587 BC for Total Dunderheads

If you're a dunderhead on Neo-Babylonian history (like me) you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 B.C. comes up.  Since I had nothing better to do today, I decided to finally take the time it takes to understand why dub chronology on that date is wrong. This piece of information alone should give you a clue about how bored I am!

It turns out this stuff is a piece of cake!  The tricky part was filtering through the obfuscating WTS comments on the matter, and I won't bother you with that. However, using ONLY comments by the faithful and discrete slavers we can rather easily see that their chronology regarding 607 B.C. is wrong.

There is really not much to learn here, either: No astronomy, no neo-Babylonian tablets, and no confusing Bible versus will be presented. Just the names of five people with really funny names, and only several quotes from WTS publications will be used.  Also, there is no need to quibble over things like regnal years, assession years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, whatever in-the-hell THEY are. Remember, the WTS's claim of 607 B.C. is a full TWENTY years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C. and all the tinkering with a few months here and few partial year reigns there cannot make up  a difference of twenty years.

Another tricky part to remember is that people were very primitive in those years before Christ came up with a sensible calendar that actually counts FORWARD as you go forward rather than BACKWARD as you go forward. This is known as the "really stupid ancient people RULE."  It's a wonder those folks could survive at all. 

Most of what we need is found in a single paragraph of the WTS book "Babylon the Grape Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rocks!" ("Fallen Baby") on page 184 .  To keep things simple, I will paraphrase this paragraph, but include the actual paragraph at the end for reference.

We have to start some 68 years AFTER the date of Jerusalem's fall with a date and event that is agreed upon by both the WTS and secular historians. From this date we will count backward by counting forward using the "really stupid ancient people RULE." That date is 539 B.C., the date that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Mede ("Cy").

Keep in mind we are trying to find the date Jerusalem fell and the Genital Times began.

"Fallen Baby" tells us that Nabonidus ("Nabby") was King when Babylon fell in 539 B.C. The WTS book "Aid to Bible Understanding" tells that "Nabby" ruled seventeen years from 556 to 539 B.C.

We are now back to 556 B.C.

"Fallen Baby" tells us that before Nabby, Labashi-Marduk ("Laby the Duck") ruled about nine months. It also tell us that before "Laby The Duck," Neriglissar ("Glissy") ruled for four years.

So if we go backwards 4 years and nine months from 556 B.C. we're now at 560-561 B.C.

"Fallen Baby" also tells us that before "Glissy", Evil-Merodach ("Evil Duck") ruled for 2 years.  We are now back to 562-563 B.C. and to the last year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzer ("Chad").

On page 1212 of the Aid to Bible Understanding book we are told that "Chad" ruled 43 years.

562/563 + 43 years = 605/606 BC, the year when "Chad" started ruling Babylon.

2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of "Chad's" reign, so if we go forward 19 years from 605/606 B.C. we will have the approximate years of the beginning of the Genital Times.

Using the "really stupid ancient people RULE" to go forward  when you want to go backward we get:

605/606 B.C. - 19th year of "Chad's" reign = 586/587 B.C!

That's it! It's that simple.

Let's summarize:

"Nabby" ruled Babylon for 17 years from 556 to 539 B.C. Cy messed up Babylon in 539 B.C.

Before that, "Laby the Duck" ruled for 9 months and "Glissy" ruled for 4 years.

"Evil Duck" ruled for 2 years.

"Chad" ruled for 43 years.

17 years + 9 months + 4 years + 2 years + 43 years = 66 to 67 years.

Starting at 539 B.C. and going back 66/67 years we arrive at 605/606 B.C. or the start of the reign of "Chad."  Remember, none of this would be possible without using the "really stupid ancient people RULE."

Nineteen years after 605/606 B.C. using this stupid RULE brings us to 586/587 B.C.

This is so simple that everyone but the Watchtower Society can understand it.

Oh.  Yeah, I did state I was taking a leave from the board.  I claim my constitutional right to "Theocratic War Strategy," and these are "critical times hard to deal with," so don't start hazing me.  I have Bible-Based(tm) reasons that are irrefutible.

References:

Insight on the Scriptures under "Chaldea""

"Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon."

Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules, page 184:

"After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. According to the inscriptions that have been found, this usurper of the throne spent most of his time in building operations and reigned four years. When he died, his son Labashi-Marduk, though not yet of age, succeeded him. He was a vicious boy, and within nine months he had his throat cut by an assassin. Nabonidus, who had served as Governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, now took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign till Babylon fell in 539 B.C."

Aid to Bible Understanding on Nabonidus - P 1195:

"Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire...On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have rule some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.)."

Farkel

Thanks Farkel for that simplified version of chronology.  I particularly enjoyed this analysis:

Dubs think the WT is exceptionally scholarly because of the confusion they insert by such things as regnal years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseaum.  What it does is deliberately bog down the reader with double talk, which, of course, considering the reputed number of lawyers there, makes sense.

Your post made sense to me and I'll be sure to remember it, should I ever be inclined to discuss it (not likely).

Pat

huh....I still don't get it .  Just joking....but about a week ago I did the exact same thing researching in the society's own books.  It's pretty stupid of them though to keep all the info that proves that the date is not 607, although it is scattered here and there.

Fark!

I obviously must have a clinical problem with my eyes-----the moment I begin to read ANYTHING that has to be biblically calculated---my eyes glaze over. It happens time and time again!

I stunk at math all my life, and REALLY stunk at WTS math whenever it was presented. I DID enjoy though, your remark concerning the "Genital Times", LOL!

It was nice to have you back---if only for a short time!

hugs,

Annie

Thanks Farkel!  Only problem is that this is not the ONLY reference to this chronology.   The problem is not whether a clear chronology comes down to us from the pagan records, but whether those records were revised or not.  One indication of revisionism is if there are alternative chronologies with different numbers. 

In the case of the NB period, for instance, Josephus claims that there were 70 years from the last deportation in year 23 of "Chad" until the 1st of Cyrus.

Sooooo.......where did he get that number?  Is it more reliable than the NB records? Etc.

All you've done is told us what the Persian Period records claim was the chronology.  So thanks.  If you take their word over Josephus' then that's your choice.   Are you qualified to make an academically responsible choice between Josephus and the Persian records?  Is anybody?

So it's not just "Oh yeah, this is what the Persians claim! so chronology closed."  The problem is the other chronologies that differ from the Persian dating, including Josephus for one, the Bible for another and even the Persian astronomical texts like the VAT4956 and the SK400 that reflect the 587BCE chronology, but if they were truly resposible would not have references to other dates for the same event in them.  The double dating is a dead giveaway the chronology was revised.

So thanks for giving us the Persian side of the chronology debate.  It might be the correct chronology, theoretically, but it's neither Josephus' chronology nor the Bible's.  I prefer Josephus and the Bible for my own purposes, but that's me. 

Have a nice day!

JC

 

 

 

annie,

: the moment I begin to read ANYTHING that has to be biblically calculated---my eyes glaze over. It happens time and time again!

Yeah.  Me too.  The WTS likes it that way.  Here is the shortest possible math:

If one can find the year Nebuchadnezzer started his reign, one can find when Jerusalem fell.

Virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes.  There are 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzer's reign to the fall of Babylon.  This brings us back to 605/606 B.C.  The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign.  This brings us forward to 586/587 B.C.

How's that for simple?

Farkel

farekel,

my hubby wants to know this,

the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

so he says all the other stufff does not matter.

Oops! I thought JCanon wrote this thread.

wednesday,

: the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

: so he says all the other stiff does not matter.

Because of the specific claims made by the Watchtower, "being close" only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes. Being off by "only" 2 years trashes the 1914 "invisible reign" doctrine, the 1918 "invisible resurrection" doctrine and most importantly, the 1919 invisible "only we speak for God" doctrine which is the cornerstone of the Watchtower's claim to spiritual knowledge and authority.

Besides, that the WTS itself uses that same Kingly assession reasoning to "prove" the 607 B.C. date. The only difference is they claim that "Evil Duck" began reigning in 581 B.C., not 562 B.C. as their very own literature shows. This "pushes" back the date of Jerusalem's destruction to make it fit with WTS dogma.

Your hubby is using a logical fallacy called "special pleading," where he wants us to ignore some faked evidence put forward by the WTS and accept other faked evidence put forward by the WTS.

A classic example of special pleading is this statement: "Please don't convict me for killing my parents, your Honor. After all, I'm an orphan now."

