Gentile Times reconsidered

by confused and lost 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  Hi Doug,

  I don't seem to be getting through to you. Actually, you sort of remind me of Farkel. A nice little boy sitting in the middle of a big empty room with high ceilings. It's hard to keep you penned down to any issue, so I have to do a line-by-line so that you don't read things into what I say with an overactive imagination (or lack thereof?)

  G’day JC,
  
  Contrary to your assertion, I believe that it is fundamental to the WTS (and hence Scholar) that “desolation” be understood in terms of “depopulation” and “total destruction”. How else do they get from their imaginary date of 537 to their equally imaginary date of 607?

  Yes, you are correct. But this thread is about COJ's book and his arguments are based more on the concept of "servitude" of the nations. But yes, the WTS does note based on the Bible that there was supposed to be complete desolation, that is depopulation. That comes from the Bible's reference that is rather specific about that...

  They get that concept from scriptures like this one at Jer. 9:

  11 And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones, the lair of jackals; and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant.

  12 “Who is the man that is wise, that he may understand this, even the one to whom the mouth of Jehovah has spoken, that he may tell it? On what account should the land actually perish, be actually burned like the wilderness without anyone passing through?”

  See? NO INHABITANT. Also 2 Chronicles 36 speaks of the land paying back it's sabbaths for 70 years. Meaning no crops.

  1 Chron 36: "... to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

  Now just in case you didn't realize, the land has to be desolate for 70 years to pay back missed Sabbaths. Of note we get this from Ezekiel where Israel's error was 390 years and Judah's error was 40 years. You combine the two to get 430 years. That basically means equal error spread among the tribes. 39 years each for the 10 tribes, and 40 years for Judah, which kingdom did rule longer than Israel.

  There were two types of agricultural sabbaths the Jews were supposed to keep; a 7-year sabbath and a jubilee, that occurred on the 50th year, which was also the 1st year of the next 49.

  If you divide 430 years by 7 and 50, then add those amounts together you get 70.

  430/7 = 61.4

  430/50 = 8.6

  61.4 + 8.6 = 70

  Cute, huh? !!

  Therefore, there is no getting around the 70 years of the land being desolate. It doesn't matter how many other 70-year periods are going on, the land has to be empty for a full 70 years to correct the error. Josephus reflects the same history, of course, noting 70 years of desolation after the last deportation.

  Your views are irrelevant. In fact, you appear not to realize that JWs have had a gutful of eschatological, apocalyptic, date-setters, and that you are only offering more of the same. Unless, of course you are a joker who is parodying those guys in Brooklyn.

  No. I'm offering more of the same. Some of what the WTS says is right on target and some not. They are correct about the 70 years of the land needing to pay back it's sabbaths. If you have another interpretation it means you will be teaching a false doctrine.

  It’s a pity you try to drag COJ into this.

  Sorry. The moment COJ decided to publish a book he dragged himself into the arena. What? He's so nice we can't stand criticism? COJ has to stand the "false prophet" test just like the WTS. If you publish something, you have to answer questions and defend your position. COJ just runs and hides. He's smart. It's best to hide from me, definitely.

  I realized before he did that the servitude by the nations to Babylon was approximately 70 years. As I said, I am not going to provide bits and pieces, since it develops into a wasteful tennis match. I will put my thoughts down in a comprehensive Study.

  Fair enough. That reference was to the fact that when you calculate the years of the NB Period starting with the conquering by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BCE down to the fall of Babylon per the current secular history in 539 BCE, it only amounts to 66 years. COJ has a topic in his book on page 229 entitled, "G-1: The use of "seventy as a "round" number." From this point COJ is a laughingstock. Nobody is going to round off a 70-year prophecy which has a symbolic reference. This is so incredibly ridiculous it's not worth commenting on, not that most would be able too because we're laughing so hard.

  Remember Daniel? He was concerned with trying to determine when the 70 years would end. Boy was he ever surprised when it ended only after 66 years, which is sort of 70, and that fulfilled the 70-year prophecy? This is just a JOKE. We all like COJ personally, but c'mon. He cuts way too many corners on this one and ignores the historical reference from Josephus on top of it? Everybody including Jospehus are talking about 70 years and his better interpretation involves a period of 66 years? That alone proves he's no Bible scholar. But by all means follow him! 66 is as good as 70! Everybody knows that. Also 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73 or 74! Yes. It's not about how "70" you are, but how "70-ISH" you can be. That's where the meat of these chronology prophecies sit!

