scholar pretendus brainus deadus wrote:
: What you post regarding 538 as being the only possible date for the Return is utter nonsense.
: For starters what you should do is run your theory past your guru Carl Jonsson and see if he agrees with your opinion. Have you done this?
Yes, and he agrees with the arguments.
: Because if your claim is correct then how is it that Jonsson does not adopt such a dogmatic approach?
This was new information for him.
Furthermore, Jonsson's views are irrelevant to this issue. The facts I've presented stand by themselves.
: Why is it also the case that scholars do not share your dogmatic enthusiasm for 538 BCE for the Return?
Um, perhaps most scholars have not yet put two and two together in terms of Josephus' locking down the date of the events in Ezra?
Again, the opinions of scholars who have not commented on the issue are irrelevant to the facts I've presented.
However, as I have pointed out again and again, the only modern scholars I've seen comment specifically on this issue all agree that 538 is the correct date. I've posted the references in other threads, which you've read. On the other hand, you are quite unable to find any modern scholarly support at all for the 537 date, nor can you find anything but speculation in Watchtower publications.
: What you have posted is sheer nonsense and your interpretation of the biblical and secular evidence is simply that for if you have something worthwhile then submit it to the scholarly community by means of a journal artlcle as celebrated WT scholars have done.
That's an argument? Naah. It's your usual gibberish.
As of now, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, you have no case. The only way for you to have a case is to do what I said:
If you disagree with any of the above facts, prove your case by making point-by-point refutations of my arguments. To prove that you know what you're talking about, provide your own detailed chronological tabulation like I have done above.
Last week you got your ass kicked on this topic by proving that you have no idea what you're talking about. Put your money where your mouth is.
James Free said:
:: The Bible does not explicitly relate these events to any event that can be firmly dated to our Gregorian calendar. However, a careful examination of historical data indicates that it was Cyrus' general practice to free captives from the nations he conquered shortly after he secured his authority.
:You could be right, you could be wrong.
No, I'm right. I've known this bit of information for a long time, and I've read it in several scholarly works.
Do keep in mind that this point is minor, and has nothing to do with the basic point of my post. My intent was not to post a long tome proving every minor detail with scholarly references, but to give the meat: Josephus locks down the date of the events in Ezra.
: I am no scholar,
That appears to be the case.
: so I went along with it until I got to the above quote. Hmm, 'careful examination' (not backed up) and 'general practice' - sounds like the sort of WT babble I used to fall for.
Well, I'm glad that you're now attuned to picking out unsupported statements, and for that I commend you. However, you can easily begin a small program of research to confirm or disconfirm what I said. You might begin with some Internet research.
With a bit of work, I can find scholarly quotations that confirm what I said. Would that be enough to convince you that I've done my homework?
: We can assume from the evidence................whatever fits!
True enough. But what I've said is not an assumption -- it's common knowledge among scholars of ancient history.
I should point out that your post consists entirely of doing what you don't like that I've done -- not backing up every little statement with a scholarly reference. Indeed, your post is essentially, "I doubt what you say because I assume that you might be wrong." Well don't assume. Find out.
: Sorry, you lost my vote.
I could make a sarcastic comment here, but will refrain. I will point out, though, that the truth of a matter is not determined by vote, but by weight of evidence.