AlanF

scholar JW wrote:
:: The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus.
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

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

The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
AlanF

The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
AlanF

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

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

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible.
The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar.
More abysmal reading comprehension on display.
AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:
 
I thought last week's WT lesson might apply to why the land had to be desolated for 70 years despite Manasseh  repenting and being allowed to live longer and continue as king, even though-
The land did not have to be desolated at all, much less for 70 years. Do you not accept what the Bible says about this?
"'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11.
AlanF

The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
AlanF

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

TrueTomHarley wrote:
 
:: You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.
"With thankful hearts we acknowledge God’s mercy and gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah’s organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God."--"The Watchtower", May 1, 1957, p. 285
:: Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action!
"Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?"--Matt. 33:23
See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely.
Done.
:: You obviously have no clue what evidence is.
"these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."--Jer. 25:11
"Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation."--scholar JW
Evidence: "these nations" is plural and refers both to the Jews and to the nations round about.
From one paraphrase of Hitchens you manage to make this conclusion? You haven't even read their books.
"When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating."--Prov. 18:13
AlanF

Both Jeffro and I have explained all this in great detail. The fact that you don't read it at all, or that you don't seem to retain what you read, does not change that.
As I've explained above and in the link I've given a dozen times, there were up to nearly six months for the preparation and the journey from Nisan 538 BCE. The journey was about four months, assuming that other biblical references to a similar journey can be used. That leaves nearly two months for preparation. And that assumes that the Jews were unaware of Cyrus' general practice of releasing captives, which they would have known of since Cyrus had been marching around the Near East for quite a few years. So they could have had a preparation time of up to seven months.
What do you think could not be accomplished in two to seven months?
Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action!
AlanF

Still no evidence presented. Just bald assertions.
And of course, no one presented even one iotum of argumentation against what I posted above.
You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.
AlanF

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible.
The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar.
More abysmal reading comprehension on display.
AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:
 
I thought last week's WT lesson might apply to why the land had to be desolated for 70 years despite Manasseh  repenting and being allowed to live longer and continue as king, even though-
The land did not have to be desolated at all, much less for 70 years. Do you not accept what the Bible says about this?
"'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11.
AlanF

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

Fair enough. I will abide by these guidelines.
I will not be responding to pathological liars, though.
AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible.
The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar.
More abysmal reading comprehension on display.
AlanF

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible.
The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar.
More abysmal reading comprehension on display.
AlanF

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

TrueTomHarley wrote:
 
:: You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.
"With thankful hearts we acknowledge God’s mercy and gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah’s organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God."--"The Watchtower", May 1, 1957, p. 285
:: Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action!
"Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?"--Matt. 33:23
See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely.
Done.
:: You obviously have no clue what evidence is.
"these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."--Jer. 25:11
"Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation."--scholar JW
Evidence: "these nations" is plural and refers both to the Jews and to the nations round about.
From one paraphrase of Hitchens you manage to make this conclusion? You haven't even read their books.
"When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating."--Prov. 18:13
AlanF