SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Nevertheless, a broad range of opinion is presented so these respective chronologies cannot be considered to be 'definitive' in order to preserve the claim of an Absolute NB Chronology.

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.

Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The very fact that no definitive date of either 586 or 587 BCE for the fall is deeply troubling and remains a much vexed issue.

If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Well a couple of years is a 'margin of error' and does not fit well with claims that NB Chronology is 'absolute'.

Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The twenty year difference or gap between WT Chronology and secular chronologies is because of an interpretation of the 70 years which has no 'margin of error' being part of that strong cable of WT Chronology.

Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs?

Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says:

*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.

And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years.

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

These last 8 different scholars highlights the problem of interpretation of the 70 years and that was really goes to the heart of Niles' thesis about the necessity of recognizing those three concepts.

There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.

 

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

False, the following paragraph:"Jewish literature handled the prophet Jeremiah's prediction that the exile to Babylon would last for seventy years is evidence for the belief that the exile had ended with the return from Babylon". (p.108).

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112):

Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”¹³

Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111):

Jeremiah 25 places the original prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, just prior to the exile in 605. If false prophets in Judea had dismissed Jeremiah’s warning of punishment prior to the exile, false prophets in Babylon following the exile scorned the idea that it would last anything like seventy years. As a result, Jeremiah reaffirms the original prediction of seventy years of service in the form of a letter preserved in chapter 29: only when the seventy years were complete would the exile come to an end. . . . Those who have stayed behind in Judah will not be exempt from punishment. Although they have not been sent into exile for seventy years (29:16), they will nevertheless suffer a full measure of covenantal curses: “I am going to let loose on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten”

This matches his comments about Daniel's use of the 70 years (p.114):

In 9:2, Daniel understands from his reading of Jeremiah’s scroll that the exile was to last seventy years. This prompts Daniel’s prayer of repentance. The prayer is set in the first year of Darius, that is, at the passing of imperial power from the Babylonians to the MedoPersians. In the narrative, the collapse of Babylonian hegemony is the sign that points to the impending fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years.

It's curious that he seems to believe that Daniel is reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 x 7=490, but significantly counts it as 49x10=490, possibly referring to the fact that the first answer to exile with reference to Jerusalem itself was only 49 years (until the first 49-year Jubilee via Cyrus), but that there would a full 10 Jubilees before the final week of years and full restoration. Bryan won't go along completely with this interpretation but refers to it as significant.  If that count is from 587 to 538, this is exactly 49 years.

Further, the significance of the first forty-nine years in the 490-year scheme goes beyond the fact that it is the first of ten jubilees. The author seems also to see the completion of the first jubilee as corresponding to the end of the first of seven seventy-year periods.²⁰ This is indicated by the fact that the seventy years begins with the desolation of Jerusalem according to the word of the Lord (9:2) but that the first jubilee begins with the word of the Lord concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (9:25).²¹(p.115)

[footnote] ²¹The referent of the “word” concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 is disputed but is best understood as a designation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem in Jer 30–31, which follows the prophecy in chapter 29 of the city’s desolation. So, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC (Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 243. Lucas dates the oracles of desolation to 605 BCE (Jer 25:12) and 597 BCE (Jer 29:10), preceding the oracles of restoration, which date to 587 (Jer 30:18–22, 31:38–40). Bergsma defends the view that the “word” refers to the edict of Cyrus that permitted the return of the exiles (“Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 58–60).

So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You really are a clown. i never stated that Exilic scholars support WT Chronology

Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish.

But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. Here's why:

I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.:

Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?

I asked for any one scholar. You answered very clearly that you will give me two:

On 12/31/2020 at 8:39 PM, scholar JW said:

I will give you two scholars: Steven M Bryan and Rainer Albertz who nicely address the Exile as the period from the Fall to the Return. 

And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?

 

 

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretendus Maximus said:

Quote

On 12/31/2020 at 8:44 PM, AlanF said:
ndeed: FIRST the 70 years ends, THEN Babylon falls. In practice, the two were virtually simultaneous. Read Daniel 5.

Quote

You have it arse about as usual. Babylon Falls-seventy years are fulfilled then Babylon is 'called to account' with its eventual desolation.

Quote

  On 12/31/2020 at 8:44 PM, AlanF said:
Desolation was its ultimate fate, irrespective of whether the 70 years ended in 539 or 538 or 537, you idiot

Quote

Desolation is the 'calling to account' after the 70 years had been fulfilled.

Which is exactly my point, you idiot.

Let's see if you can manage a simple test.

Suppose a Bethelite tells you: "When my 4 years at Warwick are completed, I will return home."

Question: Which event occurs first? The completion of his 4 years at Warwick? Or his return home?

