by Londo111 272 Replies latest watchtower bible
psuedo-scholar:
Josephus states that the temple foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year then that would nicely coincide
[lots of redundant whitespace]
The comments of Josephus are not inconsistent with the Return of the Jews by the seventh month in 537 BCE
Feel free to explain how May of 536 BCE (as required by your 'interpretation') can coincide with Cyrus' second year.
Jeffro
If you are going to rely on Josephus then please explain then in what year did the Exiles Return according to his presentation of matters?
scholar JW
If you are going to rely on Josephus then please explain then in what year did the Exiles Return according to his presentation of matters?
Your question has been answered previously.
I thought you just said Josephus is consistent with your view... You are stalling in order to avoid providing a basis for your dogmatic claim about 537.
Jeffro
I fail to see how you have answered the question and I also fail to see how Josephus is inconsistent with our position. Further, we are not dogmatic about 537 BCE for the Return but according to the facts to hand the date 537BCE is the most likely data based on all of the avilable information. The date 538 is impossible for the simple fact that the time frame is too short.
scholar JW
marked
pseudo-scholar:
I fail to see how you have answered the question and I also fail to see how Josephus is inconsistent with our position.
In that case, you're an idiot. The Jews were allowed to return in 538 BCE (though many remained in Babylon). You still have not explained how in your view May of 536 BCE can fall in the second year of Cyrus. Nor have you explained the 182.5 years from the end of Israel until Cyrus.
Further, we are not dogmatic about 537 BCE for the Return but according to the facts to hand the date 537BCE is the most likely data based on all of the avilable information.
So your entire world view is based on something you consider to be 'likely'. Still waiting on your basis for why you imagine 537 to be the "most likely" year.
The date 538 is impossible for the simple fact that the time frame is too short.
Based on what?! They had at least seven months to make the four month trip, and in your interpretation, you posit them leaving at the same time of year anyway, but just a different year.
Also, when Ezra and over a thousand other people (Ezra 7:7-9; 8:1-14) went from Babylon to Jerusalem in 458 BCE, based on the NWT rendering, the four months of the journey included preparation time. Note Ezra 7:9:
For on the first [day] of the first month he himself appointed the going up from Babylon, and on the first [day] of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.
Jeffro
It is irrelevant to the subject of 537 BCE being the year of the Return as to whether May of 536 BCE can fall on in the second year of Cyrus. What is relevant to this matter is the events that are described in the account of Ezra 1:1-3:1. The simple fact of the matter is that Jews erected the altar with sacrifices in the seventh month in a unspecified year. Later in Ezra 3:8 the foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of their coming to the house of God. in the second month of that year. On the other hand, Josephus gives the second year of Cyrus for the laying of the Temple foundation. It would appear that Ezra is writing about the same event but from a different historical standpoint because the terminology used is not identical. This is a good example that when dealing with different historical sources, interpretation is required. Becausef the data for the same event differs it has no immediate relevance or bearing on determining the precise year when the Exiles returned for if this was the case then the whole matter would have been more clearly established in scholarship and to date this is not the case.
The fact of the matter is that it is not clearly stated the year of the returm but only the month which was the "seventh' month. We know that the Decree was given sometime in Cyrus' first year from Nisan 538 until Nisan 537 BCE so if Ezra used the Spring calender then the Returm must have occurred in the second year of Cyrus. But if Ezra used autumn calender then the seventh month would have fallen within the first year of Cyrus. So we cannot be certain what calender Ezra used in reference to the timing of the Return. Scholars and historians have considered all of these facts and there is a firm view that 538 BCE is highly unlikely because it does not give sufficient time for the Return journey by the Exiles so 537 BCE fits all of the facts nicely.
scholar JW
scholar:
It would appear ... interpretation is required ... it is not clearly stated ... if Ezra used the Spring calender ... if Ezra used autumn calender ... we cannot be certain
A bunch of speculation. This is the basis on which you consider the 70 years to have begun in 607. It's laughable. And you expect other people to accept your nutty religion based on that?!
And your interpretation of the 70 years is still entirely wrong anyway, because it was a period during which "all these nations" would "serve the king of Babylon", and not a period of Jewish exile. Based on the direct statement at Jeremiah 25:12, there is simply no valid way of shifting the end of the 70 years beyond the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 BCE.
there is a firm view that 538 BCE is highly unlikely
Whose "firm view" are you citing?
Despite your claims, 538 BCE fits perfectly.
Jeffro
It is idiotic to compare the two journeys. One trip took four months which included a party of 1000 persons but the former trip was much larger with a more detailed description of the returnees so common sense would indicate that this journey was in fact much larger unless they travelled by rail, ship or plane. Historians discount 538 because of the timing of the Decree, its proclamation, preparations and the journey took quite some time which must have exceeded the parameters of 538 BCE Scholar is not impressed by pretty mischevious diagrams appearing on your blog.
scholar JW
