For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • fullofdoubtnow
    And so 3w put forth the infomation found here:

    This information showed that the 40 year desolation of Egypt by Neb as prophecied by Jehovah in Ezekiel 29-32 clearly disproves 587 beyond a doubt.

    It's only "beyond a doubt" in the minds of those that rely on the bible interpretation of a minor religious cult, and they've been wrong before (1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1975 etc). Apart from the lack of historical evidence that Egypt was ever desolated for 40 years, of course.

    Here's a scripture that might sum up the opposing "sides" on this thread:

    Prov 15 : 2 The tongue of the wise utters knowledge rightly, but the mouth of the [self-confident] fool pours out folly.

    Anyone reading through the thread can easily tell which is which

  • stevenyc

    In 3rdwit Post 109 he says:

    Ezekiel 29-32 is unambiguous and does not mince any words. Egypt was desolated by Neb for 40 years without inhabitant. To deny this is to deny God's word. To deny this is putting secular evidence over the Bible's word. Plane and simple.

    So lets once again remind ourselves of what Ezekiel prophesied.

    I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock

    They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

    21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."

    We know that Tyre was rebuilt, in fact many times. For example, The tourism site says this regarding Tyre:

    During the Byzantine era, the Archbishop of Tyre was the primate of all the bishops of Phoenicia. At this time the town witnessed a second golden age as can be seen from the remains of its buildings and the inscriptions in the necropolis.

    And we also know, via a quote from The Daily Telegraph that Tyre's 2006 population is 270,000.

    So, knowing that Ezekiel said Tyre would be destroyed 26:13;"You will never be rebuilt" proponents of literal textual infallibility have made their case thus:


    3rdwit post 81: Then the rest of the verses continue to show what will happen to Tyre. So you see your whole theory that Ezekiel was wrong when he said Neb would destroy Tyre to the point of never being rebuilt is unscriptural not only according to Isaiah and Zechariah but even in the very prophecy of Ezekiel that you try to support it with. Ezekiel never said Neb would devastate Tyre to the point of never being rebuilt. It was 'many nations' that would carry out this prophecy.
    Post 84: Wow, This is exactly what Greece (one of the many nations that came against Tyre) under Alexander the Great did.
    Post 88: No you misunderstood me. I realize that Tyre was rebuilt after Alex. It was there in the first century. It was not until after many nations came against Tyre that it would never be rebuilt. That is exactly what Ezekiel said.
    post 92: Notice that it is not just Babylon that Jehovah is bringing against Tyre. No indeed it is 'many nations'. Ezekiel's words, not mine. Then next Ezekiel prophecies about the first nation that will plunder Tyre...Ezekiel never said Neb would devastate Tyre to the point of never being rebuilt. Nor did he say that Alex would devestate it to the point of never being rebuilt. It was the 'many nations' over time that would carry this out finally fulfilling this entire prophecy.
    Scholar Post 1374: That ancient city was an island and its remains submerged under the water. Perhaps you shiould read current archaeological reports about that ancient city.

    or b)

    scholar post 1373: Certainly, the area in which the ancient island city of Tyre has been rebuilt over the centuries and exists today but I did not see any evidence of that ancient city of Ezekiel's era in that lovely photo from Earth Google.

    Their case boils down to two explanations of the "unambiguity" of prophecy, Either a) The city was destroyed by "many nations". The old city is under water. Or, b) the ancient city no longer exists.

    Point b is Strawman, and has been shown to be false multiple times within this thread by posters like Alanf and Leoleia.

    Point a, (and, remember that the proponent of "many nations" has stated that with regard to the predicted 40 year desolation of Egypt, Ez 29:30; is "unambiguous and does not mince any words", and Ezekiel's prophecy predicts in ch. 26 "It was the 'many nations' over time that would carry this out finally fulfilling this entire prophecy."), is that Tyre was destroyed by "many nations".

    A search though the ancient time lines of the area gives us the answer. In AD 502 an earthquake hit the entire region, from Beirut to Akko, and this is when the parts of Tyre that are below sea level fell. Not by ANY nations.

    It rebuilt itself after that as well.

