Don't know what to make of this scholar person. Is he'she really braindead or just playing?
I'm going back to the JW's
by Honesty 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
greendawn
That was an easy and sweet way to checkmate the opponent in five or six moves. We all know that the WTS refuses to accept the obvious because if they do one of the major supporting pillars of their doctrinal structure will collapse and bring down much of the rest.
-
moggy lover
The Jews returned in 537 BC??? That is news to me. Where does the Bible say that????
And where does it say that the 70 years was to be the time period of the exile?????
Of course you will find these conclusions in the WT, but nowhere in the Bible. You are perfectly free to believe any cockeyed idea you want to, but to insist that it has a biblical frame of reference is blasphemous to say the least.
I would like to commend the bov-symbol, posted earlier, to you which represents the futile efforts of your, and your masters, "scholarship"
Cheers and have a great [prophetic] day-for-a-year
-
Jeffro
Your reasoning is unsound and rather churlish. It is not scholars that make a big deal out of the problematic 586 or 587 date for the Fall although the problem has caused considerable discussion in the literature. Rather, it is apostates who attack 607 BCE because of its prophetism and they do not wish ascibe any form of truth to any teachings of their former allegiance. Regardless of its implication for so-called prophetic speculation it is the date that celebrated WT scholars have determined from the Scriptures and is in full harmony with secular evidence because it is derived from such evidence.
Most scholars simply have no interest in the flawed meanderings of a minor religion, so it is little wonder that they don't bother trying to refute the ridiculous notion of 607. You can't actually point to any of the supposed 'evidence' on which the Society's claims are based. 537 is the basis chosen for 607, and it is purely speculative - the Insight volumes even admit that 537 is selected as a "likely" and "probable" year, with no actual support whatsoever. So which "secular evidence" is it based on?
Regarding 537 for the date of the Return, it is a established date based upon Ezra and Josephus confirms that the temple foundation was laid in 536 which is the second year of Cyrus. Authorities do not quibble over 537 for the Return and apostates share this silence to wit, Jonsson.
Josephus confirms no such thing. Cyrus' first year spanned Nisan (circa April) 538 to Adar (c. March) 537. The second month of Cyrus' second year was Iyyar (c. May) of 537 (Ezra 3:8), and the Jews were in their homes by the previous Tishri (c. October, 538) (Ezra 3:1). It is therefore logical, reasonable, and in complete harmony with Ezra and Josephus, that Cyrus made his decree for the Jews to return towards the beginning of his first regnal year, Nisan (c. April) 538, allowing them several months to make the trip during the summer of 538.
Conversely, you are proposing, without any grounds, that Cyrus' first year must have run from Nisan (c. April) 537 to Adar (c. March) 536 to allow for the Iyyar (c. May) of 536 to fall within Cyrus' second year, which is of course completely unsupported by the known history of the period. The Insight book admits that Cyrus' first year did indeed run from 538 to 537, but falsely claims that Iyyar of Cyrus' second year was during 536, which is quite impossible.
-
uninformed
Let's summarize (remember we have to go backwards starting in 539 B.C. with Nabonidus):
Nabonidus ruled Babylon until it fell in 539 B.C. to Cyrus.
Labashi-Marduk ruled for 9 months.
Neriglissar ruled for 4 years.
Evil-Merodach ruled for 2 years.
Nebuchadnezzer ruled for 43 years.
17 years + 9 months + 4 years + 2 years + 43 years = 66 to 67 years.
Starting at 539 B.C. and going back 66/67 years we arrive at 605/606 B.C. for the start of the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.
2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign, so if we go forward 19 years from 605/606 B.C. we will have the approximate years of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Nineteen years after 605/606 B.C. brings us to 586/587 B.C. which agrees with all secular evidence.
That's easy!
1+2=4
Why can't you postates see that?
U
-
Kenneson
There isn't even a consensus on the year Jesus was born and yet Scholar quibbles over 586 or 587 B.C.!
-
-
peacefulpete
Sorry if I missed it but I think you ommitted the references establishing the 17 years of Nabonidus' rule:
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
NABONIDUS
(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).
w68 8/15 p. 491 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates *** 17 Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13. Footnote" VII/14/17 ": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign. -
gumby
Scholar responded to this threads beginning within 3 hours...which means he watches and reads the board yet he still clings to a cult....which means he's the type that will probably go to his grave with the same attitude and rest with his forefather...Charlie Russell
-
scholar
Jeffro
972
The date of 537 is not speculative but based on solid scriptural and secular evidence. Sadly, scholars in writing about this period do no give sufficient attention to ascribing a specific date for the Return but fortunately celebrated WT scholars do and have determined that is 537 BCE.
No, the Jews were at their homes by the seventh month of 537 according to Ezra 3:1 and soon after built an altar by the first day of the seventh month. The second month of the second year saw the foundation of the temple laid and according to Josephus this was the second year of Cyrus which corresponds to 536 BCE: Ezra 3:8.
scholar JW