Hi Dan,
How've you been ? I hope you and the Mrs. are doing well. I heard you got out of the furniture business. ( Heard a going out of business ad on the radio. ) Does that mean you are retired now? Lucky guy! Hey, maybe I can do the same if I put every buck I have on Taylor to win! I doubt my wife would like that though. She's a real worrier. I tell her this bet is a sure thing. Now if I can only convince myself. : )
Mike
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
153
I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )
by a Christian ini've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.
at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !
normally i'm not a gambling man.
-
-
a Christian
-
153
I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )
by a Christian ini've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.
at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !
normally i'm not a gambling man.
-
-
a Christian
Kaput,
You wrote: They think he's got some kind of medical condition.
He's got the moves of Ray Charles! And his "soul" which are now going to get him most of the votes that would have gone to Gideon now that he is gone. And many of the votes that would have gone to some of the black gals once they are gone.
-
153
I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )
by a Christian ini've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.
at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !
normally i'm not a gambling man.
-
-
a Christian
Ace? No way! Check out the discussion boards at the official American Idol web site.
http://myidol.idolonfox.com/boards/
Each contestant has their own board. For Idol watchers to discuss their favorite contestant.
There are 24,000 posts on Ace's board. There are 92,000 on Taylor's board. Nobody else is even close.
I tell you. Get in while the getting is good on these 10 to 1 odds. -
153
I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )
by a Christian ini've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.
at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !
normally i'm not a gambling man.
-
-
a Christian
I've got $500.00 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol. At 10 to one odds ( Pinnacle Sports ) ! Normally I'm not a gambling man. But I think that's as good as $5000.00 in the bank. What do you think? http://www6.pinnaclesports.com/guestcontestLines.asp?redirected=yes&ContestType=American%20Idol
-
33
I have posted his ?'s, he would like your opinion on them
by Chimene ininsearchfortruth is unable to access the web today.
his wife is forcing him to meet with a brother to talk to him about the truf .
he needs some questions to ask to prove to his wife that this religion is wrong.
-
-
a Christian
Jesus spoke about religious leaders who insist that others accept their own personal interpretations of the scriptures. He said that God finds the worship of people who do so to be in vain because they teach "commands of men as doctrines." ( Mt.15:9 ) A "command of men," as opposed to a command of God, is a teaching which men insist that their followers accept, even though it is not clearly stated in scripture. I believe Jehovah's Witnesses teach many such "commands of men" as doctrines. Because they do, I believe their worship of God is "in vain." I have here listed some of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines which I believe are clearly "commands of men."
1. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there are two different "classes" of Christians with two different hopes for the future. They tell us that only a small minority of Christians will rule with Christ in his kingdom, and they say that the vast majority of Christians will be subjects of those kingdom rulers. However, the apostles taught that there was only "one hope" for all Christians. (Eph. 4:4-6) The apostles also forbid anyone to teach differently than they taught. Since Jehovah's Witnessers teach differently than the apostles on the issue of how many hopes there are for Christians, their two hopes/ two classes of Christians teaching is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. The Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must then be regarded as a "command of men."
2. The Watchtower Society commands Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept blood transfusions. It is widely understood by all Christian groups except Jehovah's Witnesses that the instructions recorded in Acts 15:29, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication," were written as strong advise to new Gentile Christians as a way they could avoid offending Jewish Christians. We know this by reading the context. Acts 15:19, 20 says, "My decision is not to trouble those of the NATIONS who are turning to God, but to write THEM to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." It is plain that these words were not written as a binding decree imposed upon Christians. We know this because Paul later said that early Christians were, in fact, free to eat things sacrificed to idols ( one of the things Christians were advised to "abstain from" in Acts 15 ) so long as doing so did not stumble their brothers. (1 Cor. 8:4,7-9) We also know this because Paul said that for Christians, "All things are lawful but all things are not beneficial." (1 Cor. 6:12) Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses ban on blood is not scriptural. It must therefore be regarded as a "command of men."