  Thanks for the good laugh, COJ!

  JCanon
• 

  James Free

  JCanon, can I ask a question or two, since I have developed an aversion to reading your posts due to the small fonts used and your very long-winded arguments. Sadly, I no longer even manage the first sentence of each of your posts without feeling the need to move on. Although they may well be scholarly and are evidently, at eye skimming speed, seemingly well researched, the presentation is very disconcerting. So, please, if possible, give me the very short version - When do you claim Jerusalem was destroyed? I enjoyed reading Gentile Times Reconsidered. Can you bullet-point what was wrong with it? Thanks in advance.
• 

  JCanon

  JCanon, can I ask a question or two, since I have developed an aversion to reading your posts due to the small fonts used and your very long-winded arguments. Sadly, I no longer even manage the first sentence of each of your posts without feeling the need to move on. Although they may well be scholarly and are evidently, at eye skimming speed, seemingly well researched, the presentation is very disconcerting. So, please, if possible, give me the very short version - When do you claim Jerusalem was destroyed? I enjoyed reading Gentile Times Reconsidered. Can you bullet-point what was wrong with it? Thanks in advance.

  Sure. But just in passing, "I was too busy to read the long posts" is will not cause much pause on Judgment Day... What's important to us, we prioritize. The short version of the chronology is simply the dating of the 70 weeks prophecy as fulfilled by Cyrus. Basically, it's Martin Anstey's chronology, where he assigns the 70 weeks as fulfilled by Cyrus and thus suspects, based upon the Bible's chronology that there are 82 years of fake Persian history involved. You can see his works and those who follow this doctrine online for "The Romance of Bible Chronology"

  29. Jaddua, contemporary with Darius, the last Persian King, who was slain by Alexander the Great B.C. 330.
  
  These dates given above are the received Ptolemaic dates. All except the last (B.C. 330) are probably about 82 years higher than the truth. From: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html

  That's the shortest root. Everybody begins the 70 weeks in 455 BCE, but apply different events. The WTS applies the 20th of Artaxerxes to that year, related to the rebuilding of the walls, which took only 52 days and took place long after the temple was completed. The prophecy was about when the word went forth to rebuild Jerusalem, given at a time when Jerusalem was in total ruins. The only reason Cyrus is bypassed for fulfilling this, is because the chronology for this Period was revised by 82 years. But some, like Martin Anstey, seeing the conflict presumed the secular records were revised and the Bible was true. That's your bullet. Choosing to date the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE or the 20th of Artaxerxes in 455 BCE. My research confirms the former is correct and brings forth evidence supporting the timeline where the 1st of Cyrus falls in 455 BCE. This is a timeline accepted by a lot of preterists by the way. That's your bullet before we even get to COJ. COJ mentions this interpretation quite faithfully, but has decided that the secular evidence disallows for this interpretation and then he goes forward with his arguments of evidence from secular records including astronomical texts that support the current chronology. But if the records were revised, it doesn't really matter. All COJ thus confirms is how many records were revised. Here is a quote from page "192" of "Gentile Times Reconsidered" that shows how obvious it is for a first-choice fulfillment of the 70 weeks prophecy by Cyrus, one of my favorite quotes from COJ's book:

  "If we "just stick to the Bible," it seems to point to the Persian king Cyrus... Thus it would seem clear that according to the Bible itself the "word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was issued by Cyrus... If this period ended at the baptism of christ, usually dated somewhere in the period 26-29 C.E., Cyrus' first year as king of Babylon would have to be dated in the period 458-455 B.C.E. instead of 538, the historically acknowledged date... The ideas was popularized in this century by Martin Anstey in his work The Romance of Bible Chronology, London 1913."

