607 B.C.E.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The WTS stands behind the observance of 607BCE to be a viable date in biblical history. YOU keep saying it isn’t and that you heard it from GB’s back in your day. Whatever the circumstance might have been with your basic discussions with GB’s back then, it wasn’t made official until they meditated upon it, and the will of God made sure their conclusions harmonized with scripture. At what point were you there when that happened? I can tell you and state it as FACT, NEVER!!!

This, by the way, you are also arguing here with an "appeal to authority" but in this case we obviously accept that appeal as valid, at least among ourselves. Especially as the GB have indeed written a lot about the subject.

You say "it wasn't made official until they meditated upon it, and the will of God made sure their conclusions harmonized with scripture." Is that really how you think it works? I assume you believe the GB started in 1919 at a time that J.F.Rutherford was taking the lead. Are you really saying that "the will of God made sure that their conclusions" about 1925 "harmonized with scripture." According to a quote from the Watchtower in a previous post, Rutherford said "he made an a** of himself." He didn't blame or credit the "will of God." In fact, 606 was kept until 1943. Was it only after 1943, or 1960 or 1999, that your theory is valid?

Did the pre-2014 type-antitype doctrines (about 200 such doctrines) harmonize with Scripture? If they did, then why were they dropped in 2014 as explained in the 3/15/2015 Watchtower?

So you are postulating an event that might never have happened. In fact there is plenty of written evidence in the publications that indicates that no such meeting happened within the GB prior to the acceptance of either 606 or 607. It's pretty much spelled out how we inherited the dates and how and why they evolved into what we have now. Of course, even if such a meeting had taken place, it's absolutely irrelevant to the point under discussion.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So don’t blame me for your disappointments, and lack of understanding. It’s NOT my fault you like to associate with disfellowshipped people or people that are riddled with apostasy?

So don’t get upset because I’ve been EXPOSING people like you, in order to have TRUE witnesses understand who and what their dealing with. I DON’T need anyone in my side or anyone’s accolades. The only thing I need to do is What the Watchtower of 2014/7/15 (pp.7-11) indicate, 2 fundamental truths:

1.       Jehovah loves those who are LOYAL to him.

2.       Jehovah HATES UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

Yes. Excellent points in the study article. We already dealt with the first point you make about association when you confused Rolf Furuli with COJ. And when you made that same mistake before I reminded you that it made you look like you were accusing Rolf Furuli of apostasy. Perhaps you never understood the point of that. No matter anyway; it's not relevant. Just something you still needed to be corrected on because you continue to spread the same untruth no matter how times you have been corrected.

The same article included:

*** w14 7/15 p. 10 pars. 15-16 “Jehovah Knows Those Who Belong to Him” ***
Should we, however, be suspicious of our fellow Christians, second-guessing the genuineness of their loyalty to Jehovah? Absolutely not! It would be wrong to entertain baseless suspicions about our brothers and sisters. (Read Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 13:7.) What is more, having a tendency to distrust the integrity of others in the congregation would be harmful to our own spirituality.
16 Each Christian should “examine his own actions.” (Gal. 6:4) Because of our sinful inclinations, there is always the potential for inadvertently adopting traits that are less than sincere.

and the next article took some of those same themes further:

*** w14 7/15 p. 14 par. 12 Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness” ***
The Bible encourages each individual to train his “powers of discernment . . . to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Heb. 5:14) The Scriptures set forth basic principles that a Christian can weigh when selecting entertainment. In all areas of life, our goal should be to “keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord.”

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So Besides the findings of an brother Raymond Franz, and a Disfellowshipped member CARL OLOF JONSSON, your FRIEND, what proof do you have 607BCE is NOT a viable date. Remember don’t misrepresent the WTS literature to confuse people into thinking it means something that it doesn’t. Don’t be like Anonymous Brother. Let’s not pretend to be innocent, and tell the truth for once.

The Awake! magazine on logical fallacies included the idea that innuendo is also a form of "attacking the person" instead of the evidence. I'll mark in blue each place where you included innuendo.as part of your tactic. You are obviously pretty good at what you do.

So, if you are done with those tactics, I am happy to get back on track, here. You asked "what proof do you have 607BCE is NOT a viable date"? Good question, remember, that the WTS does not claim "proof" that their use of 607BCE is viable. This is a discussion of evidence and patterns of evidence. Our concern should be about what patterns of evidence support the Bible. 

We already started this discussion, and I hope we can keep it reasonable and rational.

My first point that you already began a response to was that the WTS gave evidence that it didn't really matter when Jerusalem was destroyed, because the primary concern was to start with the acceptance of 1914 and just count back 2,520. One evidence of this was the fact that when they were not sure of the "zero year" problem, they used 606 (2520-607=1914). You said they were always sure of the zero year. I responded that Russell admitted he wasn't sure and he even gave the new outcome if it was true. (1915) The fact that he ultimately went back to 1914, and that the WTS later merely changed the date to 607 when they formally accepted the truth about the zero year. 

I offered evidence that your claim was wrong. So my first point is still valid. Correct?

Your response? 

[Guest Allen Smith]

Quote

 

JWinsider: This answer certainly will not sit well with some, but I'm a stickler for full disclosure. In the long run, I think we do better when we're completely open and honest with everything we have learned. 

There is no support "for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking." What might be even more surprising is that there is also no support for our use of this year (607) even Biblically speaking. It evidently started out as a mistake in the 1800's, but we have been stuck with it ever since. I'm aware of members of the Governing Body who have said that we should just "scrap our entire chronology" and "start over from scratch." (Those are almost exact quotes from Brother Sydlik, but Brother Swingle, and R.Franz, and others were of a similar mind. I only heard it from two of them personally, but there was a time when almost half the Governing Body gave evidence that they did not believe it necessary to start the "generation of 1914" in the year 1914: D.Sydlik, L.Swingle, G.Suiter, B.Schroeder, E.Chitty, R.Franz, K.Klein. There were evidently even more members of the Writing Department who believed the same way.)

