by Doug Mason 5 Replies latest watchtower bible
Lars,
I was going to post this at another thread, but I did not want to have it hijacked.
You incorrectly assume that the 70 'heptads' were in some way related to Jesus Christ (Yeshua ben Yosef) of Nazareth. This was a 2nd century CE invention.
I can understand why you seek to relate Cyrus' decree to the start of this period, since Ezra 7 is irrelevant, but you have cramped your thinking by assuming that the 70 'heptads' are in some way related to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
Doug
Doug,
Everyone has their own interpretation. All I can do is give you history.
In this case, Martin Anstey is the primary reference to concluding there were 82 years of extra Persian history because he could not see any other fulfillment for the "70 weeks" (70 heptads) being fulfilled other than in the 1st of Cyrus.
He left it at that and trusted the Bible. So the idea that the "70 weeks" is related to Jesus Christ's appearance at his baptism is not new. Whether related or independently, the WTS and many other religions come to the same conclusion, that is, that this is a messianic prophecy related to 29 CE and that the 70 weeks begin in 455 BCE.
Even JWs begin the 70 weeks in 455 BCE, only they think it is the 20th of Artaxerxes.
But since 1914 when Martin Anstey wrote his "Romance of Bible Chronology" we have confirmed where the fake 82 years of Persian history were inserted.
30 extra years were added to the reign of Darius I. The Bible at Ezra 6 14,15 limit his rule to six years. There is nothing you can do about this, Doug. This means an extra 30 years in the Persian Period.
The Bible says the last king to work on the temple was "Artaxerxes" in the sixth of Darius. This ordinarily would make no sense since we know that Xerxes followed Darius. But at the burial site at Naqshi-Rustam, Xerxes is not buried behind Darius I, but Artaxerxes I is? Puzzling? Sure. But not when you look further and realize that all the Persian kings adoped a second official name. Guess what the second official name of Xerxes was? You guessed it, "Artaxerxes."
So what happened? Nothing. The Bible simply calls Xerxes as "Artaxerxes", so they were the same king. Only the Persians used this double name to fool the Greeks into thinking Xerxes had died mysteriously at the hands of his son, Darius II who was then killed by his "brother", Artaxerxes, now on the throne. Yeah, right! "Artaxerxes" was the second official name for Xerxes, but since that was apparently not well known in Greece, he used that to fake the death of himself and his son so than an "Artaxerxes" was now legitimately on the throne, but a different king.
Problem is, too many historians already reported that Themistocles fled to Persia during the rule of Xerxes, so that when the revised history came out that he fled to "Artaxerxes" the alleged son of Xerxes, they didn't buy it. As a result, we have two historical accounts of who was ruling when Themistocles fled there - Xerxes vs Artaxerxes. The historians never did figure out that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king.
Here's the critical quote from Plutarch-
" Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest. "
So Doug, as long as you have the revised history, your chronology is false. When you correct it, then 455 BCE is the 1st of Cyrus. Period.
LS
Doug and others,
This is how the "70 weeks" is interpreted by some, which obligates none to accept it but...
It is clear that the "messiah" would appear after 69 weeks, thus after 483 years. So many, including JWs, consider the messiah as appearing at his baptism in 29 CE. So they just make a simple calculation.
483 - 29 = 454 BCE + 1 (no zero Roman year) = 455 BCE
So JW doctrine is fundamental that the 70 weeks begin in 455 BCE.
The only difference is that they used 529 BCE as a "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon, though they ignore all other secular dates. Problem is, when the timeline was revised, this included the date for the fall of Babylon. So 529 BCE is a revised date for that event.
Once realizing that, others have concluded that the initial reference to the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem" must have been a reference to the rebuilding in the 1st of Cyrus, forcing us to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.
This means that there is a whallopping 82-year difference between 537 BCE and 455 BCE for the return from Babylon. But once we look at how empty and incompetent the Persian Period is, it is quite easy to remove these extra 82 years. Watch!
Remove 30 years from Darius I, making his 36 years 6 years, which is confirmed by the Bible.
Also remove the extra 30 years from Artaxerxes II, so that his 47 years becomes 17 years. Ctesias claims he was physician for Artaxerxes II for precisely 17 years! That is 60 years right there!
Then when we find out Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, that removes another 21 years for his separate reign.
See? We're done! That's 81 years removed right there! Easy. Simple. Quick.
When the true date for the 1st of Cyrus is 455 BCE, though, and we follow Josephus and the Bible which begins the 70 years of desolation starting with the last deportation, then year 23 of Neb2 falls in 525 BCE and year 19 in 529 BCE. That re-dates the 2nd coming from 1914 (607 BCE) to 1992. Of course, as noted, 1992 has to be the 2nd coming date because it fulfills 1335 days, or 45 years after 1947, which ends the 1290 days, the year the Jews come out of exile and get their self-ruled country back.
The confirmation from heaven of all this is the "sign of th son of man" which did begin to appear to the elect with the birth of the messiah in 1950, and is shown by the WTS in the Revelation Book in 1988, that is, the sign of the sleeping black child is shown in the palm of Jesus Christ. The actual sign that appeared was of sleeping black child, meaning the messiah was the black prodigal son.
Jesus has to return in the flesh, only the second time, not having access to his own body again, he uses the body of the prodigal son. That is why the second wave offering is described WITH LEAVEN, meaning with sin, proving Christ at the second coming would be hiding out in an imperfect body. The first wave offering is without leaven and celebrates the UNLEAVENED BREAD, which represents Christ's sinless body at the first coming.
Christ fulfills the FIRSTFRUITS of both wave offerings, only they are different. One has leaven, the other doesn't. The SECOND is the one WITH the leaven, so the elect expect Christ would return in the flesh in an imperfect body. It just so happens it's a black person (i.e. Ethiopian eunuch) so when the sign of the son of man appears, it uses black clouds to represent the black skin of the prodigal son messiah chosen as the new body of the messiah at the second coming.
That's what's going on. Right now you can see a photo of the sign taken in 19
Oh oh oh, wait for it....
Lars,
You are correct. All you can give me is "history".
However, I am talking about Scripture, which is where the 70 'heptads' are spoken of. You have failed to show that the "anointed" ones Gabriel speaks of is Jesus Christ.
Doug
Lars,
You are correct. All you can give me is "history".
However, I am talking about Scripture, which is where the 70 'heptads' are spoken of. You have failed to show that the "anointed" ones Gabriel speaks of is Jesus Christ.
Doug
It is not my interest to show YOU that the "anointed" one is Jesus Christ. That's just an interpretation I've accepted and I'm just sharing. You're under no obligation to accept this if you have another interpretation.
However, JWs and others clearly assume this, so it's not just me. Further, the chronology works out. The VAT4956 forces the redating of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. Thus year 23 falls in 525 BCE and 70 years later is the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. That is exactly 483 years from 29 CE, the year Jesus was baptized. So even if there are multi-layers for the "anointed" one, Jesus Christ as the anointed one is one of the interpretations that works out with the correct chronology.
So I'm just sharing my personal beliefs. I don't mind explaining it to you further but I'm not concerned if you are not convinced.
LS
