When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian period : conquest and imperialism 539-331 B.C is also available at the same Australian universities, plus some others

  • Black Sheep
  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    The key date for the article is October 537 BCE.

    Does the article prove that date? It cannot be based solely on the numbers of sources, or else the 587/586 date would be proven on the basis of that reasoning.

    Not that the date of 537 is universally accepted by secular sources, with some aligning with 538 and others with 536, even 535.

    Not that any Bible writer thought it significant enough to bother dating the moment of their return. Ezra aligns the end of the Seventy Years with Cyrus' decree, which was given in his first year (was Nisan accession year reckoning used or Tishri non-accession, or ... ?)

    It's interesting to see that this article has completely forgotten the iron-clad determination of earlier years where, in accord with the book of Daniel, a king Darius ruled by himself before Cyrus ascended the Babylonian throne.

    Would anyone here be able to prove -- and I do mean prove -- that the first Jews returned in 537 BCE?

    The article demands pure and absolute removal of all people before their "70 years" can begin, yet is quite prepared for the returnees to go back to their villages, settle down and then later trek through the land before the WTS's "70 years" comes to an end.


  • maninthemiddle

    Black Sheep, here is a portion from Google Books,

    The key is, "served reliably"

    Edited to add : "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period" so it shows up in searches.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    I'm wondering why it's in the public edition instead of the private WT. Surely it's for internal consumption and information control purposes?

    I wondered that, too. My thought is that they wanted to get something in writing to address the issue but they didn't want it in a prominent place that all JWs would actually read it. They must know their reasoning is spurious and their 607 stance has no support. Yet, they prop it up once again with this article.

    Now, if a thinking JW goes to an elder to inquire about the subject, the elder doesn't need to do any research that might stumble him. He has an article to point to. "Here, this answers all your questions. Read it."

    I'm thinking the motive is to protect elders from the truth about 607 by giving them a ready-made answer for the inevitable questions that keep arising and making elders think and research.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    Would anyone here be able to prove -- and I do mean prove -- that the first Jews returned in 537 BCE?

    Yeah, well, that could be a good trick to pull off, but I have never seen anyone have a go at it.

    Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    I'm sorry to add little but ranting to this thread but this is a topic that really angers me because the Borg has NOTHING and yet we are forced to waste hundreds of research hours responding to an argument that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. I feel like THEY KNOW THEY'RE DICKING WITH US JUST TO WASTE OUR TIME!

  • wannabefree

    Mad Sweeney ... I understand your frustration, I thought the same thing, as has already been said, this provides an answer so JW's do not have to do their own research, God's Organization once again provides everything that is needed for the person who trusts God's channel ... why question God's channel? .... on the other hand, this article makes it obvious that the Organization is so overwhelmed with the subject that they have to try and put out the fire ... they are showing that they are reactionary by addressing the subject as they have ... you apostates who have kept this going should give yourselves a little pat on the back.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    An email to Christopher Walker has been fired off chaps asking for the context and his opinion.

  • zoiks
    we are forced to waste hundreds of research hours responding to an argument that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

    I feel your pain, MS. I know for a certainty that when these articles are in the hands of the JW population at large, several of them will be coming to me for an argument.

    I really really like this thread because of its simple approach, and it shows that 587 can be backed up using WT literature:


Share this