3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that crime, wars, contagious disease, earthquakes, famine and the like are signs of Christ's second presence and have been much worse since the year 1914 than in past generations. They teach that this proves that Christ returned in that year. The facts show that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 carefully and you will find what Jesus was really saying. His point was that such conditions would exist all the way up to the time of his return and would not be signs of his return at all. He warned his disciples that they should not be worried by such things. He said, "These things must take place but the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9) He compared the difficult times to come to "birth pains." (Mt. 24:8) For just as a woman must often undergo a long painful period of time before she finally gives birth, so Jesus indicated that our world had much pain to endure before he would finally return. To support their "composite sign of Christ's invisible presence" interpretation of scripture the Watchtower Society has shamelessly played with crime, war, disease and earthquake statistics ever since it first began in an attempt to prove their contentions. The truth is, however, since 1914 none of these problems has gotten worse and most have gotten much better compared to past generations. An objective study of scripture and history clearly shows that the Society's "composite sign" interpretation is not a teaching of scripture. However, the men who run the Watchtower Society command all Jehovah's Witnesses to accept and teach others this misinterpretation of scripture and distortion of history.
4. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, as mentioned, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture and must be regarded as a command of men and not of God.
5. Insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and teach others that Christ returned in the year 1914 is certainly a command of men. Jehovah' Witnesses teach that Daniel chapter four indicates that Christ would return 2,520 years after the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the ancient nation of Babylon. They say this destruction took place in the year 607 BCE. However, as all those who have studied this teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way have discovered, this understanding of Daniel chapter four is in conflict with both scripture and ancient history. Accepting and teaching others this highly questionable interpretation of scripture must then be regarded as a command of men.
6. The same can be said about Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the resurrection of all Christians who died before the year 1918 occurred in 1918. Paul said that those who teach that "the resurrection has already occurred" have "deviated from the truth" and "are subverting the faith." (2 Tim. 2:18) Jehovah's Witnesses teach that "the resurrection has already occurred." Thus, the teaching that the resurrection occurred in 1918 is clearly unscriptural, and the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a "command of men."
7. The teaching that Jesus appointed the men who run the Watchtower Society as his "faithful slave" "over all his belongings" in 1919 is certainly not clearly taught in scripture. Thus, it can only be regarded as a teaching of men, not of God. And the Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a command of men. Without any clear statement in scripture that Christ ever appointed the leaders of the Watchtower Society to such a position, such claims by the Watchtower Society are extremely presumptuous. And the Bible tells us that God hates presumptuousness. (Isaiah 13:11)
8. The Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. The Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9) Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, and insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses do the same is clearly a "command of men."
9. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that all their members must regularly engage in their work of preaching and disciple making. However, the Bible says that God gave only "some as evangelists" and only "some as teachers." (Eph. 4:11) Though all true Christians are certainly moved to share their faith with others when the opportunity arises, the teaching that all Christians are required by God to regularly serve as door-to-door preachers contradicts the scriptures and so must also be regarded as a command of men.
10. On this same line of thought, the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses who share their faith with others keep track of their time doing so, and then report that number of hours they do so each month to their congregations is also contrary to the teachings of scripture. Jesus said that those who let others know what good works they are doing already have their reward in full. But he said that those who give in secret will be the ones who are rewarded by their father in heaven. (Mt. 6:1-4) Jehovah's Witnesses who are "regular publishers" let their elders know exactly how much time they spend preaching. Jehovah's Witnesses who are "Pioneers" let everyone in their congregations know how many hours they preach just by the act of "Pioneering." The Watchtower Society encourages this kind of "trumpet blowing," contrary to the teachings of Christ. Because they do, the Watchtower Society's telling all Jehovah's Witnesses to report the time they spend preaching is not scriptural and must then be regarded as a command of men.
11. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves many minor matters which certainly should be left to an individual Christian's conscience. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses are not even allowed to decide for themselves if they will give their mother a card on Mother's Day or celebrate their child's first Birthday. This is not Christianity. It is legalistic Phariseeism. The Bible says that "Where the Spirit of God is there is freedom." ( 2 Cor. 3:17 ) With this verse in mind, since freedom of action, thought and speech to make decisions for themselves in minor matters such as these does not exist among Jehovah's Witnesses, we can only view the many legalistic prohibitions, which the Watchtower Society imposes on Jehovah's Witnesses, as commands of men not commands of God.
12. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to let any member of the military or police join their religion even though the first Gentile accepted into the Christian congregation was a Roman army officer. Peter baptized Cornelius without ever demanding that he first resign from the military. (Acts 10) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses treat baptismal candidates differently than Peter did shows that, in this area also, they teach commands of men as doctrine. ( Matt. 15:9 )
13. Jehovah's Witnesses "disfellowship" people for things never mentioned in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for using tobacco, for celebrating Christmas, for working for a Christian charitable organization and, more and more often today, simply admitting that they doubt the Watchtower Society's claim that it is God's exclusive channel for truth on the earth. Disfellowshipping and then shunning people for such unbiblical reasons clearly shows that the Watchtower Society's instructions to congregational Elders to disfellowship Jehovah's Witnesses for such things are commands of men, not commands of God.
14. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they are considered by God to be Christians and that only they have any hope of surviving Armageddon. Some of Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny the Society teaches this. However, as well informed member of Jehovah's Witnesses know, they do. As the Sept. 1, 1989 issue of the Watchtower tells us on page 19, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently taught that all members of Christendom's Churches, who are still its members when Armageddon strikes, will be executed by God. This amounts to judging and condemning others in the worst way. Who God accepts as Christians and who he will destroy at Armageddon is a judgment that is God's to make, not ours. Jesus commanded his followers to "Stop judging and you will not be judged," and "stop condemning and you will not be condemned." ( Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37 ) Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that God only accepts the worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, only considers them to be Christians and that only they "have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system," is not a teaching of Scripture and, in fact, is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ. Thus, the Watchtower Society's instructions to Jehovah's Witnesses that they should accept and promote such judgmental teachings are certainly commands of men and not of God.
15. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that all of its members attend five one hour long meetings every week, as well as various assemblies and conventions throughout the year. If they do not they are considered to be spiritually weak or spiritually sick. Though the Bible encourages Christians to not forsake gathering together, nowhere in the Bible are Christians told that they must attend five meetings a week. Therefore, the Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses do so must also be regarded as a "command of men."
16. The Watchtower Society's teachings on the subject of who will receive a resurrection are clearly corruptions of scripture and, as such, must also be considered commands of men. Jesus said, "A time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28,29 NIV) However, the Watchtower Society has long speculated back and forth about who will be resurrected and who won't. For instance, they have said, "The men of Sodom will be resurrected." Then, "No they won't." Then, "Yes they will." Then, "No they won't." And so forth. Such foolishness! Jesus plainly said that everyone who has ever lived and died will receive a resurrection. This has made no sense to the Watchtower Society so they have played with Jesus' words. Their NWT Bible has Jesus saying "all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out." They tell us this should be understood to mean all those who are now remembered by God. They tell us that those in "MEMORIAL tombs" refers to those in God's MEMORY. And they tell us that God forgets evil ones who have died so most of them will not have a resurrection. But to all Christians except Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus' words make perfect sense. For they know that Acts 24:15 confirms Christ's words in John 5:28,29 by telling us that "there will be a resurrection of BOTH the righteous and the wicked." And they know that Romans 14:12 says that "EACH of us will give an account of himself to God." They also know that Hebrews 9:27 tells us that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." So, even though Christ's clearly stated intentions to resurrect everyone who has ever lived and died make no sense to readers of the Watchtower, they make perfect sense to readers of the Bible. The Bible indicates that God has no intention of letting evil men who spent their whole lives hurting others pass into eternal rest thinking they got away with their evil deeds. The Bible tells us God intends to bring back all wicked ones from their graves to face condemnation for the way they lived their lives. By the way, the Bible also tells us that the "resurrection of the righteous and the wicked" will take place when the thousand year reign of Christ has ended, not all during those thousand years as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. (Rev. 20:5)
As Jesus said, "It is in vain that they keep worshipping" God "because they teach commands of men as doctrines." (Mt.15:9) -
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
a Christian
Maybe Scholar has no time to answer my questions. He may be too busy trying to win 250,000 Pounds Sterling in the "607 Challenge" by being the first to prove Jerusalem fell in the year 607 BCE. http://607challenge.org/ http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/109243/1.ashx The real point of this Web site, of course, is to get JWs to look closely at all the biblical and archeological evidence for the time of Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon. When they do this they will see that the Watchtower Society is wrong about this matter. Mike
-
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
a Christian
Startingover,
You wrote: I'm waiting too.
