607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  I have read your nonsense and I am more than happy to respond to your presentation of Mitchell's and Bickerman's discussion of the subject of the Return of the Exiles as I have recently obtaine photocopies of these relevant sections.

  What I find surprising is your admission that there is indirect biblical evidence for their return in 538, I woulsd that that is simply too short a time frame and that the direct biblical and secular evidence establishes 537 as the date for the Return. Your discussion of this subject as with Jonsson's almost silence on this pertinent does not inspire confidence in your claimed 538 date. It strikes me that most biblical historians do share your enthisiasm for 538 because of the simple fact that biblical scholars have very little to say on the subject of the year of the Return. I put it to you that the community of scholars do not know what year the Jews returned and it is only because the celebrated WT scholars have proclaimed to such international community that the Jews returned home safe and sound in 537 by the seventh of that year.

  What you should do if you are truly genuine and honest about the matter is present a discussion of the facts which leads to the conclusion that the Jews returned in in 538 and perhaps such a paper could be presented for publication in a leading scholarly journal. Are you up for it?

  scholar JW
• 

  AuldSoul

  scholar,

  Despite your assertions to the contrary there is such a thing as a Absolute Date and Christendom's most celebrated scholar, Edwin Thiele made much of this fact as has the celebrated WT scholars with their providential selection of 539 BCE. The Wt literature has not made much mention of the secular materials as you suggest because these documents cannot establish a workable chronology of the OtT because these materials contradict the biblical seventy years.

  539 BC cannot be arrived at independently of astronomical observations dating other events and calculations from regnal years. If you believe otherwise, then we are at an impasse on this point. I will not quote authorities who offer their opinions on an absolute date unless the means by which they choose that date are available for review.

  This is a discussion forum, so I only post what I am personally able to argue. It seems you are not personally able to argue how Edwin Thiele or the WT scholars arrived at 539 BC as an absolute date. Without that discussion, your point is only that two sources stated that it is so—such a declaration carries no more weight than me citing two sources from 400 AD that said the earth is flat.

  It does not come as shock to me that you are unfamiliar with the Jonsson hypothesis because this published information is beyond your intellect. Perhaps if you are going to postulate on matters of chronology then you had better get informed and read what the critics say about WT chronology as I have done for many years.

  Your ad hominem dig is childish and trite. I would add "beneath you" but I am not certain that would be true. I stated why I am unfamiliar with the Jonsson hypothesis, I never read it. If you are claiming to be an expert on the subject you should be quite familiar with how secular and religious scholars arrive at 539 BC. Well, divulge. How do they arrive at that date as an Absolute Date? Do they just state it and make it so? Do they fold their arms across their chests and sharply nod their heads and make it so, ala "I Dream of Jeannie"? How do they arrive at that date?

  Your juvenile fascination with 555 as a corrective for biblical chronology is absurd

  The Hillah Stele isn't as a corrective for Bible chronology. It establishes 539 BC as the date for Baylon's overthrow. This Stele is the basis for calling 539 BC an Absolute Date, because it is calculated from 555 BC, which is as absolute a date as the ANE has to offer. If you didn't know that, then you obviously haven't studied as deeply as you pretend.

  Your juvenile appeal to authority is tiresome. You have no argument in favor of your point, so you use the argument of someone else with whom I am not debating. You haven't considered 555 BC or dismissed its relevance or the relevance of the Hillah Stele to ANE chronology before, and I seriously doubt you will after this.

  You have no basis to challenge my statements, because you have never studied the significance of the Hillah Stele (presumably because it is never commented on by the celebrated WT scholars). This Stele is the reason that 539 BC is an Absolute Date. But 539 BC is not the only Absolute Date in ANE chronology, scholar. If you were operating under that misconception you really should press on.

  But, as much energy as you have poured into debating what I called a side issue you have failed to respond to a single one of the numbered questions I asked. I will respot the list to refresh your memory.

  The seventy years of Tyre wasa period of domination to Babylon just as Jeremiah's seventy years was also of dominationm under Babylon.

  (1) When you read Jeremiah 25:22 how do you arrive at the "understanding" (i.e. interpretation) that the 70 years of Jeremiah are not identical to the 70 years of Isaiah?
  (2) How do you account for the 70 years of Jeremiah being used a proof text in that paragraph with no explanation of two different 70 year periods?
  (3) In what way was Cyrus or Medo-Persia called to account in 537 BC, and why would Jeremiah 25:12 apply to that king and that nation when they had not dominated anyone during that 70 years?
  (4) Why did WT scholars link Daniel 5:26 directly to Isaiah 13:11; Jeremiah 25:12; 27:7; 50:1; 51:11 in the marginal references?
  (5) Why does Isaiah 13:1 also link directly to Jeremiah 25:12 in the marginal references of the NWT, when the verse specifies that this is a pronouncement against Babylon?
  Please, try really hard to answer the questions I asked.

