Posted by Okay, Carl [GLamotta] on March 30, 1999 at 05:56:29 {.Oe37V.qjQMRXA6xmpscboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: *COJ, TIBERIUS AND THE TEMPLE posted by COJ on March 30, 1999 at 04:35:08:
Okay, Carl, I'll let you off the hook on the "70 weeks" issue. Only I had stated that you don't agree with the dating in some of my posts. But thanks for bringing out that some find it clear that the Bible does "seem" to point to Cyrus in some verses.
As far as Nehemiah "seeming" to fulfill this passage it could not since the walls were already rebuilt long before he arrived.
Your comment:
>>However, note that the words "just stick to the Bible" is within
quotation marks. As is evident from THE CONTEXT, I quoted the opinion of Storrs, Anstey, and others, who believed that in
interpreting the "70 weeks" and other prophecies, history can be ignored.>>
That's true. When it comes down to
a showdown
between the Bible and secular history, then,
per JW training, we opt for the Jewish records
over secular records. But that dismissal is
well-founded.
Only now, with the discovery of the VAT4956
encryptions to
511BCE, secular history CONFIRMS
BIBLE HISTORY, so there is no more conflict
in the critical texts, that is, those records
that produce ABSOLUTE DATING.
So I like SECULAR history now, since you can
get it to confirm what you
want if you look
hard enough. For instance, I don't know if
you noticed, but currently secular history
dates the Lydian-Median peace agreement in
585BCE. That means Cyrus is born 15 years before
his own mother because he
was born in 600BCE.
So you see, secular contradictions like this
make it easy for us to doubt the reliability
of secular history.
Thanks for explaining what you meant to say
in your book, I can see where I
misunderstood
your complicity to the fulfillment by Cyrus,
even though you did a great job of explaining
why others would easily conclude Cyrus should
have fulfilled this prophecy.
Cheers,
Gary