For our Biblical experts: Artaxerxes reign began in 474 BCE?

by sir82 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AlanF

    A fascinating read, A Christian! While I have not looked in detail at the basis of your arguments, they certainly seem sound, and based on our previous discussions, I have no doubt that you've presented matters completely and fairly.

    What sticks out most for me is that a very solid Christian can find very good arguments that reconcile the Bible's accounts with the solid facts of history. Carl Jonsson, as you know, has presented very good arguments along the same lines. This totally blows away the strawman argument of JW apologists, that criticisms only come from atheist-types or from people who have no respect for the Bible.


  • proplog2

    It's hard to take this prophecy seriously because there seems to be no evidence in the Bible that they considered it a significant proof that Jesus was the Messiah. If it were indeed true wouldn't Paul have explained it in the book of Hebrews? It would have been pretty convincing evidence and we wouldn't be trying to figure it all out now. The dates would have been verified 2,000 years ago when there may still have been some documents to support it.

  • Van Gogh
    Van Gogh

    Wasn't the book of Daniel also written at the beginning of the second century AD - after Christ..?

  • Narkissos

    VG: 2nd century before Christ (the most easily datable sections being from the 160s BC).

    For a discussion of the 70 weeks see

  • Spectrum

    Unfortunately I don't have the web link but I've read that historical scholars have a blind spot when trying to date mesopotamian events between 350BC and about 750BC. Apparently they can't even date Alexander the Great properly despite having left a legacy of cities all over the middle east. Modern understanding is built on unreliable ancient documents followed by bodged jobs by victorian scholars who were trying to make a name for themselves.

    Don't know how true all this is though.

  • JoeSinclair

    I think I might be risking getting into trouble here, but I'm gonna do it anyway..

    Right, it's best to point out that I have tried to understand what you lot are talking about but it is all over my head. Too much stuff to learn all in one go on a Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, and without wanting to cast aspersions as to the validity of the actual information in A Christian's comment above (the long one), I would refer you to the following URL:

    Now, I can't offer any way of verifying the information at that URL either, but it does appear to be dated "Sat Apr 27 2002 - 23:40:13 EDT"

    If you search this page for the text "In case you are curious," you will see below it the entire text of A Christian's reply, albeit with modifications here and there to improve context occasionally.

    I say again, the facts may be accurate, but it interested me that, if indeed this URL predates the reply above, the prose appears to be non-original.

    I concede that if the URL creator has quickly knocked up a page to look incriminating that I shall eat my words.

    Also, if it is of interest to you, that URL is part of a series of emails posted to a mesage board. As you will note by reading the very top of the page, the post I linked to (number 0765 if you read the URL) is actually a re-posting of a message that fell off the internet and never made it to the message board in the first place. This explains why the next URL I am going to point you to is in fact a smaller number (0742).

    The URL below is a response to the above URL. Again, I make no comment as to the accuracy of the information or opinions presented, but it is another lengthy message clearly written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and offers a rebuttal of some (or all, I haven't read it through) of the points made by the original author of A Christian's post.


    Of the "check your references can't be Googled before you misappropriate them" class

  • Leolaia

    I believe a Christian's name is Mike....i.e. that he is the author of that post you found.

  • JoeSinclair

    See, I did mention word eating was a possibility! (If my IE7 would let me use the smiley thing I'd put an appropriately humble one here)

    Consider them eaten, along with a large slice of pie, humble, freshly cooked.

    Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

    Of course, the link to the reply by Allen Roy is still a valid one ;-)


  • TheListener

    Ok now for Artaxerxes for dummies:

    When do historians agree, if they do, that Artaxerxes began to rule?

    If you add 7 weeks of years to that date do you arrive anywhere near the rebuilding of the temple?

    If you add 62 weeks of years to that date do you arrive near Jesus lifetime, maybe baptism?

    I know the society doesn't agree with historians on the birth,death and baptism dates of Jesus. The dubs derive their dates from the 70 weeks and the historians don't.

    My understanding then is that the dubs may be wrong on two counts:

    1. They lump 62 and 7 weeks together instead of keeping them as separate things.

    2. They begin the 69 weeks at the wrong year.

  • Narkissos
    My understanding then is that the dubs may be wrong on two counts:

    1. They lump 62 and 7 weeks together instead of keeping them as separate things.

    2. They begin the 69 weeks at the wrong year.

    3. The beginning of the 70 weeks may have nothing to do with Artaxerxes' reign (or even the Persian period).

    4. The end of the 70 weeks may have nothing to do with the Christian "Messiah".

    See the link in my previous post.

Share this