Jump to content
The World News Media

AlanF

Member
  • Posts

    1,227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by AlanF

  1. scholar JW wrote: LOL! You challenge me, and then deny you challenged me, because you think that denial is a defense. So you admit that you never offer any evidence. I'll print out your admission and have it encased in gold. Still lying. The evidence is in. 587 BCE is the date. Period. Still lying. Ezra and Josephus together pin it to 538. Period. The end date is pegged by Jeremiah and Daniel: 539 BCE. Period. The start date is fuzzy because the Bible itself does not define it. Remember that speculations by you and Mommy Watch Tower do not define what the Bible does not. Complete gibberish. You always resort to this when you know you've lost the battle. That's Rodger Young's area, and I've simply checked that he made solid, biblical and secular arguments. You've done no such thing, and you don't even claim you have. I already told you several times: for the world of scholarship to come up to speed on almost anything takes a long time. But that's not the point. The point is that Rodger Young's arguments are demonstrably correct. And neither you, nor "celebrated WT scholars", nor anyone else I'm aware of, have proved his arguments wrong. Riiiight. Just like Mommy Watch Tower had "the generation of 1914" tied up nice and tidy in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And then changed everything in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s. Not so far as I can see. What we do see is various current authors quoting outdated material, simply because there is so much outdated material out there that it takes a long time for people to realize it's outdated and come up to speed on the new stuff. It's like how some people still use the outdated picture of an atom as a sort of miniature solar system, with a central nucleus and electrons spinning around in their orbits. But this picture was abandoned by physicists in the 1920s. Yet now, almost 100 years later, a lot of the public still hasn't got it right. Yes you do. I doubt that you can point to any forum where you've gone over any actual arguments made by Rodger Young. I'm trying, so far partly unsuccessfully, to move on to more interesting things. When people like you show up, I just can't help myself. Back to your standard circular argument. Wrong. Both the Bible and secular history agree that the 70 years ended with the overthrow of Babylon in October, 539 BCE. The book of Daniel -- which you obviously reject -- is quite clear on this, and so is Jeremiah. Nonsense. If my bio shows anything, it's that I respect only evidence, and not authority. Only a reprehensible, pathological liar like you could turn that on its head without blushing. Except, of course, that we've seen little from you of methodology and valid interpretation -- all you can manage is "Mommy says so!" Mostly on Internet forums. I don't need to. The evidence is simple and speaks for itself. And I've seen scholars point out the same thing. Again, Josephus and Ezra alone validate what I've said. You have yet to offer a single valid objection. All you manage is pure denial. Mommy has taught you well. Sigh. Repeating defeated arguments will not make them true. Lying by omission yet again. Even Mommy Watch Tower acknowledges that Cyrus' 2nd year ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE through the end of Adar, 536 BCE, by Babylonian-style dating. And we all agree that the Return occurred in Tishri, 538 or 537 BCE, which means that the FIRST year of the Return ended immediately before Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE. Thus the SECOND year of their return ran from Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE until immediately before Tishri 1 of 537 or 536 BCE. Thus the 2nd month (always numbered with Nisan = 1) was Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE. But Iyyar of 536 comes in the THIRD year of the Return, and Iyyar of 537 comes in the SECOND year of the Return, so a claim of Iyyar of 536 contradicts Ezra. Therefore you cannot have an objection, since my "thesis" meets the Biblical and secular criteria. If you disagree with the above, then see if you can come up with your own timetable for these events. I.e., exactly when was the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return, and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus, and how do they all fit together? Exactly. Since Ezra clearly indicates that by the FIRST month of the year after the Return, namely Tishri (which is counted as month 7 of the Jewish calendar year), the Jews were "in their cities", the previous month Elul must have been in the FIRST year of the Return. Thus, because the Jews were in their cities by Tishri, that was in the SECOND year of the Return. And the 2nd month of that calendar year, using Jewish month counting, was seven months later, namely, Iyyar of the following calendar year. Hence we again arrive at Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE, and since 536 is in the THIRD year of the Return, that dating is impossible because it contradicts Ezra. I do not, and I proved this to you years ago. See above. Furthermore, even if Josephus used Jewish Tishri-Tishri dating rather than Nisan-Nisan dating, my scenario still works. Diagram it on paper and you'll see. Gobble-de-goop. Produce a diagram, just as I did years ago, and let's see what you come up with. Nope. The Watch Tower completely ignores this data, so far as I remember. Can't you even count? If Jerusalem's fall were in 607, the Temple would be unobscured 50 years later in 557 BCE. But not even the Watch Tower claims that. But a fall in 587 directly yields 537, consistent with my thesis and contradicting Watch Tower claims. Josephus' mention of 70 years has been a vexing problem for scholars for a long time. There are two points of interest that I can remember. First, after close to 700 years from the fall of Jerusalem, the notion of "70 years of captivity" seems to have taken on legendary status, and its exact meaning was lost. Josephus may have simply repeated the commonly accepted legends of his time. This makes sense because he gives no source references for this notion, whereas he gives Babylonian historian Berossus as a reference for his statements in Against Apion I,21. Second, Jewish elites like Daniel were taken captive in about 605 BCE, and released about 68 years later. We do not know for sure when the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy began, but we know that they ended in 539 BCE. Assigning a starting date of 609 down to 605 gets us to exactly or approximately 70 years, and so if over the more than 600 years between the Return and Josephus' writing, the two 70-year periods got mixed up, that's perfectly understandable. So no cherry picking is required, just a bit of thinking