 

Quote

 

 

The most disturbing quote I remember on the subject was from a brother in Writing: ". . . if we showed humility, we'd be humiliated."

 

Glad to see you are alert to come to our defense on 607 BCE. Defending the teaching, just as you are doing, was also my own reaction. And I am still anxious to see if anyone can even make an honest attempt. If you, or the Governing Body, or anyone else in the world can make an honest attempt to defend it, I'd be very happy. End Quote JWinsider

 

 

My point, is self-explanatory. Your ability to maneuver only makes since to those who subscribe to your type of FALLACY. I have no need to expand or explain myself on how you actually DENY 607BCE because of secular interpretation of events any further. You answered that yourself. While you focus on my personal attacks, you shy away from the actual points of evidence. Points that were made in many past conversations on how wrong you are to think 607BCE is not a viable point in chronology. But your buddies DELETED all of those points to HELP you, didn’t they.

While I am not willing to rehash wrongful secular chronology on the bases of how lengthy the proposition would be, not because it cannot be done, which is what you’re saying; your own words just CONFIRMED the DECEPTION you have orchestrated for a long time. No further evidence is needed.

As for proving how wrong secular chronology got it, an ideology you don’t support, especially when your communication with Furuli was to PROVE how DISHONEST he was to CARL OLOF JONSSON’S claim, by the way, why do you keep suggesting you DIDN’T contact COJ to speak to him about Furuli’s claim, your lies just keep piling on. Other than that, when I find a credible proof reader, I will make my findings known to the public in support of scripture, as I told you before. Nice try though.

An as an outright spokesmen for apostasy, only ex-witnesses applaud your endeavor to continue this mindless debate alive. The WTS made its stance very clear in the Watchtower 10/1/2011 (pp.26-31).

The fact that you hold the present day Governing Body in Contempt is still no need to prove themselves to you or people like you, only to GOD. You lost you mention in life by losing your faith. That’s between you and God. My mission is to show the hypocrisy from all of you.

Remember these sites should have NEVER been CALLED JW News and Articles without a clause that also claimed APOSTACY for all its viewers, so honest witnesses wouldn’t have to venture in to the lion’s den. Where’s your proof about going against God’s Will. Not your lengthy comments about ad hominem attacks. In other words stop throwing red herring fallacy, it means nothing to me.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I have no need to expand or explain myself on how you actually DENY 607BCE because of secular interpretation of events any further. You answered that yourself. While you focus on my personal attacks, you shy away from the actual points of evidence. Points that were made in many past conversations on how wrong you are to think 607BCE is not a viable point in chronology. But your buddies DELETED all of those points to HELP you, didn’t they.

I think I have a good solution for this problem.

Actually, I still have most of those past conversations saved, but you seem to have forgotten that you provided no evidence, then. You spent so much time creating personal attacks, that you apparently forgot to offer any evidence or counter-evidence.

This time you have actually included some information for discussion. And I thought we were beginning to discuss it. But you have evidently stopped discussing it as soon as you were shown that your first point was incorrect. I'm sure you already know this, but being found wrong on a single point is not necessarily important to the overall discussion. If the past is any indication, I will obviously be making many mistakes along the way, but this is how we learn.

I'm sure you would agree that we should handle this type of discussion in a peaceful and orderly fashion. This doesn't mean that your personal attacks will just be allowed to stand without response, especially since they are nearly always false.

So here's the plan. Let's present the evidence for and against the 607 BCE date, perhaps under a new heading. I see that Anke has moderator status to maintain the daily text postings. I'll contact the moderators and see if they'll let me use moderator status, to maintain this particular discussion and I will use it only to remove the personal attacks. We can leave this current thread here as a place where you can put all the personal attacks you want, that way you won't feel that your contributions are being censored. (I will only ask to delete personal attacks that you attempt to insert into the wrong topic areas. I had to mention that because you did that a lot on "jw-archive" and have already started doing it here at "worldnewsmedia." I should also mention that a lot of people obviously caught on to your trick of using several different names to post under. I hope you won't do that here.

---

Now, just for old times sake, I will respond here to what you just said in your previous post.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

your communication with Furuli was to PROVE how DISHONEST he was to CARL OLOF JONSSON’S claim,

My communication with Furuli was, over several months, to talk to him about his first two books and his plans for a third. By the way, he sent me his third book for free, and I hadn't even asked for it. (By "third book" I'm referring to Furuli's second one on chronology.) Therefore, Furuli can probably tell you who I am. We also had several discussions on the B-Greek (Biblical Greek) forum for several years prior to his books. With only a few exceptions, Furuli added a lot of good points in those discussions, too. I thought his first book on Bible translation was good. I thought his first book on chronology was awful.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

by the way, why do you keep suggesting you DIDN’T contact COJ to speak to him about Furuli’s claim, your lies just keep piling on.

Why? Simple. Because I didn't, and it therefore would be a lie for anyone to try to suggest that I did.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Other than that, when I find a credible proof reader, I will make my findings known to the public in support of scripture, as I told you before. Nice try though.

No problem. Sounds good.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The WTS made its stance very clear in the Watchtower 10/1/2011 (pp.26-31).

Yes. Everything that was new in that article was based almost entirely on Furuli's book. Everything else in that article tacitly admits that have no real evidence, which is true. What the article doesn't address is the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the WT theory that has never been addressed. Perhaps that's the article we should start with.

 

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The fact that you hold the present day Governing Body in Contempt is still no need to prove themselves to you or people like you, only to GOD. You lost you mention in life by losing your faith. That’s between you and God. My mission is to show the hypocrisy from all of you.

. . . Where’s your proof about going against God’s Will. Not your lengthy comments about ad hominem attacks. In other words stop throwing red herring fallacy, it means nothing to me.

