539 BCE

by Zico 142 Replies latest jw friends

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Agreed! Ezekiel 40:1 simply refers to the fact that Ezekiel prophesied in the 25th year of the exile and the 14th year after the city had been struck down. So what?

    Don't plead ignorance, 'scholar'. We already know how ignorant you are, but we also know that ignorance to be wilful. The bible specifically indicates that the exile began long before the temple's destruction, and there was a further exile in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year. The period of exile is simply not the terms of the seventy years that Jeremiah described.

    I love facts and I love Jeremiah 25:12 because it is my favourite text. I love that scripture. Your interpretation of that text is bogus and nonsense and our interpretation is better than yours.

    You don't love scripture or facts. You love the Society's distortions of the bible, and you display an arrogant dislike of facts. You rarely post facts at all - instead you usually post claims, ad hominem attacks, and denials. You ignore the plain and obvious reading of Jeremiah 25:12, which clearly indicates the event that ended the 70 years. If that weren't enough to clinch it, Daniel 5:26-31 puts the nail in the coffin for your supposed claim of 'love of facts'.

    There is no need to twist the scripture because they read plainly and simply for Jeremiah consistently states that the land would become a desolated place without an inhabitant and even tells its duration in that state of seventy years and not fifty. The major exile began with the final destruction of the city duriung Neb's 18th year and the last year of Zedekiah when the land was totally emptied. No other interpretation makes sense.

    Jeremiah at no point states that Jerusalem would be without an inhabitant for any specific period of time. The bible is abundantly clear that the main exile was prior to Jerusalem's destruction, and that there was another exile 5 years after that destruction - plain numbers printed in black and white. Jeremiah 52:28-30. Your dishonesty is evident for all to see. It's amazing you can sleep at night.

    Further, in Neb's 23 rd year other exiles were taken from other areas outside of Judah so there is no problem here.

    Pure speculation and grasping at straws.

    If your chronology is superior to Jonsson then Jonsson would like to know and you will make trouble for yourself with other apostates. Interestingly other scholars using the same secular chronology propose 588 and 589 so the matter is further confused.

    I neither know nor care what 'trouble' you imagine I might make for myself. Other people's confusion is their own issue. I have posted the evidence for 587, and I have invited all readers to give their thoughts or to provide any supporing evidence for any alternative year.

    You cast aspersions on other Witnesses becaus ethey do not go outside the square but you forget that scholar has gone outside the square and has been studying chronology and has many books on chron ology not published by the Society since the seventies. This means that scholar is familiar with all aspects of chronology and is well qualified to endorse as accurate that chronology.

    At least most Witnesses, although wrong, are at least sincere. You, on the other hand, are a hypocrite for associating with those you've been told not to, and for reading what you've been told not to. In real terms, your going 'outside the square' might be seen as being to your credit, but that is counteracted by your bombastic tenacity in accepting lies. You boldly deny facts, yet refuse to post anything that either refutes those facts or provides any alternative - you merely post claims, speculations, catchphrases and out-of-context exerpts. Post something real.

    Regarding the twenty year gap during the short Neo- Babylonian period is not of my making but simply comes into existence when the seventy years is fed into the mix. Now if we omit the seventy years then all is well but if we p;ut it in as we must do as it represents a major period of biblical history in that rather short period of Neo-Babyloian history., In fact, from the reign of Nebuchadnezzer to the last king Nabonidus we have a total period of some 66-67 years which is dominated by the lon ger period of sev enty years contemporaneous with that same period. This means that the seventy years demands scholarly acceptance and any attempt to ignore this critical period is dishonest, deceitful scholarship and I condemn all those guilty of such subterfuge.

    Such pompous arrogance! The Society's interpretation of the 70 years hasn't been put in for any desire for historical accuracy. It exists merely to bolster its faulty 1914 doctrine. Your conclusion about the 66-67 years giving some support to your interpretation is rediculous and unclear.

    How then care there be any other evidence for that period could overide the most outstanding piece of biblical history. The seventy years obliterates totally all other secular evidence of the NB period for the purposes of constructing a chronology. In short, the seventy years makes such so-called evidence farcical and redundant. Jonsson's so called 18 lines of evidence is irrelevant when compared to the historical validity of the biblical seventy years. Therefore, this fact alone ensures the validity of 607 BCE from all other pretenders such as 589, 588, 587, 586 BCE.

    The seventy years of the bible is completely reconcilable with secular history. It is only when you introduce lies, putting words in Jeremiah's mouth like "without an inhabitant for 70 years". And there's no need to try to add ambiguity with your trite "589, 588, 587, 586" rot. Indeed, it is because of arrogant religionists like yourself that the ambiguity of the spurious 586 exists at all.

    Yes the word that was accomplished in Chronicles was the Return of the Exiles in 537 and not the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and such Return ended that seventy years. So it was that those exiles became servant to Babylon until a new ruler at Babylon namely Cyrus who then released the exiles in 537 BCE. The date of 537 for the return is certainly compatible with known history of that period as most reference works attest, There is no reference publsihed that offers anything other that 537 is the date for the return.