about real history. Give us a hint what he says, and I might. Otherwise, I don't trust you one bit. Wrong. It has been shown thousands of times, on many different forums and essays, that the Watch Tower decidedly does NOT follow the Bible. Again, both you and WTS writers think that "these nations" means "the Jews", contradicting not only what your eyes tell you when you read the words, but other parts of the Bible. Yes, because scholars support their claims with evidence. Oh yeah. You're not a scholar. Far from it. Let's see anyone make sense of the following, from the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free, pp. 238-239, where the beginning of "the Gentile times" was changed from 606 to 607 BCE: << Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. >> According to this book, when was Jerusalem destroyed? When did "the Gentile times" begin? I can't wait to see how "scholar" tries to wiggle away from this WTS nonsense. A detailed look at all of the WTS's nonsense about this is here: https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html#n12 Of course I am. What I am not prepared to do is acknowledge their claim that WTS leaders speak for God, or that everything they write is a product of divine direction, when it is self-evident that they have gotten so much wrong for so long, and that they lie through their teeth whenever they feel like it. Just like Fred Franz lied in his above nonsense. Give me some instances of dishonesty or mistakes in my writings, and I will take a look. But be forewarned: mere bald assertions will not cut it. Yes it does. You had no idea what references the WTS writers used, but you pretended you knew exactly. LOL! Yes, scholarship that was available long before 1944. :: And? Context, Alan, Context. Get it?It's your responsibility as a writer to make the connections. You all too often make unspecific implications that allow you to wiggle out of responsibility for your words. You entertain readers, alright. But not the way you'd like to think. AlanF
  2. JW Insider wrote: The 1925 date, of course, was the focus of the "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" campaign, and was promoted by Rutherford as the date of Armageddon, beyond any possibility of being wrong. And of course, as was admitted in The Watchtower, Rutherford later apologized to the Bethel family for "making an ass of myself." AlanF
  3. scholar JW mendacious wrote: Sure, if you like. LOL! This dainty was not for you, my sweet! Then why did you challenge me about it? You're well aware that I'm fully cognizant of most details. Deny, deny, deny the facts; that's all you can manage. Of course, you never offer any evidence. What problems have real scholars not solved that "WT scholars" have? As I have already proved, they have not solved the problems -- they have ignored them. That's easy to see by looking at the special problems tackled by Edwin Thiele, and tackled and solved by COJ and Rodger Young. Do you need help with this? Right. And I've gone over this timetable and arguments carefully, and found that they indeed correspond with the Bible and solve the problems. You merely look at the final result and cry, "NO!" For reasons that I've clearly explained, and you ignore. It took nearly a century for the scholarly community to absorb the information from cuneiform tablets brought to light in the 19th century that Nebuchadnezzar had his accession year in 605 BCE. So it's all about "authority", eh? Wrong -- it's about evidence and valid arguments. Which you never engage in. That's because you rarely actually engage. Rather, you run away, hollering bare denials of facts known to all scholars. Just as you'll never engage with Rodger Young's arguments. Not a long time in scholarly circles. And as I showed, more and more scholars have taken notice. What's bunkum? Everything I said above is a fact. Josephus dated the Temple reconstruction to Cyrus' 2nd year. Do you deny that? Ezra dated the reconstruction to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Do you deny that? Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple was desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years. Do you deny that? No, you can't deny those things, because they're right there in black and white in the Bible and Josephus' writings, and even Mommy Watch Tower agrees with them. You simply don't like that these facts combine to disprove Watch Tower chronology. That was not the point. The point was that Josephus proves 587 by simple calculation: 537 + 50 = 587. Argument from authority again, eh? Try using evidence. Following COJ and Young, yes, I can solve the problems. Of course, neither you nor "Celebrated WT scholars" can even state them. I already told you: I have, and they don't. Mostly nonsense. Watch Tower leaders claim, and have always claimed, to be guided by God. They've even claimed that some of their mistakes were due to divine providence. Obviously, they're no more guided by God than you or I. My table proves that correct chronological information has existed since the 1850s -- well before Russell or any of his sources began their prophetic speculations. If God failed to guide them to correct chronological dates and conclusions, then the best that can be said is that God does not care. And of course, it's easy to demonstrate, simply by quoting the appropriate WTS literature from the 1940s and 1950s, that the "reasoning" used to change from 606 to 607 BCE was completely bogus. "Alluded to"? Such a liar! You stated: << and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >> This clearly implies that this reference was the basis for what "WT scholars" did. "Possibly the case"? But you stated it as a fact! And? LOL at the complete lack of self-awareness! I suppose you're alluding Fred Franz beginning his translation work for the NWT. LOL at the hyperbole. AlanF
  4. James Thomas Rook Jr. wrote: This is a rather complicated subject, and not one that can adequately be answered here. I'll answer off the top of my head; you can look up details for yourself. The fundamental basis for ancient chronology in modern scholarship is the Julian calendar, which Julius Caesar commissioned a few decades BCE. It was replaced in much of Europe by the Gregorian calendar in the 1500s. Obviously these calendars were not used by the Jews, Babylonians or Egyptians. The Jews used a lunar calendar which had to be adjusted every 2-3 years to keep the lunar months aligned with the solar year. They numbered their months from Nisan (1) through Adar (12), and every 2-3 years added another month in the winter. The northern kingdom and southern kingdom seem to have used somewhat different methods of enumerating the reigns of their kings. There was a religious year beginning with Nisan (1) and a secular year beginning with Tishri (7), and depending on unknown factors they started numbering kings' reigns in Nisan or Tishri. They also seem to have started the enumeration with 0 or 1, so that the year the king began reigning would be called his accession year, or his first year. The Babylonians were more consistent, always using a lunar calendar beginning in Nisan, and enumerating kings' reigns from the accession year (year 0). The Egyptian calendar was simpler: it had 12 months of 30 days each, totaling 360 days. They added another 5 days in the winter. But because the solar year is actually about 365 1/4 days, and the Egyptians failed to account for it, the calendar drifted out of sync with the seasons. Every 4 x 365 1/4 days it would make a full "circle", so to speak. No problem within one human generation, but it made long-term calendar calculations a real headache. If you really want to know more, get hold of "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" by Jack Finegan. AlanF
