Posts by AlanF

37

AlanF Interview with Creation Book author Harry Peloyan 1997

by besty in

this has possibly been posted before (i hadn't seen it) - i found it a fascinating read - well done alanf for fronting it up..... it can also be found online at http://www.reexamine.org/wtobserver/apps/pbcs.dll/article86c8.html?aid=/20040309/history/204007.

interview with a watchtower society author on wednesday, 27 august 1997, i met with harry peloyan for about 1 1/2 hours in the lobby of the 25 columbia heights bethel office in brooklyn, new york.

my purpose was to discuss problems with the creation book with him, since he is its main author.

AlanF

It's interesting to look back over the ten years since my little interview with Peloyan. He's been dead since 2005, I think, and he must have died a disappointed man. The end that was "so very close" in 1997 had still not come and even today shows no signs of coming. Peloyan's plight is mirrored by that of all old JWs who've banked their lives on the Society's lies.

I had another run-in with Peloyan just after the U.N. scandal broke in 2001. A day or so after the U.K. Guardian article appeared and the Society withdrew its NGO membership, I called Peloyan on the phone and actually connected. I simply asked him for his take on the situation. He immediately blew up and accused "you people" of "making a molehill out of a mountain" (he became so upset he could hardly speak). I could hardly say anything to him after that. He soon launched into a two-minute ranting monologue, during which I just chuckled to myself, and without another word from me, he hung up. I laughed for quite awhile after that.

Peloyan, although he had his good points in terms of quietly fighting against the Society's criminal policies on child molestation, seems to me typical of JW leaders -- supremely arrogant in their confidence of speaking for God, self-important in the extreme, extremely stupid in most intellectual matters such as science and philosophy, and completely unwilling to listen to anyone outside their inner circle of leaders. Barbara Anderson relates how Peloyan was absolutely devastated back in the early 1990s when he wasn't made one of the Governing Body helpers (aka Nethinim, or Given Ones), and moped around Bethel for many days. Eventually GB member Lloyd Barry had to reassure him that his job as editor-in-chief of Awake! was a very important job.

Really, these men are like aging little children who have not had a solid dose of reality in decades, having insulated themselves in the confines of Bethel. Well, reality is catching up with them, as they die off in their old age, never having seen what they'd worked so long to get.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: I am entitled to defend and advocate whatever model I choose and I have chosen the model traditionally adopted by the celebrated WT scholars concerning the validity of 537 BCE as the only possible date for the Return.

Duh.

: You say that their model is based on nothing but speculation. This is sheer nonsense, it is based upon facts attested by scholars and relevant scriptures.

Nonsense. Here, I'll prove it. Under the subject "Cyrus" the Insight book states (Vol. 1, pp. 568-569):

Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon.

So far so good, since all the WTS writer is doing is stating exactly what the Bible states. However, the writer is completely unclear about what Cyrus' "first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon" means. Is it the first year in terms of Jewish dating, i.e., non-accession-year / Tishri dating? Or is it in terms of Babylon dating, i.e., accession-year / Nisan dating? This is touched on somewhat in the next several sentences, but nothing definite is concluded.

The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to "the first year of Darius," and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and "the first year of Cyrus" over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

Obviously, the WTS writer has no idea whether "Darius" ruled alone before Cyrus' first year began, or "Darius" ruled concurrently with Cyrus. The writer again does not address the problem of which dating method either Daniel or Ezra uses. So the WTS writer cannot say when Cyrus' reign began, nor when "Darius'" reign ended.

Having established nothing more than what the Bible says -- that in Cyrus' first year, whenever that was, Cyrus issued a decree freeing the Jews -- the WTS writer engages in pure speculation, pretending actually to know something by using the weasel-phrase "in view of the Bible record":

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

Obviously, nothing whatsoever has been established about the dates in question. Nevertheless, the Insight book's article on "Chronology" use the above speculation to speculate again (Vol. 1, p. 458):

During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.

Speculation, speculation, speculation.

: Certainly a degree of uncertainty is involved

LOL!

: but this is the nature of the historical record and we have to work with what we have.

Clearly, the WTS engages in pure speculation while working with what it has.

: Your model also indicates speculation in which you carefully disguise.

My model hinges on three things: (1) Ezra's clear statements, which you don't disagree with; (3) Josephus' clear statement, which you don't disagree with; (3) the assumption that Ezra and Josephus use normal Jewish non-accession-year / Tishri dating, which you cannot disprove, and for which I can provide a good deal of evidence.

