JEFFRO: Larsinger58, I have no interest in indulging you in your delusional alternative timeline. I will make this one comment... You are treating this passage as though it's 'scripture'. By this, I mean you're interpreting exactness in Josephus' words that simply isn't really there. (It's bad enough that you do this with 'actual' [so-called] 'scripture'.) The things you claim Josephus implies (but which are actually only your own suppositions) are contradicted by other direct statements from Josephus. It is abundantly clear from Josephus' later writings that he corrects some of the minor errors in Antiquities on which you rely for your flawed interpretation. You have made no attempt to explain the inconsistenty in your delusional alternative history in regard to the 182.5 years from the fall of Israel until Cyrus' decree.
LARS:
Oh my. You failed this test big time, Jeffro. All you had to do was comment on the interpretation of this text. If you believe Josephus made and mistake and changed it later, then fine. We can go there. But the fact is, this reference extists and I'm comparing it to the Bible. Everything in Josephus isn't accurate per the Bible, and everything in the Bible is not inspired. I was just discussing this text, even if everything contradicts. But instead of just commenting on it, for the sake of those who read you, you blow me off as "delusional" as usual, which means this frustrates you and it means you know I have a valid reference.
But keep in mind, this is a DISCUSSION. Everybody can have their own interpretation. I'm just SHARING. I use this text to show how dishonest the WTS is. The WTS uses Josephus to claim that he considered the desolation of the land a literal 70 years. But here Josephus counts the 70 years from year 23, the year of the last deportation. The WTS begin their 70 years with the fall of Jerusalem which they date to 607 BCE, year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
But then, we're well down the road now. This is "relative" chronology. Now the VAT4956 factors in which dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE potentially. In that case, year 23 would fall in 525 BCE. If we follow this reference by Josephus and introduce 70 years at this point, then the 1st of Cyrus per the VAT4956 would fall in 455 BCE. That's the date the "70 weeks" prophecy must begin, regardless. Some date 455 BCE to the 20th of Artaxerxes (JWs) and some to the 1st of Cyrus (Martin Anstey).
Now that's out there. It gives us a CHOICE. That's all I need to establish here. That there is a secular reference out there that we have to deal with and that your timeline ignores and/or contradicts it.
Now you mention that Josephus "corrects" this in later works. His latest work was "Against Apion" where in 1.18 he again mentions the 70 years. Some have focussed on his reference to the "fifty years" of desolation in 1.21, but tha was a cryptic reference in connection with the rule of Cyrus. That is, on the surface, it would seem that Josephus is directly contradicting himself in the same work by claiming a 70-year desolation and a 50-year desolation. But is he? It depends on how you interpret it. Is he being coy? I say that, because Cyrus had two rulerships. The first was over the Persian half of the Medo-Persian empire which lasted 20 years. Then when he became king over the entire Medo-Persian Empire and the entire empire just had one king, He began counting his rule from year 1 again, since this was a new kingship. Thus, if in 1.21 Josephus is making a coy reference to the first kingship of Cyrus, then the 50 years is relevant. That's because Cyrus did begin to reign 50 years into the 70-year exile/desolation. So it is not a contradiction to say the land was desolate for fifty years at which point Cyrus began his first 20-year rule over the Persian part of the empire. But when Cyrus began his second kingship, 20 years later, that ended the 70-year exile/desolation.
So what is a false concept that you're promoting is that he "corrects" himself in a later work. That is, he changes the 70 years to 50 years. Well, if this is a "correction" he got this epiphany between paragraph 19 and paragraph 21 of the same work! Because he does not dismiss the concept of the 70 years in "Against Apion." Now, if someone didn't know that 1.19 mentions the 70 years, you could fool someone into thinking he is "correcting" himself, or contradicting himself. But we can't say that because the 50 years is in connection to the rule of Cyrus and there was a 50-year period of desolation in progress when he began his rule.
So Josephus is just saying Cyrus came to the throne 50 years into the 70-year exile, then became king again 70 years into the 70-year exile. So he's not really correcting anything. Cyrus' first rule is relevant to a 50-year period. Watch when we use my corrected timeline using the VAT4956.
The VAT4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE, dismissing 568 BCE as a revisesd date. In that case year 23 falls in 525 BCE and 70 years later would begin Cyrus' 2nd rule in 455 BCE. Twenty years earlier begins the 1st rule of Cyrus in 475 BCE. He begins his rule in the 6th year of Nabonidus, which means Nabonidus began his rule in 480 BCE. Per the Nabon 18, an eclipse occurred in the 6th month in the 2nd year of Nabonidus which was a total eclipse that set during totality. That is confirmed by an eclipse occurring in 479 BCE, which would have been in the second year of Nabonidus and at a time when he was still active on the throne. He put his son, Belshazzar in charge beginning his third year. So this eclipse confirms the 6th year of Nabonidus would fall in 475 BCE when Cyrus began his 20-year reign which would end in 455 BCE.
But you are very smart to tell yourself I'm "delusional" and don't discuss details with me, because you will lose those arguments as well as learn too much that contradicts your own beliefs. You're thinking that I'm crazy is your own defensive mechanism to escape reality, not mine.