I have respect for the GB, and I also have respect for the truth and the Bible. I do not disrespect any by making it appear that they can only be defended by ad hominem attacks. I prefer a discussion of the Bible and the evidence. If there is real evidence that the GB might be making a mistake and we have a opportunity to help, then what should we do? We could choose to hide the evidence or obfuscate through a pattern of ad hominem tactics. But any person who did that would be hypocritical if they also claim that they obey God as ruler rather then men.

[Guest Allen Smith]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What the article doesn't address is the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the WT theory that has never been addressed. Perhaps that's the article we should start with.

Okay lets start with an article I'm NOT aware of, that shows the WTS to be incorrect about the validity (Probable)-(Possible) of their chronology. What article!

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

  22 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The WTS made its stance very clear in the Watchtower 10/1/2011 (pp.26-31).

I made that comment under the heading about the article you were quoting. The October 1, 2011 Watchtower. The article on when Jerusalem was destroyed (pp. 26-31). That's the same article I was referring to. Seems like the most appropriate article.

[Guest Allen Smith]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have respect for the GB, and I also have respect for the truth and the Bible. I do not disrespect any by making it appear that they can only be defended by ad hominem attacks. I prefer a discussion of the Bible and the evidence. If there is real evidence that the GB might be making a mistake and we have a opportunity to help, then what should we do? We could choose to hide the evidence or obfuscate through a pattern of ad hominem tactics. But any person who did that would be hypocritical if they also claim that they obey God as ruler rather then men.

The only hypocritical thing I keep reading is your assertion of somehow being more enlightened than God’s Loyal Helpers. At what point did you receive a revelation to suggest to the entire JW community your negative ideology driven by apostasy is the one to be reckoned with. At this point, you should be disfellowshipped for that arrogant stance. Just like Carl Olof Jonsson. If anyone is going to correct the Slave Class, it will be God, as was evident with the resignation of Raymond Franz (Disfellowshipped). By the way, you keep insisting COJ’s journal was placed in a shelf to collect dust. I’m sure you have COJ’s letters to the WTS and the WTS responses. So let’s not misrepresent that to.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. Everything that was new in that article was based almost entirely on Furuli's book. Everything else in that article tacitly admits that have no real evidence, which is true. What the article doesn't address is the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the WT theory that has never been addressed. Perhaps that's the article we should start with.

Start researching new chronology if it means that much to you. True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men.

1.       Raymond Franz-Crisis of Conscience. Ray spent all his time in this book to harp about his mistreatment without expanding how his worldly view was hurting him, not the WTS, not to accept the repeated attempts to bring him back to bible understanding.

.

 

2.       Carl Olof Jonsson-The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Carl spent all the time making the argument that 587BCE was the true date. 587BCE is driven by a Jewish Hope to support and legitimize their Nation. Obviously, you don’t understand the millennium conflicts between the Jews and Arabs, and the things they have destroyed to avoid any conflicts between each legitimate hold on the disputed land. Hardliners like ISIL, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. have destroyed or are destroying such evidence that sways the argument their way. Israel does the same thing, they’re not innocent in this matter.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, I still have most of those past conversations saved, but you seem to have forgotten that you provided no evidence, then. You spent so much time creating personal attacks, that you apparently forgot to offer any evidence or counter-evidence.

I actually have ALL your posts as well as all the ones that I have argued. So if any evidence I submitted was DELETED by your friends, and I’m talking about the Librarian, and TheWorldNewsMedia after I made a relevant point, it’s not my problem.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I made that comment under the heading about the article you were quoting. The October 1, 2011 Watchtower. The article on when Jerusalem was destroyed (pp. 26-31). That's the same article I was referring to. Seems like the most appropriate article.

Oh! Okay, I thought you had some new light into the matter. I see you’re still stuck on the Raymond Franz, And Carl Olof Jonsson FALLACY. The way historians see the biblical time line for some has been corrected to show a new ridiculous time table. A table that reflects an 83 year expansion. Nowhere close to the 70 year desolation of Judea. I’ll say it again, in order to understand chronology, it needs discernment and wisdom NOT knowledge. A fallacy that has been with you for a long time.

 

Point one: Encyclopedia Judaica 2007 (p.517)

ZERUBBABEL (Heb. ;זְרֻ בָּ בֶ לAkk. Zēr Bābili, “scion of Babylon”). Usually recorded as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23), he is mentioned once in a genealogical list as the first son of Pedaiah and the nephew of Shealtiel, the son of exiled King Jehoiachin (I Chron. 3:17–19). This may be the result of a lacuna in the text. Like some of the other Jewish leaders of the period – Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8), Mordecai, and Bilshan (Ezra 2:2 = Neh. 7:7) – he bore a Babylonian name, perhaps because of his contact with the Babylonian court (cf. I Esd. 3–5; Dan. 1:3ff.). He worked in close collaboration with Joshua (Jeshua) son of Jehozadak
the high priest as leader of the original caravan of repatriates (Ezra 2:2 = Neh. 7:7; Neh. 12:1) and as builder of the Temple, which frequently bears his name (see *Temple). Just as there is confusion about his genealogy, so is there uncertainty about the chronology of events and personalities involved in the reconstruction of the Temple. When in 520 B.C.E., Tattenai, governor of the Trans-Euphrates, inquired concerning who was responsible for building the Temple, the Jews responded that Cyrus had appointed Sheshbazzar as governor to carry out the task (Ezra 5:14–16).

Bible Corrected Ptolemaic Event Foreign Kings Prophets, Date BC Date (BC)

3501    541           624        Nabopolasser of Babylon         Jeremiah / Daniel
3517    525           608        Jehoahaz of Judah                   Jeremiah / Daniel
3518    524           607        Jehoiakim of Judah                  Jeremiah / Daniel

3584    458         541         Belshazzar of Babylon                                 / Daniel

3587    455         538         Darius the Mede                       / Daniel / Haggai / Zechariah

3589    453         536         Zerubbabel governor of Judah Cyrus of Persia / Daniel / Haggai / Zechariah

 

My main focus is between Sennacherib 705-681 BCE to Cyrus the Great.

