Ann O'Maly

And here I thought you were writing gobble-de-goop before.
AlanF

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him.
(Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.” I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question.
(Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.
And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.
(Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.
You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.
Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long,  and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . .  intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.)
That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. 
I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures.
Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. 
Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24.
I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use.
I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though.
Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria.
It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past.
Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

Always a good policy. It results more often in intelligible writing.
AlanF

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

The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.
AlanF

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

I'm fine with that. That's why I have never bragged about intelligence or even claimed intelligence. You will never see me calling myself "scholar" or referencing titles from college degrees in Theological studies, or speaking about two PhD's as Allen Smith has mentioned multiple times. If a person says something that doesn't stand up to evidence, then it should be questioned. It doesn't matter who says it.
The room is actually pretty empty no matter who is playing. Perhaps we can all be thankful for that.
Could very well be. I'm not married to any of these secular dates. I think what favors the beginning in 609 is the idea that 2 Chronicles 36 seems pretty clear about ending it in 539, with the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Persian.
(2 Chronicles 36:17-22)  So he brought against them the king of the Chal·deʹans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary; he felt no compassion for young man or virgin, old or infirm. God gave everything into his hand.  All the utensils of the house of the true God, great and small, as well as the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king, and his princes, everything he brought to Babylon. He burned down the house of the true God, tore down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its fortified towers with fire, and destroyed everything of value.  He 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,  to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.  In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . . It would be difficult to conceive of continued Babylonian domination in a literal sense when Babylon was no longer a world power. They stopped being a world power around October 539. But you could claim, as some have, that it waited until the proclamation, which could have happened within days, or months. The "first year" by some reckoning could have been during those last 3 months of 539. But maybe it was a couple more months, or perhaps it waited a year or so. There's a minimum that can fit the scriptures, but there is also a maximum. A good chronological methodology considers all the possibilities. We can have a preference based on the weight we give various bits of evidence, but there is still a minimum and maximum range at which we might begin and end the period.
How would you answer the question, based on the Isaiah's Prophecy book about the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination? Would you start it in 607? Do you think that Babylon's domination continued after 539? That's about 68 years, and for me it fulfills the Bible prophecy from Jeremiah. If you believe the 70 years to be a little more literal, I can see why you might choose 609 to 539, or 608 to 538, or 607 to 537. Of course, parts of 72 years can include 70 full years, and parts of 70 years can include 68 full years (in the same sense that Jesus was in the grave for parts of three days to fulfill "three days and three nights").

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him.
 Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah:
(Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly.
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region?
Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.)  It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general?
We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world?  For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated:
(Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back.
9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles.
10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated!
Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013)
All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble?
Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

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

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

From the 'Neil-Speak Glossary':
        Fact: /fakt/ : noun
        plural noun: facts
a thing that is imagined to be true but bears no resemblance to objective reality. post-truth, Trumpian, 'alternative facts'.  also commonly known as 'BS'.  

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 
The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.
The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.
Nice try, though.

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

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

No, don't look because this thread is about 607, not about chastising strangers on the internet. I think @TrueTomHarley meant that suggestion to be purely rhetorical. Plus I don't think Alan F gives two monkeys bottoms.

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

allensmith28 wrote:
:: Correct. This is the argument I've been presenting.
:: Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.
That statement is meaningless. The Jewish and Babylonian calendar systems are solidly established. If you disagree, you must provide evidence along with references, if you have any.
Another meaningless statement. It's meaningless because it's not supported by any evidence.
A difference between what and what?
What on earth are you talking about, and what evidence do you have?
Based on what evidence?
Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?
Evidence, evidence, evidence!
Present your calculations, along with all supporting evidence, and especially references to scholarly sources.
Which basically contradicts Ezra 3:1-7, because that passage implies that the Jews' arrival in "their cities" was shortly before the 7th month Tishri.
Pure speculation.
Again contradicting Ezra. Ezra 3:8-10 clearly states that the work on the Temple was begun in the 2nd month (Iyyar) of the 2nd year of the Jews' return.
Which has what to do with pegging the date of the Jews' return to Judah?
By who?
Like what?
More meaningless statements.
This is approaching complete gobble-de-goop.
Pure speculation, based on a long chain of extremely questionable reasoning.
What holds true? Based on what evidence?
Except that the Watch Tower Society has declared such a claim "apostate reasoning".
References, please.
Wrong. Even if 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Judah, 607 rests on the biblically falsified claim that Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years earlier. 2 Chron. 36:20 clearly states that the 70 years ended when the Persian empire came to power, which was in 539 BCE. And Jer. 25, 27 and 29 together show that the 70 years ended when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended -- in 539 BCE.
:: Really. In what way were their writings flawed?
Wrong. You've given no evidence for anything.
Wrong. Jonsson's thesis is not that there is no such thing as the "Gentile times" -- after all, Luke 21:24 mentions it -- but that the Watch Tower Society's application of Luke 21:24, and lot of other stuff besides, is wrong.
If you disagree, then quote the parts of Jonsson's writings that you think prove your claim.
:: As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
More meaningless generalities. Try being specific.
AlanF

allensmith28
The Watch Tower Society's hypotheses concerning 537 BCE for the date of the Return and 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem need to be tested and examined carefully. There are three questions one should ask:
1. Have they been peer reviewed?
Answer: No. The Watch Tower Society considers itself without peers, and never submits anything for normal peer review.
2. Have they been endorsed by Carl Jonsson?
Answer: No. In fact, Jonsson is a critic of Watch Tower Chronology as a whole and has published extensive debunkings of it.
3. Why has not The Watch Tower Society published these theses in a respected scholarly journal because the subject of this date would be of minor interest to scholars and historians?
Answer: Because the matter has long been settled by secular historians and by most religious historian, and the Society knows full well that none of its chronological theses concerning 607 BCE would get past a normal peer review process.
Further, one could also ask whether the Watch Tower Society's schemes are simply 'contrivances' based upon problematics associated with the speculations of quacks like Nelson Barbour that were used to originate traditions that have all failed historical tests. Also, how do they differ from secular methodology on this subject, the similarities between the two and the assumptions used?
AlanF

Right. I consider the original NWT  among the most literally accurate of translations I've used. That's why I've quoted from it a lot on this board. Not that it's free of problems.
AlanF

From the 'Neil-Speak Glossary':
        Fact: /fakt/ : noun
        plural noun: facts
a thing that is imagined to be true but bears no resemblance to objective reality. post-truth, Trumpian, 'alternative facts'.  also commonly known as 'BS'.