  5. scholar JW horribilis said: Yes, just as I and thousands of other honest people have done. Except that the matter of honesty in such matters is often objectively determinable. If the Bible says "these nations" and someone says, "No, it says 'the Jews'", it is an objective fact that the person is lying. Your confirmation bias blinds you to many facts. More confirmation bias. "My religion, may it always be right! But right or wrong, my religion!" Obsessed? No, concerned with the bad effect that any cult literature has on its readers. Nope. They are there to deceive the reader by making him think that secular sources support bogus Watch Tower tradition. Wrong. Many besides me have found the same serious defects. Some, years before I delved into it. Confirmation bias again. You have no qualifications to judge, and you have not looked up any of the bogus citations in the book. Evidence? Not likely. Or if you can manage to find evidence, and post it, we will find that it misrepresents Dawkins as thoroughly as you misrepresent even the Bible. I spoke to Dawkins in person about this book, and he agreed that it's trash. So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source: << Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >> Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus. AlanF
  6. No problem. I think we can multitask. This just goes to show how easy it is for a thread to get off track with one comment. AlanF
  7. scholar JW pretendus wrote: I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year? And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ). But you know all this, and so your protestations and false dilemmas are deliberate lies. Most importantly, the 587 date does not occur in a vacuum. As you well know, a host of contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents peg Nebuchadnezzar's accession year at 605 BCE, the capture of Jehoiachin and Jerusalem at 597, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to 568, and the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE. These are all derived from the same global set of data. The secular data alone fixes these dates, and biblical data supports them. The Bible, of course, is the only source for the date of Jerusalem's fall. And since the Bible puts Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th/19th year, and secular/biblical history puts his reign from 605 to 562 BCE, 607 is impossible, and either 587 or 586 must be correct. Furthermore, as I have said several times before, biblical scholarship advances glacially slowly. Even though Rodger Young's paper is definitive, and he and others have published other papers confirming the 587 date (and set forth all the biblical evidence in support), it takes a long time in scholarly circles for the information to circulate and be evaluated and gradually accepted. Here is a list of some modern scholarly sources that cite Rodger Young's work: "The Reliability of Kings and Chronicles", Michael Gleghorn ( https://probe.org/the-reliability-of-kings-and-chronicles/?print=print ): << Thiele did not recognize that a problem he had with the texts of 2 Kings 18 is explained by a co-regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah.{17} His chronology also needed slight adjustments for the reign of Solomon and for the end of the kingdom period.{18} In our own studies we have followed the corrections to Thiele published in several articles by Rodger Young.{19} . . . Young has also written extensively on why 587 BC, not Thiele’s 586 BC, is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. See “When Did Jerusalem Fall?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (2004): 21-38 >> In a book review on "From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology", by Andrew E. Steinmann ( http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/12/Book-Review-From-Abraham-to-Paul-A-Biblical-Chronology-Part-II.aspx ) the reviewer states: << Chapter 8 deals with the divided kingdom. The kingdom period ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., a date that is in agreement with all Scriptural sources for the period and also with Babylonian records for the years preceding and following the capture. >> An extensive webpage on modern views of Neo-Babylon chronology ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Last_kings_of_judah_synchronisms_20141118_-_PDF_version.pdf ) contains a fairly large table of dates (not reproducible here) and the following information about "Last kings of judah synchronisms": <<<< The 37th year of the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has been unambiguously dated to 568/567 BC based on an ancient astronomical diary (VAT 4956)[1][2]. That, in turn, allowed precise dating of events described in other Babylonian documents of particular importance for Jewish history: the last Egyptian intervention in Assyria[3]:20 in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901[4] and has been linked[5]:12-19[6]:416[7]:108[8]:180 to the biblical battle of Megiddo[9][10] and the death of Josiah[11] (usually dated to Sivan[5]:18[6]:418[7]:108[12] or early Tammuz[7]:108[8]:181 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for[13]:43[14][15]:184 Assyrians)[8]:181-182[3]:32 and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before[6]:419 or after[8]:181-182 Tishri 1, 609 BC); the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946[16] took place around Sivan[17]:25[18]:226 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2[17]:24[18]:226[5]:20[19]:290 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1[15]:190[13]:66-67[8]:182ff.