scholar JW

 JW Insider

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

What does it matter what critics say? We should focus on the evidence.

Agreed, WT scholars have examined all of the evidence both secular-historical-biblical and given the biblical evidence priority thus validating 607 BCE.

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As you have shown. Making a dogmatic claim as you just did proves nothing. Just as you cannot prove that the fall didn't happen in 587 BCE. 

Nonsense. The Exile it was the most important event in Jewish/Biblical history that any competent chronologist cannot ignore. One can disprove 587 BCE by proving 607 BCE and this is done by means of the Exile of 70 years as simple as that.

scholar JW

 JW Insider

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Why would anyone want to try something as silly as trying to disprove a negative? That would be like someone asking if you could disprove 587 BCE or disprove 586 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You would look foolish to try. 

Why is that silly? Is it not the case that critics of 607 BCE make dogmatic claims that 607 BCE has been disproved by means of several lines of evidence which are claimed to prove 587 or 586 BCE? The simple fact is that it is the biblical-historical-theological fact of the Exile proves 607 BCE as the date for the Fall.

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly correct. Thanks. So it meaningless to keep bringing up his name unless one has the motive of trying to attach the label "apostate" to a rehash of research that has been around for over 100 years, completely separate from Witnesses or ex-Witnesses. 

I only discuss COJ not because of his status as a former Witness but because he has published research on this subject, made dogmatic claims and has become widely quoted as an authority on this subject.

scholar JW

JW Insider

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  

Correct, the Bible does not give a start and end date for the Exile but does give and describes such historical events which can then be dated by a valid scheme of chronology hence we have 607 BCE for its beginning with Neb's 18/19th year and 537 BCE for its end with Cyrus' first year which are proved to be correct.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.

I  too, care naught for COJ or any others but only the evidence that the Bible as God's Word contains.

47 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

I prefer neither but simply point out that scholarship by means of its methodology cannot provide a definite date for the Fall of Jerusalem whereas WTscholars have provided a definite date for the Fall as 607 BCE.

scholar JW

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I would prefer to have the discussion based solely on evidence without any reference to various individuals and their supposed expertise or authority. 

JW Insider is correct here. Bible Chronology must be based on evidence if available but it requires also a methodology and interpretation of any such evidence as Chronology is not an exact science for scholars to agree on only very few dates in history such as the date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The history of WT Chronology beginning with Russell is most fascinating showing an evolution of dates and events which was more or less finally concluded in the sixties with the publication in 1963, All Scripture is Inspired of God.

scholar JW

The simple fact is that scholars date Nineveh's fall in 612 BCE according to NB Chronology it occurred in the 14th year of King Nabopolassar. However, using the framework of Bible Chronology this event is calculated to have occurred in 632 BCE as explained in Insight, Vol.2, p.505. WT scholars have simply fine-tuned the secular NB Chronology by means of adding 20 years made manifest by the calculation of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem when one compares the two parallel chronologies namely NB Chronology and WT Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

JW Insider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.

It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.

That is correct. WT Bible Chronology has indeed adjusted dates before the NB Period using a 20-year gap manifest when comparing WT Chronology with that of NB Chronology and that is what Chronologists do as a matter of course. Such scholars look at the available evidence- secular and biblical evidence combining this with an interpretation and methodology to construct a scheme of Chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE.

This is false. There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile. 'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.

The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of  Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ especially regarding the Gentile Times and the nature and chronology of Jeremiah's '70 years'.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  

COJ simply followed the existing interpretation of Chronology accepted by most if not all scholars prior to 1977 and afterwards up to the present day. It can be argued that the 'preponderance of existing evidence can just as easily support 607 BCE simply using 'fine tuning' using the missing 20 years to align secular NB Chronology with Bible Chronology. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown competence in Bible Chronology as demonstrated in WT publications since Russell's time as not only have they determined the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE but also produced a chronology for all of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy something which COJ never attempted and is necessary to provide and historical context for any dates with that period of Jewish history.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 

Correct! Such evidence in the construction of a scheme of Chronology requires two things: Methodology and Interpretation. WT scholars have a discreet methodology and a biblical interpretation viz. the 70 years and the Exile which proves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall and thus far has not been disproved by any other scheme of Chronology.

scholar JW 

A masterful refutation of the 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem calling it out as a lie, a distraction from the correct date of 607 BCE championed by Jehovah's Witnesses. A recognition of the simple facts that there was the Exile  and that it was of 70 years all based on a simple direct reading of key biblical texts.

