Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

jgnat

Most interesting, Ann O'Maly. I would say this is definitely a sign of independent thinking. The WTS is so hung up on accuracy. The very heavens themselves in the movement of the planets are evidence of Jehovah's accuracy. (Psalm 19)
I did a quick word-search of the Old Testament and found eleven verses detailing to the year and month of a King's reign. Just so we would have an accurate knowledge of these events.
The verses that mention month and year:
(1Ki 6:1) And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

(2Ki 25:1) And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

(2Ki 25:27) And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;

(2Ch 3:2) And he began to build in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign.

(2Ch 15:10) So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.

(2Ch 29:3) He in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the LORD, and repaired them.

(Ezr 6:15) And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

(Est 2:16) So Esther was taken unto king Ahasuerus into his house royal in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign.

(Jer 28:1) And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, and in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azur the prophet, which was of Gibeon, spake unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying,

(Jer 52:4) And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it round about.

(Jer 52:31) And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,
Methinks Ethos sat down with a scratch-pad and found out to his horror that his hermaneutical calculations did not help his cause.
P.S. I have completed up to page two of my summary of this thread, *sigh*.
Finkelstein

It should be quite obvious by now that the doctrine of 1914 in its entirety was created upon false and misleading information,
more than likely to further produce validation from the organization's previous assertion predating that year, as they say the goal posts got moved
a little. The actual multiplying of 7 x doctrine which was further used to reach at 1914 was another part of this unscriptural calculation
but certainly had its commercial valuable appeal toward the WTS. published works.
If the WTS. is still around in 30, 40 years one can confidently expect 1914 to finally washed off the books for good and may be
part of the reason the WTS. is going through a kind of internal reformation that can be seen in its operations today.
djeggnog

[I was forced to use my iPad to make this post (I'm not sure that I like this font size, but…), because formatting from a section from an earlier portion of my post seemed to have cause that section to physically move from that section to the end of my post following my signoff ("@djeggnog"); this occurred twice in one message slot and once in a second slot. Using my iPad, attributes like bold, italics and text color (red), and indent formatting were preserved. I mention these things FYI for @Simon in the event he's interested in, and has been fielding complaints about, such malformatting errors from others.] @Jeffro wrote: Leviticus 25:8 provides the period of seven sabbaths of years, or 49 years, which ran from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. The construction of the temple began the following year in 537BCE, which is also confirmed by Josephus, who states that the temple "lay in obscurity for fifty years." [¶] Babylonia was the world empire from 609BCE until 539BCE. The nations were subject to Babylon during that period. @AnnOMaly wrote: How does anything in your response prove your point about when you think the 70 years of servitude ended? @Ethos wrote: I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. @AnnOMaly wrote: You're still not getting it. Why did God tell the '617 BCE' exiles (by far the largest deportation) they would be there "at Babylon" for 70 years when they would, in fact, be there 80 years? What "'617 BCE' exiles"? First, establish (conjecture is ok!) that there were "'617 BCE' exiles," @AnnOMaly; then ask your question, because no one should be asked a question that assumes facts not in evidence. Ok? @Ethos wrote: #1: But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months." So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track. Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months. And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah. And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong: "in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years." The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated and if so who prophesied it? Forget the temple; it's a "red herring" here. Jeremiah's prophecy should by your focus, @Ethos; did the king of Babylon taken into account by Jehovah after the Jerusalem had lie desolate for 70 years? The temple utensils were returned to the Jews to take with them to Judah toward the end of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy when Cyrus gave the order during his first regnal year, and how long after the order was it acted upon? What month? I think that's just an argument with no real answer. Within four months' time, the Jews that didn't leave Babylon stayed, but those that left Babylon left with the temple utensils and they arrived there by 537 AD. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign. An inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," which indicates that Babylon's fall occurred on Tishri 16, 539 BC. Ezra 1:1-3 indicates that it was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia" -- Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC -- that Cyrus caused a decree to go out to the Jews to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel," which means that what the Nabonidus Chronicle tells us is that Cyrus' accession year occurred in 539 BC. Since Ezra 3:1 indicates that it was "after seventy years" in the "seventh month" of Tishri 537 BC -- the same month in which the land of Judah suffered desolation "without inhabitant" living in any of the cities of Judah as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah -- that the repatriated Jews had returned to their cities (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10; 33:10), and Ezra 3:6 states that "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem. This means that this 70-year period would have come to an end on Tishri 1, 537 BC, following the commencement of Cyrus' first regnal year. x = 537 BC x = x (+ -70) x = 607 BC Thus, by subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we can deduce based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have commenced. @Jeffro wrote: The first of the false 'problems' seems to be based on something AnnOMaly posted. In any case, the 70 years mentioned at Zechariah 1:12 ended after “the fourth year of Darius” (518 BCE), 70 years after 587 BCE, the year established in history that Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed. @AnnOMaly wrote:
(Ethos:)
So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.

