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

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

. . . the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.

Finally you admit that I've been right for some 15 years! The first year of Cyrus ran spring, 538 BCE to spring 537 BCE. Since the Jews were "in their cities" in the fall -- in the 7th month Tishri -- that was the fall of 538 BCE. Thus the Jews returned from exile in 538 BCE.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile.

Not necessarily for a deportation can be limited to a few captives with the remaining population left alone. An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You obviously do not believe the Bible when Ezekiel calls himself and his fellows "exiles", and dates many events as "in the 20th year of our exile .

Yes but there is a fundamental difference between the exile of a few such as Ezekiel and Daniel and the EXILE of the nation of Judah. Do you not see the difference, Alan?

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

Wrong. the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month this means that it would have been impossible for this to be the case if you postulate such a short time frame so the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.

scholar JW

[scholar JW]

Alan F

The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.

scholar JW

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

the ignorance of Carl Olof Jonsson in his pathetic book CC is evident he knows nothing about ancient history as an uneducated person.

Aren't you confusing Carl Olof Jonsson's book, "GTR," with Raymond Franz' book "CC"?

Earlier you indicated that you had probably not read, or perhaps had never even seen Ann O'maly's October 2020 VAT 4956 paper on academia.edu, when you said:

On 12/12/2020 at 2:28 PM, César Chávez said:

Now, when I refer to Ann O'Maly's paper, it's . . . not the VAT attempt. The VAT was just a translation to English.

The 20-some page paper which you called "the VAT attempt" is well-referenced, well footnoted, and well-written (meaning it's relatively easy even for me to understand). And it is most definitely not her 45-page translation of Neugebauer and Weidner. If you hadn't checked academia.edu in a while, then this is a very understandable mistake. No big deal. After all, that translation was also related to VAT 4956. But when this minor mistake was pointed out to you, you didn't even have the honesty to say: 'Oh that's right, I thought you meant the other paper.'  Instead you said:

22 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, no I'm not confusing O'Maly's papers.

Yet clearly you did confuse them. Your inability to admit such a simple and obvious mistake, apparent to almost everyone else here, makes it difficult for me to trust your motives. Sorry. It makes me realize that all your haughty expressions, and tendency to provoke and insult others, may not have any evidence backing any of it up. You appear to just be echoing the empty insults of those who have clearly never read nor understood the things they are trying to insult. 

I'll highlight at least one of your examples:

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is one reason, the ignorance of Carl Olof Jonsson in his pathetic book CC is evident he knows nothing about ancient history as an uneducated person.

From your words here and elsewhere about the book, it seems you probably have not read it, nor understood what it is about. It seems obvious that you have not yet realized that this entire presentation has nothing to do with Carl Olof Jonsson. He is just one more person who took an interest in what specialists and experts have said about the astronomical diaries. These are not his dates. He is no more important to this presentation than the persons who wrote the five references you just quoted. And it sounds like all five of your references above would just happen to agree with Carl Olof Jonsson about these Diaries. All five of those references you offered may agree with what you and others have called "COJ's dates," but it doesn't mean these dates somehow belonged to your 5 resources.

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

that is just dishonest, and a down right lie. To accept secular evidence over Bible chronology is a shameful act of a desperate person. This is why, a true Christian would not allow themselves to be blinded by man’s understanding of Bible events or principles.

Yet the WTS accepts the same methods of using secular evidence to determine the date 539. The WTS uses this date, never found in the Bible, which the WTS admits has been derived from astronomical diaries and king's lists and chronicles. So how "shameful" and "desperate" do you really think it is to make use of this same methodology that the WTS has accepted? Does looking to see if the Babylonian evidence might somehow falsify itself really have anything to do with accepting secular evidence over Bible chronology? Or is there perhaps just a fear that these dates actually support the Bible quite well. I get the feeling sometimes that the lack of substance behind your vague provocations is merely to create chaos. And when you do make a specific accusation, why is it almost always something that has already been shown to be untrue, but you merely repeat it without explaining any reason for repeating the falsehoods?