[17]:26 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures[20][21][22]; the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year[23], seizing the city of Yaahudu[17]:72 on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC)[17]:33, capturing its king and appoining there a new ruler. This series of events has been unanimously associated with a story found in 2 Chronicles 36:10[17]:34[8]:190 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim)[24], the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1[25]; the fact of Jehoiachin, his family and servants having been captives in Babylon in the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar and onwards has been verified following the publication of the so called Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets[26] the accession year of Amel-Marduk was dated to 562/561 BC on the basis of various documents the best known of which is the Uruk King List (tablet IM 65066)[27]; this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC[28]. No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041[29] dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/567 BC) and containing description of his army invading Egypt, which has also been cited in the context of predictions found in Ezekiel 29:17-20[30][31][32]. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem[33][34] is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC[35][36] while others opting for 586 BC[37][38]. Neither view seems to be a majority[39]:21 and the interpretation depends on a number of factors, especially: assuming either the accession year system or the non-accession year system for the last kings of Judah; counting regnal years of the last Jewish rulers from either Nisan 1 or Tishri 1; chossing either Adar or Nisan 597 BC as the beginning of king Zedekiah's reign and Jehoiachin's exile[40]. An indepth analysis of the subject seems to favour the 587 BC solution at the same time showing that the last kings of Judah may have employed Tishri-based non-accession year system[39]:21-38. . . . [39] Young, Rodger C. (March 2004). "When Did Jerusalem Fall?". JETS 47 (1). >>>> And of course, you're well aware that the most modern scholarly references prefer 587 over 586. For example, "The Cambridge Ancient History" (Second Edition, Volume III, Part 2, 1991) on page 234 says that Jerusalem fell "25 August 587" BCE, and a footnote says that other authors date the fall to 15 August 586 BCE. A quick internet search using Google Scholar for "587 jerusalem" yields the following, among about 60,000 hits: "Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c.", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Volume 114, 1982 - Issue 1 "The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.", R. E. Clements, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 421-436 "Guilt and Rites of Purification Related to the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.", Walter Harrelson, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Nov., 1968), pp. 218-221 "The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron", Lawrence E. Stager, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 41, Number 2 | Apr., 1982: "The Neo-Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C." "The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions", Henry Cattan, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Spring, 1981), pp. 3-15: "... destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, Jerusalem was then successively occupied by the Persians ..." "The Bible and Western Culture", Sam Armato, Author House, 2014: "587 Jerusalem sacked, temple destroyed, Zedekiah taken prisoner, and Judah absorbed into the Babylonian empire." And some web pages using Google and "587 jerusalem": https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC).html <<In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC. . . The Babylonian Chronicles, published in 1956, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin, on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[11] There has been some debate as to when the second siege of Jerusalem took place. There is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), but William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BC, but Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[12] Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year that Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, that would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.[12][13] However, the Babylonian Chronicles support the enumeration of Zedekiah's reign on a non-accession basis. Zedekiah's first year, when he was installed by Nebuchadnezzar, was, therefore, in 598/597 BC according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The fall of Jerusalem, in his eleventh year, would then have been in the summer of 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and it also provide the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. The Babylonian records, related to Jehoiachin's reign, are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 BC and so are inconsistent with a 586 date. >> http://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade18-1-05 "Jerusalem Fell in 587 Not 586 BC" -- By: C. Ermal Allen http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst116b/JewishHistory.html "The kingdom of Babylon conquered Judah in 587 BCE." We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21: << Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >> Going back 50 years from 537, we get to 587 BCE. Given the above information, there is no reason whatsoever not to accept 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. You continue to misrepresent the situation, which I have rectified with the above information. No blame, just the facts. As shown below, the Bible most certainly contains an apparent ambiguity. But modern scholars have resolved it with real evidence, rather than pretending it does not exist. Again I refer the reader to Rodger Young's paper for an in-depth look. Very simple: "WT scholars" ignore the many problems. And because the 1914 doctrine requires 607, that's what they've settled on. The fact that the Bible itself is ambiguous on the date of Jerusalem's destruction is easily illustrated with two quotations from Jeremiah: << . . . in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard . . . came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem. . . 