DefenderOTT

Nana Fofana wrote:
Of course. So what?
AllenSmith wrote so much gibberish that your saying "Agree" fails to give any information about what you agree with.
Oded Lipschits' summary of events is pretty much what is accepted by all modern Near Eastern scholars. The events and dates are almost exactly what I've been setting forth.
On the other hand, the Watch Tower dates for the period, and some events that it claims for the sequence, contradict modern scholarship.
You "agree" with the Watch Tower's version of history for one and only one reason: its leaders claim to speak for God, and you accept that.
Tell me, do you agree with them that God began creating life on the earth only 20,000 years ago?
AlanF

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
 

This has all been explained to you many times by various people. No point in doing it again.
AlanF

Definitely. I see some definite superiority of the Law in many ways, and this area is no exception. Best leave that conversation over there, on the other thread however. (Although I would still like to know about that COJ quote you might have been interested in following up.)

You're ignorance of science is breathtaking!

JW Insider wrote:
You're far too kind to someone who emits almost nothing but psychopathic lies.
He's used to the Kingdom Hall environment, where the lies emitted by the Watch Tower Society go unchecked. He thinks he can get away with it as easily as does Mommy Watch Tower.
There are at least two reasons for this attitude: (1) Most JWs are too uneducated to spot WTS lies; (2) Most JWs are too cowed by the claims of WTS leaders that they speak for God to say anything, even if they know these "speakers for God" are saying complete nonsense.
Exactly the kind of scholastic dishonesty that scholar JW and Mommy Watch Tower are known for.
AllenSmith's response to your excellent and clear exposition will be his usual evasions.
AlanF

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember itÂ’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, ITÂ’S YOU.

So you're the one who so nefariously changed allensmith28's URL to make him look so stupid.
AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:
So what? All the commentaries you cited are from the 16th to 19th centuries. A great deal has been learned since then, in particular about what "the 70 years" of Jeremiah meant.
This borders on incoherent. Try expressing yourself clearly.
No, they were largely wrong, as the Watch Tower is wrong and as I have repeatedly demonstrated by quoting and commenting on the Bible rather than citing ancient legends. The comments you quoted failed to account for Jeremiah 27.
AlanF

Arauna wrote:
We are not just talking about city-states -- but apparently you are. Note the exchange that resulted in our little sideshow here:
Arauna: However, I believe getting in the last wheat harvest while preparing must be noted.
AlanF: Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?
My clear implication was that farming was not something important enough to most of the Jewish captives to prevent them from beginning immediate preparations for the Return.
Next post:
Arauna: They just lived in cities??  LOL Get real AlanF...  it was not 2017 AD …..but 537 BCE.
AlanF: I didn't say "just". I said this:
AlanF: << The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. >>
AlanF: Probably I should have said, "The Jews lived mostly in the cities". This is based on the common understanding among historians that it was mostly the elite Jews who were deported. . .
AlanF: People who live "in towns and villages" are also known as people who live in cities in the Bible, since in OT usage a "city" can mean what we today call a village of a few dozen people.
Clearly, then, I meant that most captives lived, not out in the country where farming is done in a big way, but in small villages, towns and larger cities where farming is not the major part of human activities. That is why they could easily begin preparation for the Return immediately.
You can talk about "city-states" all you like, but is not what I spoke of or meant.
AlanF

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:
(Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:
Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.
 

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:
(Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.
Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.
 

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury."
An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

This remark is addressed to Allen, I know, not me - but my current nefarious scheme is to change all URLs - even those of AlanF!! - in all posts to point to my blog. My goal is to one day place $1.00 into the outstretched hand of @The Librarian (the old hen) as I stop for the red light getting off the expressway. #willblogforfood     
hehehehe :))))))))

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there. That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year:
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year:
(Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.

