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

[JW Insider]

50 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

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.

Your "case" was that there was only one Exile and that "That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus. "

So if you rest your case it's the same as admitting that your case was defeated. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. I don't trust you to admit it, but I'm sure you will at least see it if you read the same book where, as you say, he makes his position perfectly clear.

50 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

your deception as you clearly reject our sacred Bible Chronology

For me, deception means obfuscation and lying. To you, as you admit here, "deception" is your word for rejecting "our sacred Bible Chronology."

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

60 pages of insults and mud slinging.  Not one grain of spirituality.   So much time and effort wasted on pride. 

[AlanF]

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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

Did the said scholar pass?

You passed.

Now consider the order of events. FIRST the 4 years ended; THEN he returned home.

Now see if you can apply the same concepts to Jeremiah 25:12, and tell us the order of events listed there.

[AlanF]

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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.

LOL! Your opinion of yourself is much like Donald Trump's opinion of himself -- a stable genius. Both of you are massive sufferers from the Dunning-Kruger effect -- too stupid to realize just how stupid you are.

And both of you have another detestable quality: overriding dishonesty. 

As for your supposedly teaching me anything -- that's laughable. What has actually happened is that you've set forth any number of falsehoods, which I've looked into and found almost always to be deliberately false. If you call that "instruction", well that's on a par with the way the Nazis "instructed" the Jews in the ways of genocide.

[AlanF]

ScholarJW Pretendus Mendacicus Maximus said:

Quote

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.

Such liar. Albertz never said that there was only one exile. And you, of course, have not quoted him to support your lie.

I do not yet have Albertz's book, but I found a review of it ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614445?seq=1 ) which says, in part (p. 285):

<< [Albertz] places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C. . . [He] deals with different biblical conceptions of the exile. Albertz refers to the irony that, since there is no coherent description of the exile in the Bible, the Bible itself has only a gap to offer for the period he is going to describe. What we do find are a few short descriptions of the beginning and the end of the exilic period, as well as some sporadic information. It remains a major question why the exile is not portrayed in a more comprehensive manner in the Bible. . . Part two . . . treats specifically the history of the exilic period. Again, Albertz calls attention to the difficulty that the exilic period, similar to the pre-monarchic and the late Persian ones, suffers from a complete lack of sources, and must be regarded as a "dark age" in the history of ancient Israel. . . Albertz then provides us with a short review of the history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 B.C.). . . Albertz sets out to discuss the never-ending problem of how many deportations there were, as well as their dates. There were, according to Albertz, three different deportations. They may be dated, respectively, to the years 597 B.C., 587 B.C., and 582 B.C. >>

A deportation, by definition, results in an exile. Therefore Albertz clearly states that there were THREE SEPARATE EXILES. He lumps them together into "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." This in no way supports ScholarJW's claim of only "one Exile", because an "exilic age" is by definition a period during which more than one exile occurs.

Apparently ScholarJW Pretendus is both stupid and dishonest enough to claim that Albertz's reference to an "exilic age" means "one Exile". It does not. As a Wikipedia article on "Babylonian captivity" states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity 😞

<< The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of people from the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon. . . The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively. . . After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. >>

So the Wikipedia article also lumps all of the deportations into one period of exile -- not just "one Exile".

The article displays a chronological chart based on Albertz's book, which lists the above deportation events and also states:

<< [Jehoiakim] began giving tribute to Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BCE. First deportation, purportedly including Daniel. >>

So the Wikipedia article clearly lists FOUR DEPORTATIONS AND FOUR INSTANCES OF EXILE -- just as I, Ann O'Maly, JW Insider and others have clearly documented.

Information similar to the above is found in the Google Books link to Albertz's book given by JW Insider.

Case closed.

[Ann O'Maly]

When the Oct 1, 2011 WT on p. 26-7 quoted Albertz,

'...the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.”' 

it apparently missed that Albertz was comparing the negative and defeatist viewpoint of the 587/6 destruction and resulting exile by the writer(s) of 1 & 2 Kings with the more positive outlook given by Jeremiah. Therefore, Albertz wasn't expressing his own view of the exile as implied by the way WT used his quote, but the books of Kings' pessimistic view of the exile.

From p. 7 of Albertz's book for context leading up to WT's quote:

I thought I'd just point this out 🙂

[scholar JW]

Ann O'Maly

Well done for posting this page from Albertz's book. You will notice that this scholar throughout this book that there was only ONE Exile-the Babylonian Exile, "the end of Israel's history" according to the books of Kings. For this and many other reasons Exilic scholars when writing up the Historiography of the OT divide the History of Israel into three periods: 'preexilic. exilic and post exilic periods (Refer p.1) and Albertz titled his book not as the 'Exiles of Israel' but the singular-'ISRAEL IN EXILE'. I rest my case.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

When the Oct 1, 2011 WT on p. 26-7 quoted Albertz,

'...the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.”' 

it apparently missed that Albertz was comparing the negative and defeatist viewpoint of the 587/6 destruction and resulting exile by the writer(s) of 1 & 2 Kings with the more positive outlook given by Jeremiah. Therefore, Albertz wasn't expressing his own view of the exile as implied by the way WT used his quote, but the books of Kings' pessimistic view of the exile.

. . .

I thought I'd just point this out 🙂

Good catch!

This is typical of Watchtower quoting practices. I've found a number of instances where the WTS author claims that some authority said something that it uses to support a point, but it turns out that the "authority" was describing what a third party said. Often the third party has little or no credibility -- which is why the WTS falsely attributed it to a supposed authority.

This practice can be illustrated as follows: Suppose The Watchtower magazine quoted a biologist as saying "Evolution is a fact." Some other author grabs that quotation out of context and writes: "Look! The Watchtower Society now says evolution is a fact!" Either that author -- like many WTS writers -- is either thoroughly stupid or completely dishonest.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Your "case" was that there was only one Exile and that "That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus. "

So if you rest your case it's the same as admitting that your case was defeated. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. I don't trust you to admit it, but I'm sure you will at least see it if you read the same book where, as you say, he makes his position perfectly clear.

No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For me, deception means obfuscation and lying. To you, as you admit here, "deception" is your word for rejecting "our sacred Bible Chronology."

You are the one being deceived by apostate propaganda!!

scholar JW

[AlanF]

4 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Well done for posting this page from Albertz's book. You will notice that this scholar throughout this book that there was only ONE Exile-the Babylonian Exile, "the end of Israel's history" according to the books of Kings. For this and many other reasons Exilic scholars when writing up the Historiography of the OT divide the History of Israel into three periods: 'preexilic. exilic and post exilic periods (Refer p.1) and Albertz titled his book not as the 'Exiles of Israel' but the singular-'ISRAEL IN EXILE'. I rest my case.

Such a liar!

I trashed your 'case' in my above post.

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

Good catch!

This is typical of Watchtower quoting practices. I've found a number of instances where the WTS author claims that some authority said something that it uses to support a point, but it turns out that the "authority" was describing what a third party said. Often the third party has little or no credibility -- which is why the WTS falsely attributed it to a supposed authority.

This practice can be illustrated as follows: Suppose The Watchtower magazine quoted a biologist as saying "Evolution is a fact." Some other author grabs that quotation out of context and writes: "Look! The Watchtower Society now says evolution is a fact!" Either that author -- like many WTS writers -- is either thoroughly stupid or completely dishonest.

Indeed. It was the WT scholars who used Albertz's expression of 'catastrophe in the Introduction to those recent WT articles on Chronology as noted by my friend Doug Mason. Such a catastrophe aptly describes the ONE Exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return lasting 70 years.

You are still hung up on WT referencing and the sourcing of such references and this is because you have not studied the Humanities!!

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

5 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Such a liar!

I trashed your 'case' in my above post.

You have not got the book or read the book.

scholar JW