We were talking about how long the temple remained desolated, remember? Don't conflate the period of the temple's ruin with the period of Babylonian domination. The two periods are not the same.
(@Ethos:)
The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period ...

Wrong. During the 70 years for Babylon or the nations' servitude to Babylon, Jerusalem was desolated. Why the misrepresentation of our position, Ethos? On what exactly is this 609 BC date based? @AnnOMaly wrote: I provided references that asserted 538 BCE. I'm asking for your reasoning behind your preferred date. To walk you through it: We know Ezra said that Cyrus' decree was in his first year. We also know that after the decree was made the Jews left and arrived in their homeland in the 7th month. Which was Cyrus' first year? How did Ezra count it? Does Cyrus' first year correspond to 539-8 BCE? Or 538-7 BCE? What is the reason for your choice? @Ethos wrote: I've been bored. You say I havent brought forth any evidence but the only basis you have for 538 is Josephus writings and pure speculation. @AnnOMaly wrote: Provide evidence that 537 BCE is the correct date for the exiles' return. Prove that your 537 BCE date is not speculation. Scholar after scholar, historian after historian, dictionary after dictionary, they have all shown that it was believed to be a 70 year exile. Haven't you read a single word of my previous post? Many of your quoted scholars are more in tune with OUR position rather than yours because you haven't noticed that they count the 70 years exile from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign when he took Daniel and his friends! @Ethos wrote: Ridiculous. Who cares about when they believe the 70 year exile began. The point is they associate the 70 year servitude with the 70 year exile, with the 70 year paying off of sabbaths, which the 70 year desolation of Jerusalem. I've shown that to you from various bible commentaries and translations of 2 Chronicles 36:21. They're all the same and you tenaciously attempt to separate each one of them with ridiculous eisegetical elucidations. Oh yeah....here's some real humor for you: AnnoMaly says: "Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539" (70 years) 2 Chronicles 36:21 "ALL the days of lying desolated it KEPT SABBATH." AnnoMaly and Jeffro say the land kept sabbath for only 49 years. This is getting [embarrassing]. @AnnOMaly wrote: AnnoMaly: Jerusalem was desolated from 609 to 539 Ethos, it is very telling that you resort to complete fabrications. Nobody has claimed any such thing. What "fabrications"? What do you believe you wrote, @AnnOMaly? Did Jehoiakim have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar? No; Jehoiakim had served Nebuchadnezzar as a vassal king for three years, in Judah and when he was alive. This is Page 23, but back on the previous page (Page 22) from where I copied your words quoted above, @Ethos' #126 makes this point when he clearly indicated that the nations "were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar," and while @Ethos cites Jer. 25:11, which states that "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years," did they (that is, "these nations") have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar? I realize @Ethos answered this question with a "yes," so let me first set forth a portion of the exchange between @Ethos and @Jeffro: (@Jeffro:) A ll of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews. (@Ethos:) Actually they were. Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer to "many nations". Why? Because "all the nations round about" were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:10-12, 27:7, 28:10-11; cf. BM 21946), and the king composed his army of their military forces (cf. Jeremiah 35:11, 2 Kings 24:1). Yes, the nations conquered by Nebuchadnezzar had become vassal nations, servants of Nebuchadnezzar, even as Jehoiakim had become "his [Nebuchadnezzar's] servant for three years" after having ruled as king of Judah for eight years (2 Kings 24:1) @Jeffro is right; none of the nations were exiles in Babylon, let alone for 70 years, but as all of them were vassals, they became servants of Nebuchadnezzar; they didn't serve in Babylon any more so than did Jehoiakim as king of Judah, not in Babylon, but in Judah. And you're right, too, @AnnOMaly: Jehoiakim did NOT have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar, for being made a vessal king for Babylon, he was a servant of Nebuchadnezzar without his having to leave Judea. As a recall, the man was killed so he never became a Babylonian exile. Servitude to Babylon did not necessitate being in exile. The mass deportations that occurred in 597 BCE and 