For example, you said that AlanF doesn't accept a 605 BCE deportation. AlanF has been promoting a 605 BCE deportation in every related discussion I have ever seen, and I see it goes back to discussions from very long ago. I wrote a post or two that corrected you on that specific point. You already responded to that correction of your claim with insults to me, so I know you must have read it. But then you just repeated that same falsehood again under this topic.

Therefore, if you have no actual data or evidence to present, then it would be better to move your posts that are full of insult and repeated falsehoods back over to the previous thread that spawned this one. 

So back to the topic . . .

I will maintain that you don't need to accept any secular evidence over Bible chronology at all. For one thing this exercise in this thread is specifically about the SECULAR evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology. We want to see how well it stacks up on its own before looking for OT synchronisms. We lose the entire point if we try to force it to fit our favorite synchronisms before checking whether it can stand on its own validity. Besides, I see how it actually helps to confirm the Bible record. It enhances my own appreciation for the Bible's accuracy. But it isn't necessary to accept this archaeological evidence from Babylonian. You can take it or leave it. Of course, if you leave it, you don't have the 539 BCE date any more. 

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

it’s not wise to say, we have a “complete” picture on secular evidence, since that is just dishonest, and a down right lie.

Yes. True. It's never wise to say we have a "complete" picture on secular evidence. So far, I'm guessing that no more than 30,000 of the over 100,000 business tablets have been published. Therefore, some historian/archaeologist could make himself or herself quite famous in the scholarly community if they discovered that even ONE of these 100,000 tended to falsify the currently presented timeline. I'm guessing that several thousand more of them have at least been scanned for this possibility.

That said, I do appreciate the perspectives on the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries that you provided. It's worth noting very carefully what these sources have said. The general points about the quality and accuracy of older king lists and diaries compared to the Neo-Babylonian period were things I had already learned by reading COJ's book and Furuli's books, but I thought the quotes were excellent.

I'm impressed by the fact that your sources make clear that we don't know much about the actual persons who created these diaries, nor even their exact titles. It's remarkable that persons had such expertise and yet didn't give the impression that they were out to make a name for themselves.

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Thus, a dynasty known almost exclusively from later king lists has now emerged as truly historical. This should remind us that, if ancient traditions should always be handled critically, they must never be dismissed lightly.

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The 20-some page paper which you called "the VAT attempt" is well-referenced, well footnoted, and well-written (meaning it's relatively easy even for me to understand). And it is most definitely not her 45-page translation of Neugebauer and Weidner. If you hadn't checked academia.edu in a while, then this is a very understandable mistake. No big deal. After all, that translation was also related to VAT 4956. But when this minor mistake was pointed out to you, you didn't even have the honesty to say: 'Oh that's right, I thought you meant the other paper.'  Instead you said:

Just for the record it was I who arranged for the first translation into English of that original paper in German. Leonard Tolhurst(who was taught by Siegfried H. Horn) of the SDA Seminary at Cooranbong, NSW assisted me with half of the cost of translation done by the Senior Lecturer in German at the University of Sydney some decades ago. 

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
Not at all. Furuli claimed that certain astronomical events recorded in various cuneiform tablets correspond best to certain configurations of planets, the moon, etc. as displayed in several computer programs that display such astronomical configurations. The data from the tablets is along the lines of "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". It certainly takes a bit of interpretation of those ancient texts, and of the display from astro programs, to decide among several possibilities for matching textual events with displayed events for certain dates. But it's not rocket science. All it takes is a careful eye and intellectual honesty. Furuli's claims about some configurations matching certain texts displays a clear bias in favor of his preferred Watchtower dates. All other researchers disagree. Furuli was not simply wrong, but demonstrably biased. I know exactly how this works, since I've compared several such texts with the displays from several astro programs. It's quite interesting to do this.