My prediction: You will either ignore this altogether, or disgorge a mass of gibberish that only braindead JW apologists could agree with.

[AlanF]

JW Insider said to ScholarJW Pretendus Bullshittus Maximus:

Quote

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. . . you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. . . Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. . . you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. . . it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation? . . . you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. . . When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish. . . But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. . . And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?

Now you see why, for nearly twenty years, those of us JW critics who have dealt with this charlatan have referred to him as a charlatan, a pathological liar, a fake scholar, and so on. After dealing with his lies and manipulations for some time, our patience has ended and we simply call a spade a spade.

It's easy to see how easily the, um, less astute JW apologists on this forum are manipulated. They're uniformly uninterested in facts and truth, but only in defending Mommy Watchtower. Since this charlatan gives them what they want, and they're too stupid and dishonest to investigate or understand the arguments presented, they simple-mindedly high five his lies. Nothing new here. We've seen this on many forums these past twenty years.

ScholarJW Pretendus is only following the example set by Mommy Watchtower these past 140 years. Its literature is rife with lies and manipulation and fallacious reasoning of all sorts. Like Mommy, like son, no?

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Let's see if you can manage a simple test.

Suppose a Bethelite tells you: "When my 4 years at Warwick are completed, I will return home."

Question: Which event occurs first? The completion of his 4 years at Warwick? Or his return home?

My prediction: You will either ignore this altogether, or disgorge a mass of gibberish that only braindead JW apologists could agree with

My answer would be: The completion of his 4 years at Warwick.

Did the said scholar pass?

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now you see why, for nearly twenty years, those of us JW critics who have dealt with this charlatan have referred to him as a charlatan, a pathological liar, a fake scholar, and so on.

Seeing it all together like that, I feel shamed for responding so directly to his nonsense. But it was the same nonsense that was already answered several times. He simply can't be trusted on this topic.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112):

Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”¹³

I meant 'false'. Bryan consistently throughout his article views the Exile has having ended with the Return of the Jews under Cyrus.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111)

Caution needs to be exercised her for Bryan's focus in his article is not the beginning of the 70 years but its ending which is not considered in his article , the Fall of Babylon but the Return under Cyrus.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10.

That may well be the case for Bryan does not provide definitive chronology for the 70 years but simply refers to various authorities but the major view is that there was 70 year Exile proper and that it ended with the return under Cyrus and not the Fall of Babylon.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish.

Well I am dealing with clowns.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.:

Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?

Your question is nonsensical. I have simply informed you of the simple fact that Exilic scholars  such as the two scholars referred to state two fundamentals:

1. There was only one Jewish Exile

2. That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus.

These two basic historical facts undergird or support that strong cable of WT Chronology.

scholar JW

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.

Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.

There is not one Chronology but several Chronologies for the Israelite period of the OT. There is for the Neo-Babylonian period, one Chronology.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?

No. For it is you like most other scholars regard the NB Chronology as Absolute, making it appear as infallible unable to be challenged by another competitor which of course has been the traditional Bible Chronology. So, if we assess matters by this standard then it is demanded that solid evidence be provided for solid claims and that is why for such a significant event in OT history such as the fall of Jerusalem a precise or definitive date must be known and Christendom's scholars and apostates cannot give a definite solution to this problem.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?

I do not need manipulation because WT Chronology is simple, based on simple dramatic historical events so it is easily understood especially when as a strong cable it is affixed to the fulfillment of Bible prophecies and that is its strength not the reliance on fictional interpretations of the regnal data. 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

True, we live in a world where knowledge of many things is incomplete and yet with the bible we can construct a reliable and authentic scheme of Chronology which is falsifiable but at the moment there remains a 20 year gap or difference and that fact must be fully apprehended.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

here was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.

Well I simply look at the information and note that the 70 years is subject of mush interpretation and controversy.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Seeing it all together like that, I feel shamed for responding so directly to his nonsense. But it was the same nonsense that was already answered several times.  I must have felt pretty frustrated. He simply can't be trusted on this topic.

If scholar posts nonsense then why do you respond?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now you see why, for nearly twenty years, those of us JW critics who have dealt with this charlatan have referred to him as a charlatan, a pathological liar, a fake scholar, and so on. After dealing with his lies and manipulations for some time, our patience has ended and we simply call a spade a spade.

It's easy to see how easily the, um, less astute JW apologists on this forum are manipulated. They're uniformly uninterested in facts and truth, but only in defending Mommy Watchtower. Since this charlatan gives them what they want, and they're too stupid and dishonest to investigate or understand the arguments presented, they simple-mindedly high five his lies. Nothing new here. We've seen this on many forums these past twenty years.

ScholarJW Pretendus is only following the example set by Mommy Watchtower these past 140 years. Its literature is rife with lies and manipulation and fallacious reasoning of all sorts. Like Mommy, like son, no?