587 BCE were punishments for rebelling against that servitude. The message was: 'If you stop serving the king of Babylon here in your own land, you'll be ripped from it and have to serve him in his land.' I agree with you here, @AnnOMaly, for as I point out above, Jehoiakim served Babylon as a puppet-king for three years, but he was never numbered among the Jews that became exiles in Babylon (for he was killed). Judah's servitude to Babylon began with Jehoiakim and ended with the fall of the neo-Babylonian dynasty. So by this you are saying what, @AnnOMaly? If you are counting the span of years between Jehoiakim's servitude (as a vassal king) and the deposing of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC, how many years do you count? Back on May 5, 2011, in a thread where you and I engaged in much conjecturing when giving consideration to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews as to the proximate year when Jerusalem became desolate (following Gedaliah's assassination and the final deportation of the Jews to Babylon), it seems to me that you were of a very different opinion as to the year when Judah became desolate than what @Jeffro has expressed in this thread. (Now I don't know either the page or the post, so please don't ask me to jump through hoops as you did in this thread in many of your questions to @Ethos.) Now @Ethos made a mistake in referring to the date 537 BC when it should have been clear to both @Jeffro and @AnnOMaly the date he had intended to write: @Ethos wrote: Your Josephus revision argument has already been examined and it doesnt work and makes your own chronology fail, so your appeal to Josephus is fallacious. The 181.2 year argument is immaterial since I dont hold Josephus to be infallible. ALL dates in the Bible require conjecture since we must use secular data.... I've only argued 537 [BC] is a possible date, as all my sources show it is not something as definite as the fall of Babylon [which according to the inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/14/17," which means, "on the seventh Hebrew month (Tishri), the 14th day, during the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign," or Tishri 14, 539 BC]. I cannot believe I have to qualify this statement for people who have been debating chronology for years. [539 BC] is solid, but we are never given absolute dates in the Bible so therefore it requires assumption and conjecture to pinpoint what exact month and year some things happened. 537 [BC] is not all important to me, why would it be? You can continue all the strawmen you want. 538 BC has been shown to be in error. Context has made it [thoroughly] obvious what was implied by servitude. Something similar occurred earlier in this thread when @Jeffro had mistakenly referred to Jer. 25 when he had intended to write Jer. 29, which bought him this remark from @AnnOMaly: Ethos, you klutz, Jeffro was alluding to Jer. 29, not 25. He no doubt assumed you would know what he was referencing. @AnnOMaly wrote: Love it. Pure comedy gold. @Ethos wrote: Whats really hilarious is how its not even funny. Its so hilarious how all Biblical dates involve conjecture. And they say I'm not good at this LOL @Witness My Fury wrote: DJeggnog anyone? I'll have some, please, @WMF. I'm happy to see you and @AnnOMaly and @Jeffro going at it as if the things conjectured in what has become a 25-page thread (and maybe growing!) is somehow important for salvation. Repentance and faith that Jehovah God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9, 10), which is to show appreciation for the ransom sacrifice made by Jesus is what saves. All of these 607 BC threads on JWN are just a discussion that some (like me!) enjoy having, although, as you will recall, I rather liked discussing the Phoenician "king-list" as against the Neo-Babylonian "king-list" back in 2011, whereas some of the people here could care less about salvation, which is fine. So you missed me, huh, @WMF? Because they has to write in an extra 20 years of history to make 607 fit.... Then they have to fudge the length of the reigns of the kings in order to fit, like DJeggnog trying to bluff that it was 37 years instead of 17 for Nabonidus. Was it 37 years? Maybe it would be a good idea for you to check on this, @WMF. I believe it was 35 years, 17 years of which I had attributed to Belshazzar's rulership in that old 2011 thread. You are correct Ethos, we find you hilarious. [¶] I thought 539 was an agreed pivotal date, a given in the bible? Are you saying it's not [solid] now too? As I point out in editing a portion of @Ethos' post quoted above, he had intended to write 539 BC, not 537 BC where indicated in red, @WMF. @djeggnog
Londo111

