Doug Mason
Post 199
Physics shows that heat and light go together and exist separately.
Celebrated WT scholars have well and truly proven that 537 BCE was and is the only possible date for the Return setting out such evidence in WT publications over many decades. These facts are familiar to you as you have provided such in your recent articles. It is pleasing that you have an open mind on this subject so I will be providing information on this matter dealing with the so-called tie-breaker with Josephus and Ezra 3:8.
In some sense, Neo-Babyloian chronology is a 'test' of WT biblical chronology but I prefer to consider the former more of an independent witness to the validity of the latter because secular, profane Neo-Babylonian chronology falls a mere twenty years short of biblically established dates such as 607 BCE. The reason for this small gap is that this chronology omits history failing to consider the seventy years of exile-desolation and servitude.
I will be dealing with the fact that the first year of Cyrus should be counted from Nisan rather than Tishri in my response to Alan F's nonsense so keep watching. The reign of Darius is very important in the context of establishing a date for the Return because his reign is linked to the termination of the seventy years in which Cyrus' Decree permitted the Jews to return home by the seventh month in 537 BCE. The reign of Darius may have been commensurate with the first year of Cyrus or intervened between the Fall of Babylon and the first year of Cyrus.
You seem to be spooked by the zero-year problem but what you fail to realize is that is was the celebrated WT scholars who first drew attention to scholars that an adjustment was require for it was the case in the earlier decades of the last century that scholars had made this error. Our chronology was then 'fine' tuned' by the 'celedbrated ones' demonstrating that chronology is always a work in progress.
When P&D was first published in the early forties it was of great benefit to the 'celebrated ones' who since then have made good use of this piece of scholarship to the chagrin of critics and apostates.
You request a diagram and I am happy to oblige forthwith: NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition, 1995, p.667.
nb. Please note the scriptural references Ezra 3:1; 3:8
It can hardly be said that the said 'scholar' has been dancing around the doorknob as I have been arguing matters of chronology in some depth on this board for the last five years and have dealt with every objection in full excepting for the Alan F query as previously mentioned. Besides you well know the methodology of the WT's 537 date and the evidence for it so I do not intend to repeat what you already have presented. What I will do is to present additional information bearing on the matter which deals with Alan F's little difficulty. This is the second timeI have helped him with a problem