  So that's really what the debate is all about. Going with the Bible and dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE or going with secular records which date his 1st year in 538-537 BCE. When was Jerusalem destroyed? If you go with 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus, then it gets destroyed in 529 BCE. This introduces a 70-year period of desolation while the people were off the land and in servitude to Babylon, which begins with the last deportation (Jer. 52:30). This is the traditional Jewish interpretation of the "70 years" of desolation as noted by Josephus in Antiquities 11.1.1 Thus the last deportation is dated to 525 BCE, year 23, and the fall of Jerusalem in 529 BCE, year 19. COJ's book presents his side of the story and all the evidence in place to support the 538 BCE dating, and I present counter arguments supporting the 455 BCE dating. SOME CHALLENGES TO COJ'S ARGUMENT: 1. He claims the "70 years" of servitude represents the nations serving Nebuchadnezzar, but in order to do that, he has to round off the 70 years to 67 years. That is from 605 to 538 is 67 years. Sorry, not acceptable. 2. He quotes from Josephus regarding a 13-year siege of Tyre which he sets from years 19-32 of Nebuchadnezzar (Page 254). However, Josephus clearly indicates the 13-year siege begins in year 7. This is a total misrepresentation of the reference so, COJ is dismissed as being fraudulent and manipulative to get a point across. He loses total credibility at this point. 3. The VAT4956 is dismissible as rebuttal evidence to the Bible's dating because it comes along 200 years after the fact. Any "copy" of a document substantially later than the fact is automatically considered a fradulent and revised document until proven otherwise. 4. But even though the VAT4956 was created during the Seleucid Period, two "errors" in the text match to the precise lunar cycle matched to 511 BCE. This information is new and has come out since his first publication and remains unmentioned even in his recent work. So the book does not address the potential for "double dating" to 511 BCE. The double-dating means that the VAT4956 can be used just as effectively to date the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE as to 568 BCE and proves the document is fraudulent. COJ calls it the "most important" document for dating the NB Period. So again, COJ's book does not discuss this issue and he refuses to address the issue in debates. Smart man. 511 BCE for year 37, of course, in turn supports the Bible's 529 BCE fall of Jerusalem. Some coincidence? Hardly. The VAT4956 was a tool to secretly preserve the revised chronology. As such it dismisses effectively all other astronomical texts presented by COJ that aligns to the new chronology. That is, it confirms which texts were revised during the Seleucid Period along with the VAT4956. Until this is resolved, none of the astronomical text information he presents is relevant. 5. Zech. 1 and 7 mentions 70 years that expire in 2nd and 4th years of "Darius", respectively. 70 years after the "denunciation" (destruction) of Jerusalem and 70 years after the mourning for Gedaliah in the 7th month. COJ applies this to Darius I. I apply it to "Darius the Mede." That's because it is clear the Jews are still in exile in the 2nd and 4th years of "Darius" since they are wondering "when will God show mercy to the cities", meaning when will they be rebuilt. Another non-negotiable issue. But this is another issue COJ does not address. That is, Josephus at Ant. 11.1.1 claims that the 70 years began "when the people went off their land", meaning the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar, and ends the 1st of Cyrus. If so, then the Jews indeed would have still been in exile in 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 2 of Darius. So Zechariah 1 actually proves the Jews were still in exile 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem. The Jews would not return until the 1st of Cyrus, 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem, which means that "Darius the Mede" ruled for a full six years before Cyrus came to the throne. So at this point, the book becomes untenable and it has to be shelved as a Biblical chronology disaster. There are other detail issues, but at this point there is no need to consider those other issues. SUMMARY: Everything hinges on whether you date 455 BCE to the 1st of Cyrus or the 20th of Artaxerxes. I choose the 1st of Cyrus and follow Martin Anstey. At this point, the Bible's history is used to contradict any other evidence not supporting this dating, such contradictory evidence being presumed as fraudulent or inaccurate. The 455 BCE dating aligns the fall of Jerusalem 74 years earlier to 529 BCE. COJ thus has to prove that the Bible does not indicate that Cyrus fulfills the 70 weeks prophecy, which he doesn't, and in fact, comes right out and says this seems to be the direct Biblical reference. So no contest. COJ uses the VAT4956 as the "most important" document to date the NB Period per secular records, but does not address the double-dating "errors" to 511 BCE, which when applied to the presumed original chronology, would also date the fall of Jerusalem to 529 BCE. So now you can use the Bible OR the VAT4956 to date the fall of Jerusalem to 529 BCE. So we're so done here! COJ can't deal with these issues, so he avoids publically being challenged on this. Therefore, he's quite dismissible as a credible reference for this period. CHANGING THE FONT: Sorry about the font size, but the program defaults to the smaller type. I had presumed that individual computers adjust the font. If the font is ever too small, there are several ways to elarge it using the font control. One way is to simple select the entire text. Copy it (CTL-C) and then paste it (CTL-V) into a blank "reply" page. You can then change to a larger, readable font of your choice for any blocked text. My points are long because I include all the details usually, but I used to include a SUMMARY for whatever I wrote which I will do for my posts now. That way those with not so much time won't miss out. Cheers, JCanon
• 