This young guy shows critical thinking at its best on this most contentious issue.

scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider/Outsider

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's why I didn't say it was. Why would you think it necessary to say something untrue about what I said?

As long as you understand the difference between these two disciplines.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I finished over 100 pages. It is clear enough what he thinks. And it's clear enough that you either misunderstand him, or are being dishonest.

You have just started so finish reading the entire book.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Then you absolutely do not know what historiography is. COJ's book is a treatise that combines discussions of the proper use of historiography. There are times when it is limited in how much help it provides, and times when it is so misused as to be subverted. This is why several of his sources are specialists in historiography. Of course, you can always give an example of the historiography you learned about and explain why he does not present any "such" but you already started out telling an easily countered untruth about COJ, and you were caught. So I'm not going to be terribly interested since you can't be trusted anyway.

I know what it is as I have studied it at University as one of the post-graduate Units. COJ's treatise is not historiography as it simply a criticism of WT Chronology and the Gentile Times. COJ is not a scholar and has not undertaken academic work at a University therefor his treatise must be judged on its own merit and has not committed to any proper exegeis of the 70 year textual corpus.

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's an interesting topic that proves nothing to me one way or the other. I like the fact that the strong cable of archaeological evidence confirms the Bible accounts through this period of history. But I don't need that secular evidence personally to trust the Bible. I also think it is revealing that the WTS arbitrary cherry-picking, of which NB dates are good and which are not, has created a pseudo-chronology that is defended by persons who won't look at the data for themselves. If all persons, so far, who defend it will prefer incompetence or dishonesty, instead of looking at the evidence, then this says something about the quality of the evidence, too.

I can see this by your lack of faith and belief in our Chronology preferring the views of modern critics and apostates. You show a failure of what Chronology is as  a discipline being ignorant of its principles and its methodology. You have not got a clue about Chronology whatever its source or form.

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I trust the Bible, and I trust that in Jehovah's good time, this secular, human tradition about 607 will be dropped from our teachings. If not, it doesn't mean it is right, but it is not so important to concern ourselves about. 607 could be absolutely right, but this doesn't make 1914 right.

The date 607 is well established as part of Biblical Theology and History and it works being calcuable to 1914 which is the poster boy for us living in the last days. Unlike 586 or 587 which are simply 'dead ends' we have a date that is rock solid giving faith in our Heavenly Father who knows the times and the seasons and reveals such matters alone to His servants.

scholar JW

JW Insider/Outsider

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

his reminds me of a major point that the Watchtower publications and no Witnesses have yet tried to explain.

There are tens of thousands of "dated" tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. They are not evenly distributed, but a huge portion come from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which is the one we are most interested in anyway. Also there are dozens more of these astronomical readings that all point to the exact same chronology I pointed out earlier. I have matched several more of the eclipses, and all of them give excellent, consistent evidence that all the archaeological evidence is accurate

Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So we can definitively say that the archaeologically supported chronology is the one shown above and the Watchtower chronology is completely unsupported for every year prior to 539. The WTS publications support the 17 years of Nabonidus, and the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of Evil-Merocach. So this leaves a 20 year gap between the EM2 and NERI4. A 20 year gap to be found somewhere in those 5 years that the archaeological evidence indicates.

That strong cable of WT Chronology based on 4 prophetic witnesses is not reliant on such ancient artifacts susceptible to interpretation and fail to properly account for Neb's missing 7 years of regnal vacancy and the notorious 20 year gap and Jeremiah's 70 years.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Imagine that there are about 30,000 tablets that support the nearly 90 years of Neo-Babylonian timeline. If they were evenly distributed that would mean about 333 tablets per year. If the Watchtower's arbitrarily imagined gap actually existed, that would mean that 6,666 tablets of the 30,000 found are still missing. If these tablets all came from one place that might be a possibility. But many are from major temples, and many others are from personal business contracts from hundreds of different people altogether.

