The date of the decree of Cyrus for the Jewish people to return home from the Babylonian diaspora (the day in the Hebrew calendar year) is available, as is the secular historical match. The difference is that some archaeologists place Cyrus's decree about three years differently than the Bible date--making the calculated return in 1945, not 1948, May 14. Can you understand how I'd find it reasonable to think the archaeologists are an aggregate three years off the mark regarding a date 6 centuries before Christ? Can you understand how I find you being unreasonable regarding your standards for prophecy proofs?
My standard for prophecy is that it should be at least as good as man's best efforts, which are predictions of science.
The criticism of your claim that the exact date was predicted stands unrebutted. You have no precise date for Cyrus' decree. Apparently, you don't even have a precise year. Now, you are moving the goalpost - within a few years is good enough, and you find it unreasonable to expect a god to do better than that.
Sure, if your purpose was to propose that men can come up with a series of arbitrary assumptions such as how many years get multiplied by 7 (nobody doubts that if the arithmetic worked out better using 430 x 7 years that that would be your choice instead) and eventually with enough ad hoc tinkering come up with something that's at most a few years off, you have succeeded.
But if you want to invoke divine, transcendent knowledge, you'll need better.
You'll also need to improve your game. Ignoring rebuttals and repeating the rebutted claims is not only ineffective, it's counterproductive - it screams out that you understand that you have no response to valid criticism - and is actually bad faith disputation. Your values in debate may not be those of the academic community, but in that milieu, one is expected to address the specifics of one's interlocutor's arguments one by one, agreeing that they seem correct where they do and explaining why they don't where they don't, and to modify one's position accordingly where appropriate.
Failing to do so is considered a tacit admission of defeat. It is in a formal debate as judged by an impartial audience - the last one to make a feasible argument that was not successfully rebutted is generally considered the debater that prevailed.
And it is in a court of law. The defense gives an argument fro why the defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor reveals the holes and contradictions in the story, and produces physical evidence contradicting the alibi and defense. If the defense simply repeats the story just contradicted without addressing the specific of the prosecution's argument, given an impartial verdict, somebody's going to prison.
I called that bad faith disputation. So what is good faith disputation? It's the process called dialectic. It's the cooperative search for truth between two or more parties that have the same rationalist epistemology - that is, thay agree that the application of valid reasoning to true, shared premises and to all of the relevant evidence leads to sound conclusions, If they have that in common, they can work back to their point of departure one from the other and make the case for following the path each has chosen.
Optimally, one can persuade the other and they come into accord. The winner there, incidentally, is not the one who was correct, but the one who was corrected.
And when they cannot agree, generally because of different beliefs or values such as what is likely to be true or what is important, they can understand one another, and probably each agree that if he shared the others beliefs or values, he would come to the same conclusion.
What you are doing here is nothing like that. You don't engage. You don't rebut. You don't address specific objections. You just repeat your original cut-and-paste post unchanged, unmodified by anything that has transpired. There is no evidence that you have read much less understood the objections to your argument.