Farkel

BibleMan,

: All you've done is told us what the Persian Period records claim was the chronology

No.  All I've told you is what the Watchtower Org. and one scripture which identifies the year in "Chad's" reign that Jerusalem fell tells us.

Don't stick the Persians with the blame.  It's the WATCHTOWER who's done the lying here.

Farkel

Well, there's MATH (the real kind) and there is WTS MATH:

"I stunk at math all my life, and REALLY stunk at WTS math "

Thanks for pointing that out, Annie!!!  LMAO!!!

And this is a big portion of the point Farkel was addressing.

Mustang

**How's that for simple?

Fark,

About the simplest I've ever seen!!!

(HEY---I'VE BEEN HEALED! NO MORE "GLAZING OVER" ITS GONE!)

Bless you my friend!

hugs,

Annie

i spent months on this 607 junk some years ago researching. the bible says clearly nations will give servitude to babylon for 70 years. simple. that started in 609 when the babylons beat the asseryians. simple again. this was with nab's father . nab became king about 605 add 18 years to that you get 587 . just like the bible says. the wt takes something as simple as tying your shoe and tries to turn it into a 10 year course in the fine art of boondoggle. tying the average jw's head into more knots than found on a clipper ship.  jcanon have you gone to the court house yet and changed your name to fred franz yet. i here it's still open. better hurry there are some other wacko out there that might beat you to it john

Because of the watchtowers new "destroy old doctrines by obsecuring them in jibberish policy" I cant understand how these dates contect to anything taught now. Now Jesus was always king and just "actively" because king in 1914 (I have no idea what this means). The 1918 doctrine i dont know what it is can you explain I know they say the begining of their "punishment" started. Now 1919 is the end of their "punishment" and the appointing over the lords belongings.

I am doing research and I think they could be correct in defending 1919. Considering those are the lord's "spiritual" "earthly" "visible" belongings. Which they claim entails inpart door knocking. I have not read any recent material that actually comes out and explain what exactly they are incharge of beyond that. I mean they might as well say they are incharge of mantaining the dehydrated water supply for the lord's sheep. 

Also saying that the babylon the great will fall does not mean much. Imagine instead of Jesus killing all those preist and burn all those churches they all become non religious. The numbers tend to show that, The WT would be pissed but that would be funny.

Wow, Thanks, it does make it easier to understand! Having tried to read several posts based on this, I usually give up, as it causes a big brain block, but the way you presented it does make it easy to understand. I wish I would have had You as a schoolteacher.......Thanks again!!!

Virtually everyone agrees that 539 B.C. is the date Babylon fell to the Medes. 

Hello?  The JEWS don't agree to this!  Josephus has a different chronology.  The Jews wrote the Bible.  AND this is old news.  The VAT4956 has lots of references to year 37 of Neb2 to 586BCE but two were found that match 511BCE.  In case you don't get that "message", it means the original year of 37 of Neb-2 was 511BCE and 587BCE is a FAKE date.  So it's wrong.  It was a revised chronology, Farkel. 

There are 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzer's reign to the fall of Babylon.  This brings us back to 605/606 B.C.  The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Neb's reign.  This brings us forward to 586/587 B.C.

Right, according to the revised chronology.   

Here's what REALLY HAPPENED....

Revising the history:  Darius I, in his 6th year was watering his horses at Marathon and Miltiades, who had been an ambassador of Darius but had rebelled and hated him, sent in a beautiful woman to see the king whom the king saw privately.  The woman then killed him and cut off his head.  The next thing the Persians knew the Greeks who were stationed above them at Marathon watching them was parading the kings head on a pole in front of them.  This instigated the battle of Marathon and the outrage of Xerxes, the king's son and co-ruler.  This was an outrage since the Greeks and Persia were not formally at war.  Xerxes would take no consolation and vowed to destroy the Athenians.  So he saved up his money over the next ten years and personally financed the biggest invasion by land and sea up until that time.  The Greeks knowing about this in advanced planned to remove the entire population from Athens (Xerxes wanted blood, not land) to Salamis where they could be protected.  They also built smaller ships so that they would win the naval battle in the straits of Salamis.  It worked.  Xerxes went home in defeat.  This was all masterminded by Themistocles who understood Xerxes' rage but just wanted him to return home.  But later Themistocles himself got exiled from Greece and fled to Persia for asylum.  He insisted on two years of learning the language himself before speaking to the king.

