A lot of this debate is pointless if you use math and look at the historical kings that ruled. The only way the WT can even justify their dates is by adding in a second Nabonidus.
A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC
by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Jeffro
Doug Mason:
An interesting clue lies in the fact that Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra bears no semblance to the words on the Cyrus Cylinder.
It is unsurprising that the Bible frames the decree as something magically arranged by the deity of the Jews. In reality, the decree came from Cyrus as part of a broader practice in the treatment of vassal nations in general. What's your point?
-
Doug Mason
Jeffro,
My points are made in the references I provided.
Doug
-
Jeffro
Doug Mason:
My points are made in the references I provided.
Are you suggesting that the version Ezra gives must be the 'correct' one? Since neither affects the timing, the only reason to do so is on the presumption that 'the Bible' is magical.
Of course, going by either source there's no reason to place Cyrus' decree any later than around his accession in Nisan of 538. The Nabonidus Cylinder associates the decree with around the time of him taking the throne, and a comparison of Ezra and Josephus agrees.
In your article, you claim:
Ezra would use the Tishri calendar for the king of another nation, regardless of the system in use by that kingdom.
There is no good reason for this assumption. It can be established mathematically that the authors of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Jeremiah use Nisan-based years for kings of Israel and Tishri-based years for kings of Judah (using decision tables). In view of the fact that Ezra would be even more influenced by Babylonian culture, it would not be expected at all that he would use Tishri-based years for Babylonian rulers.
-
Jeffro
Doug Mason:
Nehemiah used the Tishri calendar, even when writing about a foreign monarch (see Theile, discussing Neh 1:1 and 2:1, as well as the period in question). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single document (scroll), and Ezra wrote the document named after him, as well as 2 Chronicles. So the likelihood of a Tishri calendar must not be ruled out.
I have not been able to locate anything other than assumptions that the twentieth year mentioned at Nehemiah 1:1 refers to the reign of Artaxerxes, whose name does not appear at all in the original text of that verse or in the Septuagint. It is entirely possible that it counts from some other period, such the tenure of Eliashib as priest, or some other event. (Compare Ezekiel 1:1, which doesn't count a reign, but counts from when the book of the law was found in the temple during the reign of Josiah.) It is therefore only an assumption that Nehemiah used the Tishri-based calendar, and one that runs counter to the practice of other Bible writers in reference to dating the reigns of other nations' monarchs.
-
Jeffro
Given the context of Nehemiah 1:2-3, in regard to "those who had escaped, who had been left over of the captivity", it is possible that the first chapter of Nehemiah (apart from the very last sentence) was actually set several years earlier than the following chapter. By the time of Chislev of Artaxerxes' 20th year (December 446 BCE if assuming a Tishri-based calendar), there would be hardly anyone left alive who had "escaped from the captivity" in 538 BCE, 92 years earlier. It is therefore reasonable (if not likely) that the "20th year" at Nehemiah 1:1—which does not mention Artaxerxes—refers to an entirely different year to Nehemiah 2:1.
-
Londo111
Not to denigrate anyone…but the one good thing I can say about Recovery is that he at least gave it the old college try… Of course, his arguments were full of holes, but bless his heart, he tried. Some of this thread was a tad bizzare at times.
-
Londo111
Now that post counts are back: While the OP wasn’t my 1914 th post, at the very least, my 1914 th post is in this thread.
So this post isn't totally just about something as trivial as post counts...
The reasons why 607 BC is impossible (this time from the angle of archaeoastronomy) are continued in this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/259019/1/587-BC-vs-607-BC-VAT-4956
-
Londo111
For more info, see: www.jwlove.org/607bc
-
LeeT
Just to bump this thread because these videos are great and Londo deserves far more views.