 

Even though earlier historians do align 606BCE or 605BCE as the first conquest of Judea? They

Have a problem with 3 ½ times. 66 years or 66 ½ years.

 

You have a long way to learn, since you think the WTS was or is the only one thinking of that time table. Instead about arguing on 607BCE and how apostasy proves it wrong according to you? Focus in understanding past and present historical data, and the myriad of information that contradicts everything under the sun, yet you are beholding to an outdated; how did you phrase it, obfuscate ideology.

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The only hypocritical thing I keep reading is your assertion of somehow being more enlightened than God’s Loyal Helpers. At what point did you receive a revelation to suggest to the entire JW community your negative ideology driven by apostasy is the one to be reckoned with. At this point, you should be disfellowshipped for that arrogant stance. Just like Carl Olof Jonsson. If anyone is going to correct the Slave Class, it will be God, as was evident with the resignation of Raymond Franz (Disfellowshipped). By the way, you keep insisting COJ’s journal was placed in a shelf to collect dust. I’m sure you have COJ’s letters to the WTS and the WTS responses. So let’s not misrepresent that to.

I will be creating a new 607 topic. You are welcome to join in the discussion, as is anyone else, of course. However, as I said, I will be deleting all points that make use of the ad hominem tactic. We can practice over here, and I'll get to some of your very interesting points. But first I'd like you to notice the yellow areas highlighted above. I won't explain how each of those highlighted phrases contains at least one element of "attacking the person." With nearly a dozen bits of innuendo and false assumptions and false characterizations in a single opening paragraph, I'm thinking you'll have some trouble with the idea of merely presenting evidence so that we can compare it with the Bible and evaluate it against accepted evidence. 

 

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Start researching new chronology if it means that much to you. True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men.

1.       Raymond Franz-Crisis of Conscience. Ray spent all his time in this book to harp about his mistreatment without expanding how his worldly view was hurting him, not the WTS, not to accept the repeated attempts to bring him back to bible understanding.

I'm quite willing to look into researching this "new chronology." I like the phrase you used "True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men." That idea is related to the entire reason for bringing up the discussion. What should we do if we find out that we are accepting a chronology driven by men, not by the Bible? To me, that's the most important thing. Obviously, I would have no interest in Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronology if it weren't part of our doctrinal system.

I read Raymond Franz' book "Crisis of Conscience' but I never, ever noticed him harping about his mistreatment. I don't even know what worldly view you are talking about. From what I can tell there were never any repeated attempts to bring him back from his Bible understanding, but only attempts to get him to admit out loud that he didn't believe in one or more of the unique Watchtower teachings. Once they could get him to say one of those things out loud, they could have him disfellowshipped. He apparently kept his ideas to himself, except for private discussions with two or three close friends who wanted to discuss some alternate ideas with him (primarily a Circuit Overseer, Rene Vasquez and the Gilead Registrar, Ed Dunlap). It was because they didn't have any real evidence of exactly what he had discussed that they finally had to disfellowship him for having lunch with his employer, a friend who would give him employment who was also disfellowshipped. I understand that all the repeated attempts were to make sure they could find a reason to push him out, never any attempts to bring him back. If you found a reference for something different, I'd be interested.

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Carl Olof Jonsson-The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Carl spent all the time making the argument that 587BCE was the true date. 587BCE is driven by a Jewish Hope to support and legitimize their Nation. Obviously, you don’t understand the millennium conflicts between the Jews and Arabs, and the things they have destroyed to avoid any conflicts between each legitimate hold on the disputed land. Hardliners like ISIL, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. have destroyed or are destroying such evidence that sways the argument their way. Israel does the same thing, they’re not innocent in this matter.

I'm sure COJ spent a lot of time making that argument, but not all his time. I read the book and learned a lot about chronology, that helped a lot. It helped me understand the Watchtower's references a lot better. I didn't know enough about Berossus, or Ptolemy, the Hebrew calendar, or even how these astronomical tablets worked. I even used to think that Jerusalem must have fallen in October since 2,520 ended in October 1914. Somehow I hadn't even noticed that this idea wasn't Biblical until reading another perspective. His book was very deep reading for me, and I had to do a lot of research on my own. I spent the equivalent of weeks in the New York Public Library at Bryant Park requesting reference only materials regarding the Babylonian tablets, chronicles, their astronomy, etc.

What you are saying about the 587 being driven by a Jewish Hope to legitimize their nation reminds me of what I have read several times. But what this was about was critical of the Bible's account, saying that the Bible accounts were "falsified" or at least greatly exaggerated to set up the idea that whoever remained on the land after the final deportations was illegitimate and from a Biblical perspective "were not even there" because of the totality of the desolation and deportation. It's an old theory, but I think you should be careful with it because if true you saying the Watchtower is wrong to accept the idea of total desolation. Fortunately, we already have enough repetition in the Bible about what happened so that we know the intent of Biblical view, but we can also realize that we don't need to denigrate and criticize the Bible to understand what happened. The Biblical view does not require a total 70 years of absolute desolation anyway. The exiles occurred over a period of nearly 70 years, and Daniel speaks of desolations (plural) which clearly refer to the several different events. Daniel was in a very early deportation. Ezekiel speaks of the exile as happening 10 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Even after Jerusalem was destroyed, we still have another gathering (and chasing) of the few remaining ones. So the Bible itself shows that there were multiple, ongoing desolations of the land. We don't need to resort to the anti-Biblical theory that distorts the Bible's account. Samaritans and others (likely poorer "itinerate" Jews, and a few struggling Northern Israelites filled the vacuum, as it were). But, yes, I understand that even during the so-called "total desolation" there is supposedly evidence that some Jewish settlements remained undisturbed and inhabited continuously throughout the entire 70 years of desolation. This may or may not be true. I don't know how they would even prove such a thing. But if they can, it doesn't negate the grave punishment that Jerusalem and Judea suffered. I'll look up later if this is the idea you refer to, because that's the one where I have even heard rumors of dismissal (destruction?) or minimizing of such evidence, based on the claim that rich people returning from exile wanted their land back from poorer Jews and others who were claiming "squatter's" rights for continuing to work the land all those years.