During this time he likely visited Persepolis where he saw Xerxes and Darius together when the city was begun in the 4th year of Darius but Xerxes had to finish the city after Darius' untimely death in his 6th year (Ezra 6:14,15).  But he also took up the throne name of Artaxerxes and took credit for some of the buildings under his new name.  All the Persian kings assumed a new name when they became king.   So Themistocles came up with this brilliant idea, especially since some factions in Greece were angry with Xerxes and wanted to invade Persia or have him assasinated for destroying all the monuments in Athens.  He convinced Xerxes that he could claim to be his own son, "Artaxerxes" and thus prevent a war.  He would leak a letter to Greece where he requests asylum from "Artaxerxes" the son of Xerxes.   Since the Athenians would be wondering who "Artaxerxes" was since they knew Xerxes' son was Darius, part of the story would have to find a way to legitimize "Artaxerxes" over Darius.  So they came up with the story that Darius killed his own father and then his brother, Artaxerxes, took revenge against him and now was king.  Quite clever.  It did the trick!   The Greeks were satisfied that some justice had been done since Xerxes died a violent death at the hands of his own son and now his son, "Artaxerxes" was on the throne.  A king who, as the Bible prophesied would become the richest and greatest Persian king. 

Revising the chronology:  Now.  The Greeks were toally fooled and it was clear the king ruling was "Artaxerxes".   But when Artaxerxes died in Persia, he claimed a rule of 41 years, his entire rule as both Xerxes and Artaxerxes.  That caused a problem chronologically.  Additionally, Darius was relatively young when he died, his father and grandfather still alive at the time, having only ruled for 6 years.   So Artaxerxes as the grandson of Darius was way too old for such a young king who ruled only 6 years.  So, they did what is usually done.  They extended the rule and life of Darius I by 30 years!  That turned his 6-year rule into a 36-year rule.   This was done the old way though.  When a later king wanted to extend his short rule, he went back through the records and stole years from some of the kings who actually ruled for many years.   They were able to squeeze out of the NB Period kings only 26 years though.  As follows:

Nebuchadnezzar 2 years (43 vs 45)

Evil-Merodah 16 years (2 vs 18)

Nabonidus 2 years (17 vs 19)

Darius the Mede (his entire 6-year rule)

Total:  26 years.

Even so, having Darius begin his rule earlier and be older to afford for a fake 21-year rule for Xerxes wasn't enough, especially when a well-done historical work by Thucydides chronicling the Peloponnesian War related some of those events to things going on in Persia.  Thus it became clear that Artaxerxes' rule after 41 years overlapped that of Xerxes if he died in the 8th year of the war.  Thus the conspiracy to cover up that Xerxes was Artaxerxes was in jeopardy.  It was now time to revise Greek history.  So a friend of the Persians was employed, Xenophon, to do this task.  He thus revised Thucydides in the necessary places, increasing the interval of 20 years between the two wars to 50 years by adding 30 years.   This period was not adjusted in the ancient Babylonian records though.  Additionally, since a major eclipse happened in Greece the first year of the PPW, Xenophon needed to find a substitute eclipse event to begin the war, which he found 28 years earlier in 431BCE.  It didn't match exactly but it was a good substitute.  This added another 28 years to the 30 years, now distorting the timeline by an additional 58 years.  Combined with the 26 years already stolen from the NB period, the chronology for the 1st of Cyrus was now distorted 74 years!

The Two-Year Discrepancy: Now since it was brought up, here is where the two-year discrepancy came about...

my hubby wants to know this,

the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

One of the problems of revising chronology during the Greek era was the OLYMPIC CYCLE!  This occurred every 4 years.  Thus if you say wanted to add some years or take away some years from the chronology, you had to do it in 4-year intervals.  There was a 20-year period between the battle of Marathon and the 1st year of the Persian War.  The eclipse occurred on the 1st year of the Olympic cycle.  That's why 431BCE made this work, it also occurred on the 1st year of the Olympic cycle.  But when they added the standard 30 years to the 20 year, you had a 50-year interval which is not divisible by 4!   Thus two strong histories conflicted each other!  Herodotus recorded that the year Xerxes invaded Greece was an Olympic Year.   When the redated year of the PPW was moved to 431BCE, the 50-year interval pushed the Battle of Marathon back to 482 BCE.  Which is not an Olympic year!  

