Scholar pretendus wrote:
: Celebrated WT scholars have well and truly proven that 537 BCE was and is the only possible date for the Return setting out such evidence in WT publications over many decades. . .
You call pure speculation "proof". That's why you steadfastly refuse to post and discuss the Society's "proof".
: . . . I will be providing information on this matter dealing with the so-called tie-breaker with Josephus and Ezra 3:8.
I don't think so. You've had a year and a half to do so. You're not going to come up with any new or sensible information.
: In some sense, Neo-Babyloian chronology is a 'test' of WT biblical chronology but I prefer to consider the former more of an independent witness to the validity of the latter because secular, profane Neo-Babylonian chronology falls a mere twenty years short of biblically established dates such as 607 BCE. The reason for this small gap is that this chronology omits history failing to consider the seventy years of exile-desolation and servitude.
Nonsense. Once again, when false Watchtower claims are discarded, the Bible and secular history are seen to correspond exactly.
: I will be dealing with the fact that the first year of Cyrus should be counted from Nisan rather than Tishri in my response to Alan F's nonsense so keep watching.
Suuuure. You've demonstrated time and again that you're completely incompetent to write anything with regard to this severe mental discipline. Have you had a brain transplant recently?
: The reign of Darius is very important in the context of establishing a date for the Return because his reign is linked to the termination of the seventy years in which Cyrus' Decree permitted the Jews to return home by the seventh month in 537 BCE. The reign of Darius may have been commensurate with the first year of Cyrus or intervened between the Fall of Babylon and the first year of Cyrus.
No doubt your exposition will be as illuminating as anything you've come up with heretofore.
: You seem to be spooked by the zero-year problem
Typical JW apologist arrogance. Doug isn't "spooked" by any of this. It's you who are spooked by these things. This is why you can only spout gobble-de-goop.
: but what you fail to realize is that is was the celebrated WT scholars who first drew attention to scholars that an adjustment was require for it was the case in the earlier decades of the last century that scholars had made this error.
LOL! The only "scholars" who mucked up the "zero year" issue were those incompetents who Russell got his false chronology from, like Nelson Barbour and Christopher Bowen. Other "scholars" knew enough to get it right. For example, in 1823 John Aquila Brown published an explanation of the Gentile times where the 2520 years ran from 604 BCE to 1917 CE. He was competent enough properly to deal with the zero year. Russell only got an inkling of the problem in 1904, and even though some of his lieutenants, such as P.S.L. Johnsson, pointed out the seriousness of the problem in 1912, Russell still never managed to correct the problem, even though he discussed the possibility of moving the 1914 date to 1915 in Zion's Watch Tower. In 1917, Fischer and Woodworth knew enough to change the 606 date back to 607 in The Finished Mystery. Woodworth even published the 607 date in a 1935 Golden Age article. The gross incompetence of these 'celebrated ones' is shown by the fact that, despite all this information, they didn't manage to officially change Watchtower chronology until 1943.
The fact is that competent scholars have been well aware, since the 8th century CE, of the fact that, by convention, there is no zero year between 1 BCE and 1 CE: "Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1 (see Colgrave and Mynors, 1969). In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0." ( http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html )
: Our chronology was then 'fine' tuned' by the 'celedbrated ones' demonstrating that chronology is always a work in progress.
LOL! Translation: it took from 1876 to 1943 for the 'celedbrated ones' (perhaps de-cerebrated ones would be a better term) to become aware of what competent scholars were aware of for twelve hundred years.
: When P&D was first published in the early forties it was of great benefit to the 'celebrated ones' who since then have made good use of this piece of scholarship to the chagrin of critics and apostates.
"Chagrin"? Amusement is more like it. Coupled with surprise that anyone could be so stupidly doctrinaire.
For Doug's benefit, and to illustrate how deceptive scholar pretendus here is, let's look at his response to Doug's challenge and question. Doug wrote:
:: You dance around on the doorknob without ever telling me how the WTS arrives at its 537 date. You have seen the diagrammatic method I employ. Can you do the same for the WTS’s explanation?
Scholar pretendus responds:
: You request a diagram and I am happy to oblige forthwith: NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition, 1995, p.667.
: nb. Please note the scriptural references Ezra 3:1; 3:8
Of course, I've asked scholar pretendus for such a diagram for well over a year, and all he's done is "dance around the doorknob". Obviously he's too incompetent to make one himself, and obviously he couldn't find one in Watchtower publications; hence the dancing. Now, though, he sets forth, not a diagram, but a reference to one in a "commentary of Christendom", which happens to coincide partially with the Watchtower's dating of events around the fall of Babylon and the return of the Jews. But of course, as usual scholar pretendus leaves out extremely relevant information.
The NIV Study Bible contains a chart "Chronology: Ezra - Nehemiah" that lists dates and events from 539 to 432 BCE. The top line in the chart states: "Dates below are given according to a Nisan-to-Nisan Jewish calendar". Here is a partial list of the information in the chart relevant to our discussion:
Year________Month_____Event
539 B.C.____Oct._______Capture of Babylon_________Da 5:30
538_________Mar.______Cyrus's first year___________Ezr 1:1-4
537_______to Mar.
537(?)________________Return under Sheshbazzar___Ezr 1:11
537_________VII_______Building of altar____________Ezr 3:1
536_________II________Work on temple begun______Ezr 3:8
Note an extremely relevant bit of information in the above list: the date of the return under Shesbazzar is given with a question mark: "537(?)". This shows that the compilers of the chart are not sure when the return occurred. This is again evident in the verse by verse commentary:
On verse 1:1: ". . . in 538 . . . the people began to return."
On verse 1:11: "We are not told anything about the details of Sheshbazzar's journey, which probably took place in 537 B.C.
On verse 3:1: "Tishri . . . about three months after the arrival of the exiles in Judah (in 537 B.C.)."
On verse 3:8: "Since the Jews probably returned to Judah in the spring of 537 B.C. . ."
Furthermore, a chart on the inside front cover of the 2002 edition of the NIV Study Bible, "Old Testament Chronology", contains the entry, "538: First group returns under Zerubbabel".
So the NIV chart makers are honest enough to admit that they don't really know if the Jews returned in 537 or 538 BCE, but scholar pretendus fails to mention this. But readers familiar with his deceptive tactics have seen this dishonest scholarship plenty of times before.
The other thing I want to point out is that the dates given in the NIV chart hinge on the assumption that the Jews returned in 537. If they returned in 538, as I argue, then the last three dates in the above list must be moved backward by one year.
Returning now to scholar pretendus' foolishness:
: It can hardly be said that the said 'scholar' has been dancing around the doorknob as I have been arguing matters of chronology in some depth on this board for the last five years and have dealt with every objection in full
LOL! Your "arguing" and "dealing" consist entirely of "dancing around the doorknob". You've steadfastly refused to discuss specifics of the Society's arguments about 537, you absolutely refuse to quote almost all relevant scriptures, and you simply ignore 90% of the arguments thrown your way. All readers know this.
: excepting for the Alan F query as previously mentioned.
But for a year and a half now, you've been claiming that you've dealt fully with my argument. Which is it?
Calling my argument a "query" is merely a reflection of your refusal to deal with reality.
: Besides you well know the methodology of the WT's 537 date
Sure: speculation and unsupported declarations.
: and the evidence for it
Sure: zero.
: so I do not intend to repeat what you already have presented. What I will do is to present additional information bearing on the matter which deals with Alan F's little difficulty.
I'm sure that readers will be suitably amused.
: This is the second timeI have helped him with a problem
LOL! You really are an arrogant SOB.
AlanF