I see you made a mistake here @allensmith28in the transcription of the URL that @AlanF gave.
I clicked on your "typo" URL that you created when you left out the hyphen. I'm sure this was an accident on your part, but I was surprised that it linked to a Bible timeline that put the Exile from 585 to 487 and ended the Divided Kingdom in 586. I thought it an interesting coincidence that both sites would have such similar URLs. But it turns out that even if you had accidentally made further adjustments to the link, even with your own name in it, for example: 
http://www.biblehistory.com/ALLEN_SMITH_28.htm
. . . that it also would have taken you to the same page with the 586 date on it. You can try it by clicking above.
In fact, you did originally use the actual link AlanF's provided, on which you based your comments, just as you claimed. AlanF was wrong to offer only those three choices about you personally in response to your simple mistake. AlanF was also mistaken in not recognizing that you had gone on to criticise other parts of the page/site, beyond the point he was using and quoting, to point out the chronology information from the map found on this page and other parts of the same website -- which contained information not consistent with AlanF's views.
Of course, even so, your only salient point is that there is some stuff on the site where AlanF's link came from that AlanF clearly doesn't believe in. We've been through this same type of logical fallacy before, where just because a site or page has something wrong on it that other things on the same site or page can't be useful. (Often a "composition" fallacy, sometimes a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Don't know the Latin for @TrueTomHarley's collection.)
You had a chance to leverage the mistake to your own advantage, but then you went off and made some more serious logical blunders of your own.
Yes. Someone used a word like "gobbledygook" with reference to ideas you have promoted or defended, so naturally you have no choice but to blame-shift and redirect that word onto those you oppose. Logically, however, there is no reason to push these words onto "AlanF supporters," whoever they may be.
Also you point out that the American scholar, Edward Robinson, was born in 1794 and that this site is structured by his ideology. Is this really a problem to you? It has already been pointed out, even by you yourself, that we can expect some issues with the chronology of scholars who worked so early in the 19th century, but no one says that this means everything they say is to be under suspicion. After all, the WTS still prefers the support of 19th century scholars over 20th and 21st century scholars. It's off topic, but I have a couple in mind in case you doubt this.
Also, guess who quotes Edward Robinson himself. Yep . . . here's the Awake! magazine, and it's only one of at least a dozen more times he is quoted, especially for Biblical language studies:
*** g80 5/8 p. 17 A Book That Tells What the Future Holds ***
What is the condition of ancient Edom today? “Around us were the desolation of ages; the dwellings and edifices of the ancient city [Petra, the former capital city, carved out of the mountain crag] crumbled and strewed in the dust.”—Edward Robinson, in “Biblical Researches in Palestine.” Then you say, "If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well." I think you are making the same mistake that Arauna made in misunderstanding the different uses of evidence, when 'proof' is not part of the equation. Besides, your statement is completely illogical on many levels.
As far as the "Junior" and "6 year old" I think AlanF deserves to be treated just as he treats others, and I'm as entertained as anyone by the back-and-forth slinging. Although, I must say that those particular attempts sound like desperate shifting projections.

Now you're compounding your lunacy by lying. This is the URL you originally posted on page 26 of this thread:
http://www.biblehistory.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html
Somehow you left out the "-" in "bible-history" and got a different website from the one I posted.
Naturally, you're too looney and arrogant to acknowledge that your LOL post was based on your own incompetence.
AlanF

Completely looney people can hardly be accused of lying when they muck up as badly as you have.
AlanF

Yep, completely looney.
AlanF

Perhaps the Universe has decided you have "bad karma", and is out to GET YOU!
BrouhaHAHahahaha !!