Since it was quite clear in Josephus that's the year of the war, though, they had no choice but to move the chronological date from Xenophon in 482BCE down to 480BCE, empirically, so that this battle occurred on an Olympic year.  But of course, that threw off the chronology by two years!  

This two-year discrepancy was transferred all the way back to the 1st of Cyrus which should have shown the Jews being released in his 1st year as the Bible says.  But instead they are released two years later!  The reason they could not move the rule of Cyrus down by two years was because the NB revised chronology was so specific.  As Farkel noted, "everybody" (loosely stated) agreed that 539BCE was the correct date for the fall of Babylon.  This is directly supported by astronomical text as well.  So the count from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus was not flexible and they had to date his first year in 539BCE basically.  But after Cyrus the records from the Greco-Persian Period counting from the other direction was stronger than the Babylonian records and so it was used to date the return of the Jews in 537BCE. 

But it's two years off!  And that's why.  Because of the Greek Olympics.   This made the chronology for the first of Cyrus an offset of now 82 years rather than 84 years.   It's hard to compare for Cyrus since he's in the middle of the mess, so the more specific comparison is when the Jews returned from Babylon thus the comparison is 537BCE vs 455BCE, 82 years.  

Of course, the original reduction in the NB Period to extend the reign of Darius I made it too short for the 70 years of desolation that Josephus and the Bible mentions, which is why many attempt to assign the 70 years to some other event other than the desolation of the land; those that think that the NB Period chronology is honest and not revised, but that the Jews and the Bible must have gotten their numbers wrong along the way.  Yeah, right!  HA!

So that's why there is such a fuss and controversy over this chronology.  But we did get a recent break in the research.  Obviously once Xenophon had established the new chronology and virtually destroyed all other history, which wasn't hard to do in those times (Xenohpon is the only Greek historian whose complete works survive; yeah, wonder why?), obviously the NB astronomical texts would have to be destroyed.  Part of that process though, was creating new astronomical texts that matched up with the revised chronology.  But apparently, probably some Jews who were astronomers, thought to hide some secret references in some texts that contained the original chronology in them.  This is suspected of the Jews since the two texts with double-dating date to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar which is a well documented chronology for the Bible.  They did this by creating "diaries" that had multiple references in it that matched the revised chronology, which was only a smoke screen to hide the dating for the original chronology where there were very similar observations but observations that an astronomer would discover were incorrect.  Up until recently, therefore, these were considered to be the "errors" in the texts, both the VAT4956 and the SK400.  But when comparisons of the "errors" were made and discovered to match up to the same chronology as the Bible, it became clear these were hidden references to the origninal chronology.  Thus both texts  not only preempt the revised chronology but are our best direct reference to the dating of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.  The VAT4956 dates year 37 to 511BCE and the SK400 dates year 7 to 541BCE.  This dates year 23 to 525BCE and introducing the 70 years at that time (not at the fall of Jerusalem as the witnesses incorrectly do!) dates the first of Cyrus to 455BCE.  This is the correct date for the beginning of the rebuilding of Jerusalem which was to occur 483 year (69 weeks) before the Messiah arrives which occurred in 29CE. 

So that's what REALLy happend.  Of course, I have my references.  But I offer this not as fact, only as background unless someone wants to research the critical areas of the chronology (like try to prove Xerxes and Artaxerxes were different kings, etc.)  Even so, with all the opinions out there, this is just another "theory" about the ancient chronology for that period.  Lots of people think 587BCE is a reliable date because of all the records, but why wouldn't you have lots of records if that was the last revised date for the pagans. 

Others think the Bible is more reliable and though it's just "relative chronology", it's not hard to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE once you examine why he should fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy.  FOR WITNESSES this is really where to go since they are clueless, generally, as far as pagan records and authority go.  The WTS has done a great job brainwashing them that anything that didn't agree with the Watchtower was a lie from Satan, which is true some of the time, but not all of the time.  Better to get a witness to look at why the 70 weeks prophecy must be fulfilled by Cyrus.  Once you do that, then you'll be forced to date year 1 of Cyrus to 455BCE and from that, you can calculate 70 years to year 23 of "Chad", and add four years to year 19 to get 529BCE for the "Biblically correct date for the fall of Jerusalem."