Quote

That is the problem how does a person unfamiliar with astro programs or with ancient astronomy able to make sense of it all for this really is the terrain of experts

Number One: Anyone with an intellectual level above about seven years old can learn these programs. If you can view a web page, you can view the display of an astro program.

Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors.

Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur.

Number Four: Scholarly experts have already examined the evidence and concluded that in the case of Furuli's disputed dates, 568 versus 588 for VAT 4956, 588 is wrong.

This really is not rocket science. If I tell you that picture X displays a kangaroo two centimeters to the left of a wallaby, and then display picture X alongside picture Y which displays a kangaroo six centimeters to the left of a wallaby, would you have any difficulty figuring out which was X and which was Y? Donald Trumpolini might, but I doubt that you would. And if you would, you'd have no business participating in a discussion like this.

Quote

and certainly Furuli because of his expertise in the language of these clay tablets must surely be allowed to have an opinion.

Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.

Quote

Further, because you say he is wrong does not make it so for that is your opinion.

Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.

Quote

In fact this is rocket science.

Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
In principle, that's right. But Furuli has demonstrably been biased, in the same manner that Raymond Franz explained how he was biased when he wrote material on "chronology" that appeared in the old Aid book. 

Quote

So what, Bias is part of scholarship so caution must be exercised.

Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
Hardly. But just as the earth has been solidly shown to orbit the sun, standard Neo-Babylonian chronology has been firmly established. It would take a ridiculously unusual set of new and contradictory data to overturn what has been established these last few hundred years, on the order of showing that the earth does not orbit the sun.

Neo-Babylonian Chronology is hardly science

 

It's historical science. Ever hear of that?

Quote

so your parallel does not work.

Of course it does. Real science, historical or otherwise, gathers evidence, formulates hypotheses, measures the hypotheses against the evidence, eliminates those that don't work, and eventually comes up with a set of hypotheses that withstand all valid tests. Valid tests do not include the sort of wild speculations that morons like the Flat-Earthers come up with, such as claiming that all photo evidence is the product of a worldwide conspiracy of CGI experts. Your 'tests' are in that category. Academic experts have used solid historical science to come up with a fully tested Scientific Theory called Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Something as well established as, and often better than, anything else in ancient history.

Quote

Chronology is about methodology and interpretation based on sound history.

Which is fully explained and justified for Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. And of course, which eliminates the sort of bogus methodologies and interpretations so beloved by Watchtower Tradition.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
Not hardly. I've looked at several astro programs in the past two decades. It certainly takes a bit of learning to understand how to compare texts with astro displays, but if you're not mentally incompetent it's really not that hard.

Without an interactive display visible to two people, describing such displays is not so easy, but I'll try. An astro display might show some planet as being a little to the left of some star that serves as a constant marker. The program can display how much farther to the left the planet is from the star, in degrees, say XXX degrees, on some specified date. A dated ancient text might say something like "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". Your problem is to decide whether "two cubits in front of" corresponds to the XXX degrees displayed by the astro program. In many cases it's not easy to decide, for any number of reasons.

. . .

 

Quote

So now you the expert! LOL.

No academic expert, but competent. And since you're too lazy (and self-admittedly mentally deficient) to learn, you have no basis for an opinion.

Quote

The very fact that there are several astro programs tells me that something is not quite right.

Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. In general these programs are marketed by software companies that want to make money from them. Over the past 25 years I've bought half a dozen of them. Most become obsolete after a few years, not because the underlying data and mathematical calculations need revision, but because computer operating systems change and marketing goals change. I'm quite capable of writing such a program myself, using data from easily available NASA and related sources, and I've even played around with this. But it takes an inordinate amount of time to produce a usable video display, and so it's not worth my time to do it. Besides, others are far more competent than I am in such programming.

Quote

It is similar to the number of different king lists for the Divided Monarchy in the OT, so where there is a lack of consensus then one knows something is wrong .

