The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade 382 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Spade:

  In light of the posts that over-complicate something relatively simple; the information source for 537 as the date which Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea came from the Bible and Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein.

  The Bible says Cyrus made the decree "in the first year" (Ezr. 1:1). PD's Babylonian Chronology has Cyrus' first year running from Spring 538 BCE to Spring 537 BCE. So at some point between Spring 538 and Spring 537 (and the Bible doesn't tell us at which point that was), Cyrus made his decree. It MAY have been toward the end of his first year in Spring 537, but equally it could have been early in his first year - Spring 538. So conceivably, the Jews could have been settled in their home towns by the Fall of 538. In fact, seeing as there is no mention of Cyrus having clocked up another regnal year since the decree in Ezr. 1:1 and the month when the exiles were settled in 3:1, the argument for a 538 return is stronger.

  Of course, all this assumes Ezra was counting regnal years the same as the Babylonians. If not, it's another story and the 'relatively simple' again becomes a little more complicated.

  The only scholarly study that challenges some aspects of these secular sources is "Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews" from Rolf Furuli.

  Unfortunately, it didn't turn out to be a serious challenge. The faulty premises and data he used led to faulty conclusions.

  The reason Charles Taze Russel and his associates came to a conclusion about Bible prophecy regarding the "appointed time of the nations" was to understand when Jehovah will intervene of behalf of humanity. If all the facts are obscured to the point to where no conclusions can be reached, divine prophecy is an utter failure on God's behalf, not its interpreters.

  And CTR and his associates were wrong. Jehovah didn't intervene on behalf of humanity in 1914 or thereabouts. And modern JWs are in the same position now - not knowing when Jehovah will intervene on behalf of humanity. All they believe, and have believed for the best part of a century, is that He will somehow act 'soon.'

  The Bible is crystal clear when iterating prophetic words in which sound conclusions can be reached. A matrix of data can often be used to obscure clear instruction, but that's not the way God operates, that's the way some humans operate.

  If Bible prophecy is crystal clear, sound conclusions would have been reached centuries ago. As it is, humans keep concluding wrongly about when God is going to act. That's why Jesus himself told humans to NOT to try and second-guess God's timetable! When humans try to second-guess God's timetable, they become the ones over-complicating and obscuring the relatively simple gospel message.

  *waves at Lars* - Ahh, I guess you're doing the rounds and it's JWN's turn again LOL.
• 

  Black Sheep

  So conceivably, the Jews could have been settled in their home towns by the Fall of 538

  Here is AlanF's thread where he claims that is correct.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/118291/1/Fact-Jews-Returned-In-538-BC-Kills-Off-Watchtower-Chronology

  I haven't seen any attempt by any apologists to demonstrate that he was wrong.

  I wonder why?
• 

  TD

  The reason Charles Taze Russel and his associates came to a conclusion about Bible prophecy regarding the “appointed time of the nations” was to understand when Jehovah will intervene of behalf of humanity.

  The interpretation of Daniel 4, the antitype of the 7 times and the accompanying count of 2520 years from 606 to 1914 was entirely the work of Nelson Barbour. It had already been published before Russell and Barbour even met.
• 

  wobble

  A number of biblical enthusiasts were messing about with prophecy and numbers before and around the time of Russell, in fact I do not think, apart from the fine detail, Russell ever came up with anything original.

  And of course, to extrapolate 2520 years from Daniel 4 is nonsense, even ignoring the fact that it does not bring one to 1914 without using a fictional year for Jerusalem's destruction.

  There is no 2520 year period in Bible prophecy, save yourself a lot of time and get that fact between the ears JW apologists.
• 

  therevealer

  Is spade really Charlie Sheen?? They seem to display a similar lucidity.
• 

  Leolaia

  In light of the posts that over-complicate something relatively simple; the information source for 537 as the date which Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea came from the Bible and Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein.

  Whoa, whoa, whoa, now just wait a minute. You either don't get the point I've been making or you are being intellectually dishonest. Your original statement was: "Historians also agree on 537 B.C.E. as the year when Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea from captivity to rebuild their temple". And so I asked for sources. In response, you quoted from Jack Finegan's Handbook of Bible Chronology that simply says that Cyrus' first year was 538/537 BC. And so again I responded: "You did not give any sources that date the return from captivity specifically to 537 BC, much less supporting your claim that 'historians agree' on this date, as opposed to 538 BC". And so now you give a laconic reference to Parker & Dubberstein's work as "the information source for 537 as the date which Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea".

  I don't have Parker & Dubberstein in front of me but I assume you have the work yourself. Would you please quote for me the passage where they specifically discuss Cyrus' decree to the Jews and date it to 537 BC? I don't remember seeing such a discussion. Or is this yet another reference to Cyrus' first year being 538/537 BC?

  You are insisting that Cyrus made the decree very late in his first year (which began on March 17, 538 BC), in essentially the last two months of the year (between January 1 and March 5, 537 BC). What is the basis for concluding that the decree was indeed made so late in the first year? What's the source? And what is the basis for your claim that "historians also agree" that in fact the decree was made at the end of Cyrus' first year? I know many historians in fact question whether the decrees published in Ezra are genuine (cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Lester Grabbe, etc.) and many who think that Cyrus would have probably have made such a decree at his installation at the beginning of his first year, or in 538 (cf. Matthias Delcor, Lawrence Schiffman, etc.). Indeed the extant historical evidence shows that Cyrus worked on restoring native cults as soon as he obtained power in Babylon. The Cyrus Cylinder (usually dated to 538 BC) states that Cyrus had already "returned the (images of) the gods to the sacred centers [on the other side of] the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time" and had "gathered all their inhabitants and returned (to them) their dwellings" and "settled in their habitations, in the pleasing abodes, the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus had brought into Babylon" (lines 30-31), and the Nabonidus Chronicle (3.21-22) dates the latter to between Kislemu and Addaru of Cyrus' accession year (i.e. December-March 539/538 BC), a time prior to Cyrus' first regnal year.