: I believe our model because it is well proven

Via the above speculations!

: and is far superior to any others that I have examined including yours.

What nonsense. For nearly a year and a half you've completely ignored all of the problems for WTS claims that my argument brings up. The only reason you reject it is because it contradicts Mommy's speculations.

: Your model fails for the following reasons:

: 1. Fails to account for the reign of Darius

False. I've clearly stated that I believe Darius was a viceroy of Cyrus and the two ruled concurrently, just as Belshazzar and Nabonidus did.

: 2. Compresses the time necessary from your speculative time for the Decree until the Return allowing for a mere six months which is does not give sufficient time for the proclamation of that Decree.

False. You keep making this claim and I keep disproving it. It's simple: the Jewish captives knew very well that Cyrus was in the habit of freeing captives, and when Cyrus captured Babylon in October 539, they knew it was only a matter of time before they were set free. Daniel immediately understood (Dan. 9:1,2), when Babylon fell, that the 70 years "for Babylon" were over (Jer. 29:10), and he very likely used his high position in the Babylonian government to get an audience with Cyrus to show him the prophecy in Isaiah 44-45 that he would free the Jews. So when the beginning of Cyrus' 1st regnal year (according to Babylonian dating) rolled around in the spring of 538, the Jews were already ready to go home, and preparations almost certainly had already begun. With a trip time of 3-4 months, 2-3 months are left over for preparations before the trip and for the Jews to get settled in their cities after the trip. You can claim all you like that this isn't enough time, but you're demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, since Ezra, as a Jew, would have used Jewish dating, Cyrus' first year, according to Ezra, would have begun as soon as Cyrus began ruling over Babylon shortly after his army conquered it. Therefore the decree might have been issued even earlier than Nisan 538 BCE.

: 3. You speculate that the Decree was issued in the first month of the first year but there is no evidence for this as Ezra does not give the month in which the Decree was proclaimed.

The evidence is implicit in the fact that there is enough time for all the necessary events to take place between Nisan 538 and Tishri 538, along with Ezra's and Josephus' statements.

But you're a gross hypocrite here, as usual, because the WTS writer quoted above engages in pure speculation about the decree being issued in late 538 or early 537. Where is the evidence for that?

: 4. You speculate that the Jews arrive in Judah by the sixth month namely Elul which Ezra does not specify.

This is not speculation. Ezra clearly states that the Jews were settled in their cities by the seventh month. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the Jews must have arrived in Judah before the seventh month, namely, Elul or earlier. But you do need a lot of hand holding.

: Your model is simply one of many and if you truly believe it then you should get Jonsson to referee it and then submit it for publication in a scholarly journal so that the international community of scholars and benefit from Alan F's new found wisdom.

I don't need anyone else to tell me whether the facts I've set forth are facts. I can see them for myself.

But once again you're a gross hypocrite. If you think the Society's speculations are right, then you ought to ask the Society to submit them "for publication in a scholarly journal so that the international community of scholars and benefit from" its wisdom. You can do this yourself, too. Along with this wisdom should be published the Society's history of speculation on these dates. But of course, neither you nor the Society would do this, since you'd be laughed off the scholarly stage.

: I reject all other models because these do not work,

Wrong. You reject non-WTS claims because if you didn't, you'd have no Mommy to pat you on the head.

: are false to history

My argument is entirely in line with history. You have never -- not ever! -- provided the least bit of evidence to the contrary.

: and do not account for the termination of the seventy years celebrated at the Return in the seventh month.

My "model" accounts perfectly for the 70 years, as touched on above. It is the WTS "model" of the 70 years -- really, its tradition -- that is completely unscriptural. Once again, no modern biblical scholars go along with this claim because it twists the scriptures completely and ignores the clear meaning of passages such as 2 Chronicles 36:20, which clearly states that the Jews were no longer captive when the Persian royalty, namely Cyrus, began to reign. No one disputes that he began to reign when his army conquered Babylon. No one aside from Watchtower apologists and the like claim that the 70 years ended a long time after Cyrus began to reign. And so it goes with the rest of the scriptures.

As usual, scholar pretendus, your arguments are pure bluster and contain nothing of value -- not the least bit of real evidence or valid reasoning. But you've learned well from Mommy, haven't you.

AlanF

9

The Wave: A short movie about mind control

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

this is a very good short movie about how mind control works.

it's based on a true story of a high school teacher that started his own cultish student organization modeled after the nazis.

it's very easy to see the parallels with jws.

