AlanF
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by AlanF
-
-
Arauna said:
Quote:: who live "in towns and villages" are also known as people who live in cities in the Bible, s
It was a system of city states which each controlled their jurisdiction.
I've already shown you why this was not true in Babylonia. Rather, there were settlements of all sizes throughout the realm. All were subject to the king of Babylon.
Somehow you're confusing the fact that city-states were the norm in each individual "nation" in the Mediterranean region with the false notion that many of the cities in Babylonia and ruled by the king of Babylon were also semi-independant city-states.
QuoteThis system - as I already showed in my previous comment - was also at work in the Greek empire. The wars of Xerxes (Persia) with Sparta and Athens served to unify all the city states into an empire which later under Alexander the Great conquered vast territories. . During the middle ages we see similar kind of systems in Europe under feudal lords. Germany was unified into one country by Bismarck and Italy was unified by Cavour.
Completely irrelevant to the point at issue here.
Quote:: However, I believe getting in the last wheat harvest while preparing must be noted.
I did not say this - someone else did..
Sorry -- my mistake. It was allensmith28 who said that.
However, your subsequent arguments about "city-states" supported his basic claim.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley gave as an example of an insult:
Quote:: By all means, show us how this should be done.
Yes indeed, asking a True JW to provide evidence or proof is insulting. After all, the only evidence such a person needs is that God's infallible spokemen, the Governing Body, have spoken.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
QuoteNo no no @Foreigner - you misunderstand me.
You have called @AlanF a pengabo.
LOL! The word is "pendejo". As in:
Chinga tu madre, pendejo!
You remind me of the JW elders I've heard correct someone's English with this:
"Make sure your pronounciation is correct!"
QuoteThat means you and I are friends. Nobody thinks Alan is a big jerk more than me. I was being sarcastic writing what I did and you didn't realize that. I am sorry for that. It is my fault.
No, it's Foreigner's fault for having such a big chip on his shoulder that he's incapable of thinking clearly.
QuoteLook at my posts. I have posted two in a row which are nothing but making him look bad by his own mouth - quoting insult after insult of his that he has hurled at other people.
Make me look bad? Actually what you've done is prove beyond any doubt that your concern is trivia -- not the topic of this thread -- that you're quite incapable of even participating in the topic of the thread.
QuoteWhen I write I use humor. I use exaggeration. I will make up stories. Sometimes I use sarcasm. It is easy to misunderstand if you are mostly familiar with another language.
Yes, Spanish speakers have no concept of those things.
AlanF
-
Foreigner wrote:
Quote:: I had never heard this word. I looked it up, of course, because I will not tolerate any disrespect for AlanF. It is not our place to talk back to him. It is his place to tell us, and all we can do is just hope he can keep the insults under reasonable control.
YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY DISRESPECT FOR ALANF. WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE RESPECTS WHITE TRASH, ESPECIALLY AFTER COMMENTING, BROWN TRASH?
LOL! Can anyone get any more clueless?
QuoteA PERSON THAT DENIGRATE OTHERS FOR THEIR WRITING SKILLS IS THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE.
So says he who began the denigration. He's even so unthinking as not to realize he admits it:
QuoteTHE EXAMPLE I OFFERED OF HIS OWN FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE *JEFFRO*
Foreigner's denigration of others' writing skills began before anyone poked fun at his own. And of course, he's too thick to realize that others' poking fun was a direct reaction to his hypocrisy and to his ignorance of the language in which he presumed to instruct others.
QuoteILLUSTRATED HOW MORONIC HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPTS ARE TO IMPOSE HIS WRITING SKILLS ON ANYONE. SINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, ALSO MAKE MISTAKES, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE.
Of course intelligent people make mistakes. But you did not simply make a mistake -- you castigated Jeffro for making "mistakes" that were only your own misunderstanding of English. And when you were corrected, not only were you too arrogant to admit your mistakes, but you doubled down on them and made nasty remarks.
Here comes the completely ignorant result of Foreigner's chip on his shoulder.
QuoteSO, DON’T EVER CLAIM YOUR BETTER THAN ME, JUST BECAUSE YOUR WHITE.
Yes indeed, Foreigner can see through our screens that we're white.
QuoteI’M NOT A WITNESS YET, AND THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE FILTH HERE, I’M NOT FOR SURE I WANT TO BE ONE.
Oh, please do go on to become a Witness -- you're perfect material.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
Quote:: Ah, now pulling the race card. Racist? Not only do people on this board, like JW Insider and me, not know if you're white, brown, black, green, blue or purple -- we don't care.
Within reason, one should not be put down for playing "the race card."