Welcome back, Djeggnog! It's been a while!
Jeffro

djeggnog:
You're still not getting it. Why did God tell the '617 BCE' exiles (by far the largest deportation) they would be there "at Babylon" for 70 years when they would, in fact, be there 80 years?
What "'617 BCE' exiles"? First, establish (conjecture is ok!) that there were "'617 BCE' exiles," @AnnOMaly; then ask your question, because no one should be asked a question that assumes facts not in evidence. Ok?
djeggnog doesn't appear to know his subject very well. AnnOMaly here refers to the largest deportation of exiles according to the JW chronology. These are the exiles who were actually taken in 597BCE.
djeggnog:
Something similar occurred earlier in this thread when @Jeffro had mistakenly referred to Jer. 25 when he had intended to write Jer. 29, which bought him this remark from @AnnOMaly:

Ethos, you klutz, Jeffro was alluding to Jer. 29, not 25. He no doubt assumed you would know what he was referencing.
I made no such 'mistake'. I quite deliberately explained how the context of Jeremiah 29 confirms that the seventy years at Jeremiah 25 could not refer to 70 years of exile. It's not my fault that Ethos couldn't figure out how the accounts relate.
djeggnog attributes the following words to me:
All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
That is from something Ethos claimed I said, but my actual statement was:
The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
AnnOMaly

eggie's back! I see you've just c&p'ed part of one of your posts from a previous thread.
An inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," ...
You've been told before that this shouldn't be a direct quote, that the Chronicle doesn't 'read' that way. But yes, it does pinpoint the date on which the Persians took Babylon.
Since Ezra 3:1 indicates that it was "after seventy years" in the "seventh month" of Tishri 537 BC -- the same month in which the land of Judah suffered desolation "without inhabitant" living in any of the cities of Judah as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah
"Without inhabitant" is prophetic hyperbole. There were inhabitants after the seventh month as Ezek. 33:21-27 bears out, Jer. 52:30 hints at and archaeological findings confirm.
Ezra 3:6 states that "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem. This means that this 70-year period would have come to an end on Tishri 1, 537 BC, following the commencement of Cyrus' first regnal year.
Tishri 537 BC began in October. Anyway, you said just before:
The temple utensils were returned to the Jews to take with them to Judah toward the end of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy when Cyrus gave the order during his first regnal year, and how long after the order was it acted upon? What month? I think that's just an argument with no real answer. Within four months' time, the Jews that didn't leave Babylon stayed, but those that left Babylon left with the temple utensils and they arrived there by 537 AD [you meant BC, of course!]. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th [you meant the 16th] day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.
Your date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is based on pure conjecture. You recognize that. We've been through this already in the earlier discussion with you and in this thread with Ethos. AlanF's research was presented, which included references to (1) the Bible and (2) Josephus, and showed 538 BC is on firmer ground than 537.
On what exactly is this 609 BC date based?
Read this thread. You'll pick it up.
What "fabrications"? What do you believe you wrote, @AnnOMaly?
Read the thread. Ethos fabricated the quote he attributed to me - somewhat like you attributing a quote to the Nabonidus Chronicle that it doesn't give. However, Ethos also misconstrued my whole position. At least you didn't do that with the Chronicle.
[Did Jehoiakim have to go to Babylon to serve Nebuchadnezzar?]
No; Jehoiakim had served Nebuchadnezzar as a vassal king for three years, in Judah and when he was alive.
Thank you! (Ethos, take note.)
So by this you are saying what, @AnnOMaly? If you are counting the span of years between Jehoiakim's servitude (as a vassal king) and the deposing of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC, how many years do you count? ... ... it seems to me that you were of a very different opinion as to the year when Judah became desolate
You're perhaps conflating the period of Judah's servitude to Babylon with how long the temple and city were considered to be desolate/devastated.
As I point out in editing a portion of @Ethos' post quoted above, he had intended to write 539 BC, not 537 BC where indicated in red
You think so, huh? Read the thread.
never a jw