I'll just make some of those yellow marks again

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I see you’re still stuck on the Raymond Franz, And Carl Olof Jonsson FALLACY. The way historians see the biblical time line for some has been corrected to show a new ridiculous time table. A table that reflects an 83 year expansion. Nowhere close to the 70 year desolation of Judea. I’ll say it again, in order to understand chronology, it needs discernment and wisdom NOT knowledge. A fallacy that has been with you for a long time.

I have already pointed out the logical fallacy you used that matched what the Awake! said about logical fallacies. So, based on those circumstances, you'll have to tell me if you intended these highlighted ideas as more "ad hominem" or just simple "blame-shifting" or something else, perhaps. Who uses this "new ridiculous time table"? I can see it's not the Watchtower, or you, or COJ, or R.Franz. I know who uses it, and they are not scholars. There is no evidence for it being correct, although they claim the Bible is the authority for this "ridiculous" chronology (your word).

The whole table you reference is also found here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/reference/biblechronology.pdf

Still, you show a lot of interest in this "new chronology" where the "corrected" date includes the 83 year expansion. This would place the "pivotal" date that the Watchtower has called an "absolute date" of 539 BCE all the up 83 years later in 456 BCE. The 2520 years from events this chart ties to 607 would end in 1996, and 2520 years from its date for the destruction of Jerusalem would end up being within a year of 2007.

I can guess the real reason you point it out:

I don't think you are promoting this new chronology as much as just trying to use it to show that there are variations being examined that go outside the bounds of "Ptolemaic" chronology -- which is the one that the WTS relies on for 539 BCE. If this variation is even remotely possible within the realms of the evidence at hand then Furuli's theories are not so far-fetched. (That idea would probably be argued thus: Because Furuli's theory and this "new corrected" chronology will both require that we accept that something is completely wrong with the evidence we have relied upon for the Neo-Babylonian period. Both Furuli and promoters of this 83-year expanded theory, they BOTH require that we consider the possibility that some of our famous cuneiform documents are forged, or badly misunderstood, or mislabeled, misidentified, etc.)

I already know of one proponent of this "new chronology" and I know why they follow this chronology and I already know what "fallacy" they have fallen for in order to promote it.

Here's how it goes. Daniel 9:25 seems to be pretty clear that the Messiah will arrive in 70 weeks of 7 years each, or 490 years, and this 70 years starts at the time the "command to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem" occurs. If that command is considered to be the command by Cyrus one year after Babylon is destroyed, then it's about 538 BCE. Therefore Jesus arrived in 48 BCE. Only he didn't. So now what they need is an excuse to say that Cyrus REALLY destroyed Babylon around 455 BCE. Now, voila! Jesus first presence as Christ starts around 29 C.E, he dies around 33 C.E. and the final week ends around 36 C.E. 

Much simpler than trying to figure out what happened in the REAL 455 BCE. You'll notice that this is exactly what happened when Nelson Barbour and then the Bible Students figured out that 2,520 years from Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BCE didn't land on 1914. 1914 was already determined to be correct, so all they had to do was theorize a new, unsubstantiated date for the destruction of Jerusalem: 606, then 607.

Their fallacy is the idea that only one method of determining the year 539 or 587 existed. This is one of the big flaws in Furuli's books, too. He focuses on Ptolemy when it turns out that we could now throw away everything Ptolemy collected about chronology and we could still discover that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 and therefore that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 (not 607).

By the way, you will probably also notice that the date you highlighted in Zechariah was 520 BCE from the Enc.Judaica. Curious, isn't it? That Zechariah speaks of memorial dates for Jerusalem's destruction that are just then going on 70 years? 520 is 67 years from 587 BCE. It's 87 years from 607. Which date is closer to the 70 years that Zechariah speaks about? If the evidence for 520 is viable, and the Watchtower agrees that it is, then which date is more Biblical according to this evidence? It's not 607, it would be 587. 587 would not produce a Biblical contradiction, yet 607 creates a Biblical contradiction.

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Even though earlier historians do align 606BCE or 605BCE as the first conquest of Judea? They

Have a problem with 3 ½ times. 66 years or 66 ½ years.

You have a long way to learn, since you think the WTS was or is the only one thinking of that time table. Instead about arguing on 607BCE and how apostasy proves it wrong according to you? Focus in understanding past and present historical data, and the myriad of information that contradicts everything under the sun, yet you are beholding to an outdated; how did you phrase it, obfuscate ideology.

When you say that earlier historians align 605 BCE as the first conquest of Judea, this is NOT about the destruction of Jerusalem but the first incursions of the Babylonians when they began taking exiles such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This was very early in the process of Babylon bringing desolations upon Judea. Ezekiel was part of a group that was taken about a decade later, and about a decade after that, Nebuchadnezzar sieged the city, removed the last Messianic King from the throne and burned Jerusalem. More desolations and capturing of prisoners followed. So you are speaking of the first years of Nebuchadnezzar around 605, which would make the destruction of Jerusalem 18 years later, in 587 BCE. You are referring to what you called the chronology of Carl Jonsson and Ray Franz. (It's really not theirs at all, but the same chronology of every serious historian who studies Neo-Babylonian evidence.) By not giving your source you have obfuscated the point.