Yes, you need imagination when trying to interpret the so-called 17 lines of secular evidence and trying to harmonize secular chronology with that strong cable of WT Chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And of course, if this gap were a real thing, it would mean that all those eclipses could never have been predicted correctly, and all the astronomical readings from both before and after the gap would have been impossible to have faked. There really is absolutely no reason to imagine an arbitrary gap of 20 years. The Biblical evidence fits very well with the above, but would be nearly impossible to explain if the imagined gap theorized by the WTS had actually existed.

The gap is an historical reality when trying to sort out the muddle of NB Chronology and is well supported by the biblical evidence of 70 years along with the other three witnesses unlike the muddle of secular chronology.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Most of the time the secular chronology in Biblical history is not that good. One might even surmise that if there ever a time period in history where Jehovah wanted us to know the actual definitive, absolute date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, for example, then this would be the period of time when all those tens of thousands of documents were protected from the elements.

Finally, some honesty appears on the horizon so you better stick to the Bible and not to COJ's deception- the Devil's work.

scholar JW

JW Insider

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You already failed on page 2. Now you say to also refer to page 121. Seems you are trying to convince me that your problem really is deceitfulness instead of just incompetence. You cherry-picked something Albertz said about Ezra. But you failed to note that Albertz doesn't trust Ezra to tell the truth. He says parts of Ezra are fictive (made up, fictional, lies, fantasy, myth). And Albertz goes right back to saying that the actual "decisive turning point that ended the exilic period" is 520/521 BCE:

My suggestion, plain and simple is just read Albertz and form your own opinion of his historiography just as i have done!!!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

"Let me assure you?" Believe me, there can be nothing from you that "assures" me of anything. Based on your track record here and everywhere I see that you have been, it's a track record full of either incompetence or dishonesty. Probably a mixture of both. I think this time your obvious M.O. even accidentally let most other Witnesses in on your devious secret.

Really i could not less about what you think.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

COJ's book GTR4 is a study of historical writing, therefore it is a book about "historiography," even where that historical writing originally appears in cuneiform inscriptions or the writings of various historians after the Neo-Babylonian period

No, it is not . Historical writing of history is not the same thing as historiography

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In the case of COJ when you found out you were wrong, you tried to walk back what you meant, and, as usual, you were still just as wrong, again. Here's a google-discovered definition:

Historiography, the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination.

I have done a post graduate course in Historiography and COJ does not present any such historiography in his tratise, GTR.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It has always been well known that scholarship is a work in progress. The fact that you have consistently used deceit only teaches me not to trust you. You have shared your discovery that interpretations can be all over the place, but can't you see that this was already the whole point of looking into the secular evidence instead of just the interpretations in this topic/thread? It turns out that some of these scholars, especially if they reject the Bible text, might sometimes overlap with Watchtower interpretation here and there. But the fact that they NEVER in the slightest support our chronology to any degree is a testimony to the strength of the strong cable of archaeologically-evidenced chronology for this period. And, it supports the Bible chronology. Yet, it reveals a broken, fragmented, snapped, frayed and kinked string tied up in knots, when it comes to the arbitrary Watchtower timeline. 

I do not care if you mistrust me for you have deviated from the true faith by your endorsement of NB Chronology, a mere string of beads over that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology..

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Lie all you want. I'm done with you, you detestable liar.

Does this mean that I can now close Case File No. # 607539537?

scholar JW

JW Insider

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:"

You simply 'cherry pick' statements from Albertz's book without taking the time to read it as you probably have not got a copy of his book so i would read it then you can be critical of my comments on his book for that would be the honest thing for you to do. The simple fact is that for Albertz there was only ONE Exile proper or exilic era and that it can be dated from the Fall of Jerusalem from 587/586 BCE until the return of the Exiles under Cyrus in his first year-538 BCE according to the primary sources (Refer pp. 2, 121)

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

hat's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile:

*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision

593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598

*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon

And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE):

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians.

