It astounds me, Neil, that with every post you become ever more stupid. Do you have someone like a ghostly Hannibal Lector sitting beside you when you post, having cut off the top of your head, holding toenail clippers and snipping away at your brain every time you post? There must be quite a pile of brain matter on the floor by your computer now. Indeed, every day you better fulfill your title:
scholar pretendus stupidus maximus said:
: Correct and that is why in Finegan's Table as quoted previously shows Cyrus' first year from 538/537 BCE in short it either began in either 538 or 537BCE
Unbelievable. Previously, you advanced an equally ridiculous bit of gibberish when you claimed that Finegan's table meant that "that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537," Now you claim something quite different. Can you say, "braindead inconsistency"? Obviously, that Lector spectre is having an effect.
The many references I gave you from Finegan's book show clearly that the table in question indicates that the years of Cyrus' reign spanned the years given. Namely, his accession year spanned 539 and 538; his 1st year spanned 538 and 537; his 2nd year spanned 537 and 536.
The fact is that you failed to read any of the references I gave, including those from the Insight book. Such a complete moron you are!
: as noted in the Insight book.
The Insight book notes nothing of the kind. If you think it does, then quote and discuss what you think it says.
Of course, you'll do no such quoting and discussing.
The Insight book directly contradicts your stupid claims. Discussing the basis for the 539 date for the fall of Babylon, it said:
it-1 p. 453 Chronology
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.
If Cyrus' first year did not begin in 538, but in 537, then Babylon fell in 538, and Watchtower chronology has no basis for the 607 date -- it would be 606. But again you're too stupid to connect the dots.
Reinforcing what Insight says, the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come" states:
kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14
Historians accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E.
Are you going to claim that the Watchtower Society's "celebrated scholars" are wrong?
With no room for your type of waffling over whether Cyrus' first year began in 538 or 537, Insight states:
it-2 p. 44 Jerusalem
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.
Are you going to continue to claim that the Watchtower Society's "celebrated scholars" are wrong?
No, you won't admit that you claim that these men are wrong. You'll simply ignore everything in this post.
: It certainly did not begin in either January of 538 or January 537
No one said it did, you idiot.
: but simply began and ran within that period 538-537 BCE.
Oh really. But just a couple of sentences ago, you said that it began in either 538 or 537. If it began in 538, then it ended in 537. If it began in 537, then it ended in 536. Are you so stupid that you don't understand that a one-year regnal period cannot span more than one year? Obviously so.
: My tabulation simply began with the first month of Nisan, March/ April in 538 BCE thus having the seventh month falling in 537 BCE.
Again you prove yourself a total idiot. If the first month was Nisan of 538, then the 7th month was Tishri of 538. Let's do some horrendously complex arithmetic to show this, shall we?
538___Nisan___Month 1
538___Iyyar___Month 2
538___Sivan___Month 3
538___Tammuz__Month 4
538___Ab______Month 5
538___Elul____Month 6
538___Tishri__Month 7
Do you notice any transition from 538 to 537 in this simple table? It wouldn't suprise me in the least if you do. You're a complete and utterly braindead twit.
: I noticed that you did not comment as to Jonsson is not critical of 537 and the Society's methodology
Of course I did, you idiot. Go back and read my posts again.
: and is not dogmatic as you are for 538 BCE.
And?
: Perhaps this silence or omission proves that it is you that is foolish.
Not one iota.
The fact that you can manage to claim that the year before 537 was 537, that the 7th month after Nisan 538 was in 537, thus skipping an entire year, that you can fail to comprehend the simplest notions of the Julian and Jewish calendars, proves that it is you who are a complete and utter fool.
AlanF