There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
When one compares the data from some text with what the astro program displays for two different dates, one has to decide which astro date display best corresponds with the textual data. Most of the time it's not difficult to decide which astro display best corresponds with the text. But in some cases the data is somewhat buggered, and the astro program might have some errors (this is a serious problem in general, but not so much for our purposes here), so it might take some finesse of interpretation to decide on the astro date that best fits the textual data.

Given all that, Furuli's decisions about which astro event best fits some textual event demonstrably show bias toward Watchtower doctrine, since several independent investigators have concluded that the astro event in question best fits the textual event in terms of standard Neo-Babylonian dating. Any fair and competent person who looks at such data quickly sees how biased Furuli has been.

. . .

 

Quote

That is the problem one has to compare the data based on the programs and then interpret that data with the interpretation of the document.

Wrongheaded again. If the document says that planet X is "two fingers in front of the moon" on date DDD, that requires NO INTERPRETATION aside from figuring out what "two fingers" means and what DDD means. In most cases all experts, academic and amateur alike, agree on most such things. Where biased people like Furuli display their bias is in claiming that a "two fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated DDD is a worse fit than is a "six fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated EEE but which also says "two fingers". Anyone not blind can SEE that the "two fingers" display is better than the "six fingers" display. So when Furuli makes such claims, we KNOW he's lying.

Quote

Is it not strange that because Furuli finds something different that happens to fit our Chronology

Furuli found no such things. Rather, he fudged his judgment of "two fingers" versus "six fingers" to convince his readers of a lie. And most likely himself.

Quote

then he is accused of bias to WT chronology

Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.

Quote

but i could say exactly the same thing about the other side

You can also say that the earth is Flat. So what? The evidence counts, not mere opinions.

Quote

fo how do I know that the current interpretation is also not biased towards current NB Chronology?

You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

Number One: Anyone with an intellectual level above about seven years old can learn these programs. If you can view a web page, you can view the display of an astro program.

Viewing is one thing, Understanding the thing viewed is another.

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors.

True. Is it really necessary when it is the subject of much technical controversy?

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur

Well Ann O Maly has repeatedly refused to identify her academic credentials when asked by me and Furuli has publicly identified his academic credentials.

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Number Four: Scholarly experts have already examined the evidence and concluded that in the case of Furuli's disputed dates, 568 versus 588 for VAT 4956, 588 is wrong.

So what for that is simply their opinion.

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This really is not rocket science. If I tell you that picture X displays a kangaroo two centimeters to the left of a wallaby, and then display picture X alongside picture Y which displays a kangaroo six centimeters to the left of a wallaby, would you have any difficulty figuring out which was X and which was Y? Donald Trumpolini might, but I doubt that you would. And if you would, you'd have no business participating in a discussion like this.

Then how is it that it is so complicated with many offering different views.

8 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.

So you say.

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.

Opinion not fact.

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.

Insults indicate that you have lost the argument.

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".

Scholarship cannot be devoid of bias and it is the same with translation of the Bible whereupon Theology of the translator is always present. bias+scholarship=

[scholar JW]

Alan F

cont'd

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It's historical science. Ever hear of that?

the more precise term would be 'history of science' or 'philosophy of science'

16 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Of course it does. Real science, historical or otherwise, gathers evidence, formulates hypotheses, measures the hypotheses against the evidence, eliminates those that don't work, and eventually comes up with a set of hypotheses that withstand all valid tests. Valid tests do not include the sort of wild speculations that morons like the Flat-Earthers come up with, such as claiming that all photo evidence is the product of a worldwide conspiracy of CGI experts. Your 'tests' are in that category. Academic experts have used solid historical science to come up with a fully tested Scientific Theory called Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Something as well established as, and often better than, anything else in ancient history.

Scholar loves real science. True science relies on the principle of Falsification so how do you falsify NB Chronology or is it a sacred cow?