And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE:

*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.

I would recommend that you also read the article under CAPTIVITY in Insight and you will notice the more extensive discussion of the Exile proper or the Babylonian Exile which began in 607 BCE until 537 BCE which harmonizes well with Albertz's historiography on the subject of the Exile.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ?

I have COJ'S many editions of his GTR and let me assure you it is not historiography and he does not use the term in any definitive way and this a serious failure of his treatise because what undergirds any competent Chronology is Historiography, a sound writing of the History of the period or era.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious.

I am not interested in lies or deceit but simply a defence of our wondrous, strong cable of WT Bible Chronology and if this does not meet with your approval then so be it.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place?

I am simply educating you that scholarship is a 'work in progress' and I have submitted recent scholars who have written about the 70 years in recent years and how this research supports to some degree our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

You have much more to read some 390 pages to go-rather prophetic, so as with any reading you must form your own understanding of matters. Best Wishes.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

As I quoted above from a book review of Rainer Albertz's book, Albertz "places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." That alone clobbers Watchtower chronology if Albertz is accepted as a major authority, as ScholarJW Pretendus would have it.

I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology  is not the subject of his Historiography.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

his charlatan claims that Albertz's expression "the exilic age" comprises one and only one period of exile -- false and stupid on its face. A deportation by definition results in an exile. As I showed in my post above, Albertz clearly documents FOUR DEPORTATIONS/EXILES: in 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Therefore Albertz documents FOUR EXILES. Furthermore, the dates of these four exiles surround the period he calls "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." And since Albertz explicitly dates one deportation/exile to 587 and one to 582 BCE, his "exilic age" comprises AT LEAST 587 through 582 down to 520 BCE, as he states -- AT LEAST TWO EXILES.

Deportations by definition do not constitute an exile but are indeed a consituent part of an exile so there were deportaions in Israelite history but in terms of OT Historiography and the Biblical record there was only one exile and that is thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done. If there were 4 exiles proper then the title of Albertz's book is misleading for the author continuously refers to that exilic era as a descriptor for that one jewish exile of the 6th century BCE.

Scholar is quite happy for you to interpret the book as you wish and if you believe there was more than one exile then scholar is not perturbed for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz.

scholar JW

Ann O'Maly

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Neil, I wish I could say it's been a pleasure but you're still the same knucklehead you've always been, sadly. If you change your mind about wanting to learn how to use an astroprogram and check Furuli's claims about VAT 4956 and other astronomical tablets, you know how to contact me. Hooroo again!

Thanks but i will stick to those 4 lines of evidence in support of that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

Ann O'Maly

11 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Thank you. It's not hard. You should try learning these kinds of skills too ...

... if you can be bothered, of course 😉

Well said

12 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I didn't notice that at all. I did notice that he talked about the exilic era consisting of more than one deportation to Babylon

OK. Exilic era-exilic period. Same thing with the common factor of the singular, ONE

13 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

ou are acknowledging the exile/diaspora of Israel in the 8th century BCE too (p. 2). OK.

Read that paragraph again but carefully and spot the difference between the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom.

File Case No: #607539537

scholar JW

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Answer the question! Are you claiming the review I linked to is wrong?

Alan de Fool

Best not to us Wikipedia as a reliable or trustworthy source and I do commend you for consulting  Literature Review. Please not that WT does not use Wikepedia as a matter of course.

scholar JW

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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

Read the book, the entire book and do not 'cherry pick', leave the 'cherries' for scholar to eat.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< [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. >>

Notice the 'singular expression 'exile' and the 'exilic period'. There were many deportations but only ONE Exile.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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".

One period of exile means ONE EXILE. You dope!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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.

I repeat, Albertz lists deportations but only ONE EXILE.

The said scholar rests his exilic case NO. 607539537

scholar JW

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

When I get Albertz's book and quote directly from it -- something you are deathly afraid to do -- you'll lie about what the book itself says.

Such folly sort reminds one of the words of the wise contained in Proverbs 18:13 "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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