I agree, except that in Foreigner's case he's not being reasonable, since no one knows his race, and no one knew that his native language is Spanish until he himself revealed it. Nor will anyone know where he's from unless he himself reveals it.
Clearly then, Foreigner's pulling "the race card" is due to his knowing he has no rational arguments. Obviously he has an inferiority complex and a big chip on his shoulder.
Quote... from just a quick scan, I don't see where race and pendejo have anything to do with each other. Is it white trash? It seems that it could just as well be brown trash.
It's a cussword/slur that can refer to anyone you don't like.
AlanF
-
Foreigner wrote:
QuoteTo be fair. It’s true, English is not my first language. Unfortunately, Grammarly doesn’t know how to correct, English the way racist white people think English should be used or understood by the rest of the World.
Ah, now pulling the race card.
Racist? Not only do people on this board, like JW Insider and me, not know if you're white, brown, black, green, blue or purple -- we don't care.
Let me clue you in: a language is supposed to be used in the way that the great majority of its native speakers use it. That is the definition of proper use. If you, as a non-native speaker, choose not to speak the way natives speak, or have not learned how to speak the way they do, that's your lookout.
QuoteThere’s no correction in Grammarly to fit your individual, and personal writing style, ALANF,
I already told you that on page 23 of this thread.
QuoteThere is no BOT button to copy your writing style verbatim, sorry!! But in my native language, there is a word for people like you. It starts with a “P” middle “nd” and ends with “jo”. It brings it, more to the point.
Probably the equivalent of "dick" in English.
QuoteI feel sorry for the owner to have allowed this forum stoop so low? Instead of intellectual conversations, it has come a cesspool, with vices of ignorance, by, one sad little person, shame!!!
Especially when racism by language barriers is being introduced without the consideration of the own[er].
You really take the cake as a hypocrite. It is YOU who started this little tiff about language. On page 23 of this thread, you castigated whoever you quoted (apparently Jeffro):
<< ... Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.* (Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)
... Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.
(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)
Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!! >>You even emphasized your comments by putting them in red.
Then on page 24 I tried to educate you a little about the various ways in which English is used, and commented that Grammarly deals only with one formal style.
Given your obviously limited English (which is no sin, but arrogance about things you're ignorant of assuredly is) I commented:
<< LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh? >>
You've also made false statements about my postings and those of JW Insider, who has taken great pains to treat your false claims kindly. On pages 26 and 28 you said:
<< There’s too much ignorance thrown in the mix by AlanF, with his attempts to look smart instead of the biggest fool.
When you act like a child, you will be treated as a child. Go play with your rattle, dear!!!!! >>
You even accused JW insider of twisting words.
As the 1950s Warner Brothers cartoon character Yosemite Sam said, "Hey, them's fighin' words!"
Now you're whining and whinging about being taken to task for saying false, unpleasant and quite stupid things about other posters, and having your own words turned back on you.
What are you, 12 years old?
AlanF
- JW Insider and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
10 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:
LOL! That’s what I thought. CanÂ’t answer unless you add stupid, in the mix. Keep trying junior. You, almost have your friends in AD1914, convinced, how incoherent you really are. So, keep giving, permission to have your 607BC ideology posted there JWinsider.
Every time you post, you display worse and worse ignorance.
Hmm, let's see now: you think the Jews were deported before they were captured.
Yeah, makes complete sense.
AlanF
-
21 minutes ago, Foreigner said:
So, how is this not placing ideologies that aren’t referenced in scripture? (I.e. only 1260) Once again, stick to the question of why you don't believe scripture by giving a false claim, that Jesus Said, ONLY 1260?
Completely incoherent, as usual.
More to the point: where did Jesus say anthing about 2,520?
AlanF
-
allensmith28 wrote:
Quote:: That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. . .
This is how FALSE YOUR STATEMENT IS, FOR SECULAR DATING.
Launches into another bout of near-total incoherence:
QuoteUntil 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, which COJ and Raymond Franz FAILED to take into account. So, once again, COJ’s book is a contradiction unto itself and a FAILURE.
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.
On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:
<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>
Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.
On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:
<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>
<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>
COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.
On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:
<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>
And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.
Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
QuoteO’Maly and JWinsider should be aware of these new finds of Filip Vukosavovic 2015, at the British Museum.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/
Yes, anyone who knows anything about Neo-Babylonian chronology already knows about the dates given:
<< 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. >>
QuoteThen, they have to explain, what those tablets mean by 1 exile in 587BC and the destruction of Jerusalem in 586BC,
The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the summer of 587 BCE, followed a few months later in 587 by the deportation of captives. What are you blathering about?
Quotewhen secular chronology indicates the siege of Jerusalem, started in 589BC with a siege wall to prevent the Jews from escaping.
Yes, the siege began in 589, lasted about 2 1/2 years, and ended in 587. Has your brain seized up?