In fact, your chart with the triangle (based on Charlie H Campbell's work) is also the exact same chronology that the WTS rejects. (His website rejects the Watchtower, too, of course.) For Watchtower chronology, that 605 would be about 625, Jeremiah would minister beginning around 647 BCE. Ezekiel would begin closer to 613.

http://alwaysbeready.com/prophecy-eschatology

And your clip from Cameron correctly confirms 539 BCE. However, if we accept the evidence confirming 539 BCE, then we have just accepted evidence that also confirms 587 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, not 607 BCE. His mention of 2,510 years is another way of saying he wrote that part of the book in about 1972, even though published in 1974, right? (2510-539=1972?)

[Guest Allen Smith]

Well the good thing, people finally know that you SUPPORT 587BCE, inconsistent with the WTS. You claim to respect the GB, when your OWN words say the contrary.

 

 

 

Once again, you have settled in a one dimension way of viewing chronology. People like me, look at ALL the evidence including the new evidence submitted a day or so ago. The examples I submitted was just to show the depth of how inconsistent and WRONG you are, and how you support apostasy.

 

 

 

Ironically, you shoulder contempt for the WTS and GB for making claims to the probabilities, when you do the same by accepting the Carl Olof Jonsson chronology that supports the Jewish Nation.

 

 

 

So no further discussion needed. I wouldn’t venture into your forum unless you have been disfellowshipped by the Organization, if you haven’t been already. At least at that time, your true colors would be honest. Everything else, well…I know how DELETING not just personal attacks to sway your argument goes. I’ve said it before, just because you’re charismatic in writing? Doesn’t make a person intelligent. That’s why I don’t pretend.

 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Well the good thing, people finally know that you SUPPORT 587BCE, inconsistent with the WTS. You claim to respect the GB, when your OWN words say the contrary.

Once again, you have settled in a one dimension way of viewing chronology. People like me, look at ALL the evidence including the new evidence submitted a day or so ago. The examples I submitted was just to show the depth of how inconsistent and WRONG you are, and how you support apostasy.

Ironically, you shoulder contempt for the WTS and GB for making claims to the probabilities, when you do the same by accepting the Carl Olof Jonsson chronology that supports the Jewish Nation.

So no further discussion needed. I wouldn’t venture into your forum unless you have been disfellowshipped by the Organization, if you haven’t been already. At least at that time, your true colors would be honest. Everything else, well…I know how DELETING not just personal attacks to sway your argument goes. I’ve said it before, just because you’re charismatic in writing? Doesn’t make a person intelligent. That’s why I don’t pretend.

Just to be clear, I support the fact that all the evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE, and because this is inconsistent with what I have been asked to teach as Witness, then I am under obligation to "make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine." If you think we are supposed to shirk our responsibilities just because something is inconsistent with the WTS then that is up to your own conscience. For me, I believe that if we truly respect the GB, then I believe we should follow the counsel given by the GB:

(1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

*** w00 6/1 p. 16 par. 11 ‘Save Yourself and Those Who Listen to You’ ***
11 How can you convey Jesus’ message more effectively? To begin with, familiarize yourself with what the Bible says about the topic under consideration. You have to understand a subject yourself before you can teach it to others.

*** w99 3/15 pp. 11-12 pars. 5-11 Pay Constant Attention to Your Teaching ***
5 True Christianity thus stands in stark contrast with false religions, many of which seek to control the thinking of their members. . . .
6 True worship, however, is “sacred service” that we offer with our “power of reason.” (Romans 12:1) Jehovah’s servants are “persuaded to believe.” (2 Timothy 3:14) . . . “to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Hebrews 5:14) . . .
8 Nevertheless, it takes concerted personal effort to become “a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Paul urged Timothy: “Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .
11 Are you an avid reader of God’s Word? Digging into it is the means by which “you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God.” (Proverbs 2:4, 5) So develop good study habits. . . .  Learn to do careful research. By learning to ‘trace all things with accuracy,’ you can avoid exaggerations and inaccuracies when you teach.—Luke 1:3.

Recall, however, that my conscience is my own. I am not asking you to follow my conscience. My conscience was trained to speak up when we see a problem. I must live with a clean conscience. This does not have anything to do with yours. But another part of my obligation is to always defend the Bible and the good news.

(Matthew 12:37)  "For by your own words you will be justified, and by your own words you will be condemned."

You said: "Once again, you have settled in a one dimension way of viewing chronology. People like me, look at ALL the evidence including the new evidence submitted a day or so ago. The examples I submitted was just to show the depth of how inconsistent and WRONG you are, and how you support apostasy." Ironically, if you accepted those examples you just submitted, it would make you an brother. Even worse, some examples you included developed due to lack of faith in the Bible. The ones I am concerned with are questions for me because they are more aligned with the Bible, and show a greater respect for the truth and accuracy of the Bible.

 

[Guest Allen Smith]

So far, the WTS and GB hasn’t given me cause to suggest indignation. The old biblical chronology range from 610BCE to 573BCE. The new biblical chronology ranges from 521BCE to 441BCE. At what point does 587BCE supersede all these variables? Who gave you divine intervention aside from secular history? At what point did it become necessary for you NOT to accept God’s counsel. WHO IS DESIGNATED TO CORRECT YOU!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scribes Pharisees Sadducees and the Sanhedrin]

 

Matthew 23:1-3

 

23 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: ² “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. ³ Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

 

M⁷ For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies.

⁸ “But you yourselves have turned aside from the way. You have made many stumble with regard to the law. You have ruined the covenant of Leʹvi,” says Jehovah of armies. ⁹ “So I will make you despised and low before all the people, because you did not keep my ways but showed partiality in applying the law

 

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses do well to read your BLASPHEMY. They do well to LEARN from this argument NOT to fall into the same trap of thinking their knowledge is greater than Gods. If God chose a few selected men to dispense our spiritual food? Then, the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it, as correct and holy. Scripture does not define ignorance by saying if one’s personal view predicated by secular understanding, NOT GOD’S or SCRIPTURE, we are to defy the Elders, Biblical Law, Scripture, and God. If that’s your understanding, buddy there’s something wrong with you. If you are some type of Elder, I pity the Kingdom Hall you are erroneously misleading. Furthermore. As I stated, who are you to place yourself above Gods Law. Once again, let’s not misrepresent scripture to support our own argument. God’s provides the means for correction, just like R. Franz, Chitty, Greenlees, Jonsson, Paton, Anderson, and the many hypocrites of the faith.