  James Free

  COJ was an elder who wanted to show that 607 could not have been the date that Jerusalem was destroyed. Although you arrive at a different date than almost every other secular source accepts, it still means that you both agree on one thing - it was not 607 BCE. For most JW's that is all they need to know, since this destroys the WT end-date of 1914, followed by all authority being given to the GB in 1919. It's all in the past, and of no relevance today, whatever the date.
• 

  JCanon

  Hi James Free:

  COJ was an elder who wanted to show that 607 could not have been the date that Jerusalem was destroyed. Although you arrive at a different date than almost every other secular source accepts, it still means that you both agree on one thing - it was not 607 BCE. For most JW's that is all they need to know, since this destroys the WT end-date of 1914, followed by all authority being given to the GB in 1919. It's all in the past, and of no relevance today, whatever the date.

  Yes, once the differences are set aside, COJ does become an important focus on Bible chronology and we actually agree on several things. He provides a lot of rare references that I, in turn, redate to my own chronology, but I never found some of this information in my research. So he definitely is an important contributor to general Bible chronology and where the WTS is inaccurate. BUT, while we are seeing that both I and COJ dismiss 607BCE, you must also realize that the WTS and COJ use the same date for the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and for the return of the Jews in 537BCE, both dates I'm dismissing as erroneous. Your comment about "of no relevance today"; however, is short-sighted. Don't forget, the WISE VIRGINS are the ones who get into the kingdom whereas the foolish virgins arrive late. That's because the wise virgins brought along extra oil, that extra oil meaning understanding of chronology. Without the chronology, you cannot correctly identify the messiah since general Biblical knowledge would not provide enough light, and it is important to get into the kingdom before the door is closed, so timing is very important. To discount the importance of chronology is a grave mistake. It makes the difference of getting halfway there or all the way there. The foolish virgin class are the ones who say things like, "It's all in the past, and of no relevance today." The wise virgins know better. They know, if possible, they need to see where the chronology dates the second coming. But even with not being able to sort all this out, you still only have three choices: 607, 587 or 529 BCE, which gives you 1914, 1934 and 1992. Finally, you mentioned that this is a different date than "every other source accepts." I'll just say this. Certain Jews have always known what the original chronology was. They didn't lose sight of it and were involved in helping Xerxes fool the Greeks by claiming to be Artaxerxes. That's why the Jews suppressed Ezra/Nehemiah, which showed that Nehemiah after returning from Babylon with Zerubabbel, lived down into the reign of Darius II. Per revised chronology, he'd have to be over 143 years of age to do that if he were about 30 years of age when he returned, the age of a professional in his position generally. So plese note in COJ's book, he does mention specifically that the Jews claim there are too many kings during the Persian Period and they have their own reduced chronology. RABBINICAL DATES:
  