Hope that was helpful.  You don't have to believe this chronology.....but I do, and I've done my homework! 

I don't mind other people thinking 587BCE for the fall of Jerusalem is subtantiated because there is a lot of documentation.  But they can't expect me to since I actually found out what really happened, when, why and how (as above).

JC

 

HEY FARKEL!!!!  ARE YOU GOING TO SHOOT OFF SOME FIREWORKS TODAY?   What fun I was thinking!!! I hadn't really gotten over JW brainwashing not to celebrate the 4th of July and how much fun having fireworks are.   I think we should both buy at least a box of sparklers and wave it around in protest of the false prophet (i.e. GB of WBTS)!!  Let me know if you do!  I'll definitely plan it!  A few sparklers is only $1.99!!

 

Thanks Farkel.

In time, "new light" was needed to straighten out this foolish blunder, as the WTS began to see the impossibility of this situation. They figured out the brothers would eventually "add up the years" as you have done, and figure out the date of 607 for Jerusalem's destruction would be impossible, given the information at hand. Therefore, they decided to ELONGATE the rule of Nebuchadnezzar's son's ("Evil-merodach") reign from 2 years as they had previously stated in the publications (see w65 page 29), and to lengthen it out to 18 years. (See "Aid To Bible Understanding" page 539; also "Insight On The Scriptures" Volume 1 page 772.) And additionally, with a little fancy footwork here and there, between the years of 1965 and 1971, they had the problem under control with the release of the "Aid" book. This meant the 1914/607 Conspiracy was now fully in place and fully operational, with the inestimatable help of the "Aid" book to clarify things.

bjc

BibleMan,

Your latest rant is why most people do not take you seriously.

: Hello?  The JEWS don't agree to this!  Josephus has a different chronology.  The Jews wrote the Bible.  AND this is old news.

You stated that "Chad's" reign could have been as little as 2 years. Yet 2 Kings 25:8-8 and Jeremiah 52:12-14 both state that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of "Chad's" reign.  How could a guy do something in his 19th year of reign when he only ruled 2 years?

The Bible claims to be inspired.  Josephus didn't.  The Bible tells us in 2 Kings 25 what we need to know.  All your other stuff is just diversion and bullshit.

Now I know the whole deal surrounding these dates is bullshit because Jesus plainly said his arrival would be a surprise, so why add more and different bullshit to the bullshit I've already explained to prove the WTS wrong?

Happy Independence Day to you, too!  (Now, quit taking dumps in my thread!) 

Farkel

 

truthfully, i find this all confusing. and what gets me....is that i said 'yep i understand' when i was studying....i should have known better....

truthfully yours...

joanne

 

In Vol.1 of ?Insight on the Scriptures?, beginning on page 580 under the topic ?Darius? (1), there is a lengthy discussion about the secular historian uncertainties about the identity of Darius the Mede at the time of Babylon?s destruction. In there, the Watchtower position seems in full agreement with this uncertainty, because on page 583, (2) Darius Hystaspis (a Persian, not a Mede) is identified as the Darius in the Bible account. Now notice what they say about this other Darius:

It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis figures in the Bible record. The temple foundation was laid in 536 B.C.E., but rebuilding work came under ban in 522 B.C.E. and ?continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius? (520 B.C.E.) (Ezr 4:4, 5, 24) During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction, and the work got under way again. (Ezr 5:1, 2; Hag 1:1, 14, 15; Zec 1:1)

See their reference to Haggai and Zechariah? Now the interesting point is this (quoting the relevant scripture texts from these prophets):

And:

 

Anybody see an addition problem here? (607 to 522 BCE = 70 years?)

 

Re: Josephus

claiming the Jewish exile to be 70 years, he erred on this point and later corrected himself in his last work titled ?Against Apion? I, 21 where he quotes Berossus (a 3^rd century BC Babylonian prist/historian):

 The clincher is, of course, the Babylonian [not Persian] astronomical record VAT 4956 (now held in the Berlin Museum) that contains about 30 ?absolute dates? from the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar?s reign. The observations are so detailed that it allows astronomers to easily pin-point the year as 568/567 B.C.E. If one does not believe that evidence, then they have no basis for holding 539 as the year of Babylon?s destruction, since that is also calculated from an astronomical ?absolute date?. If you know his 37th year, then its elementary to deduce his first year.

 

~Ros