 

Proverbs 18:1-10

 18 whoever isolates himself pursues his own selfish desires;

He rejects all practical wisdom.

 ² A stupid person takes no pleasure in understanding;

He would rather disclose what is in his heart.

 ³ When a wicked person comes, contempt also comes,

And along with dishonor there is disgrace.

 ⁴ The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters.

The fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.

 ⁵ It is not good to show partiality to the wicked one

Or to deprive the righteous one of justice.

 ⁶ The speech of the stupid one leads to quarrels,

And his mouth invites a beating.

 ⁷ The mouth of the stupid is his ruin,

And his lips are a snare for his life.

 ⁸ The words of a slanderer are like tasty morsels;

They are gulped right down into the stomach.

 ⁹ Whoever is lazy in his work

Is a brother to the one who causes ruin.

¹⁰ The name of Jehovah is a strong tower.

Into it the righteous one runs and receives protection

 

 

Romans 16:17-20

 

¹⁷ Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. ¹⁸ For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones. ¹⁹ Your obedience has come to the notice of all, and so I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise as to what is good, but innocent as to what is evil. ²⁰ For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. May the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus be with you.

 

 

Watchtower 12/1/1999 (p. 27)

 

Use Mental Abilities Wisely

A good mind is certainly a fine asset. Still, it could become a weakness if it leads to overconfidence or causes us to develop an inflated opinion of ourselves, especially if others commend us excessively or flatter us. Or we might develop an intellectual view of God’s Word and Bible-based study publications.

Overconfidence may surface in various ways. For example, when someone with a fine mind receives a speaking assignment in the Christian congregation, perhaps a public discourse or a talk in the Theocratic Ministry School, he may leave preparation to the last minute, maybe not even praying for Jehovah’s blessing. Rather, he trusts in his reserve of knowledge and in his ability to think on his feet. Natural ability may mask his laxness for a time, but without Jehovah’s full blessing, his spiritual progress would slow down, perhaps even stop. What a waste of a fine gift!—Proverbs 3:5, 6; James 3:1.

Someone of keen mind might also take an intellectual view of the Bible and Bible study aids. However, such knowledge only “puffs up,” or inflates the ego like a balloon; it does not ‘build up’ loving Christian relationships. (1 Corinthians 8:1; Galatians 5:26) On the other hand, the spiritual man, regardless of his mental abilities, always prays for and trusts in God’s spirit. His strength becomes ever more an asset as he grows in love, humility, knowledge, and wisdom—and all in pleasing proportion.—Colossians 1:9, 10.

 

Watchtower 3/1/2001 (p.19 par.18)

 

Keep On Minding the Spirit

¹⁷ A noteworthy way for us to keep on minding the spirit is to set spiritual goals and work to attain them. Depending on our needs and circumstances, our goals may include improving our study habits, increasing our share in the preaching work, or reaching out for a specific privilege of service, such as the full-time pioneer ministry, Bethel service, or missionary work. This will keep our mind occupied with spiritual interests and will help us to resist succumbing to our human weaknesses or being driven by the materialistic goals and unscriptural desires common to this system of things. This certainly is the wise course, for Jesus urged: “Stop storing up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal. Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”—Matthew 6:19-21.

¹⁸ Minding the spirit and suppressing worldly desires certainly is the course of wisdom in these “last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5) After all, “the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:15-17) If a young Christian pursues the goal of full-time service, for example, this may serve as a guiding light during the challenging years of adolescence or young adulthood. When pressured to compromise, such an individual will have a clear vision of what he or she wants to accomplish in Jehovah’s service. Such a spiritual person will deem it unwise, even foolish, to forfeit the achieving of spiritual goals for the sake of material pursuits or any pleasure that sin promises to give. Remember that spiritually inclined Moses ‘chose to be ill-treated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin.’ (Hebrews 11:24, 25) Whether young or old, we make a similar choice when we keep on minding the spirit instead of the fallen flesh.

 

Watchtower 4/15/2012 (pp.29-30)

 

SAFEGUARDED BY COUNSEL

¹¹ In the vision recorded in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, the glorified Jesus Christ inspects the seven congregations of Asia Minor. The vision reveals that Christ sees not just general trends but specific situations. In some instances, he even mentions individuals, and in each case, he gives appropriate commendation or counsel. What does this indicate? In the fulfillment of the vision, the seven congregations represent anointed Christians after 1914, and the counsel given to the seven congregations applies in principle to all the congregations of God’s people today earth wide. Thus, it is safe to conclude that Jehovah by means of his Son is actively leading his people. How can we benefit from that guidance?

¹² One way we can benefit from Jehovah’s loving direction is through personal study. By means of the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, Jehovah provides a wealth of Scriptural counsel. (Matt. 24:45) To benefit from it, however, we must take the time to study it and apply what we learn. Personal study is one means by which Jehovah can “guard [us] from stumbling.” (Jude 24) Have you ever studied something in our literature that seems to have been written just for you? Accept the correction as coming from Jehovah. Just as a friend might tap you on the shoulder to bring something to your attention, Jehovah can use his spirit to draw your attention to an aspect of your conduct or personality that you—and no doubt many others like you—need to improve. By being sensitive to the leadings of the spirit, we allow Jehovah to guide our steps. (Read Psalm 139:23, 24.) In this regard, we do well to examine our study habits.