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. >> -- Jer. 52:12-15 << In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. >> -- Jer. 52:29 So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year? This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems. As I said, biblical scholarship moves slowly. But as I showed above, more and more modern scholars are moving away from the 586 date and Thiele's handful of unresolved issues that led to his acceptance of 586, given that Young and others have resolved them. Proof of my above statements: The WTS knew that the 536 and 606 BCE dates were wrong for many years prior to 1943. The 1917 book The Finished Mystery listed 607 BCE as the start of the Gentile times. The March 13, 1935 Golden Age listed on page 369 both 537 BCE for the "Edict of Cyrus" and 607 BCE for the start of the Gentile Times. One of Russell's trusted lieutenants, P. S. L. Johnson, later wrote that in 1912 he approached Russell with the information that 606 was wrong, and 607 was the correct date, but Russell ignored it. In 1913, British Bible Student and confidant of Russell, Morton Edgar, published "Great Pyramid Passages", in which he also used 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The two books of Edgar and his brother John were widely read among Bible Students, and Russell and other "WT scholars" would surely have known of Edgar's contributions to WTS chronology. Many scholars over the centuries accepted 536 BCE as Cyrus' first year, and it was accepted as such at least as far back as the 17th century. For example, the famous Bible chronology given by Bishop Ussher used that date. So did the chronologies given by the many commentators who engaged in prophetic speculation that Barbour and Russell so heavily relied upon, such as E. B. Elliott and Joseph Seiss. But Barbour and Russell gave no references in their 1877 book "Three Worlds" to any scholarly works that would support their claim about 536 BCE. They also claimed that Ptolemy's canon supported a date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year as being "nineteen years before the seventy years captivity of Jerusalem." Their book does support Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as being nineteen years before Jerusalem's destruction, but their chronology implies that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was in 625 BCE, whereas Ptolemy's canon implies 605 BCE for his accession year. The table below shows three reference works that had put Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 605 or 606 BCE; other scholars of the time agree closely with these dates. Given the attention to detail Barbour and Russell showed elsewhere it seems almost impossible they could have missed this point. It seems they simply wanted to believe that their interpretation of the 70 years was correct, and they ignored, at least in print, all evidence against their interpretation. It is enlightening that they claimed Ptolemy's canon supports the 536 BCE date, but were silent about what the canon implies for the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's first year. They were also silent about scholarly support of dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, which the table below shows scholars said occurred in 588 to 586 BCE, whereas Barbour and Russell claimed it occurred in 606 BCE. An examination of some scholarly works available in the latter half of the 19th century proves Barbour and Russell's claim that their dates were firmly established was not true. Virtually every reference work used a slightly different set of dates for key events in the Neo-Babylonian period, but they generally differed by only one to three years. The following table shows three sets of dates for important events from this period, from reference works available in the period in which Barbour and Russell, and later Russell alone, wrote. These are: McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, 1871; Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1864; Encyclopaedia Biblica, Cheyne and Black, 1899. Compare these with the currently accepted dates, which are also listed. See also Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence, 1956, 1971. Event McClintock Smith's Bible Encyclopaedia Current & Strong's Dictionary Biblica Nebuchadnezzar's accession 606 605 605 605 Jehoiachin's deportation 598 597 597 597 Jerusalem's destruction 588 586 586 587/6 Babylon's fall 538 539 538 539 Cyrus' 1st year 538 538 538 538 Return of Jewish exiles 536 536 538 538/7 From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 1868. This is yet another example where you use weasel words to convey a false impression. You mention "recent scholarship that began in 1942" as if that were new to the world of scholarship, whereas it was only "new" to Fred Franz -- and it was not even "new" to him, because the reality is that Franz merely began to take account of it in his writings in WTS literature in 1944, whereas it was actually known to "WT scholars" since 1912 and to secular scholars long before that. In your previous post you wrote a grossly misleading statement: << and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >> The fact is that they did not "establish" 607 as a precise date, but merely stated that it was a precise date You imply that "WT scholars" came to recognize their 607 date only a bit after some new scholarship appeared in 1942. Yet in the above exposition I've proved that these "scholars" knew the "correct" date as early as 1912. And in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower an extensive series of articles was published that contained a chart showing that the correct information was known by "the chronologers of Christendom" at least as far back as 1907 (The Catholic Encyclopedia is referenced, showing Nabonidus' reign as 555-539 BCE). Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article. This material by Parker and Dubberstein also proves that correct dates for the Neo-Babylonian period were known long before 1942. The introduction on the above-linked page states: << Recent additions to our knowledge of intercalary months in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods have enabled us to improve upon the results of our predecessors in this field, though our great debt to F. X. Kugler and D. Sidersky for providing the background of our work is obvious. >> Francis Xavier Kugler published his most significant work (in German, several volumes) in 1907-1924 in "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel" (something like "Astronomy and Astro Services(?) in Babylon"). Kugler in turn based some of his work on the late-19th century writings of Strassmaier and other scholars. Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944. The fact that no such guidance occurred proves that "WT scholars" are as disconnected from God as you are. Not a bit. What troubles me is when supposed scholars lie in God's name, as I've shown that Mommy Watch Tower and you are so proficient at. Yes. Not in the way that Mommy Watch Tower claims. The population killers (earthquakes, famine, pestilence, war) that it claims have been operating on an unprecedentedly massive scale since 1914 are simply not here. The fact that we are experiencing an unprecedented population explosion is unassailable proof. JWs continue to mistake what Mommy Watch Tower claims for what the Bible says. Nonsense. See above. AlanF