  It seems that your only reason for insisting on the last two months of Cyrus' first year is because that's what is demanded by Watchtower chronology. I know of no secular or biblical support for concluding that it was necessarily so late in the first year. Indeed we see in Ezra 3:1 that the Jews were repatriated by "the seventh month" and the only calendrical reference prior to this is "the first year of Cyrus" in ch. 1. The most natural reading of the text is that the Jews were already resettled by the seventh month of the first year of Cyrus (i.e. September 538 BC). If it was already the second year, why did the text not say that? Ezekiel 33:21 moreover shows that the trip between Judea and Babylonia on foot took about five months, so resettlement by the seventh month sounds about right.
• 

  villabolo

  Spade, you've met your match

  Villabolo
• 

  mrquik

  The best support of 1914 not being the end of a historical time period is not in the past, it's in the future. It is the WT contention that after 1914, JC chose his congregation, Satan was confined to the earth "having great anger" and a great warning would be given. This particular generation would not pass away until all these things occurred. Evidence is abundant in print of the many & continuous lies, half truths & hypocrisy of the GB. Certainly JC would never approve this organization. Satan is supposed to have been on the earth for a century, yet civilization continues much the same. ( Maybe he needs a AARP membership). So much for great anger. Best of all, the preaching work. JC was very specific about the signs to watch for, yet the GB would have you believe he muddled the meaning of a generation. The warning would only serve those in imminent danger. Any longer and the warning has no meaning to those who would die before let alone 5 generations worth of mankind. Sorry Watchtower. Whether you believe the past, present or future, they have absolutely no evidence. Crying wolf for a century makes you untrustworthy as to when the wolf would actually show up.
• 

  transhuman68

  Yep, 1914 is a total crock. If you check out what sort of aircraft were flying then, it's easy to see that the WTS's Bible chronology is as out-of-date as the Red Baron's triplane.

  It just doesn't fly anymore, and soon they will drop 1914 like a schoolcase.

  It's just a matter of time...
• 

  Larsinger58

  Please note that the reference to the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" was a reference to an official beginning of the actual work. It is similar to executive showing up for a groundbreaking ceremony to begin a building project. Major projects are begun with some ceremony, of course. Today they are called "groundbreaking ceremonies" where everybody collect together and acknowledge the beginning of a new project.

  Thus the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" was the actual groundbreaking command to actually begin the literal work. This was on the 1st of the 7th month. This is critical because, the messiah must be executed in the middle of the 70th week. That means you have to begin the year at the right time to end up at exactly 3.5 years. Since Jesus fulfills passover at the time of his death, the fulfills the beginning of his ministry in the Fall at the beginning of the 7th month.

  The "decree" or "command" thus is not that of Cyrus, but of the builders who began the work on the 1st day of the 7th month. But this occurred in the 1st year of Cyrus which was 455 BCE, of course.

  Reflecting on how JWs are totally clueless in this regard, it should be noted that there are two major festivals during they year for the Jews. Each is a week long. One is the Festival of Tabernacles and the other, of course, is Passover. These are fulfilled by Christ. That is, the messiah arrives in the fall to begin a 3.5 year ministry in the Fall in connection with the Festival of Booths. Then he dies 3.5 years later in connection with the Passover celebration. Thus the parallel is Jesus beginning his 3.5 year ministry at the time of the Festival of Booths and ending his ministry when he dies during passover week on Nisan 20th. This is clearly another reason why the work by Nehemiah which began in the early summer cannot fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. The month the work begins is critical to aligning with the death of Christ to "end gift and sacrifice" in the middle of the 70th week, specifically at the time of Passover and the Festival of unfermented cakes.

  During the revisions of astronomical texts, someone must have panicked and thought the original timeline would be forever lost. So they invent the "diary" where many planetary and lunar observations would match the revised, popular, "politically correct" new timeline. This afforded an opportunity to insert references from the original timeline. These would appear as slight "errors" to the casual reader. But once it is clear these references were far from casual but specific and intentional and matching a specific year, then we have a new situation. A record of the original chronology. Interestingly enough, the dating to 511 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar completely confirms the Biblical dating of the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE.

  Let me again show you. If 511 BCE is year 37, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. Josephus and the Bible both date the the 1st of Cyrus 70 years after the last deportation, which means the 1st of Cyrus must be dated to 525 BCE. So now you have two sources, one Biblical and one secular that are pointing to the precise same chronology and timeline for Nebuchadnezzar II. Again, that is, 511 BCE is not a spurious or haphazard date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, it was the original 37th year before revisions made by the Persians.

  So all these really impressive and smart people quoting from the revised records are ignoring the obvious, which is these records are revised. But a secular source reflecting the original timeline completely supports the Bible's dating for the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. The WTS and everybody else, of course, will eventually have to face this reality at which point 1914 will fall. Also every archaeologist who trusted Ptolemy's canon and these revised records will have mud on their faces and their detailed commentary about how the Bible's chronology is wrong or about how David and Solomon are myths will have to be retracted. Once the original timeline becomes official, likely tens of thousands of historical books will suddenly become outdated and incorrect. The academic world will have mud in their face for not recognizing the revisionism before their very eyes.

  In the meantime, the Bible is proven to be true history!

  LS