Gotta love the irrelevant ad hominem.
An argumentum ad hominem is an attack against the person. My intention was not to attack you. If you were a Hindu, I would have written "The Hindu Jeffro wrote:", and if you were a Muslim, I would have written "The Muslim Jeffro wrote:". I just named your affiliation to your world view, to get the people to understand who we are talking about. That's also why I introduced myself as Bible believing Christian at the beginning. I don't want readers to be left in the dark and guess my ideological beliefs as they read along. And I would not have criticized you if you wrote "The Christian Pierre1977 wrote:". If you already consider naming your position an attack upon your person, that tells a lot about the position you are advocating.
Anyway, I think Jonsson would be glad that others are continuing to point out JW lies.
Didn't I tell you that I don't care about the Jehovah's Witness' fixation on 538 vs. 537 B. C. E.? If you want to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses, go to scholar JW. I discussed other topics having to do with the reliability of the Bible. And here Jonsson would support me because he was also a Christian. Not that that necessarily matters, I don't use this argumentum ad verecundiam, but you mentioned him first as supporting you, although this is obviously not the case here.
There is no evidence Ezra had even been born yet in 538BCE let alone officiating as a priest, particularly since he was still alive in 457BCE when he went from Babylon to Jerusalem (and continued living for some time after that). A Jewish priest had to be at least 30, so unless you think Ezra was 111 when he traveled to Jerusalem in 457 BCE, then you’re obviously wrong. Hence the details of the stories are obviously conflated with Ezra’s much later journey to Jerusalem.
I don't see anything wrong with someone being over 110 years old. Ezra was blessed my God. Moses was even 120 at the end of his journey. You may say: “That's unlikely!” But isn't that the same logic as the Jehovah's Witnesses and scholar JW with his “It's unlikely that they were so fast to still make it in 538 B.C.E.”? Well, guess what, unlikely things do happen. But it's not impossible for humans to be that old.
If you want to hear the Witness' excuse of this "Biblical error", you'd have to ask scholar JW. But I know that many Jews and other Christians have good other explanations, suggesting that this priest Ezra during Zerubbabel's travel was a different priest than the later one who also wrote the book. The idea is based on some priest listing of this supposed first Ezra somewhere in Nehemiah, though I would have to look this up.
But I believe in a 111 year old man being blessed by God!
Which means Tyre is still a definite failure. And so is Babylon since Hillah occupies the same land with only a small heritage protected area of ruins a few hundred meters across.
Actually, Hillah is adjacent to Ancient Babylon, but not on it. The ruins of Ancient Babylon are still there. Concerning Tyre: Although the prophecy says in Ezekiel 26:14 says that Tyre won't be rebuild, it also says that it “shall be a place for the spreading of nets”, showing that “not rebuild” doesn't mean “uninhabited“ with not anything build. Don't take everything literally like fundamentalists, examine the context. And from that, it becomes clear that “not rebuild” means that national prominence (Ezekiel 27:3), wealth, riches (Ezekiel 27:3, 4, 33), strength and security (Ezekiel 27:10, 11) would not be rebuild, hence the picture of simple fishermen living there and spreading their nets.