  8. scholar JW pretendus wrote: Yes and no. If the writers were honest and interested in telling the truth to their readers, yes, there would be no need. But because a good deal of WTS teaching is built on its own tradition and on many falsehoods, the writers understand that they MUST lie to their readers by quote mining and various other dishonest scholastic practices. Just as you do. You try to make their deliberate lying sound oh, so innocent! In principle they can, but hardly any JW readers do. Rather, they assume -- wrongly -- that WTS writers are giving them fair quotes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "By your own mouth you are condemned." What do you think substituting "[1776]" for "1876" is? Honest quoting? Or "[607]" for "587"? Honest quoting? Some twenty five years ago I carefully analyzed the 1985 "Creation" book. I found upward of 100 instances of quote-mining, flat out lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings of science, and just about every scholastic sin that exists. By 1992 the book was already infamous in scientific Usenet circles as a laughingstock, a standard creationist parody of science. See "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution": https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-disagreements-about-evolution.html So you claim. Obviously, both the WTS Writing and Legal departments disagree. AlanF
  9. scholar JW pretendus wrote: LOL! Seventeen lines of evidence from COJ (and of course, from the dozens of recognized scholars he got it from) against Watch Tower quote mining of the Bible! Amazing anyone but a JW could buy this. That old fallacy for the thousandth time. The fact is that the Bible itself provides the grist for that mill, by being quite ambiguous about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Some scholars have decided on 586, others on 587, with modern secular scholarship generally preferring 587. As you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitmt7qxOrYAhVO1mMKHZ4RAe4QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ) Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. Rodger Young did. Carl Olof Jonsson did. Again you lie in God's name. Totally misleading on all counts. All that happened was that during 1943-1944, Fred Franz decided that 607 should be the date, finally accepting what C. T. Russell and other Bible Students had known as far back as 1912. And of course, the correct dates that Franz used to manufacture 606/607 were well known to proper scholars well back in the 19th century. Until 1943, the WTS claimed 606 BCE for Jerusalem's fall and the start of the Gentile times. In the middle of the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" the WTS moved the date for the start of the Gentile times back by one year, leaving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE intact throughout the entire book. In a thoroughly dishonest exposition on pages 238-239 the book made this change. The result was that the Gentile times began in October, 607 BCE, while Jerusalem was destroyed ten months later in August, 606 BCE! The date for Jerusalem's fall was changed, in a dishonest footnote, on page 171 of the 1944 book "The Kingdom Is At Hand". Full details on "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" can be found here: https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html When a religious doctrine like "1914" is founded on a false date like 606 BCE, its entire exposition of biblical chronology will be wrong. And when the doctrine becomes fully set, and historical sources demand some revision but the doctrine must remain intact by adjusting the calculations leading to it, you KNOW the whole structure is built on fantasy. AlanF
  10. scholar JW pretendus wrote: It's more correct to say that WTS publications are often scholastically dishonest. Yes indeed! WTS literature provides a rich source for such studies. Wrong. That practice is known as quote mining. It is a thoroughly dishonest practice of those who have no way of defending their claims aside from dishonesty. It's a practice that young-earth creationists and the Watch Tower Society are especially known for. For example ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining ): << Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution. Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote. >> Another example ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context ): << Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. . . Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. >> And a third, which mentions WTS dishonesty: https://jwawaken.com/2016/06/08/what-is-quote-mining/ Still lying about this, eh? We had extensive debates about this years ago, and various posters fully established that the Aid book was lying -- despite your many attempts at rationalizing its quote mining. The fact that WTS writers dropped it from Insight proves that even they knew the lie was unsustainable. AlanF
  11. Which is precisely the goal of many Watch Tower writers. One can find hundreds of similar egregious examples in Watch Tower literature. I myself have documented more than two dozen instances where WTS literature has given the impression -- usually without actually stating outright -- that all manner of pre-1914 WTS predictions came true, when the fact is that no visible prediction came true. AlanF
  12. Exactly. Watch Tower practice -- and sometimes that of Scholar JW as well -- is to substitute "Peter" for "Paul" and hope readers fail to notice. Which they almost always do. So the Watch Tower Society's scholastic dishonesty in these practices is deliberate. AlanF
  13. It seems that the Watch Tower Society has finally bowed to the scientific evidence and now admits that evolution is true. Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications: "The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true". "Evolution is true". "Evolution is true . . . evolution is true . . . evolution is true". "Evolution is true" and "The Bible is myth". "The theory of evolution is true". And the history book "Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" has moved the history of the Watch Tower organization back by 100 years, now saying that: "In [1776], an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner." "Beginning in about [1776], arrangements were made each year by the Bible Students for commemoration of the Lord’s death." "Ever since [1776] the year [1874] had been Scripturally identified as a turning point in human history." Note: this post was composed using "The Scholar JW Manual of Style". AlanF
  14. So much blah blah blahing without saying anything. You don't even know your own "proposals" because you have none. At least, none that can be stated outside your head. AlanF
  15. Nana Fofana wrote: Ok. My compliments! Unlike many JW defenders, who will go to the mat even when they're dead wrong, you have integrity. Hope you have a great day! AlanF