¹³ Excessive time spent on entertainment can rob us of time needed for personal study. One brother observes: “It is so easy to let personal study slip. Entertainment is more available now than ever before, and it is less expensive than ever before. It is available on TV, on the computer, and on the phone. We are surrounded by it.” Unless we are careful, time needed for in-depth personal study can gradually diminish until it all but disappears. (Eph. 5:15-17) Each of us does well to ask: ‘How often do I take time to dig deeper in my study of God’s Word? Is it only when I have a talk or a meeting part to prepare?’ If so, perhaps we could make better use of the evening set aside for family worship or personal study to treasure up the spiritual wisdom that Jehovah provides to safeguard us for salvation.—Prov. 2:1-5.

 

Watchtower 10/15/2013 (pp.24-25)

 

 

 

THE NEED FOR DISCIPLINE

¹⁴ The Levites’ prayer refers to two specific sins committed by Israel soon after they had promised to keep God’s Law at Mount Sinai. For these, they rightly deserved to be left alone to die. But the prayer praises Jehovah: “In your abundant mercy [you] did not leave them in the wilderness. . . . For forty years you provided them with food . . . They lacked nothing. Their very garments did not wear out, and their feet themselves did not become swollen.” (Neh. 9:19, 21) Today, Jehovah also provides us with everything we need to serve him faithfully. May we never be like the thousands of Israelites who died in the wilderness because of their disobedience and lack of faith. In fact, those things “were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.”—1 Cor. 10:1-11.

 

 

Insight Vol 1 (p.788)

 

Christian Congregation. Based on the principles of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian Greek Scriptures by command and precedent authorize expulsion, or disfellowshipping, from the Christian congregation. By exercising this God-given authority, the congregation keeps itself clean and in good standing before God. The apostle Paul, with the authority vested in him, ordered the expulsion of an incestuous fornicator who had taken his father’s wife. (1Co 5:5, 11, 13) He also exercised disfellowshipping authority against Hymenaeus and Alexander. (1Ti 1:19, 20) Diotrephes, however, was apparently trying to exercise disfellowshipping action wrongly.—3Jo 9, 10.

Some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation are fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation. (1Co 5:9-13; 6:9, 10; Tit 3:10, 11; Re 21:8) Mercifully, one promoting a sect is warned a first and a second time before such disfellowshipping action is taken against him. In the Christian congregation, the principle enunciated in the Law applies, namely, that two or three witnesses must establish evidence against the accused one. (1Ti 5:19) Those who have been convicted of a practice of sin are reproved Scripturally before the “onlookers,” for example, those who testified concerning the sinful conduct, so that they too may all have a healthy fear of such sin.—1Ti 5:20; see REPROOF.

 

 

Watchtower 7/15/2013 (p.14 par.19)

 

HOW WE BENEFIT

¹⁸ How do we personally benefit from the panoramic view that this parable provides? Consider three ways. First, it deepens our insight. The parable reveals an important reason why Jehovah permits wickedness. He “tolerated . . . vessels of wrath” to prepare the “vessels of mercy”—the wheat class. (Rom. 9:22-24) Second, it strengthens our confidence. As the end draws near, our enemies will intensify their fight against us, “but they will not prevail.” (Read Jeremiah 1:19.) Just as Jehovah through the ages protected the wheat class, so our heavenly Father by means of Jesus and the angels will be with us “all the days” to come.—Matt. 28:20.

¹⁹ Third, the parable enables us to identify the wheat class. Why is that of vital importance? Knowing who the wheatlike Christians are is essential to finding the answer to a question raised by Jesus in his extensive prophecy about the last days. He asked: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) The following two articles will provide a satisfying answer to that question.

 

GOOD NEWS (chap.20 p.176 par.6)

 

⁶ This does not mean your having to follow a lot of rules or “don’ts.” It means your living a normal, wholesome life, giving of yourself on behalf of others and showing respect for the counsel provided by “the faithful and discreet slave” class of anointed Christians whom the “master,” Jesus, has appointed to provide spiritual “food at the proper time.” (Matthew 24:45) In the first century, this “slave” class did not lay down a lot of rules to control the lives of non-Jewish Christians. But they did mention a number of things to avoid, which include the following:

 

(Proverbs 16:20) The one who shows insight in a matter will find success, And happy is the one trusting in Jehovah.

 

Technically, possibility of any event is always 1 or 0 i.e. 'yes' or 'no'. If an event is possible, how likely will its occurrence be, under a given situation is probability.

 

Sample Reference:

 

Insight Vol 1 (p.99)

 

The evidence concerning the Amurru, however, does not appear to warrant the strong conclusions that are advanced as to their positive identification with the Biblical Amorites. Amurru in the ancient cuneiform texts basically meant “west” as referring to the region W of Mesopotamia. A. H. Sayce, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, says that the name Amurru is “a purely geographical indication of their immediate origins, from the perspective of Mesopotamia, and conveys no information about their ethnic composition or their real name.” (Edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 113) While Mari, an ancient city on the Euphrates in northern Mesopotamia, is referred to by modern secular historians as a center of the expansion of the Amurru into Mesopotamia, the thousands of tablets recovered there were almost all in the Semitic Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) language, with some names of West Semitic origin. As noted, however, the Biblical Amorites were Hamitic, not Semitic, and while the adoption of a Semitic tongue by some branch of them is not an impossibility, it is equally possible that the early Amurru were simply “westerners” from among the Semitic peoples living to the W of Babylonia. Professor John Bright in A History of Israel (1981, p. 49) says: “For some centuries [of the late third millennium and early second millennium B.C.E.] the people of northwestern Mesopotamia and northern Syria had been referred to in cuneiform texts as Amurru, i.e., ‘Westerners.’ This became, apparently, a general term applying to speakers of various Northwest-Semitic dialects found in the area including, in all probability, those strains from which later sprang both Hebrews and Arameans.”