Arauna wrote:
As I said above, this is entirely irrelevant. That scattering occurred a hundred years earlier, and those Jews were not part of the Return from Babylon.
Once again: Wrong. The cause of the deportation of Judah was the Jews' failure to submit to Babylon. The cause for God's giving Babylon 70 years of supremacy in the Near East was the wickedness of the inhabitants.
Totally wrong. By that time the 10 tribes were scattered to the four winds. Need I remind you of what the Bible says?
Wrong on the dating. Daniel and a few others were taken in 605/604. A lot more were taken in 597, and another batch in 587 and afterwards.
Like I said: what of it?
I said nothing about court gossip. I described Daniel and others possible notification that big things were in the works -- hardly gossip.
Yes, and to where? To the close vicinity of Babylon.
You don't know the Bible at all. As I said, Daniel and a few others were taken in 605/604. In early 597 Zedekiah was made king, and that was when Jeremiah received God's word pleading with the Jews to remain on their land by submitting to Babylon. They had another decade to submit before Nebuchadnezzar came against them again because Zedekiah refused to submit. So most of the Jews could have avoided deportation.
Yes, all of which occurred between 589 and 587 BCE.
Once again, this desolation was contingent on the Jews failing to reform and submit. Jer. 9 is part of a larger plea given by God through Jeremiah for the Jews to reform, or else. In Jer. 7:3-7 God says:
<< Reform your ways and your actions, and I will allow you to keep residing in this place. . . For if you truly reform your ways and actions; if you truly uphold justice between a man and his neighbor; 6 if you do not oppress foreign residents, orphans, and widows; if you do not shed innocent blood in this place; and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm; 7 then I will allow you to keep residing in this place, in the land I gave to your forefathers for all time. >>
Oh yeah, you don't believe the Bible.
A prophecy made in Zedekiah's 10th year, while Jerusalem was under siege. By then it was too late for God to show mercy and let the Jews remain. Again you don't know the Bible.
AlanF

allensmitth28 wrote:
I'll let readers decide if you're looney, a liar or just plain stupid.
I posted this link:
http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html
This is shown in the red-outlined URL in your page copy of my post.
You somehow managed to change it:
http://www.biblehistory.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html
Using your changed URL, you then marched out to left field.
LOL!
AlanF

Arauna wrote:
Wrong. You keep shooting from the hip.
In the OT, a city doesn't have to be significant to be called a city. Note Genesis 4:17, for example:
<< Afterward Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Eʹnoch. Then he engaged in building a city and named the city after his son Eʹnoch. >>
How many people do you think inhabited Cain's city right after he built it?
Note Genesis 19:4-5, for example, and the story of Lot:
<< Before they could lie down to sleep, the men of the city—the men of Sodʹom from boy to old man, all of them—surrounded the house in one mob. 5 And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex with them.” >>
How many men do you think surrounded Lot's house?
From "Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of The Bible", entry for "city" in the "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary" section, p. 88; entry 5892: << `iyr: a city (a place guarded by waking or a watch) in the widest sense (even of a mere encampment or post). >>
From the Brown-Driver-Briggs "Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament", p. 746: << `iyr ... city, town ... 1. city, town, abode of men Gn 4:17 ... >>
From "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament", Vol. XI, p. 55: << The settlements to which `ir refers range in size from small refuges to fortified cities. >>
Continuing to be mostly wrong:
Again continuing to be mostly wrong, and unsupported with source references:
Irrelevant. That scattering occurred a hundred years earlier, and those Jews were not part of the Return from Babylon.
And?
More or less as I've said.
AlanF

allensmith28 said:
LOL! I posted no such nonsense. YOU posted it. Either you're completely looney, or a pathological liar.
AlanF

Arauna wrote:
And?
I posted the URLs along with the quotations. Can't you read?
What of it?
Right. No problem for my argument.
 
 
You've lost the thread, my dear. See if you can get back on track: your denial of my argument that news of Cyrus' coming Edict could easily be spread among the captive Jews in plenty of time for them to get ready for a Return Journey in either 538 or 537 BCE. You continue to ignore this, but focus on a tiny piece of my argument.
 
 
There was one root cause for the 49 years of the Exile: the Jews failed to humbly submit to Babylon. -- Jer. 27.
The root cause of the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy was God's displeasure with the wickedness of the Jews and the nations round about. He forced them to serve the king of Babylon, as opposed to being independent. Whether they served on their own land or in captivity/exile depended on their submission to Babylon.
AlanF