AlanF
-
1 hour ago, Foreigner said:
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 it’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, IT’S YOU.
Oh dear! The incoherence is deafening!
Forgotten about Grammarly, have we?
AlanF
-
Ann O'Maly wrote:
QuoteI think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study:
Yes indeed! Thanks for posting this.
QuoteFrom the introduction:
"Deportees played a key role here [in the less populated regions]: they were settled in marginal rural areas and integrated into the land-for-service sector of agriculture.33 Given plots of land to cultivate, they had to pay taxes and perform work and military service in return. The majority of cuneiform sources pertaining to Judeans originate from the land-for-service sector of Babylonian agriculture." - p. 6
"Agriculture was of huge importance to the Babylonian economy, and a great many deportees were settled in the countryside to bring new land under cultivation. There is no evidence that the Babylonians practised Assyrian-style two-way deportations, but deportees were predominantly taken to Babylonia, especially to depopulated areas in the countryside." - p. 9
I've only skimmed parts of this doctoral dissertation because it's only just come up in my email feed.
I've skimmed more of the relevant sections. They expand on the above excerpts. Clearly, the captives played a larger part in agriculture than I gave them credit for.
Nevertheless, my basic point stands in opposition to Arauna's speculation: farming was not something important enough to many of the Jewish captives to prevent them from dropping everything and beginning immediate preparations for the Return as soon as they realized that Babylon's fall would allow their release, or they heard of Cyrus' Edict. After all, various sources, including the above, and the Bible itself, indicate that the Jews in exile had become so comfortable that a large fraction -- probably the majority, since the Bible refers to the Returnees as a "remnant" -- remained in Babylonia. Only those with a particularly strong religious zeal would want to uproot themselves and go back to a nearly desolate land.
AlanF
- Foreigner and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
. . . my current nefarious scheme is to change all URLs - even those of AlanF!! - in all posts to point to my blog.
So you're the one who so nefariously changed allensmith28's URL to make him look so stupid.
AlanF
-
Nana Fofana wrote:
QuoteAll these theologians seem to agree about the main significance and purpose of this 70 years.
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.
QuoteWas it no longer respectable to take that view after the discovery that , "*ten times seven years, which Jeremiah threatened, as in the margin." [Benson Commentary at the top^] , was from an inaccurate footnote in the KJV , which made the period of "Judges" about 100 years too long, but was perhaps included in just about everyone's chronology? - Though- then, as now- so, so many variations in "the experts'" chronologies!
This borders on incoherent. Try expressing yourself clearly.
QuoteHowever, from what I can see they were -scripturally- definitely right about the 70 years' purpose [THAT 70 years anyway] in their comments above.
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
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
Arauna wrote:
Quote:: Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of The Bible", entry for "city"
We are not talking about the city of Cain or the nomadic settlements in the time of Abraham - (although Ur was a city state and Melchizedek was a priest-king of Jerusalem /Salem) in his time.
We are talking about the culture of cities-states which was started by Nimrod (built many cities in Babylon and Assyria) and formed the network of cities which became the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian empires.
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
-
55 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:
As you can very well see. My remark was geared towards this webpage that alanf used as an illustration.
And another ( http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html ):
Either way. I'll move forward. It doesn't matter to me. The Topic is,
607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported? So, let's move on.
Now you're compounding your lunacy by lying. This is the URL you originally posted on page 26 of this thread:
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
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:
But will see who is lying?
Completely looney people can hardly be accused of lying when they muck up as badly as you have.
AlanF
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:
Can you read the accusation TheWorldNewsMedia? You “ringer” has just accused me of HACKING your website. Shall you call the FBI or shall I.
Yep, completely looney.
AlanF
- Ann O'Maly and DefenderOTT
-
1
-
1
-
Arauna wrote:
Quote:: 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
1. The Jews from the 10 tribe were scattered ALL over the empire - many of those taken by the Syrian empire were put in Elam and the cities of the Medes....and the river Gozan. Look on a map - this is at the outskirts of the empire territory.
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.
QuoteThe root cause of the ten tribe deportation is given in 2 Kings 18: 11,12 together with the names of the areas they were deported to. The root cause for Israel was the SAME reason for the exile of the Juda - disobedience to the law and the pollution of the land. They broke the covenant of Jehovah excessively with their deity worship. NOT a whim of Jehovah for them to have a change...of ruler
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.
QuoteYour 'theory' above - not true. It must have taken some time to reach them in the far reaches of the empire! The call went out to ALL of israel to return.
Totally wrong. By that time the 10 tribes were scattered to the four winds. Need I remind you of what the Bible says?