    From the (1) Department of Geology, Atomic Energy Commission of Syria and Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Damascus University:

    (r = richtre scale) 502 August 22 Friday, Akka: r8; Tyre: r7-r8, Sidon: r7-r8; Beirut: r7, Palestine: r6; Safad: r6?;Reina: r6?

    Joshua the Stylite: 502 August 22, Friday: Ptolemais destroyed to the extent that nothing stayed standing. Half of Tyre and Sidon fell down. In Beirut, only the synagogue fell down.

    Parametric catalogues – Plassard and Kogoj (1981): 502 August 21- 22, in Lebanon I = IX, half of Tyre and Sidon were destroyed, at Beirut ( I = VII) some damage in houses, remarkably in the synagogue (Joshua the Stylite). – Ben-Menahem (1979):

    502 August 21 off coast Acre, Io= X, Ml= 7.0, Acre destroyed. Destruction at Sur, Sidon, Beirut and Byblos. Latrun (Nicopolis) destroyed (Amiran; Plassard and Kogoj). Seismological compilations – Guidoboni et al. (1994):

    502 August 22, Akka I = X, an earthquake happened between 501 and 502, where Akka was overturned and destroyed completely, half of Tyre and Sidon fell, the synagogue in Beirut fell down (Pseudo- Joshua’s Chronicle). Palaces in Palestine were also affected (Russell). – Russell (1985):

    502 August 22, Akko was overturned by an earthquake at night and nothing left standing. Half of Tyre and Sidon fell. The synagogue at Beirut fell down (Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite). Safad and Reina in Galilee could be affected.


  • AuldSoul

    thirdwitness is incapable of answering a simple yes or no question for me, although I have answered each of his yes or no questions.

    Does everything Jehovah inspires prophets to speak come about exactly as prophesied, yes or no?

    It is so simple. His entire side-argument depends on being able to answer this question in the affirmative yet he refuses to do so.

    I rest my case.


  • jayhawk1

    Good question... Other questions to ponder...

    Why doesn't the Almighty God see to it there is proof after the prophecy was fulfilled?

    Why is there such things as a figurative fulfillment, can't the Almighty God see to it his prophecies actually come true as written? (see Tyre arguement)

  • stevenyc

    I'm of to work now so I don't have the time to go into too much detail. But, I don't think I have to.

    To all JW-Lurkers:

    thirdwitness :

    1. Ezekiel said Tyre would never be rebuilt but it was, therefore since the Tyre prophecy is figurative then the Egypt prophecy must be figurative.


    2. Jehovah told Jonah to tell Nineveh that it would be overthrown but when Ninevah repented he did not carry it out so likewise Egypt.


    3. There is no secular evidence that gives any indication that Egypt was desolated during this time period.

    Correct - in part: no evidence of Desolation from Libya through Egypt to Sudan, so much devastation that all idols were removed, and not a single animal lived there for 40 years.

    4. There is no way that Babylon could have displaced millions of Egytians.

    See point 3, it was more than just a displacement of people, your sneeky apostate you

    5. Ezekiel was a false prophet and neither the Tyre prophecy nor the Egypt prophecy came true.


  • AlanF

    Adding to my post 4563 for the benefit of scholar pretendus stupidus maximus:

    The moron said:

    : The first year of Cyrus is given by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 1998, p.180, Table 88 as 538/537 BCE. Therefore, that first year was evenly divided or lay equally between the 538 and 537,

    Finegan neither implies nor states anything of the kind. This is his Table 88. titled "Babylonian Regnal Years of Cyrus at the Beginning of His Reign":

    Regnal Year___B.C.
    Year 1________538/537
    Year 2________537/536

    The table itself gives no indication whatsoever of how the Jewish calendar years are divided up among the Julian calendar years. To find that, you could have easily found how Finegan handles this division. He handles it exactly like all other modern scholars do, shown by his Table 10 on page 28, "The First Nineteen Years of Reign of Nebuchadnezzar II". This is essentially a duplicate of the table that I reproduced in my above post 4563 from his much earlier book Light from the Ancient Past. The Watchtower Society agrees with Finegan's splitting up of the months, as I showed with extensive references to the Insight book. Because you're too stupid and lazy to look up this information for yourself, I suggest that you examine the following information in Finegan's book:

    Page 106. Table 50. "The Beginning of the Era of the Destruction of the Second Temple". This explicitly shows that Finegan divides the Jewish year unevenly in the Julian calendar year. One entry shows the following:

    Year of the
    Destruction Era__Beginning of the Year____End of the Year________A.D.
    ___2_____________Tishri 1 = Sept 25, 70___Elul 29 = Oct 13, 71___70/71

    Page 254. Table 120. "The Transition from Josiah to Jehoahaz and to Jehoiakim, and the Regnal Years of Jehoiakim". This explicitly shows that Finegan divides the Jewish year unevenly in the Julian calendar year. One entry shows the following:

    ___Year 2___Tishri 1 (Sept 29) 607--end of Elul (Sept 18) 606

    Page 26, Table 9. "The Babylonian Calendar".

    Page 35. Table 13. "The Babylonian Calendar in Palestine". This provides an easy cross reference between the names of the months in the Babylonian and Jewish calendars.

    Pages 66-67. Text and accompanying Table 33. "The Julian Calendar".

    Page 77. Table 37. "Calendars and New Year's Days" and the accompanying discussion.

    Page 76. Table 36. "Babylonian Regnal Years at the Transition from Nabopolassar to Nebuchadrezzar II".

    Page 80. Table 38. "The Jewish Year with Nisan 1 as New Year's Day".

    Page 80. Table 39. "The Jewish Year with Tishri 1 as New Year's Day".

    Finally, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, because you probably still won't be able to decipher the above complexities, I refer you to Edwin Thiele's New Revised Edition of The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Kregel Publications, 1983). On page 54, Diagram 6, "Regnal Years in Judah and Israel", Thiele presents graphically the same idea that Finegan does in tablular form: the division of Julian calendar years is graphically compared with Jewish Tishri and Nisan calendar years.

    In post 1034 of the thread Jeffro even provided a nice graphic illustrating the above principles. You've clearly demonstrated that you're too stupid to understand such difficult material. You have no business writing about chronology when you don't even understand basic principles. You're no scholar.

    : this means that the seventh month would fall not on the side of 538 but as the beginning of 537 BCE.

    Absolute gibberish.

    : Celebrated WT scholars have said in former times that "Whether the time of their arrival and resettlement there be reckoned as in the first or second full year of Cyrus' reign makes no difference. In either case, as above shown, Cyrus' decree and the Jew's resettlement could both be in 537 BCE".

    What these guys have said in some unspecified "former times" is irrelevant, in view of the "latest light" published in the Insight book, which I have referenced extensively in these posts. They agree that Cyrus' first regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 and ended with Adar, 537.

    : If the Society's presentation of matters is impossible as you argur then how is that this is the first time that such claims have been raised?

    First, it is most certainly not the first time these things have been presented. You contradict yourself when your very next few sentences admit that Jonsson discusses some of these things.

    Second, even if it were the first time, that changes nothing about the facts presented -- facts which you're both too stupid and stubborn to admit.

    : Carl Jonsson who is very familiar with calendation would seized upon such a blatant error if in fatc such an error is made. Even in Jonsson's recent fourth edition of his GTR he is not critical of the Society's explanation of 537 BCE as the year of the Return.

    Of course he is, you twit. You even argue below why Jonsson's advocacy of the 538 date should be ignored.

    : Jonsson in the footnote 2 on page 90 states "The context seems to imply that this was still in the "first year of Cyrus". Most authorities, therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 BCE and not in 537 BCE as the Society insists". However, Jonsson cites two authorities in support of this view but a close reading of that material does not clarify the matter greatly.

    Of course it does. As I have pointed out by posting direct quotations from one of those authors, that author explicitly states that the Jews returned in 538. But we know all too well that you do not understand what you read in such posts.

    : If you have conclusive proof that you are right and that 537 BCE is utterly and postively wrong then write to the Society and put your view forward

    I most certainly have conclusive proof that Josephus and Ezra together indicate that the Jews returned in 538 B.C. But we all know very well that the Society will be no more able to refute it than you are. Thus, they would ignore such a letter -- just as they ignored Carl Jonsson's letter from the late 1970s where he conclusively demonstrated that much of the Society's chronological speculations were wrong.