I get a headache. And as much I trust the fall of jerusalem happened in 587 BCE, I still considered the posts defending this date superfluous. The Bible is vague, contradictory and has large gaps. It can not provide by itself a reliable account of the chronology of the sixth century BCE. If I have to split my 10 point vote, I give 8 points to defenders of 587 BCE and 2 points to defenders of 607. The only time Ethos seem to have made sense is when he said --I paraphrase-- with the Bible you have to conjecture. Exactly.
Let the Babylonian clay tablets solve the problems. They are 99.999999 percent reliable in determining all important dates of the neo-Babylonian period. Sorry Bible lovers, but the "god" of the Babylonians was a better communicator and a better record keeper than the God of the Hebrews. When it comes to history and chronology, I trust the Babylonian text much more than the Bible's.
djeggnog

@Londo111:
Welcome back, Djeggnog! It's been a while!
Yes, it has. Good to see you.
@Jeffro wrote:
djeggnog doesn't appear to know his subject very well. AnnOMaly here refers to the largest deportation of exiles according to the JW chronology. These are the exiles who were actually taken in 597BCE.
I suppose you could be right, but I don’t believe this to be the case. You are certainly entitled to believe differently than I do, @Jeffro.
I made no such 'mistake'. I quite deliberately explained how the context of Jeremiah 29 confirms that the seventy years at Jeremiah 25 could not refer to 70 years of exile. It's not my fault that Ethos couldn't figure out how the accounts relate.
Well, the "consensus" between @AnnOMaly and I is that you did make such a mistake. Look, @Jeffro: Nobody died; it could have been a worse mistake.
djeggnog attributes the following words to me:
All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
That is from something Ethos claimed I said, but my actual statement was:
The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
@djeggnog wrote:
Forget the temple; it's a "red herring" here. Jeremiah's prophecy should by your focus, @Ethos; did the king of Babylon taken into account by Jehovah after the Jerusalem had lie desolate for 70 years? The temple utensils were returned to the Jews to take with them to Judah toward the end of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy when Cyrus gave the order during his first regnal year, and how long after the order was it acted upon? What month? I think that's just an argument with no real answer. Within four months' time, the Jews that didn't leave Babylon stayed, but those that left Babylon left with the temple utensils and they arrived there by 537 BC. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 16th day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.
An inscription on the Nabonidus Chronicle reads: "Babylon fell VII/16/17," which indicates that Babylon's fall occurred on or about Tishri 16, 3223 AM, October 11, 539 BC, Julian, October 5, 539 BC, Gregorian. Ezra 1:1-3 indicates that it was "in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia" -- Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan 538 BC to Nisan 537 BC -- that Cyrus caused a decree to go out to the Jews to "rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel," which means that what the Nabonidus Chronicle tells us is that Cyrus' accession year occurred in 539 BC.
Since Ezra 3:1 indicates that it was "after seventy years" in the "seventh month" of Tishri 537 BC -- the same month in which the land of Judah suffered desolation "without inhabitant" living in any of the cities of Judah as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah -- that the repatriated Jews had returned to their cities (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10; 33:10), and Ezra 3:6 states that "from the first day of the seventh month," that is to say, on or about Tishri 1, 3225 AM, September 4, 537 BC, Julian, August 29, 537 BC, Gregorian, the repatriated Jews began to offer sacrifices at God's altar in Jerusalem. This means that this 70-year period would have come to an end on Tishri 1, 537 BC, following the commencement of Cyrus' first regnal year.
x = 537 BC
x = x (+ -70)
x = 607 BC
Thus, by subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, we can deduce based on (1) the Bible, (2) Josephus and (3) the Nabonidus Chronicle that the land of Judah had been made to lie desolate by Babylon on or about Tishri 1, 3155 AM, September 27, 607 BC, Julian, September 20, 607 BC, Gregorian, which is when this 70-year period would have commenced.
@AnnOMaly wrote:
Tishri 537 BC began in October.
Is that right, @AnnOMaly? In 537 BC, yes, but in 539 BC? You might want to consult a calendar:
<iframe height="410" frameBorder="0" src="http://www.rosettacalendar.com" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="yes">
</iframe>
EDIT: @Simon, on some websites, the above code isn't stripped from the post, but it would appear (I don't know) that you allow YouTube videos to be embedded into posts, but not web pages generally. Is this is not correct, could you please post a response to this thread when you can (no PMs since I've always experienced difficulty opening PMs) indicating how I would embed a web page from an external website here? Thanks.
Just scroll to "Hebrew calendar" section, and enter "1 Tishri 3225" and click "Convert"; you should get pretty much the same dates that I did, @AnnOMaly. The embedded calendar is my gift to JWN. If this web calendar isn’t embedded, just click this link to open it in another page. But "537 BC" and the 16th day" were inadvertent typos (as usual).
The temple utensils were returned to the Jews to take with them to Judah toward the end of the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy when Cyrus gave the order during his first regnal year, and how long after the order was it acted upon? What month? I think that's just an argument with no real answer. Within four months' time, the Jews that didn't leave Babylon stayed, but those that left Babylon left with the temple utensils and they arrived there by 537 AD [you meant BC, of course!]. This is conjecture based on a drop dead date taken from the Nabonidus Chronicle of Tishri, the seventh Hebrew month, the 14th [you meant the 16th] day, in the 17th year of Nabonidus' reign.
Your date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is based on pure conjecture. You recognize that. We've been through this already in the earlier discussion with you and in this thread with Ethos. AlanF's research was presented, which included references to (1) the Bible and (2) Josephus, and showed 538 BC is on firmer ground than 537.
Yes, the date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is conjecture. In fact, every date we might fix to any Bible-related event is conjectured based on the drop dead date of Tishri 16, 3223 AM, October 11, 539 BC, Julian, October 5, 539 BC, Gregorian. I don’t have a problem with this since salvation isn’t based on getting any of these dates correct. For you this is fun; but for those of us for whom Bible prophecy strengthens our faith, this is all just water-cooler talk pretty much, @AnnOMaly. Other elders tend to think of this stuff as absolute, but I understand, just as you do, that this is all "pure conjecture."
@Jeffro wrote:
djeggnog attributes the following words to me:
All of the nations were not in Babylon for seventy years. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
That is from something Ethos claimed I said, but my actual statement was:
The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
I’m not sure what happened here, but you’re right. I suppose that when I keyboarded this portion of my post instead of dictating it to my PC (I had to use my iPad to complete that post), I misquoted this portion of Post 3025, which says (on Page 20):
(@Ethos:)
Simple question: Where does Jehovah say he will make the Jews serve their enemies? In a land they have not known. Therefore, the servitude cannot begin in 609 BCE, while all the Jews remain comfortably abided in Judea.
Again, there is no mention of the 70 years at Jeremiah 17:4. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations served Babylon. But all the nations did not serve in Babylon for 70 years. And nor did the Jews.
(@Jeffro:)
@djeggnog
Jeffro

