal decree went forth freeing the exiled Jews to “go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel.” (Ezr 1:1-4) >> -- Insight, Vol. 2, p. 44.
    So at this point in my reply, we know that Mommy Watch Tower agrees with the dates I've given for the reign of Cyrus.
    It seems quite obvious that you don't know that Julian/Gregorian calendar years do not coincide with Jewish or Persian or Babylonian years. Thus, while Cyrus actually became ruler over Babylon in October, 539 BCE, his accession year ran from Nisan (~ March) of 539 up to the next Nisan, in 538.
    This statement is proof that you don't understand the calendars.
    Nor do you seem to understand that Isaac Newton wrote around 1700, when far less historical information was available than today. And of course, you give no reference to your sources for Newton.
    First, an accession year cannot occur in one month.
    Second, as shown above, Cyrus' accession year began Nisan 1, 539 and ended the last day of Adar, 538. That's so even though his physical rule began in October (Heshvan) 539 (assuming Cyrus was credited with beginning his rule when his army overthrew Babylon and killed king Belshazzar).
    Again you prove to have no idea what you're talking about.
    Again consistent with the dates I've given.
    Based on what reasoning, in view of the Watch Tower approved dates shown above?
    This sentence fragment is gobble-de-goop.
    Not according to recognized historians and Mommy Watch Tower.
    Another meaningless sentence fragment.
    So Mommy Watch Tower is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. I certainly agree, but not on this basis.
    You have a better method? Let's see you explain it.
    Another ignorant sentence fragment. Perhaps you should take a hint from scholar JW and use Grammarly.
    Wrong, in view of the above information.
    How about after number 1?
    So does Mommy Watch Tower.
    What of it?
     
     
    Yep, totally clueless.
    Proved by your quotation of "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)", which I partially reproduced above.
    You other jpg here is unreadable, and since you don't even give a source reference, irrelevant.
    That's neither here nor there. We're talking about Cyrus.
    No one knows, since the Bible given virtually no information, nor do secular sources. Darius is irrelevant.
    [ Irrelevant information regarding Darius snipped ]
    What an ignorant claim. That's not even what I said. I said this: The Jews and other captives would have known that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives, based on knowledge of his military conquests all around the Near East.
    This misrepresentation is sterotypical of JW apologists. Sometimes it's done because the apologist has little reading comprehension. Sometimes it's done out of sheer malice and desperation.
    LOL!
    LOL even more!
    In addition to Grammarly, you need a spell checker.
    AlanF
×
×
  • 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.