AlanF

When I saw this movie some years ago, the parallels with JWism were uncanny and almost scary.

AlanF

89

Moon Landings - Real or Fake?

by Black Man in

jw
friends

i've always wondered about this, especially recently.

i've always contended that they were real and ignored the conspiracy theories.

but if they were real, why hasn't nasa been able to send a man to the moon since the 1970s?

AlanF

darth frosty wrote:

: I always thought that due to light polution in the cities, we cant get a good view of the night sky. Last time I checked their are no cities on the moon to interfer. The physical characteristics of the moon's atmosphere (as it were) should not have the same affect of distorting light as the Earths atmosphere does.

While that's true, that's not the issue. The issue is that if you use a bright daylight exposure setting on a camera when taking pictures of stars, the stars will be too faint to see. I've taken lots of pictures of the sky at and after sunset, and at night, and this is the way it works.

: What about the camera work of the first steps who shot that?

No one took shots of the first steps from outside the lunar lander. The astronaut inside the lander took shots of the first guy out going down the steps. Then the first guy took shots of the second guy coming out. Look this up for yourself rather than speculating about it.

AlanF

89

Moon Landings - Real or Fake?

by Black Man in

jw
friends

i've always wondered about this, especially recently.

i've always contended that they were real and ignored the conspiracy theories.

but if they were real, why hasn't nasa been able to send a man to the moon since the 1970s?

AlanF

darth frosty wrote:

: My main thing has always been the lighting seems to me you should have more stars in the background.

Not at all. If you take a picture at night in a brightly lit football stadium, you're not going to get any stars in the picture, even though with your eyes you might see a few of the brightest. The reason is that the human eye has a much wider dynamic range for picking up light than any film does. When the camera is set for correct exposure for extremely bright daylight on the moon, the exposure is just too short to pick up stars.

: and who took all of the pictures of them landing and taking off from the moon?

There are no pictures of anyone landing on the moon. There are pictures of people after they've landed, and there are pictures while the lander is taking off. Obviously, the astronauts took the pictures after they landed, and an automatic camera took the pictures of the lander taking off.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: I do not have a model

Exactly. Yet you make pronouncements about what you have no model for.

: but I agree with the model presented by the celebrated WT scholars presented in numerous publications over the last five decades

They might present a "model" of sorts, but it's based on nothing but speculation. And as I've pointed out many times, this speculation is based on nothing more than the need to retain the 1914 date.

: and it is this model that I believe is correct.

Believing and proving are different things. You know perfectly well that the Society's claims are purely speculative, because you refuse to set for their reasoning in a post and try to justify it.

: Other models presented by yourself and others including Alan F, I reject because these omit the reign of Darius and defy 'common sense'.

Correction: you reject them because if you didn't, you'd have to give up on the JW world of unreality.

AlanF

89

Moon Landings - Real or Fake?

by Black Man in

jw
friends

i've always wondered about this, especially recently.

i've always contended that they were real and ignored the conspiracy theories.

but if they were real, why hasn't nasa been able to send a man to the moon since the 1970s?

AlanF

Conspiracy theories that the moon landings were faked are abject nonsense. A careful look at the so-called "evidence" produced by these bozos shows that it's of the same quality as the worst nonsense produced by the Watchtower in support of its own idiotic notions.

NASA hasn't sent anyone to the moon for 30+ years for a simple reason: it's been too bloody expensive for the return. NASA went to the moon originally for political reasons. Once the Americans won the race with the Russians, there was no further political mileage to be gained from it. However, NASA does have plans to return to the moon by about 2020 for scientific reasons.

AlanF

116

The Scotsman...this thread is started for you if you wish to comment....

by FreedomFrog in

jw
friends

the scotsman said:.

<< tee hee - dubs will believe anything, lol.>>.

that's good because you shouldn't believe everything you hear in this world.