  You responded:

  I will respond to your specific five questions tomorrow night as they interest me greatly and I thank you most humbly and sincerely for posting such questions.

  I would prefer that you respond to these first. I find it interesting the difference in the tone with which you address me here compared to terms you used in your recent post questioning my intellect and calling me juvenile. I realize those terms were used as a defense mechanism against your absence of knowledge regarding the Hillah Stele and as a means to inflate your ego by "damaging" mine, but your attempt on both counts has failed.

  I don't believe you can respond to my five questions with intellectual integrity unless you first dispense with the doctrine of the "70 years" as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  AuldSoul
• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  Celebrated WT scholars for centuries have long pointed to 607 beginning the Gentile Times

  Not sure I understand. The WT hasn't been around for Centuries. Or celebrated.....and or err.....scholars?
• 

  AuldSoul

  MidwichCuckoo,

  Celebrated WT scholars for centuries have long pointed to 607 beginning the Gentile Times

  He forgets that they haven't even been pointing to 607 BC for one full century. The date changed from 606 BC to 607 BC in 1943. Current teaching won't reach its Centennial until 2043, much less has it been taught for centuries. But I apparently lack the intellect required to see this doctrine is full of ... fecal matter.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  Ok - I have a question. You know that programme with Chris Tarrant, ''Who Wants To Be A Millionaire''? Let's pretend the MILLION POUND question is:-

  Which year saw the beginning of the Gentile Times? Was it ...

  A. 607BC

  B. 606BC

  C. 587BC

  D. 33CE

  Scholar - how would you answer? Careful, it's for £1,000,000
• 

  M.J.

  Your questions are are simply raised to undermine the scholarship of the WT Society and its sacred chronology

  'nuff said.
• 

  AuldSoul

  The scriptures in Daniel 1:1 tell us exactly when Daniel and his companions were p[resent in Babylon and that was in the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship which was 617 BCE and not the first year of Nebuchadenezzer's reign.

  Okay, assuming at the outset that you are a magnificently intellectual giant of some reknown—nay, FAME—you should have no problem directing me to the Scripture that states that the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship was 617 BC. I will await your profoundly intellectual disclosure of this Scripture that eluded my lowly—nay, INFANTILE—intellect each of the many times I have read the Bible through.

  But, please answer my five questions first and then tell me where to find this wholly remarkable passage to which you here refer.

  AuldSoul
• 

  ackack

  Its amazing to me how much Scholar personally attacks. I can't understand how this sort of behaviour is acceptable in any way.

  ackack
• 

  stevenyc

  Scholar says: The Wt literature has not made much mention of the secular materials as you suggest because these documents cannot establish a workable chronology of the OtT because these materials contradict the biblical seventy years.

  Watchtower says:

  18

  Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks (Note: To extend the list would be an easy matter, but it would only serve to further confirm a date not in question. ). These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past sixty years.

  "Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C." (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852) "When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas."—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.

  "In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great."—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.

  "Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C."—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.

  "The Persians took the city in 539 B.C." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 10) "In 539 B.C., the Persians conquered Babylonia." (Ibid., p. 13) "Nabonidus, the last king of Chaldean Babylonia, who reigned from 555 to 539 B.C."—Ibid, p. 193.

  "The downfall of Lydia prepared the way for a Persian attack on Babylonia. The conquest of that country proved unexpectedly easy. In 539 B.C. the great city of Babylon opened its gates to the Persian hosts."—Ancient History, Hutton Webster, 1913, p. 64.

  "In 539 B.C. Babylon, too, was captured by Cyrus."—The Story of the Ancient Nations, W. L. Westermann, 1912, p. 73.

  "In 539 B.C., however, Cyrus advanced for the conquest of Babylonia. . . . Sippar was taken without a blow and, two days later, the van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon."—History of the Hebrews, F. K. Sanders, 1914, p. 230.

  "It is not likely that there was a long interval between his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] death and the fall of the Chaldean Empire before the onslaught of Cyrus in 539."—The Biblical Period, W. F. Albright, Reprinted from The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, 1955, p. 49.

  "Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people."—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.

  "Nebuchadnezzar had surrounded Babylon with huge walls, but after the defeat of Belshazzar’s army the city surrendered with slight resistance in 539 B.C."—World History at a Glance, Reither, 1942, pp. 28, 29.

  "When the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, Babylon opened its gates to Cyrus in 539 B.C. without opposition."—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p. 335.

  "In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (B. C. 539), Cyrus captured Babylon."—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopœdia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fallows, 1913, Vol. 1, p. 207.

  "Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C., added the Babylonian to the other empires which he had acquired and consolidated with magical ease and celerity."—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 1926, p. 91.

  "The city [Babylon] was taken by surprise B. C. 539."—The Universal Bible Dictionary Peloubet, 1912, p. 69.