Just remember how much the said scholar has taught and instructed you over many matters of Chronology over  these last 20 years and the contributions that the said scholar has made to the scholarship of Chronology and to the simple fact of referring you to the latest information from scholarship on this subject. You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

 

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar.

scholar JW

I know that comment was not to me but to AlanF. I think it reveals your goal. You have pretty well established the fact that you are here to try to provoke chaotic arguments. And as answers are resolved, you will pretend they were not resolved by simply repeating the weaknesses of your argument as if they were strengths. The resulting chaos works. It produces 60 pages of confusion which was obviously the goal all along. It works because it plays on the prejudices of those who were never going to look things up for themselves anyway. I've seen how this same method works in other areas of ideology and propaganda, both online and to a large extent in the media. I've seen revealed documents that show that it is a preferred covert method of government agencies, too. (I.e., when all else fails, create chaos.) 

From chaos, people will pick up from where they started, and will often dig in their heels even a little deeper to the ideas they held before the chaos. And it's not that people never change their views. But, unfortunately, there have even been several studies that show that the "side" with the least facts and least evidence tends to win more adherents after a lengthy argument is observed.

So, we could go on and on. I notice that you often throw out some "bait" which must be intended to keep an argument going. Sometimes you appear to give in and agree when it's too tough to hold your ground. But then a few pages later you'll pretend you hadn't learned a thing, after all. Even when you "walk it back" as you did with your "two exilic scholars" you moved the goalposts and gave two new reasons why you had recommended them. It turns out that it is easy to show that even these new criteria are wrong. You claim they have stated:

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

1. There was only one Jewish Exile

2. That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus.

But even this is wrong. Fortunately, the first 70 or more pages of Rainer Albertz book "Israel in Exile" is available here for free: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_in_Exile/Xx9YzJq2B9wC?hl=en&gbpv=1

I wrote up a summary, but rather than lengthen the conversation here, I'll leave it to you to figure out where you went wrong.

I think that honest-hearted Witnesses will see through these attempts to cloud the issue. Not everyone will, of course. You might even be some kind of hero to the ones who won't look up things for themselves. There are people here who wish to be right at all costs, and to protect their ideology they project their issues onto anyone else with strong evidence they don't want to deal with. But as bad as it sounds, being right at all costs is still a bit better than being wrong at all costs.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know that comment was not to me but to AlanF. I think it reveals your goal. You have pretty well established the fact that you are here to try to provoke chaotic arguments. And as answers are resolved, you will pretend they were not resolved by simply repeating the weaknesses of your argument as if they were strengths. The resulting chaos works. It produces 60 pages of confusion which was obviously the goal all along. It works because it plays on the prejudices of those who were never going to look things up for themselves anyway. I've seen how this same method works in other areas of ideology and propaganda, both online and to a large extent in the media. I've seen revealed documents that show that it is a preferred covert method of government agencies, too. (I.e., when all else fails, create chaos.) 

From chaos, people will pick up from where they started, and will often dig in their heels even a little deeper to the ideas they held before the chaos. And it's not that people never change their views. But, unfortunately, there have even been several studies that show that the "side" with the least facts and least evidence tends to win more adherents after a lengthy argument is observed.

So, we could go on and on. I notice that you often throw out some "bait" which must be intended to keep an argument going. Sometimes you appear to give in and agree when it's too tough to hold your ground. But then a few pages later you'll pretend you hadn't learned a thing, after all. Even when you "walk it back" as you did with your "two exilic scholars" you moved the goalposts and gave two new reasons why you had recommended them. It turns out that it is easy to show that even these new criteria are wrong. You claim they have stated:

That  is your opinion of my postings but you are so wrong but that is a matter for you.

51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But even this is wrong. Fortunately, the first 70 or more pages of Rainer Albertz book "Israel in Exile" is available here for free: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_in_Exile/Xx9YzJq2B9wC?hl=en&gbpv=1

I wrote up a summary, but rather than lengthen the conversation here, I'll leave it to you to figure out where you went wrong.

Rainer Albertz wrote some 460 pages but makes the position perfectly clear that there was only one Exile which he termed as a' catastrophe'. I rest my case.

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that honest-hearted Witnesses will see through these attempts to cloud the issue. Not everyone will, of course. You might even be some kind of hero to the ones who won't look up things for themselves. There are people here who wish to be right at all costs, and to protect their ideology they project their issues onto anyone else with strong evidence they don't want to deal with. But as bad as it sounds, being right at all costs is still a bit better than being wrong at all costs.

Honest-hearted ones can easily see through your deception as you clearly reject our sacred Bible Chronology well presented in WT publications but again this is a matter for you.

scholar JW