    Both 'words' of Jeremiah were accomplished, but Jeremiah prophesied both of those things separately. You have no point, and your vagueness and misdirection are irrelevant. The Fall of Babylon at 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 fulfilled the 'word of Jeremiah' from Jeremiah 25, and the Return of the Jews at 2 Chronicles 36:22 fulfilled the 'word of Jeremiah' from Jeremiah 29. Why don't you provide some of these 'references' that support 537, and how that year is consistent with known history? You will claim that it's because you're (endlessly) 'waiting' to see others' comments, but the truth is you simply cannot.

    I do need to grasp at straws because my situation is not desperate for we make our views publicly known and are quite able to public defend such views. The Bible reads plainly and simply on these matters so we have nothing to fear.

    You demonstrate with every post that you are not able to properly defend your chronology. You feel comfortable in your house of cards because of your self-delusion, but the fact is that you will die with your dreams unfulfilled.

    Jeremiah quite clearly refers to the seventy years as a period of desolation, exile and servitude and Josephus also agrees.

    Indicate where Jeremiah refers to the seventy years as a period of exile.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Forget it, Jeffro will not bother to read this article because he has a superior chronology and thus knows more about this than you or Robert Young. Jeffro will not bother even to obtain such an article because when I have tried to get him to research matters further he refuses so you are wasting your time.

    'scholar', you do not speak in my behalf. Get back in your place you arrogant presumptuous pest.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    Not bothered about this for celebrated WT scholars have long championed biblical chronology with its date of 607. The joke is on the community of scholars because they collectively cannot agree on any chronology at all or in fact any date for either the OT or the NT.

    Well actually they 'championed' 606 for a long time until they realised there was no year zero. Duh! What scholastic brilliance! Maybe that what the 'celebration' was all about. It took them decades to work out there was no year zero, and then they conveniently claimed a fortuitous error to counteract it!!! And these are the people in whom 'scholar' puts his trust. What a JOKE!

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    scholar,

    Josephus is the major primary source for Berossus and scholars agree that Josephus is the most reliable source for the preserved quotations of Berossus' work.

    Once again you have misrepresented Josephus yet again as a primary source for Berossus, which he could only be if he WAS in fact, Berossus since primary means "contemporary, original document," not "the main source" as you seem to suggest. Berossus was a primary source for Berossus works. That which derives FROM Berossus can only hope to be secondary relative to Berossus and tertiary at best relative to the sources from which Berossus worked.

    Either way, even if you had extant PRIMARY examples of Berossus, they would not trump (as evidence) a single PRIMARY document from the period in which the events occurred.

    And you have failed to honor your word in another series of non-responses.

    AuldSoul

  • toreador
  • Dansk
    Dansk
    Alan F

    4513

    You have the facts wrong as usual.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!! Neil, that's rich coming from you!

    Ian

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    scholar: The joke is on the community of scholars because they collectively cannot agree on any chronology at all or in fact any date for either the OT or the NT.

    Consensus = fact, eh? Unanimity of opinion is evidence? Your boy, Sam, must have inherited your acumen. You'd probably agree the little bug in the jar was a 14-foot-long crocodile, just to show family solidarity. As long as everyone agrees it must be true.

    Let's briefly examine how this works out in real life. Roughly 1 out of every 1,000 humans is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Jehovah's Witnesses agree on a doctrine, the doctrine becomes fact. So, according to your hypothesis on the effect of consensus, if I could get 1/1000 of the world to agree to any specific belief, the belief will be rendered fact. If that seems to you like an incredibly stupid thing to say, why did you say it? That is, after all, the logical upshot of your ENTIRE argument regarding ANE chronology.

    You are a riot, scholar! I hope you are a "black propagandist." If so, you are a master of keeping in character and full accolades to you for it. If not, you might want to try some ginko biloba. It is an herb that supposedly encourages brain activity.

    AuldSoul

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Josephus is the major primary source for Berossus and scholars agree that Josephus is the most reliable source for the preserved quotations of Berossus' work (JJonsson, 1998, p.92-3). Both Berossus and Josephus give conflicting numbers for the reigns of some of the kings for the Neo-Babylonian period and I and the celebrated WT scholars share no responsibility for this dilemna.

    What dilemma? I already explained to you in my last message that the "conflicting numbers" in the case of Nabopolassar was the result of a scribal error of JUST ONE LETTER, whereas the other number is found in earlier versions and in the parallel passage in Antiquities in which Josephus spelled out the number in longhand...so there is hardly any doubt over which was the original number. If you know anything about textual criticism, you would know that numbers written in gematria are much more prone to copyist error than those spelled out as whole words. There would be a "dilemma" only if all things were equal and we had no idea which one is correct. But that is not the case, all things are not equal. Your behavior here is no better than one saying that, well, some manuscripts have the reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and some don't, and gosh darn, we have conflicting evidence and a dilemma so we must reject any bold claim that the Trinity isn't taught in the Bible. I am pretty sure you will give the due weight of textual evidence in this case while failing to do the same thing in the case of the reference to Nabopolassar in Against Apion.