  16. Nana Fofana wrote: Nice try, but no cigar. Here's a small sample of Rutherford's teaching: << The remnant are instructed by the angels of the Lord. The remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones.(Preparation, 1933, p. 64; The Watchtower, October 15, 1933, pp. 247-8; The Watchtower, September 15, 1938, p. 286) >> << Jehovah would employ his power through his angels to put in the minds of his servants to take the course that he would have them take.(The Watchtower, November 1, 1937, p. 326,¶14; 1938 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, February 15) >> << Certain duties and kingdom interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which include the transmission of information to God's anointed people on the earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it.(Preparation, 1933, pp. 36, 37; The Watchtower, August 15, 1933, p. 243 ¶3; The Watchtower, March 1, 1938 p. 79,¶4) >> << Angels are delegated by the Lord to convey his instructions to the members of his organization on earth. Just how this is done is not necessary for us to understand.(The Watchtower, December 1, 1933, p. 364) >> << Without a doubt the Lord uses his angels to cause the truth to be published in The Watchtower... Certainly God guides his covenant people by using the holy angels to convey his message to them.(The Watchtower, February 1, 1935, p. 41) >> << No man can properly interpret prophecy, and the Lord sends his angels to transmit correct information to his people,.... The Greater Gideon [Jesus] does not begin the Armageddon battle until the message of truth from Jehovah God concerning the same is transmitted by his angels to the faithful remnant on the earth.(The Watchtower, February 15, 1935, p. 52,¶7, 8; 1935 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, November 13. See further, The Watchtower, July 1, 1938, pp. 199, 200,¶24, 25; 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, June 22; J.F. Rutherford, His Vengeance, 1934, p. 6) >> These are direct claims of inspiration. AlanF
  17. Nana Fofana wrote: Of course, but if you want to make a point, you need to argue for that point, and cite enough evidence -- like source references -- to prove it. << In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. >> -- Jer. 52:30 Do you believe the Bible or not? Not necessarily. The WTS's claims notwithstanding, many scholars agree that Judah was not completely devoid of inhabitants after Jerusalem's destruction. And the Bible itself says nothing about captives being taken from Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year -- it only says that Jews were taken into exile. Therefore it is pure speculation to say where those Jews were taken from. AlanF
  18. Nana Fofana wrote: I know from dozens of their own statements in WTS literature that they claim to speak for God. J. F. Rutherford, for example, wrote many times that angels inspired him. Would you like me to cite examples? And of course, if you consider yourself a loyal JW, the Governing Body requires you to accept their words as being equivalent to God's words. Again, do you want me to cite such demands from WTS literature? Well actually they talk out both sides of their mouth at the same time, so it's understandable that you would be a bit confused. But yes, they do literally claim to speak for God. That's what "theocratic rule" literally means. Yes, they do. Would you like me to prove it, using WTS literature? They deceive the JW community about their teachings. They allow that the earth and universe could be as old as science says -- 4.55 billion years old for the earth and 13.7 billion for the universe. But they have long taught that animal life was created just 20,000 years ago -- not the ~600 million years that science shows. You don't believe me? I encourage to do your own research in WTS literature. You'll find that the Watch Tower Society nowhere teaches, or even admits, that animal life is more than 20,000 years old. I can easily cite dozens of WTS statements proving this, but you'll do much better to figure this out for yourself. AlanF
  19. For Nana Fofana, Nana, I'm afraid you're very confused about the timeline of the period 609 BCE onward through about the end of the Babylonian empire, so I'll give a brief timeline of the most accepted secular history. <<<< 609: Nabopolassar's 17th year, Assyrian empire ends at the battle of Harran, Jehoiakim's accession year 605: Nabopolassar's 21st year, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, battle of Carchemish, first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 1st deportation where Daniel and other elites taken captive to Babylon (this deportation possibly occurred in 604), Jehoiakim becomes vassal to Nebuchadnezzar 602/601: Jehoiakim rebels against Babylon, Jehovah sends marauder bands against Judah 598: Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, Jehoiakim is killed, Jehoiachin becomes king for 3 months 597: Jehoiachin surrenders, 2nd deportation where Jehoiachin and many others taken to Babylon, Zedekiah's accession year 589: Babylonian forces besiege Jerusalem 587: Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, Jerusalem destroyed, many more captives taken in 3rd deportation 582: Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, 4th deportation of captives 562: Nebuchadnezzar dies, Evil-Merodach's accession year 539: Babylon falls to Cyrus, Cyrus' accession year 538: Jews released, return to Judah >>>> This timeline agrees almost exactly with that given by Oded Lipschitz. Now, AllenSmith has claimed many times that Carl Olof Jonssson (COJ) in his various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" stated that only TWO Jewish exiles occurred. But this is false, as I've shown by actual quotations that COJ described at length in various parts of his books that Jews were taken captive in 605/604, 597, 587 and 582. Clearly, AllenSmith is lying, because various people have corrected him many times. The dates of exile stated in AllenSmith's link ( https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/ ) are 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. The 604 date reflects the uncertainty between it and 605, as mentioned above. The Bible gives no details about the exile of 582 aside from the number of Jews taken, so many historical narrators fail to mention it, since it is not entirely clear where the exiles came from. With the above information in view, I'll go on to some comments on your post. Well then, you should make sure that your information is correct, or not bother to comment at all. And you should say exactly what you mean, or what you agree with. Then you should have said that. Furthermore, had you been reading all the posts on this matter -- if you have not, then why are you even commenting? -- you would have seen that several times I showed exactly where AllenSmith's claims about COJ and a host of other things were out and out falsehoods. He has no idea what he's talking about, and spouts gibberish, so it's impossible to know what he really means. See how confused you are? The discussion was restricted to the exiles in 605/604, 597 and 587. Nothing was said about the exile of 582. Anyone familiar with WTS chronology knows perfectly well that they claim THREE exiles -- 617, 607, and 602 -- but your citation from the Insight book only explicitly mentions the first (it does not give the date, which is given elsewhere in WTS literature). Your citation says nothing about Jeremiah 52:30. AlanF
