The Gentile Times Reconsidered (page 35)

OUTLAW

Ding..

Alice will embrace anything..

Shoveled out of a WBT$ Barn..

.......................... ...OUTLAW

villabolo

Outlaw:So..You use WBT$ Bullshit..To back up WBT$ Bullshit..

Spade keeps going round and round

the Watchtower merry-go-round

Villabolo

Spade

I'm still curious why you accept 539 if you reject the data and methods by which that date is established. Or have I misunderstood your position?

I don't reject the data and methods by which a date is established, I simply analyze ancient history objectively when coming to conclusions. An examination of the Bible canon shows that its contents measure up to standards of excellence in every respect. I have more confidence in the accuracy of secular chronology if the secular evidence agrees with it.

palmtree67

I simply analyze ancient history objectively

Do you honestly think you are being objective here?

Honestly?

OUTLAW

I don't reject the data and methods by which a date is established, I simply analyze ancient history objectively when coming to conclusions.

An examination of the Bible canon shows that its contents measure up to standards of excellence in every respect.

I have more confidence in the accuracy of secular chronology if the secular evidence agrees with it.....Spade/AliceInWonderLand

Translation..

Any evidence that contradicts the WBT$..

Is not useful in My never ending Agenda to Prove the WBT$ right..

The best Proof of WBT$ Accuracy,is WBT$ Literature..

.......................... ...OUTLAW

SweetBabyCheezits

I simply analyze ancient history objectively when coming to conclusions

Translation: If something conflicts with my religious presuppositions, I toss it.

Leolaia

Babylon was the dominant world power after the destruction of Jerusalem and before domination from Medo-Persia

The Median empire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar:

"In 612 BC together with the rising power of Babylon under Nabopolassar, Cyaxares besieged and took Ninevah. Media received the northern part of Assyria while Babylon took the southern part. The two powers, Babylon and Media, were very strong at this time and tried to cement their alliance by the betrothal of the crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar to Amytis, the infant duaghter of Astyages, son and successor of Cyaxares. Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne of Babylon in 605 BC and ruled for some 43 years, till 562 BC. It was during the earlier part of this reign that Babylon reached the zenith of its power and glory. Media, on the other hand, continued its consolidation and expansion and by 585 BC its western frontier had reached the Halys River (at the so-called battle of the sun-eclipse calculated by Thales of Miletus, Herodotus I, 74). Nebuchadnezzar intervened as mediator....Following this truce between Cyaxares and Alyattes of Lydia, says A. T. Olmstead 'Four great powers -- Media, Chaldea, Lydia, and Egypt -- divided among themselves the whole of the Near East, but, of these, only Media could be called an empire' (p. 33). The massive fortifications with which Nebuchadnezzar fortified Babylon were aimed at protecting Babylon from the Median menace. In Cameron's words, 'Throughout Babylonia the belief grew that the hostile Medes would continue to advance and would hurl themselves upon the capital city' (p. 221f). Babylon, in the last years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, not to speak of the almost chaotic situation that ensued in the years following his death (i.e. 562-556 BC), tacitly admitted that she had been superceded by Media as the great world power and directed all her efforts at constructing impregnable defence works. Even Nabuna'id, the ablest ruler since Nebuchadnezzar, was in constant fear of Media as is revealed by the Nabonidus text. This evidence leads to the conclusion that the Babylonian empire was at the zenith of its power in the first part of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, say, between 605 and 580 BC, after which Media became increasingly the power with which the kingdoms of the Near East, including Babylon herself, had to reckon. It should be pointed out that the greatest extent of the Median empire coincided with the reign of Astyages (585-550 BC). During these 30 years Media had in effect replaced Babylon as the greatest power in the Near East. The domination of Media was especially undisputed during the twelve years between Nebuchadnezzar's death in 562 BC which was followed by intrigue and assassination with four kings ascending the Babylonian throne within a period of six years, and the fall of Media in 550 BC. During this period Media seized from Babylon Elam and Susa and threatened Babylonia herself. Babylonia dragged on till 539 BC but her existence during this period was hardly anything more than a protraction of her assured and awaited annihilation." (C. C. Caragounis, "History and Supra-History", 1993, pp. 392-393).

Thus when the major empires of the Near East are recounted in Hellenistic sources, the order was usually: 1) Assyria (until 612 BC), 2) Media (until 550 BC), 3) Persia (until 333 BC), and finally 4) Greece; Babylon itself was not usually recognized as a major empire, as the Medes were the major empire that was the heir to Assyria. The main reason why Babylon has the importance it has from the perspective of the Jews is that it was Babylon, not the Medes, who conquered them.

TD

I don't reject the data and methods by which a date is established,

The reason I'm wondering is because I asked a pretty straightforward question early on in this thread about the timeline leading to 539:

--That Cyrus was king for 29 years, died nine years after he conquered Babylon and therefore defeated Astyages of Media, captured Ecbatana and united the kingdoms of Media and Persia in the year 550 BC.

It seemed to me that there was certain reticence to either agree or disagree with the statement above. But if you accept 539BC for the fall of Babylon, then I'm not sure how 550BC for the defeat of Astyages could be rejected.

Maybe I'm being thick here. What is your understanding of how 539 is arrived at?

brotherdan

I simply analyze ancient history objectively

I don't think you know what objectivity is, Alice. You are only concerned with winning the argument (which you have not, in fact EVER done). The more you write the more ridiculous the WT position appears.

Spade

Babylon itself was not usually recognized as a major empire, as the Medes were the major empire that was the heir to Assyria. The main reason why Babylon has the importance it has from the perspective of the Jews is that it was Babylon, not the Medes, who conquered them.

Thanks for taking the time to post that. Babylon was a world power by God's decree who exercised relative control. If Babylon wasn't the dominant world power in Jeremiah's day or any other, than Jeremiah 25:8-11 has no application to any other nation except Israel.

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

Share this