More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society (page 2)

Jeffro

Phizzy:

The Book of Daniel had not in fact been written when Alexander was alive it seems, so folklore that story is.

Well, yeah. I was trying to be subtle.

OnTheWayOut

Arguing over when Daniel was written and which Darius is which.

Let's argue over whether Jar Jar Binks was a good general of the troops.

jwfacts

Their assignment of 443 BCE for Artexerxes 32nd year is also wrong. The correct year is 433 BCE . This error is introduced by their incorrect placement of the reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I in order to preserve the fraudulent interpretation of the 'seventy weeks' 'prophecy' as pointing to 'Jesus'.

Can you provide more detail on that?

Jeffro

jwfacts:

Can you provide more detail on [their incorrect placement of the reigns of Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I]?

For the correct years, see just about any encyclopedia.

For the incorrect years of the JW interpretation, see Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, pages 613-616, "The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes".

They (and various other Christian groups) shift the start of Artaxerxes' reign from 465 BCE to 475 BCE in order to move his 20th year to 455 BCE, to in turn shift the alleged start of their interpretation of the '70 weeks' of Daniel chapter 9 to 'fit' the '69th' week to 29 CE.

However, the '70 weeks' actually referred to periods of '7 weeks' (=49 years = 587 BCE to 538 BCE, 'Messiah' = Cyrus; see also Isaiah 45:1), '62 weeks' (= 434 years = 538 BCE to 104 BCE, 'Leader' = Aristobulus [first priest to declare himself king after the exile]) and '70th week' (Jannaeus [killed Aristobulus]).

The retrofit of the '70 weeks' 'prophecy' to supposedly point to Jesus is a later Christian forgery. Their premise for shifting the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is therefore redundant.

jwfacts

Thanks Jeffro.

They (and various other Christian groups) shift the start of Artaxerxes' reign from 465 BCE to 475 BCE in order to move his20th year to 455 BCE, to in turn shift the alleged start of their interpretation of the '70 weeks' of Daniel chapter 9 to 'fit' the '69th' week to 29 CE.

Why does the historical-messianic interpretation begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7) but JW's use Nehemiah 2:1, 5-8, to pinpoint Nehemiah going forth to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem “in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king" as 455?

Phizzy

bump

Jeffro

Why does the historical-messianic interpretation begin with the decree by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7) but JW's use Nehemiah 2:1, 5-8, to pinpoint Nehemiah going forth to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem “in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king" as 455?

Those who accept the historical-messianic interpretation place the baptism of Jesus around 26CE, in keeping with various suppositions that he may have been born around 4BC. JWs dogmatically insist that Jesus was baptised in 29CE, so 458 doesn't suit their purposes.

Witness My Fury

I'm more amazed about the fact that Lars isnt already all over this thread posting his mental delusions as fact and consigning yet another great thread to the trash pile.

Jeffro

Witness My Fury:

I'm more amazed about the fact that Lars isnt already all over this thread posting his mental delusions as fact and consigning yet another great thread to the trash pile.

Shhhh!

jwfacts

JWs dogmatically insist that Jesus was baptised in 29CE , so 458 doesn't suit their purposes.

I should have guessed it would have been something as simple as that. The Watchtower is the master of Eisegesis interpretation.

More bad chronology from the Watch Tower Society

Share this