  20. 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
  21. AllenSmith wrote: LOL! You're so hopelessly screwed up in your head that you don't even know what you claim. Let's try a very simple test: Did COJ claim there were TWO exiles? OR Did COJ claim there were THREE exiles? Whatever you answer, prove it by quoting appropriate sources. AlanF
  22. Nana Fofana said to AllenSmith: Agree with what, exactly? Certainly not with anything AllenSmith wrote, because his gibberish has nothing to do with anything you've written below. In fact, on page 25 of this thread he contradicts your citation below from WTS literature. In his usual gibberish style, AllenSmith wrote: << Until people like Carl Olof Jonsson can explain the contradiction in secular history that DEMAND, there were only, 2 instances, in the exile of the Jewish people in, Babylonian time? It’s futile to argue against any skeptic, since 2015, recent Babylonian tablets, found, indicate 3 exiles NOT 2, meaning 3 points of interest. So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE . . . >> As proof he cites this link: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/ which states: << The exhibit is accompanied by a beautiful catalog, By the Rivers of Babylon,1 which describes the Al-Yahudu Archive and addresses the three waves of exile—in 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. >> The exile referenced as in 604 is actually the one described in various ancient sources as having occurred sometime in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE. Only a small number of captives were taken then, among the elite, such as Daniel. So AllenSmith not only does not support your "agreement", but contradicts your WTS citation, which claims that there were only TWO exiles. Once again we find JW defenders hard put to write coherent arguments. Also note that 2 Kings 24 gives only a brief, unspecific statement, but Daniel 1 directly describes the exile: << In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets. >> -- 2 Kings 24:1-2 << In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . 6 Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. >> -- Daniel 1:1-6 Comparing the two passages, 2 Kings does not refer to the year of Jehoiakim's reign when Nebuchadnezzar came against him, but Daniel says it was in Nebuchadnezzar's "third year". A careful study of biblical chronology by many scholars has shown that various Bible writers used different dating systems to date events. Some used an accession-year system, some a non-accession-year system. Some dated the years of reign according to a calendar in which the religious year Nisan was counted as the first month of the regnal year, others used the secular calendar which began in Tishri. In all cases the Jewish and Babylonian months were numbered with Nisan = 1 and Tishri = 7. Other careful studies have shown that the writer of Daniel almost certainly used a Babylonian style accession-year system beginning with Nisan. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar would have come up against Jerusalem in his accession year, 605 BCE, shortly after the battle at Carchemish, which according to Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2 was also Jehoiakim's 4th year and Nebuchanezzar's 1st year (Jeremiah obviously used non-accession-year and Tishri dating). The exile of Daniel and company would likely have happened at that time (although there is some chance that exiles were deported sometime in 604 BCE since no biblical passages explicitly date this deportation). I'll analyze your citation from WTS literature (Insight) in view of the above. Clearly 2 Kings 2 is referring to Nebuchadnezzar's siege in Jehoiakim's 4th year (by Jeremiah's dating, 3rd year by Daniel's dating). We know this because of 2 Kings 24:1-2: << In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it. >> The text clearly implies that these attacks by marauder bands went on for quite some time, and other texts show that the attacks ended only when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim for the last time in 598 BCE, and captured Jerusalem a few months later in 597 BCE. So when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in 605, Jehoiakim capitulated and became his vassal for three years, then Jehoiakim rebelled and was attacked for some time by marauder bands. Nonsense. The only reason the WTS makes this claim is that its entire chronological structure would be wrecked if the above scriptural exposition were true. The only "evidence" it gives is this false claim: False, because the author is neglecting the fact that Daniel used accession-year dating, whereas Jeremiah used non-accession-year dating, and as shown above, Jehoiakim's 3rd year by Daniel's dating was his 4th year by Jeremiah's dating. See above. Speculation disproved by the above information. Nonsense. Jehoiakim's vassalage, according to this, lasted about three full years and ended early in his 11th year, when he was removed from the throne and apparently killed by Nebuchadnezzar's forces in 598 BCE. Immediately after that, Jehoiachin became king and in about three months surrendered. There would have been insufficient time for the marauder bands of 2 Kings 24:2 to keep coming up against Jehoiakim if he rebelled after three years beginning in his 8th year. The Watch Tower's exposition simply ignores the Bible here. So far so good. But the WTS author then proceeds to deliberately mix up the siege in 605 with the siege in 598/597: The passage certainly describes the capitulation of Jehoiachin, but the Bible gives no indication that this had anything to do with Jehoiakim's capitulation in his 4th year (3rd according to Daniel). Right, in late 598 BCE. All of which is immaterial to the dating of the reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, and of the various exiles. A flat out lie -- Daniel 1 describes this earliest exile. Far more could be written about these events, but the above outline is sufficient for now. AlanF
  23. Yes, just like all those things were removed in 1914, according to C. T. Russell's predictions. The world has serious problems, alright, but they have nothing to do with Watch Tower predictions of the future. Not a single visible thing that Watch Tower prophetic speculators have predicted has come true. AlanF
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.