AlanF

AWAKE&WATCHING:

Here are the citations giving the impression that Bodies of Elders are literally inspired when making judicial decisions:

From The Watchtower, 2/1/1981, p. 31:

Questions from Readers
O Are Jesus’ words at Matthew 18:18-20 to be understood to mean that heaven is bound by decisions made by men on earth?
These verses read: "Truly I say to you men, Whatever things you may bind on earth will be things bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loose on earth will be things loosed in heaven. Again I truly say to you, If two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them due to my Father in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst."
As the New World Translation (here quoted) and some other translations show, the things that are ‘bound’ or ‘loosed’ on earth are things that have already been ‘bound’ or ‘loosed’ in heaven. The Greek words here used literally mean "having been bound" or "having been loosed," which are in the perfect tense, passive voice. In other words, the tense suggests that the action had already been decided upon in heaven and is merely reflected in what is subsequently decided upon on earth by those who wish to reflect "wisdom from above." (Jas. 3:17, 18) "Bound" would refer to being found guilty for punishment; "loosed" would refer to being found innocent.
These words of Jesus follow his discussion of the procedure that should be followed if a servant of God has a major "fault" to take up with his brother. (Verses 15-17) This could lead to the charge being taken up by the "congregation" in that the matter would come before the responsible brothers in the congregation for review and judgment. If the charge was proved true and sufficiently gross, with the individual showing no repentance, the result would be that this one would be considered as "a man of the nations and as a tax collector." He would be disfellowshiped. All of this, of course, would require deliberations. And these deliberations are what Jesus had reference to in verses 18 to 20.
Since holy spirit would come to Jesus’ disciples through Jesus from and after Pentecost 33 C.E., it could be said that "where there are two or three gathered together in my [Jesus’] name, there I am in their midst." All gathered to review the matter would need to be alert to the leadings of Jehovah’s spirit. Particularly would they need to weigh matters carefully in the light of his Word, including the instructions and teachings of Jesus, to see what Jehovah’s mind would be on the alleged conduct and what should be done if the evidence proves the charge as being true and the individual does not repent. Of course, those weighing matters impartially might find the accused innocent, or there may be insufficient evidence.
In the first century, Christians had miraculous operations of Jehovah’s holy spirit in some matters of judgment, such as in the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor. 12:4-11) After miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased with the death of the apostles, Christians have not expected direct miraculous indications from heaven as to how a matter should be decided. (1 Cor. 13:8-13) Nevertheless, we still have what Jehovah’s Word says about proper conduct and how matters should be decided. We can, in effect, determine what has already been decided on a matter in the heavens. Admittedly, due to human imperfections, mistakes in judgment are made at times, but this only emphasizes even more the need to adhere closely to the instructions in Jehovah’s Word in handling matters so as to be assured that what is decided is what has already been decided in heaven.

From The Watchtower, 7/1/1992 pp. 15-16

Elders acting in a judicial capacity should remember that the real Judges of each case are Jehovah and Christ Jesus. Recall what the judges in Israel were told: "It is not for man that you judge but it is for Jehovah; and he is with you in the matter of judgment. And now let the dread of Jehovah come to be upon you. . . . This is how you should do that you may not incur guilt." (2 Chronicles 19:6-10) With reverential fear, the elders judging a case should do their utmost to be sure that Jehovah is really ‘with them in the matter of judgment.’ Their decision should accurately reflect the way Jehovah and Christ consider the matter. What they symbolically ‘bind’ (find guilty) or ‘loose’ (find innocent) on earth should be what has already been bound or loosed in heaven--as revealed by what is written in the inspired Word of God. If they pray to Jehovah in Jesus’ name, Jesus will be "in their midst" to help them. (Matthew 18:18-20, footnote; The Watchtower, February 15, 1988, page 9) The atmosphere at a judicial hearing should show that Christ is truly in their midst.

From The Watchtower, 3/15/1991 p. 5

"Whatever You Bind on Earth"
Later, what Jesus had told Peter was repeated to other disciples. "I tell you solemnly," said Jesus, "whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18, JB) What authority did Christ here delegate to the disciples? The context shows that he was talking about settling problems between individual believers and keeping the congregation clean of unrepentant evildoers.--Matthew 18:15-17.
In matters involving serious violations of God’s law, responsible men in the congregation would have to judge matters and decide whether a wrongdoer should be "bound" (viewed as guilty) or "loosed" (acquitted). Did this mean that heaven would follow the decisions of humans? No. As Bible scholar Robert Young indicates, any decision made by the disciples would follow heaven’s decision, not precede it. He says that verse 18 should literally read: What you bind on earth "shall be that which has been bound (already)" in heaven.
Really, it is unreasonable to think that any imperfect human could make decisions that would be binding upon those in the heavenly courts. It is much more reasonable to say that Christ’s appointed representatives would follow his directions so as to keep his congregation clean. They would do this by making a decision based on principles already laid down in heaven. Jesus himself would guide them in doing this.--Matthew 18:20.