  "539 B.C. marked the collapse of Semitic hegemony in the ancient Orient, and the introduction of Aryan leadership which continued for at least a thousand years. This conquest of Babylon by Cyrus laid the foundation for all the later developments under Greek and Roman rule."—Darius the Mede, Whitcomb, 1959, Introduction, p. 2.

  "It was Cyrus, also, who conquered Babylon in the year 539 B.C. and thus became master of Mesopotamia and Syria."—Ancient and Medieval History, Hayes and Moon, 1930, p. 92.

  "Nabonidus (Nabunaid) . . . was the last King of Babylon (555-539 B.C.)."—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 184.

  "In 539 the kingdom of Babylon fell to Cyrus."—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 3397.

  "The Chaldean Empire, with its capital at Babylon (Second Babylonian Empire), lasted, . . . until 539 B.C., when it collapsed before the attack of Cyrus."—The Outline of History, H. G. Wells, 1921, p. 140.

  "Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B. C."—The International Standard Bible Encyclopœdia, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 367.

  "In the year 539 Cyrus conquers the city Babylon, Babylonia becomes a province of the Persian Empire."—Translated from the German Bibel-Lexikon, edited by Herbert Haag together with associates, printed in Switzerland, in 1951. See page 150 under Babylonia.

  steve
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus wrote:

  : I have read your nonsense

  A good deal of the Orwellian doublethink called crimestop is at work here.

  : and I am more than happy to respond to your presentation of Mitchell's and Bickerman's discussion of the subject of the Return of the Exiles as I have recently obtaine photocopies of these relevant sections.

  Do tell. But readers who keep up with these discussions will note that you've made many previous claims that you'd respond to various arguments, but you never did. In particular, you've entirely failed to deal with Josephus' information that shows that 537 is impossible.

  : What I find surprising is your admission that there is indirect biblical evidence for their return in 538,

  What do you mean "admission", you moron? I've directly stated several times that it is this indirect biblical evidence, in contrast with no biblical evidence whatsoever in favor of 537, that tends to decide the issue in favor of 538. Readers will again note that neither you nor the Society have ever provided one iota of biblical evidence in favor of 537 -- only bare declarations and special pleadings. This is proved by your complete lack of comment on my discussion above, which directly proves that the Society has no actual arguments about this.

  : I woulsd that that is simply too short a time frame

  A fine example of a bare declaration that confuses your personal opinion with actual arguments. But everyone knows that your opinion is dictacted by the Society, and that if the Society decided that 538 were the correct date after all, you'd immediately change your opinion.

  : and that the direct biblical and secular evidence establishes 537 as the date for the Return.

  Another bald declaration. But you're perfectly well aware that there is no such evidence, which is proved by your complete inability to present any in post after post.

  : Your discussion of this subject as with Jonsson's almost silence

  I already quoted Jonsson's large footnote, which is his only discussion of the topic. As if any more is needed. Again you think to dismiss solid argumentation with stupid, infantile innuendo.

  : on this pertinent does not inspire confidence in your claimed 538 date.

  Translation: "I have no arguments and must resort to infantile dismissals because of my faith in inebriated WT 'scholars'."

  : It strikes me that most biblical historians do share your enthisiasm for 538

  This is quite an admission! Until now you've claimed that all modern scholars go along with the 537 date.

  : because of the simple fact that biblical scholars have very little to say on the subject of the year of the Return.

  This is gibberish.

  : I put it to you that the community of scholars do not know what year the Jews returned

  That's right, because there is no absolutely incontrovertible evidence for 537 or 538. Nevertheless, the only evidence we do have that is not pure speculation (i.e., the indirect biblical evidence I've described, along with Josephus' statements about the time of beginning the temple's rebuilding) strongly come down on the side of 538. And again, you and the Society have no secular evidence at all (like a statement from the secular historian Josephus), and not even any indirect biblical evidence. You have nothing but pure speculation and bald claims.

  : and it is only because the celebrated WT scholars have proclaimed to such international community that the Jews returned home safe and sound in 537 by the seventh of that year.

  More gibberish. Can you not write intellibible English sentences?

  I suspect that all you're trying to say is that only the Watchtower Society has come out strongly for the 537 date. But that's the whole point: they've done this based on no actual evidence, but only because of their need to retain the all-important 1914 date. Why is that? Because without 1914, the whole ridiculous power structure of the Society collapses. That's why they used to claim 606 and 536 B.C., and when in 1943-1956, they made changes to migrate these to 607 and 537, they always maintained the 70 year difference.

  : What you should do if you are truly genuine and honest about the matter is present a discussion of the facts which leads to the conclusion that the Jews returned in in 538

  I've done that in my posts above and in previous threads. Your collossal intellectual dishonesty, and need to retain faith in Mommy Watchtower, prevents you from admitting it.

  : and perhaps such a paper could be presented for publication in a leading scholarly journal. Are you up for it?

  Since it has already been done by recognized scholars such as Mitchell, and by amateur scholars far more capable than I, like Carl Jonsson, there is no need.

  AlanF