Though permission was given to rebuild in the Jewish month of Nisan, in the early part of the year,it didn't take effect until months later when Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem and began the work of restoration. Since he was further away than Ezra was,it took him longer to travel as he was in Shushan 200 miles east of Babylon.Most likely,Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem near the end of Artaxerxes 20th year,455 b.c. It is then that the ''seventy weeks'' or 490 years, began.

So,the 490 years would end in the latter part of the year 36 a.d. The first ''seven weeks'' or 49 years cover the time of rebuilding etc. until 406 b.c. Next,the ''sixty- two weeks'' making a total of 69 weeks or 483 years,takes us to ''Messiah the Leader''. Including part of 455 b.c. and part of the final year, this would extend into the year 29 a.d. when Jesus was baptised.Gospel writer Luke says ''In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar...John... came into all the country around Jordan

Kindly wait until I've finished, elijah2. John was preaching baptism in symbol of repentance of sins.Now,the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 a.d. and John was 6months older than his cousin,Jesus. Jesus came a few months later, to be baptised,at the age of ''about thirty years old''. Also, the people ''were in expectation'' of the Messiah's appearance - Luke 3:1,2,15, and 23

So,the calculations both match,to 29 a.d. being the year of the Messiah's appearance ie. his public baptism. As for Artaxerxes,the evidence of inscriptions and sculptures unearthed, indicate a coregency between Xerxes, his father,and Darius I. If this covered 10 years and Xerxes ruled alone for 11 years after Darius died in 486 b.c., then the first year of Artaxerxes would have been 474 b.c.

Again,Athenian General Themistocles defeated Xerxes' forces in 480 b.c. He later fell out of favour with the Greeks and sought protection at the Persian court, where he was well recieved. This happened when Artaxerxes had but ''lately come to the throne'' according to the Greek historian Thucydides.The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus puts the death of the General at 471 b.c. He had requested a year to learn Persian before having an audience with Artaxerxes,so must have arrived no later than 473 b.c.

473 b.c. is also supported by Jerome's 'Chronicle Of Eusebius'. Also, German scholar Ernst Hengstenberg said that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in 474 b.c. in his 'Christology of the Old Testament' as do other sources. He added ''The twentieth year of Artaxerxes is the year 455 before Christ''

Are you sure you are not making a mistake in the year that Artaxerxes began to reign?

Because you say it's 474 B.C. But the History books say it's 464 B.C. Maybe that 7 you have there should be a 6

Artaxerxes Persian king began his reign in 464 B.C.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,
ARTAXERXES I - king of Persia Whose real name was, Achaemenid king of Persia (reigned 465 to 425 bc).
He was surnamed in Greek Macrocheir (Longhand) and in Latin Longim . A younger son of Xerxes I and Amestris, he was raised to the throne by the commander of the guard, Artab , who had murdered Xerxes.

Now his reignal year didn't began the very year he ascended the Throne (465 B.C.), because that year was already come to and end. He really start reigning the next year (464 B.C.).

No,showed you what others have said,and the historians nearer the time.The ascension then regnal year are correct

Well just like I said before in other areas in my groups. I am not going to quote scholars to contradict a scholar that you quoted. Just like I said I'm not into quoting bible verses to try an contradict another Bible verse that another may quote. Because, that will just cause confusion in the minds of the Reader. I can quote many scholars to back me up, but I not go do that. As a matter of fact; I don't really trust the words of a scholar to all that, I will more likely trust the words of a Historian over a scholar.

Go back and read carefully, what I've posted. I know about Artaxerxes also being called Longim etc.

There is no need for me to read the posts again, because i read the posts over and over about six times already. And seen that neither you nor me was living in those times. An we have to depend upon the words of another, who so claim that they have gather of information those events that to place in history, so we got just either: believe and accept one or the other or none at all. And if it came to the test, I would more likely to believe the Encyclopedias (Britannica, America, ect) over a Scholar. As I said earlier; i am more likely to trust the words of a Historian over the words of a Scholar.

Besides,elijah2, you wanted a reply.Plus,what I quoted is from historians.Don't forget the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius being 29 a.d. when John the baptizer started his work.I'll leave you to think about it

This places the fifteenth year of Tiberius from October 20, 27 to October 9, 28 CE. This fits with the arrival of Pontius Pilate by the fall of 27, with an earliest first Passover still in 28.

(New Testament Chronology, (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).

You see, you say, Tiberius Caesar fifteenth reign was in the year 29 A.D. While the history books say it's 27 A.D.

That's one of the reasons I don't like to discuss matters that are based on human opinions. I rather stick to the Word of God and discuss things that can be proven their. Because, we cannot trust the words of man. But the word of God can be trusted. It will never lead astray.

Incorrect elijah2 and you mention about the error of men while then doing the same yourself. The proper calculations take it to near the end of 29 a.d. Jesus died at the age of 33 and a half on Nisan 14, 33 a.d. As for God's word the Bible,Jehovah's Witnesses trust that more than mens ideas and follow it's chronology.You believe you're in the true church, and I believe I'm in the true church. So,we're not going to get anywhere,young man.We already know about Israel,and who 'the Israel of God' is,today.

Well the fact of the matter is, I can't argue an say this Historian or this Scholar or this Encyclopedia is right and another is wrong, because the truth is we were not living in those times, neither were most of them. So I rather stick to subjects that can be defended by scripture. And furthermore it's NOT just you and i that believe that we are apart of the true faith, but also every other person that belongs to another persuasion of faith. Because, the Baptist, the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Anglican, the Catholics, Mormons ects. All believe that the faith they belong to and hold to is the true faith.

Hence, instead of we Reasoning from Scholarly point of view, let's Reason from the Scritpures. Because, for one, the Scriptures don't contradict. So let see: What the Bible Really Teach?