  832 BCE for beginning of first temple.
  
  426 BCE for end of the first temple.
  422 BCE for beginning of 70 years of exile for last deportees
  
  352 BCE for end of second temple, 6th year of Darius. These dates, though, are more ridiculous than even mine! For instance 352 BCE for the 6th of Darius is otherwise falls in the 7th of Artaxerxes II, with Alexander the Great already historically on the scene by this time (born 356 BCE). Do you really think the Jews believe the sixth of Darius wasn't until 352 BCE? Hardly. Point is, is this a face value date or a cryptic date? A cryptic date is suspicious because all the temple dates convert to the original chronology based upon relevant temple date intervals. YOU decide if this is a coincidence or not. Case in point 352 BCE. Per the Bible, if you date the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE then the temple is completed 21 years later in 434 BC, which is the 6th of Darius. That is an 82-year difference for 455 BCE vs 537 BCE. Tihs continues through to the 6th of Darius occuring in the revised chronology in 516 BCE, an 82-year difference. But note that 352 BCE, a completely ridiculous date for the 6th of Darius is exactly 82 years after 434 BCE. This suggests the rabbinical date is simply mocking the pagan revision of the timeline: 516 - 82 = 534; 534 - 82 = 352 Thus we potentially have either a coincidence or a confirmation of the original dating known to the Jews to be 534 BCE if they are making a cryptic reference here. This raises our curiosity to test the other dates to see if there is the same kind of relevance. Turns out every single date can be converted using a relevant interval related to the primary temple dates. Case in point the 4-year interval between 422 and 426 BCE, related to the destruction of first temple. The correct dating for this 4-year interval is 529 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem and 525 BCE to begin the 70-year desolation. 82 years does not convert these numbers. But if you add 82 years with 21 years, the length of time between 455 and 434 BCE, which gives you 103 years, then 426 and 422 convert to 529 and 525 BCE. 455-434 = 21 21 + 82 = 103 422 + 103 = 525 BCE 426 + 103 = 529 BCE Finally the date for the beginning of the first temple is dated to 832 BCE. The original dating is 906 BCE, a 74-year difference. The interval between the end of the first temple and the beginning of the second is precisely 74 years (529-455 = 74 years). MEANING? Meaning that we can't rule out that the Jews ever lost track of the original chronology but have chosen to suppress the truth. This is particularly apparent when the Book of Esther was revised so that Esther was no longer married to "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes" but to Ahasuerus, which is presumed to be Xerxes. The Book of Esther was not accepted into the canon until the Third Century AD. But the LXX version shows her married to Artaxerxes, clearly a contradiction to the inspired Ezra/Nehemiah. Therefore, while the Jews actively helped the Persian with their revisions done for political reasons, that is, reworking "Esdras" (Ezra/Nehemiah) with a version that places Nehemiah with Zerubbabel but skips the part where he is cupbearer to Artaxerxes, for some reason, years later long after this, we find the Jews still maintaining this as a secret. Therefore, one factor that has to be considered as to why the academic world still seems to largely support the current timeline, is that is a very old political and potentially religious cover-up. The Book of Esther, of course, is not inspired and not cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers who quote from all the other OT books (except Ecclesiates and Song of Solomon, two more non-inspired works). This chronology involves the verification of the Christ arriving 483 years after Jerusalem begins to be rebuilt. Jews would have a natural conflict of interest to the corrected chronology since they don't believe in Christ, thus the false chronology serves them well. There may be other reasons why, down the road, the revised chronology was also preferred. One potential one is because you have to also revise the history of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Socrates and Aristotle were lovers; Aristotle was the protege-lover of Socrates. When the chronology was re-worked by Xenophon, Socrates who was associated with the Peloponnesian War was moved back in time 28 years. This made him die in 399 BCE some 15 years before Aristotle was born in 384 BCE. When the timeline is corrected, Socrates dies in 366 BCE when Aristotle would have been 18, the same age as Socrates lover-protege, "Phaedo" was. The fact we know that the Greek chronology was revised is born out by various things, one chief one being "The Delian Problem" where Plato is consulted to help top a plague that broke out in the first year of the PPW by solving a match problem to double the size of a cubed altar at Delos. Problem is, the redating set the war in 531 BCE which is 3 years before Plato was born in 424 BCE. Ooops! Therefore, the current chronology now in place expects us to believe and/or ignore that Plato could have been consulted about something before he was even born. Sorry. Not good enough for me. Maybe be okay with you though and the rest of the world. Instead, a better eclipse for that war was found when Plato would have been 25 years of age and it corrects the Greek part of the timeline. But having it come out that Aristotle, Plato and Xenophon were paid revisionists by the Persian government probably isn't the story the academic world who considers Plao and Socrates and Aristotle as philosophy icons would want to have come out. Why do you think Xenophon was so into Persian history? How do you think I found out that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers? I wouldn't have thought that by general adjustment in the timeline. It's because people with secrets can't help revealing those secrets at some level, even cryptically, like the Jewish having fun with the Christian revisionists by coming out with a ridiculous timeline. Therefore, lots of people already know about the revisionisms. It's just not politically correct to change it for some reason. It's too disruptive to more than what relates to Jerusalem and the Jews, but to the Classical Greek Period as well. I came across a cryptic source where the text that exists dated to year 27 of a king "Artaxerxes, also known as Arses [Xerxes]" was mentioned. This was found by someone allowed to explore ancient texts in the British Museum. He also published the text of the SK400. But it wsa cryptically done. The author though related that apparently when he confronted the Museum curators about his discoveries, they rudely and promptly kicked him out of the museum. So who knows what texts he found in there that indicated that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. But it didn't matter. Even if he published his suspicions, an institution like the British Museum could buy up all his books after his death and he would go into obscurity. So he did like many ancient historians did. Wrote a politically correct book of interest, like Herodotus did, with lots of practical and interesting information, and then hide secret information within the text that hints at what really happened. Like the Thales eclipse, dated to the reign of Nabonidus in the context of the time when Alyattes and Cyaxares were ruling. Nabonidus was not a contemporary of Alyattes and Cyaxares. But the substitute eclipse in 585 BCE matches the time of Layattes and Cyaxares and Nebuchadnezzar, but the original eclipse in the original 2nd year of Darius in 478 BCE matches the rule of Nabonidus. So Herodotus is playing both sides of the fence. So any hint that the majority of scholars suggess credibility has to be qualified, especially if the scholars are Jewish. That is, it is expected that a Jewish scholar would know more specifically about the rabbinical timeline and claims by them that the Persian Period was much shorter. Not as short as they officially claim, though, their dates are cryptic references to the true chronology, which they traditionally have kept to themselves and not openly discussed and acknowledged with Christians. Everybody is friendly now, but before that, obviously, Jews and Christians didn't get along, and the HOLOCAUST is just barely 65 years ago. Wonderfully, the VAT4956, likely created by Jewish astronomers in Babylon to preserve a reference to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar confirms the original dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. So the current dating is a JOKE now about academically out of date. It's just that simple. The current chronology remains in place because of religious and political polemics, not because of available research. JCanon
• 