From The Watchtower, 2/15/1988 p. 9

In making such a decision, overseers need to adhere closely to instructions in Jehovah’s Word. Thus, when they find an individual guilty and worthy of punishment, the judgment ‘will already have been bound in heaven.’ And when they "loose on earth," that is, find one innocent, it will already have been "loosed in heaven." In such judicial deliberations, Jesus says, "where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." Matthew 18:6-20; Mark 9:38-50; Luke 9:49, 50.

From the book The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, Chapter 63

In making such a decision, overseers need to adhere closely to instructions in Jehovah’s Word. Thus, when they find an individual guilty and worthy of punishment, the judgment ‘will already have been bound in heaven.’ And when they "loose on earth," that is, find one innocent, it will already have been "loosed in heaven." In such judicial deliberations, Jesus says, "where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." Matthew 18:6-20; Mark 9:38-50; Luke 9:49, 50.

Here is a citation giving the impression that elders are literally appointed by holy spirit:

From The Watchtower, 3/15/2002 p. 14 "Christ Leads His Congregation"

As in the first century, a small group of qualified men from among the anointed overseers now serve as the Governing Body, representing the composite faithful and discreet slave. Our Leader uses this Governing Body to appoint qualified men--whether spirit-anointed or not--as elders in the local congregations. In this regard, the holy spirit, which Jehovah has given Jesus authority to employ, plays a pivotal role. (Acts 2:32, 33) First of all, these overseers must meet the requirements set out in God’s Word, which was inspired by holy spirit. (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 2 Peter 1:20, 21) The recommendations and appointments are made after prayer and under the guidance of the holy spirit. Additionally, the individuals appointed give evidence of producing the fruitage of that spirit. (Galatians 5:22, 23) Paul’s counsel, then, applies with equal force to all elders, whether anointed or not: "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers." (Acts 20:28) These appointed men receive direction from the Governing Body and willingly shepherd the congregation. In this way, Christ is with us now and is actively leading the congregation.

You'll note that the above citations don't literally state that elders make decisions or are appointed by holy spirit, but give such a strong impression of this claim that virtually all JWs understand the Society to mean what it appears to be saying. But as I mentioned, when challenged, Watchtower officials will back off and admit that the impression is a lie.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: Alan's nonsense is based on some assumptions as you read carefully his argument in his post 4611. He concludes without any evidence that the 'second year of the reign of Cyrus' according to Josephus was a regnal year counting from Nisan.

I made no such conclusion. I simply gave dates according to standard reckoning such as is found in Parker & Dubberstein, i.e., the Babylonian style accession-year / Nisan dating method.

: I would argue that this is false and that such regnal year was counted form Tishi rather than Nisan.

As usual, you've shot yourself in the head by failing to note the simple fact that my argument works perfectly using either Babylonian reckoning or Jewish-style non-accession-year / Tishri dating. Doug has already incorporated this information in a revised essay.

Actually, you've simply fallen into a trap set by me well over a year ago, but aided immensely by your own incompetence. The trap was that I deliberately failed to mention that either dating method works perfectly well, knowing that if you ever got around to addressing the specifics of my argument, you'd fall into it. Let's see how the trap worked:

: This means that Josephus' second year of Cyrus is identical to that "second yearof their coming to the house of the true God in Jerusalem, in the second month" - Ezra 3:8 NWT.

Exactly!

: which Ezra as with Josephus counted from the Fall of the year, Tishri and not the spring, Nisan.

Very good!

: This means that Ezra and Josephus both used the sacred calender in reference to events such as the laying of the Temple foundation.

This is so vague that it's meaningless. The sacred calendar's function here is nothing more than to provide the numbering for the months. Thus, Nisan is month 1, Tishri is month 7, etc., and the New Year begins with Nisan. However, the regnal years of kings are dated using the secular calendar, whose New Year begins with Tishri.

: Therefore, the year in which the second month fell was 536 BCE following some six months after their return home by the seventh month of 537 BCE.

As usual, you're unable to do simple calendrical calculations. Since Cyrus ascended the throne of Babylon in 539 BCE (after all, even the Society admits this possibility when it allows that Cyrus' 1st regnal year, using accession-year / Nisan dating, began in Nisan, 538 BCE), then Ezra, using non-accession-year / Tishri dating, would put Cyrus' 1st year as running from Tishri 539 to Tishri 538 BCE. Thus, Cyrus' 2nd year, and the "second year of their coming to the house of the true God in Jerusalem, in the second month", runs from Tishri 538 to Tishri 537 BCE, and the 2nd month of this 2nd year is in Iyyar, i.e., about April/May 537 BCE.

: This model combines harmonizes all the facts beginning with the fundamental fact the the 'first year of Cyrus' a regnal year begiining from Nisan from 538 BCE to Nisan 537 BCE.

Nonsense. You have no idea what you're doing.

: This model nicely agrees with Jack Finegan's Handbook Of Biblical Chronology - Revised Edition,1998,pp.179-180,para.329-330.

More nonsense. Finegan's arguments are completely at odds with your claims, and completely in line with mine. Note what Finegan actually writes:

329. The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (2 Chron 36:22f.; Ezra 1:1ff.) are presumably stated in terms of his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. According to the cuneiform evidence and the Babylonian calendar, Babylon fell on Tashritu 16 = Oct 12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus entered the city two and one-half weeks later on Arahsamnu 3 = Oct 29. His Babylonian regnal years began, therefore, as shown in Table 88, and his first year, in which he made the proclamation, was 538/537 B.C.
Table 88. Babylonian Regnal Years of Cyrus at the Beginning of His Reign
Regnal Year____B.C.
Accession______539/538
Year 1_________538/537
Year 2_________537/536
330. In the second year of the return of the exiles to Jerusalem, Zerubbabel began the rebuilding of the temple. (Ezra 3:8). . . The same dates are also given by Josephus. [137]
[137] Against Apion 1.154.

Finegan's Table 88 obviously uses accession-year / Nisan dating, and the 2nd month of "Year 2" is obviously Iyyar, or April/May of 537 BCE.

I hadn't noticed this before, but Finegan actually cites exactly the same reference to Josephus in support of his argument as I've done in support of mine, in footnote "[137]". The difference is that I cite Against Apion I,21 using William Whiston's numbering of passages, whereas Finegan uses Niese's numbering, namely, Against Apion 1.154.

: Obviously, there will be some criticism of this model which answers Alan F's problem

The criticism is simple: it's completely wrong as a criticism because, where it's not gibberish, it confirms my argument.

: and I have already anticpated some objections and will defend this position vigously.

Right. Much like you've done in your post here. LOL!

: My model is a 'rough draft' and is a work in progress but as the debate continues on this subject then I will do some fine tuning

Ah. Kind of like the Society's abandoning 1874 as the date of Christ's invisible return was just a bit of fine tuning.

: but in short, Alan's mistake is that he assumes that Josephus used the Nisan calendation rather than the Tishri calendation in his Against Apion 1.21.

You've made your usual complement of errors here, scholar pretendus: failing to carefully read posts, failing to understand posts, failure to quote references, failure to understand references, failure to argue correctly, etc. I look forward to further debunking your amusing attempts to support the Society's silly chronology.

For reference, below I'm including a table I've posted several times before, except that this time I've included the numbers for Cyrus' regnal years based on non-accession-year / Tishri dating. Comparing the table with the one in my post 4611 shows that no dates have changed, which proves that either dating method forces the same basic conclusion: the Jews returned in 538 BCE.

Table of Cyrus' Early Years As King of Babylon, With Important Events

Julian__Jewish____Julian___Cyrus' Year Using__Cyrus' Year Using
Year____Month_____Month____Accession-Year_____Non-Accession-Year
___________________________and Nisan-Nisan____and Tishri-Tishri
___________________________Dating_____________Dating

539_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7__Babylon falls, Cyrus' accession year

539_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

539_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

539/8___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

538_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

538_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

538_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1__Cyrus' 1st year; issues his famous decree

538_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

538_____Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

538_____Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

538_____Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

538_____Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6__Jews arrive in Judah

538_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7___Jews are settled in their cities

538_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

538_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

538/7___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

537_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

537_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

537_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

537_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2__Temple foundations are laid

537_____Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

537_____Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

537_____Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

537_____Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

537_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 7

537_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 8

537_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 9

537/6___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 10

536_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 11

536_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 12

536_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

536_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2

AlanF

11

How do Jews view 607 /587 debate?

by AgentSmith in

the jw's use the prohecy of daniel etc to get to 607 as the date jerusalem fell.

i know the jews accept 587 as the correct date.

so how do they view the calculation of the prophecy, of 'ol king neb and babylon etc?.

AlanF

It depends on which group of Jews you're talking about. Most orthodox Jews go by their own dating system, which assigns quite different dates to many events compared to secular history.

AlanF