djeggnog:
djeggnog doesn't appear to know his subject very well. AnnOMaly here refers to the largest deportation of exiles according to the JW chronology. These are the exiles who were actually taken in 597BCE.

I suppose you could be right, but I don’t believe this to be the case. You are certainly entitled to believe differently than I do, @Jeffro.
You can believe whatever you like. By indicating that you weren't aware of the context of the statements about 'exiles in 617BCE', you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the subject.
djeggnog:
Well, the "consensus" between @AnnOMaly and I is that you did make such a mistake. Look, @Jeffro: Nobody died; it could have been a worse mistake.
Hilarious. It hardly matters whether you and AnnOMaly 'agree' that I made a 'mistake'. (Though I am fairly sure that AnnOMaly actually understands why I referred to Jeremiah 29 with regard to the context of the 70 years as it relates to Jeremiah 25.) It is an extremely tedious contention to maintain that I supposedly "did make such a mistake" after I clearly indicated why I explained the relationship between the two passages.
AnnOMaly

Well, the "consensus" between @AnnOMaly and I is that you did make such a mistake.
Is it really? Jeffro didn't make a mistake. Ethos got muddled up.
[Tishri 537 BC began in October.]
Is that right, @AnnOMaly? In 537 BC, yes, ...
... but in 539 BC?
We were talking about 537, weren't we?
Calendar conversion tools can be at odds with the historical Babylonian or Hebrew calendars. It's to do with the placing of intercalary months.
Yes, the date of Tishri 1, 537 BC is conjecture. In fact, every date we might fix to any Bible-related event is conjectured based on the drop dead date of Tishri 16, 3223 AM, October 11, 539 BC, Julian, October 5, 539 BC, Gregorian. ... ... I understand, just as you do, that this is all "pure conjecture."
It's not "all 'pure conjecture.'" To be clear: The year 537 BCE for Cyrus' decree and the exiles' return is "pure conjecture."

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this