    You cast aspersions on other Witnesses becaus ethey do not go outside the square but you forget that scholar has gone outside the square and has been studying chronology and has many books on chron ology not published by the Society since the seventies. This means that scholar is familiar with all aspects of chronology and is well qualified to endorse as accurate that chronology.

    You remind me rather of those "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7). A flat-earther can boast of having read all the latest scientific literature and kept up-to-date with current astronomical reseach, and yet still doggedly adhere to his beliefs. Merely reading about the overwhelming evidence against his beliefs does not make him a "good scholar". In fact, if he refuses to deal with the cumulative weight of the evidence against his view but only attacks limited "straw men" or say that the "secular evidence" is immaterial because God's Word (or rather, his own interpretation of the Bible) holds supreme, then he is clearly intellectually dishonest. When pressed about "What about the administrative and business documents or what not," you usually sidestep their implications by simply saying, "Yes, they're very interesting, but they fail to deal with the Bible's seventy years," etc. Or you just dismiss it as inferior to God's Word. You have never attempted an explanation of why the secular evidence does point so strongly through many independent proofs to the generally-accepted chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do the astronomical records and the business records and the king lists and the stelae, etc. all point to essentially the same thing? It is the cumulative weight of the evidence that you have simply ignored. At least JCanon tried to deal with this question by positing a fictitious conspiracy theory that ancient records were forged to make it look like the chronology was a particular way when it really wasn't. You on the other hand could care less what could account for the consistency in the evidence pointing to a particular chronology.

    Forget it, Jeffro will not bother to read this article because he has a superior chronology and thus knows more about this than you or Robert Young. Jeffro will not bother even to obtain such an article because when I have tried to get him to research matters further he refuses so you are wasting your time.

    Well, he expressed his interest so I guess you are wrong again.

    If you have read this article you will notice the salient fact which endorses scholar's policy that chronology is about methodology and interpretation, it is this realization that initiated Young to survey key issues of OT chronology and which he addresses in a couple of articles.

    That chronology must involve "methodology and interpretation" is no great insight of yours, and merely mouthing its importance while employing an idiosyncratic and deeply flawed "methodology" (if it can even be called that) shows that you care rather little for "methodology". What methodology leaves the majority of the chronological evidence unexplained or allows disagreements between secondary or tertiary sources override chronological evidence from primary sources?

    Jeffro...Feel free to msg. me with your email so I can email you the paper....

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    scholar pretendus goatus buggerus said:

    : Readers on this board will notice that you are nothing but a bluff

    To a willfully stupid and blind JW drone, anyone who presents inconvenient facts is a bluff, as well as an apostate.

    : and your hypothesis for 538 is sheer nonsense because it is simply too short a time.

    Utter nonsense. Jeffro and I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the Jews had a minimum of six months to get back to Judah, from the time of the issuing of Cyrus' decree to the beginning of the seventh month, Tishri. With a trip time of 3-4 months, that's plenty of time.

    The fact that you repeatedly fail directly to address this point, but pretend it does not exist, proves your willful stupidity.

    : You have provided no proof that 538 was the year for the Return and Josephus does not support your nonsense.

    The facts contradict you:

    (1) Josephus directly states that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month of Cyrus' 2nd year. This was incontrovertibly in the spring of 537 B.C.

    (2) Ezra 1-3 directly states that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month of the year after the Jews returned to Judah.

    (3) Putting (1) and (2) together, there is no conclusion but that the year after the Jews' return was also Cyrus' 2nd year, which began in the spring of 537 B.C.

    (4) From (3), there is no conclusion but that the time of the Jews' return was in the summer to autumn of 538 B.C.

    : I invite other readers to analyze your nonsense and spot the flaws as an academic test, I will respond only after others have read your nonsense and made a definitive comment.

    Although Jeffro has already analyzed the above "nonsensical facts" and come to the same conclusions that anyone with the intelligence of a non-JW would, there is no need for anyone to do so. The facts are clear and incontrovertible.

    You obviously have no arguments since all you can manage is ridiculous excuses such as you've displayed here. Readers also know that no matter who chimes in to support my conclusion, you'll still find some stupid excuse to dismiss the facts, so your "challenge" here is an infantile ploy to allow you -- in your own mind -- to dismiss the facts by a form of fallacious argument known as "appeal to authority".

    : Is everyone up for the challenge? Let there be proof for 538 and then this material can be published so as to enlighten the scholarly community and Carl Jonsson.

    The usual ploy. Yawn.

    AlanF

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    ALL:

    This has been going on for six pages, so scholar has been busy! Remember a similar thread a few weeks back? Scholar and I were to have a meet-up at his choice of knowledge on the Bible, Moore College in Sydney.

    We never did make it. After i suggested a day (Tuesday), scholar has ignore the matter. I wonder why?

    scholar: I'm free to come to Moore most Mondays and Tuesdays - how about you?

    Cheers, Ozzie

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit