539 BCE (page 14)

toreador

I think he would prefer to meet with you alone Ozzie. :)

Jeffro

Now, it might be argued that Josephus' claim is wrong, i.e., that the Temple foundations were not laid in Cyrus' 2nd year. Indeed, I am not aware of any independent confirmation of his statement.

What about the book of Ezra itself? Ezra 1:1 mentions the 1st year of Cyrus; the narrative continues, and says that in the 7th month the Jews were in their cities. Though no year is explicitly stated in that verse, it is evident from the context that it is referring to the same year; indeed if a different year was meant, it would likely have been stated in Ezra's historical account. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Ezra 3:1 does not refer to the same year as Ezra 1:1. Ezra 3:8 obviously refers to the year after that for the laying of the temple foundations, which was 537.

Jeffro

I am fully aware of textual criticism and I appreciate what tou are trying to argue but the simple fact is that my edition of Josephus by Whiston has the numbers as they are and not what you would wish them to be. Granted I have not bothered to read other editions of Josephus such as the Loeb Library series but that time will come. Also, there is a commentary on Josephus in the process of publication with the first two volumes published by E.J.Brill.

The fact of the matter is that Josephus in English has the data as I have presented, the numbers are contradictory therefore the evidence is mixed and uncertain and of course disagrees with the Bible history. So whether Josephus is right or wrong it does not matter for the Bible is our basis.

...
Jeffro will only read that article if you send it to him but I would then be surprised if he actually 'reads it' as he limits his reading experience.

LOL... What a truly arrogant and bombastically hypocritical post. Does 'scholar' even recognize his double standard?

He suggests, without basis, that I do not carefully examine evidence presented. And he does that after he arrogantly asserts that he goes by his copy of Josephus, and promptly chooses to ignore what he is told about the source of scribal errors therein, and that such errors are more prone in numbers written as digits than those written in words. After he is told why the 'evidence is mixed', he proudly states that he will continue to base his opinion on a translation that does not explain the ambiguity as if this somehow defends his point of view.

All the so-called cumulative evidence as currently understood and interpreted goes against the Bible but that is just a ploy of the Devil who seeks to mislead people by being blinded to the truth of Christ's presence. The fact is that the biblical seventy years stands alone and that historic period is absolutely vital for any chronology.

The bible is completely reconcilable with the known history, and I have done so. It is the Society alone that introduces problems in its attempt to bolster its flawed dogma. Your ad hominem conspiracy is a superstitious myth.

It is scholar and scholar alone who first originated by means of this board the relationship between methodology and interpretation and soon after Robert Young followed suit with his reappraisal of Thiel's chronology. Scholar was first past the post and he is a winner.

'scholar' continues to misapply the word 'methodology', using it as a pretentious word for 'method'.

toreador

Scholar wrote:

All the so-called cumulative evidence as currently understood and interpreted goes against the Bible but that is just a ploy of the Devil who seeks to mislead people by being blinded to the truth of Christ's presence.

Surely you are aware that in 1929 "The Harp of God" written by the WTS that in that year they were still teaching Christ came in 1874! How is that for being aware of Christ presense?! I believe it wasnt untill 1943 that that teaching was done away with.

If you want to talk about Christ's presense. Where was Christ's before 1874 or 1914; take your pic? Was he in limbo land? Where is Christ now?

Tor

AlanF

Jeffro wrote:

:: Now, it might be argued that Josephus' claim is wrong, i.e., that the Temple foundations were not laid in Cyrus' 2nd year. Indeed, I am not aware of any independent confirmation of his statement.

: What about the book of Ezra itself? Ezra 1:1 mentions the 1st year of Cyrus; the narrative continues, and says that in the 7th month the Jews were in their cities. Though no year is explicitly stated in that verse, it is evident from the context that it is referring to the same year; indeed if a different year was meant, it would likely have been stated in Ezra's historical account. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Ezra 3:1 does not refer to the same year as Ezra 1:1. Ezra 3:8 obviously refers to the year after that for the laying of the temple foundations, which was 537.

I completely agree with you. However, because Ezra does not explicitly state in which year of Cyrus' reign the events occurred, there is a bit of wiggle room for doctrinaire JWs. Good Lord! We see scholar pretendus and other moronic JWs wiggling around even extremely explicit statements such as Jer. 25:12. I think that the dating implicit in the text of Ezra, combined with Josephus' explicit dating of a crucial event, is unarguable. They reinforce each other. AlanF

Jeffro

That is fine to meet up at Moores but you have not answered my question: Have you been disfellowshipped from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

LOL. Why would it matter? 'scholar' has had dealings for several years on this forum with people who have been 'disfellowshipped™' from the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses™".

I, for one, have not been 'disfellowshipped™', so I may maintain 'association™' with 'scholar' as much as I like... yay

All these silly JW semantics - disfellowshipped™, disassociated™, marked™, apostate™, inactive™, irregular™, reproved™ - and they try to say they don't believe in class distinctions! What a joke!

For the record, I wrote to the 'elders™', in part:

My baptism is annulled as the decision to be baptized ... was based on misinformation. ... Consequently, ‘disassociating’, being ‘disfellowshipped’, or continuing to be considered as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses are all inappropriate options. ... the proper course of action is for an announcement to be made that I am not a member of the congregation, making it clear that I am not ‘inactive’, ‘disassociated’ or ‘disfellowshipped’, and that I am to be regarded in the same way as any person who has not been baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Of course, their narrow-minded constructs probably didn't know how to deal with that. I'm not really certain what they imagine my status to be, though I have second-hand information that I supposedly 'disassociated™'. Obviously that would be against my explicit direction though, and reprehensibly dishonest.

ozziepost

I think he would prefer to meet with you alone Ozzie. :)

No doubt but it seems only fair to let the congregation elders have a full share in the 'good stand' of one of their congregaion members. Over the months (years?) we haven't heard too much of scholar's congregation life - it's always concerned me and I'm curious as to whether he actually goes to a congregation. Whatever the case, the contradiction in his life between what he's defending on the one hand and his actions on an 'apostate' discussion board on the other leaves him in a psychologically disturbing position as one leading a 'double life'. I'm sure the elders would wish to help their brother, wouldn't you? Just as we do.

I agree therefore it could only be 537 and not 538 BCE

scholar JW

539 BCE

Share this