  James Free

  Without the chronology, you cannot correctly identify the messiah since general Biblical knowledge would not provide enough light...The wise virgins ... know, if possible, they need to see where the chronology dates the second coming. But even with not being able to sort all this out, you still only have three choices: 607, 587 or 529 BCE, which gives you 1914, 1934 and 1992.

  There must be a fourth choice, because Christ has not yet returned, unless, like the JW's, you claim it was invisibly. Searching the Bible for dates will always be futile. I guess I am not one of the 'wise virgins'...I lost my spiritual innocence, or naivety, believing the WT and it's false dating for too many years. Not only do I now consider attempts to date the return of Christ as doomed to failure, but I do not accept the other interpretations regarding 144000, wise virgins etc. that provides food for such research. The Gentile Times Reconsidered helped me see past all that stuff, and I value the time I spent reading it, along with Crisis of Conscience.
• 

  a Christian

  James,

  JCanon claims Christ returned "in the flesh" in 1992. In his flesh. "JC" says Jesus Christ took possession of his body while he was spending the night in a dumpster. "JC" here tells us that he is actually Jesus Christ returned. He is serious. He really believes it and tries his best to get others to believe it by constantly writing long rambling explanations of Bible prophecies (including the basic JW "7 Times" interpretation) - but built upon his own unique understanding of ancient history and unique set of dates for various Old Testament events. ("Jerusalem was destroyed in 529 BC", etc.) He preys on newer ones here because those who have posted here for a while have already painfully learned this and try their best to ignore him.

  I hope you really are "James Free" and not just another creation of JCanon. Because sometimes when everyone here has ignored him, "JC" has actually invented another persona to converse with.
• 

  James Free

  JCanon claims Christ returned "in the flesh" in 1992. In his flesh. "JC" says Jesus Christ took possession of his body while he was spending the night in a dumpster. "JC" here tells us that he is actually Jesus Christ returned. He is serious.

  Is this true? I must have missed that bit. I am 'real', and amazed!
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  WOW! Who cares? W.Once
• 

  jose45xyz

  Scholar said in part of this forum

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/98966/1708416/post.ashx#1708416

  the following:

  Not at all. There is no way that the fifty years can fit into the context of seventy years. Scholars of Josephus have opined that the original reading was seventy rather fifty and this would harmonize with the seventy years not fifty years mentioned in the previous paragraph 19 of chapter One. In addition there is no chronological construct applicable for a fifty years but of course there is for the seventy year period. In short, the fifty year period is a nothing period.

  Anybody knows who are the scholars that opined that in the orginal reading of Contra Apionem, 1.21. should be read seventy rather fifty and there is any shcholar that disagrees?

  I put the paragraph:

  21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion.

  Thank you in advance

  Jose45xyz