18 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Which is fully explained and justified for Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. And of course, which eliminates the sort of bogus methodologies and interpretations so beloved by Watchtower Tradition

Do not forget from where you first learnt this principle- the said scholar! So are you saying that WT Chronology is without methodology and interpretation?

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No academic expert, but competent. And since you're too lazy (and self-admittedly mentally deficient) to learn, you have no basis for an opinion.

It is now a good thing that you are competent but are you fully competent?

23 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. In general these programs are marketed by software companies that want to make money from them. Over the past 25 years I've bought half a dozen of them. Most become obsolete after a few years, not because the underlying data and mathematical calculations need revision, but because computer operating systems change and marketing goals change. I'm quite capable of writing such a program myself, using data from easily available NASA and related sources, and I've even played around with this. But it takes an inordinate amount of time to produce a usable video display, and so it's not worth my time to do it. Besides, others are far more competent than I am in such programming.

So why is it the case that you so-called experts use different programs? Why not use the same programs as Furuli does/

26 minutes ago, AlanF said:

There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.

YES. But the devil is in the interpretation.

27 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrongheaded again. If the document says that planet X is "two fingers in front of the moon" on date DDD, that requires NO INTERPRETATION aside from figuring out what "two fingers" means and what DDD means. In most cases all experts, academic and amateur alike, agree on most such things. Where biased people like Furuli display their bias is in claiming that a "two fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated DDD is a worse fit than is a "six fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated EEE but which also says "two fingers". Anyone not blind can SEE that the "two fingers" display is better than the "six fingers" display. So when Furuli makes such claims, we KNOW he's lying.

Well you have nicely identified a problem so how does the layman proceed with this ?

29 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Furuli found no such things. Rather, he fudged his judgment of "two fingers" versus "six fingers" to convince his readers of a lie. And most likely himself

Furuli is not a dishonest person and is not a liar.

30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.

All scholars have bias that is why one must test the evidence himself.

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You can also say that the earth is Flat. So what? The evidence counts, not mere opinions.

Agreed

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.

I rely on God's Word the Bible and its 70 years

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
Not me: ALL proper scholars. I've merely parroted what these scholars have said. Right in line with JW Insider's purpose for this thread

Quote

So 605 BCE is now fully established so what about the status of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon

They are both equally well established.

Quote

for Neb's accession year is a little fuzzy, biblically speaking.

The Bible says nothing directly about it. It does speak of his 18th and 19th years as when Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE -- the same year after accounting for the fact that "18th" was written by someone using Babylonian dating and "19th" by someone using Jewish dating. Starting with the 18th year and counting back to zero by accession year dating gets you to 605. Easy!

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
I don't need to for anyone competent to participate in this thread. Either they own Thiele's books, or they have easy access to them.

Quote

Just give the cataloque numbers

You have the books. Look at them.

Quote

 

Quoting got a little messed up here, so:

AlanF said:
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, pp. 293-294) Carl Olof Jonsson quotes two scholars as follows:

<< the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. [Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., personal letter to Jonsson dated August 9, 1981.]

[The date for] the capture of Jerusalem in 597 . . . is now fixed exactly. [Dr. David N. Freedman, personal letter to Jonsson dated August 16, 1981]

Based on the above data, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year would be 604 BCE and his 18th 587 BCE. Therefore, the Royal Canon in conjunction with Jeremiah 52:29 show that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE.

Far more can be said about how perfectly lunar and solar eclipses verify the above. Carl Olof Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, details how several dozen lunar eclipses described in various Babylonian tablets all converge on what has become the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology.

. . .

ScholarJW: Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion

AlanF: COJ remains irrelevant. It is the scholars who supplied the comments who are relevant.

AlanF: You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank.

ScholarJW: It would appear that 597 is a better candidate then 605. How is that?

AlanF: Candidate for what? Both are equally well established.

 

So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars?