I think we will be waiting a very long time.
How long has Alan F has been waiting for scholar to respond to his post which proved that the Jews' returned home from Babylon in 538 BC, a year earlier than the Watch Tower Society says they did?
The fact of the matter is, the questions I asked "Scholar" can not be honestly answered by any JW. To answer these questions honestly a JW would have to admit that the only reason the Watch Tower Society accepts the date 539 BC for the accession year of Cyrus ( as established indirectly by Strm Kambys 400 ) and rejects the year 587/6 BC for the year of Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem ( as established in a much more direct way by VAT 4956 ) is that doing so allows them to hold on to their Daniel 4 interpretation.
As we know, this interpretation says that 2,520 years passed between the year of Jerusalem's destruction ( "607 BCE" according to the Watch Tower Society ) and the year of Christ's invisible return ( "1914" according to the Society ). Of course the Society needs this interpretation so they can continue to maintain that shortly after Christ invisibly returned he appointed them over all his belongings.
The only reason the Society tells us that the astronomical dating for "the 7th year of Cambyses" found in Strm Kambys 400 is trustworthy and implies that the astronomical dating for "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" found in VAT 4956 is not trustworthy is because to do otherwise would demolish their Daniel 4 interpretation and with it their only claim to spiritual authority over the lives of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The fact that the Watch Tower Society has chosen to accept as accurate the astronomical dating contained in Strm Kambys 400 and has chosen to not accept as accurate the astronomical dating contained in VAT 4956 has nothing to do with one document being considered by historians to be more reliable than the other. For both are considered to be equally trustworthy. And, since we are able to date Jerusalem's destruction in a much simpler and more direct way using VAT 4956 than we are able to do by using Strm Kambys 400, it makes much more sense for us to do so by using VAT 4956 than by using Strm Kambys 400.
These things being so, and I suspect "Scholar" knows that they are so, I didn't really expect Scholar to answer my questions. I was only trying to get him to face the fact, and make any "lurkers" here aware of the fact, that the Society has been far less than honest when dealing with this subject matter.
Mike
-
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
a Christian
I thought I'd bring this back to the top to give "Scholar" another chance to answer my questions.
Mike
-
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
a Christian
Scholar,
Earlier I asked you why you prefer to establish the date for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem by starting your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400, rather than doing so by starting your count of time with "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar," as astronomically dated by VAT 4956.
It seems you have ignored my question.
I pointed out that the latter method ( VAT 4956 = 587/6 BC ) requires the employment of no possibly mistaken assumptions as does the former ( Strm Kambys 400 = 607 ). That being the case, the only valid reason for dating Jerusalem's destruction beginning your count of time with "the 7th year of Cambyses," as astronomically dated by Strm Kambys 400 would be if historians believe that Strm Kambys 400 is a much more reliable historical document than VAT 4956.
Do they? Again, I ask you to tell me why you accept Strm Kambys 400 which leads you indirectly to your 607 date, and not VAT 4956 which leads us directly to the 587/6 date.
If you insist that the Bible's "70 years" prophecies must be understood to refer to years of total desolation for Judah, why not accept the 587/6 date for Jerusalem's destruction established by VAT 4956 and then maintain that the Jews returned home 70 years later, in about 517? You could then say that Strm Kambys 400 must be in error about its apparent dating of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539, as you now say that VAT 4956 must be in error in regards to its apparent dating of Jerusalem's destruction in 587/6?
Again I ask you, and I hope you will answer, why do you believe the astronomical dating found in Strm Kambys 400 is more reliable than that found in VAT 4956?
Mike
-
128
listing of authorities and their date for the fall of Jerusalem
by M.J. insorry if this has been posted before.
i came across it and thought it was worth pointing out: http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/wts/607.html.
(edited) the annoying popup caused me to cut and paste the table from the page, rather than embed it: the narrative before and after is good too so you might want to check it out the original page.
-
-
a Christian
Scholar, As I understand things, the date 539 BC for Cyrus conquest of Babylon has been primarily determined in a far less direct way than the date 568/7 has been for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Historians tell us that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC primarily because a tablet called "Strm Kambys 400" contains astronomical observations which identify the year 523 BC as "the 7th year of Cambyses." Historians understand Cambyses to be Cyrus' son, who they believe began to rule immediately following his father's death. And since they believe Cyrus reigned for 9 years after his conquest of Babylon, they conclude that since 523 BC was Cambyses' 7th year ( with six full years having passed since his father's death and since his own rule began ) Cyrus must have begun to reign 16 years before 523 BC, which of course would be 539 BC. In doing so historians tell us Cyrus' "9" years of rule were counted using the "accession year" system of reckoning, in which a king's first partial year of rule was not counted as part of his official total years of rule. So, counting backwards in time from 523 BC they count 6 full years for Cambyses' rule + 9 full years for Cyrus' rule + 1 more year for Cyrus' "accession year" during which he conquered Babylon. They then add 16 years ( 6 + 9 + 1 ) to 523 BC ( Cambyses' 7th year ) and that brings them to 539 BC as the "accession year" of Cyrus. Now this all makes perfect sense to me. And I believe historians are right about all of this. But it also seems to me that it makes a lot more sense for us to date Jerusalem's destruction beginning our count of time from "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar," which VAT 4956 identifies as 568/67 BC, than to do so beginning our count of time from "the 7th year of Cambyses," which Strm Kambys 400 identifies as the year 523 BC. For when we date Jerusalem's destruction beginning our count of time from "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" there are no possible "weak links" in our chain. ( If 568/7 BC = Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year then 587/6 = his 18th year, during which the Bible indicates Babylon devastated Jerusalem. Establishing 587/6 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction in this way requires the use of only one "strong" link. ) However, when Jehovah's Witnesses date Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon beginning their count of time from "the 7th year of Cambyses" they do so using several possibly "weak" links. 1. How can you be sure Cambyses began to rule immediately upon his father's death. Maybe some unmentioned king ruled for an unknown period of time between the two of them. The WT has said such a thing may have happened at another time. Why not here? 2. How can you be sure that Persian royal historians, at the time Strm Kambys 400 was written, recorded the length of Persian kings' reigns using the accession year system of reckoning? Historians believe that they did. But this is only their belief. If they used the non-accession year system that would mean Cyrus began his rule in 538 BC rather than 539 BC. 3. What if the Jews returned to their homeland only one year after Cyrus began to rule, as Josephus seems to indicate, rather than two years afterwards as the WT maintains? That would change your dating of Jerusalem's destruction by one year. 4. And, of course, what if the Temple laid in ruins for only fifty years, as Josephus tells us it did in his final word on this matter, rather than "70 years" as the WT maintains? This would change your dating of Jerusalem's destruction by 20 years. It seems clear to me that the WT method of dating Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon ( Strm Kambys 400 which identifies "the 7th year of Cambyses" as 523 BC ) is one which requires the use of four weak links to get to 607 BC. Why then do you believe it is not wiser for us to date Jerusalem's destruction using a method ( VAT 4956 which identifies "the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar" as 568/67 BC ) which requires the use of only one strong link to get to 587/6 BC? Mike