    : or further prepare and submit an article to some scholarly journal in order that all scholars can know for certainty the precise year for the Return.

    Not being a member of the scholarly community, this would be difficult at best and take years. But it is another of your red herrings.

    In conclusion, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, it is evident that you have no real understanding of how the scholarly community handles the dating of ancient events. You're no scholar. The fact that you recognize this is proved by the fact that you are unable to post a table, as I have done, showing the Julian calendar dates along with Jewish dates and the relevant events. You've fulfilled my earlier challenge and prediction:

    I challenge you to find fault with the tabulation. If you find fault, then post your own tabulation, along with source references justifying it. Of course, all readers already know that you'll never do this.

    Because you have failed to provide a table, in my next post I will provide one showing how the events described by Ezra and Josephus fit in the timeline of Cyrus' accession through 2nd regnal years. Of course, we know that you'll spew lots of bile about it but be unable to present any arguments against the dating. Thus, the year 538 for the return of the Jews will be graphically proved.


  • AlanF

    Since our resident JW defender scholar pretendus brainus minimus is unable to provide a tabulation of the early years of the reign of Cyrus the Great, I will present one that is in harmony with all known facts. By proving that the Jews returned to Judah in the autumn of 538 B.C, this proves that the Watchtower Society's mere speculation that the Jews returned in 537 B.C. is wrong. Because that date is wrong, every other important Watchtower date that hinges on it, such as 607 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction, is wrong.

    Table of Cyrus' Early Years As King of Babylon, With Important Events

    539___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 7__Babylon falls, Cyrus' accession year

    539___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 8

    539___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 9

    539/8_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 10

    538___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 11

    538___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 12

    538___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1__Cyrus' 1st year; issues his famous decree

    538___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

    538___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

    538___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

    538___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

    538___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6__Jews arrive in Judah

    538___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7___Jews are settled in their cities

    538___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

    538___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

    538/7_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

    537___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

    537___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

    537___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

    537___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2__Temple foundations are laid

    537___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

    537___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

    537___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

    537___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

    537___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7

    537___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

    537___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

    537/6_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

    536___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

    536___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

    536___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

    536___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2

    I've provided documentation for all of the events listed in various posts in this thread and others. In particular, Ezra 3 and Josephus together prove that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month of the year after the Jews returned to Judah, which Josephus explicitly states was the 2nd month of Cyrus' 2nd regnal year. Thus, the year in which the Jews returned was 538 B.C.

    The Watchtower Society has published statements that the Temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' 3rd year, but this directly contradicts Josephus and is at odds with a plain reading of Ezra 3. Scholar pretendus brainus minimus knows this, and so, in that mysterious way in which cult-induced Orwellian doublethink operates, his mind has rendered him unable to comprehend the simplest of chronological concepts. That is why he is unable to place dates in the above table, or provide his own tabulation.


  • AlanF


    My above series of chronological tabulations prove conclusively that the Watchtower Society's anchor date of 537 B.C. for the return of the Jews to Judah is wrong -- the Jews returned in 538 B.C. That means that the 607 date for Jerusalem's destruction is wrong.

    How do you respond?

    JW lurkers, please take note.


  • AuldSoul

    Bringing it back to bare bones basics, contemporary secular sources completely eliminate the possibility of 607 BC being the year Solomon's Temple was destroyed. For a future archeological find to indicate 607 BC as the correct year MANY currently available contemporary proofs would have to be falsified by the find.

    Between the 16th year of Nabopolassar (609 BC per the Hillah Stele and both the Adda-Guppi Stele and BM 21901) and 539 BC there can be no more than 71 years. The Watchtower Society already knows this. Whichever way you slice it and dice it, this reality doesn't go anywhere. All the Neo-Babylonian kings and their reigns MUST fit within this 71-year period. That is why the Watchtower Society never mentions the Hillah Stele. They don't want anyone to know about it. They wish it had never been found.

    607 BC can be ruled out as a possible date for the destruction of Solomon's Temple because Solomon's Temple could not have been destroyed during the 18th regnal year of Nabopolassar. It is an impossible date; it is not a possibility any more or less than 1812 AD is a possible year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple. It can be absolutely ruled out.

    Prove me wrong.


  • scholar

    Alan F


Share this