Again irrelevant. COJ is not a degreed academic scholar; so what? What he has done -- why do you continue dishonestly to use this irrelevant ad hominem? -- is to collate a massive amount of data published by recognized scholars in several fields. Thus, when someone dismisses COJ as if his collations were of no value, he is dismissing most of the world of academic scholarship. But because much of Watchtower argumentation consists largely of such ad hominen dismissals, it's no surprise when Watchtower accolytes do the same.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
Cite them all you want. But you're missing the point: the scholars I've cited do not merely state opinions, but clearly and vigorously lay out the basis for those opinions.

As for Furuli, his claims have already been thoroughly debunked by Carl Jonsson and various other scholars. Such scholars have not merely given opinions, but given very good reasons for their debunkings.

 

Quote

So does WtT scholars and Furuli.

Except that, as the discussions in this thread alone prove, Furuli's 'debunkings' are provably wrong.

You continue to make the mistake of dismissing all of academic scholarship based solely on the Watchtower's demonstrably wrong interpretations of a handful of Bible passages, which interpretations mostly ignore without comment all passages that contradict its tradition.

Quote

COJ has not debunked Furuli at all simply responded to Furuli's research and neither have others

COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
Of course. But as I have repeatedly emphasized, data such as from the Bible must be clearly laid out -- i.e., the Bible must be quoted and the passages clearly analyzed, not merely paraphrased or summarized.

Quote

Indeed. But you forgot the most important word-interpreted

We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

They are both equally well established.

539 BCE is well established but 605 BCE is not so prove it.

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Bible says nothing directly about it. It does speak of his 18th and 19th years as when Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE -- the same year after accounting for the fact that "18th" was written by someone using Babylonian dating and "19th" by someone using Jewish dating. Starting with the 18th year and counting back to zero by accession year dating gets you to 605. Easy!

So, the date 605 BCE is a calculated date not an Absolute date therefore not well established.

5 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You have the books. Look at them.

True. I have the books to hand 

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars?

Again irrelevant. COJ is not a degreed academic scholar; so what? What he has done -- why do you continue dishonestly to use this irrelevant ad hominem? -- is to collate a massive amount of data published by recognized scholars in several fields. Thus, when someone dismisses COJ as if his collations were of no value, he is dismissing most of the world of academic scholarship. But because much of Watchtower argumentation consists largely of such ad hominen dismissals, it's no surprise when Watchtower accolytes do the same.

I applaud COJ for his research as an independent thinker not a scholar but one must view his research in the light of current scholarship, WT Chronology and the Bible and then make one's own analysis and opinion.

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Except that, as the discussions in this thread alone prove, Furuli's 'debunkings' are provably wrong.

You continue to make the mistake of dismissing all of academic scholarship based solely on the Watchtower's demonstrably wrong interpretations of a handful of Bible passages, which interpretations mostly ignore without comment all passages that contradict its tradition.

You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics.

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.

Only in your own mind.

18 minutes ago, AlanF said:

We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.

You are correct. I will have to work on that and install the app but I am a computer dummy so must give this some priority and thank you for the correction.

scholar JW

[AlanF]

ScholarJW said:

Quote

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile.

Quote

Not necessarily for a deportation can be limited to a few captives with the remaining population left alone.

But for those deported and made captive for awhile, they are BY DEFINITION in exile. Do I really need to point you to a dictionary?

Quote

An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.

Quote

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
You obviously do not believe the Bible when Ezekiel calls himself and his fellows "exiles", and dates many events as "in the 20th year of our exile .

Quote

Yes but there is a fundamental difference between the exile of a few such as Ezekiel and Daniel

A few? What garbage! The exile of 597 was actually bigger than that of 587. Not only Ezekiel, but all of the important people in the country were exiled -- artisans, all of the elite, etc. The 587 exile was of the leftovers.

Do you need me to quote Ezekiel and other sources on this?

Quote

and the EXILE of the nation of Judah. Do you not see the difference, Alan?

There were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?