Quote2. 617 BCE - Jehoiachin - The upper class of the population is taken to the Babylon - including the metal workers, mighty warriors, craftsmen, court officials princes, including Daniel and his 3 friends, Ezekiel and their families.... the numbers for the men are given in the scriptures I cited in my response above - the number of men as the numbers of the wives and children are not given.
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.
QuoteI have already given you the proof that Ezekiel (Ez 1) visited a community of the first group of exiles at the river Chebar......
Like I said: what of it?
QuoteNot all these people were settled in the city of Babylon itself and they were not in a position to hear any court gossip....too far away...
I said nothing about court gossip. I described Daniel and others possible notification that big things were in the works -- hardly gossip.
Quotelook on your map where they were...(there were two more incursions by Nebuchadnezzar after this - most probably taking all the smaller cities around Jerusalem.)
Yes, and to where? To the close vicinity of Babylon.
Quote3. The poor people who were left behind under Zedekia and the prophet Jeremiah - together with a group of high officials - could have been spared being removed from the land BUT as you rightly said - they did not listen to Jeremiah/Jehovah. However! The first group of exiles had already left for Babylon almost 10 years before - it was not the entire group that would have been spared the exile as you have implied in your previous answers.
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.
QuoteThe temple of worship was destroyed and all the rest in the city were taken. Thousands who took refuge in Jerusalem during the 18 month siege (some Jewish sources say 30) died from famine and sickness, war injuries, and the fire which destroyed the temple ( Lam 4:10
Yes, all of which occurred between 589 and 587 BCE.
Quote
Jer 9:11
11
“I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins,
a haunt of jackals;
and I will lay waste the towns of Judah
so no one can live there.”13...The Lord said, “It is because they have forsaken my law,
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.
QuoteJer 32: 43 - a wasteland without man and beast
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
- Ann O'Maly and DefenderOTT
-
1
-
1
-
allensmitth28 wrote:
Quote:: LOL! I posted no such nonsense. YOU posted it. Either you're completely looney, or a pathological liar.
LOL!!!!:D
Forgetting your place in this thread!!!!!!
I'll let readers decide if you're looney, a liar or just plain stupid.
I posted this link:
This is shown in the red-outlined URL in your page copy of my post.
You somehow managed to change it:
Using your changed URL, you then marched out to left field.
LOL!
AlanF
- DefenderOTT, AllenSmith and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
2
-
Arauna wrote:
Quote:: since in OT usage a "city" can mean what we today call a village of a few dozen people.
All cities of significance were city-states with a priest-king in highest position in earlier times
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:
QuoteMostly a place with fortified walls. Later a city state became the central part of a large district it administered.... with a priesthood and a king and a temple to the main deity of the city. Most cities had many shrines to multiple gods but each city had its principal deity - the supreme god of the city.
Again continuing to be mostly wrong, and unsupported with source references:
QuoteThe 10 tribes were scattered all over the empire
Irrelevant. That scattering occurred a hundred years earlier, and those Jews were not part of the Return from Babylon.
Quote(and the Judeans at the Chebar river )..... Most of the exports and imports were always done by river or canal because this was faster than a cart. They were ideally situated to 'produce' and export.
And?
QuotePottery could also be practiced at a river but the metal workers were highly valued and would be attached to the capital city because they could manufacture weapons.
More or less as I've said.
AlanF
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
allensmith28 said:
QuoteA hilarious example by AlanF!!!
LOL! I posted no such nonsense. YOU posted it. Either you're completely looney, or a pathological liar.
AlanF
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
-
Arauna wrote:
Quote:: The deportations were large, but certainly didn't involve the entire nation.
1. After initial fall of Jerusalem: 10,000 princes, 7000 mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metal worker which were 1000 - 2kings 24:11-16 - He left the poor behind. A separate number of high ranking MEN are named in 2 Kings 24:14 and these numbered 3,023
Did you notice something about all these numbers? They were only the family heads (men). The children and wives were not numbered.
And?
Quote2. After approximately 10 years (in 607) - Most of the remaining ones were removed from the land - 2Kings 25:11 it is described as "the rest of the population".
I do not know where you got your "scholarly ' information - but it is not accurate!
I posted the URLs along with the quotations. Can't you read?
QuoteAdditionally -
Ezekiel 1:1 Now it happened in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
Verse 2: In the fith year of exile of Jehoiachin the word of Jehovah came to Ezekiel by the river Chebar…….
Some of the first captives were already living at Chebar!
What of it?
Quote3. The tablets you mentioned above - I quote:
“The tablets shed light on the Judeans’ contributions, detailing taxes paid, debts owed, credits accumulated and trade in fruits and other commodities.”
These commodities will include agricultural produce, flax (for linen clothing) and food for many animals - which will include animal husbandry.
Right. No problem for my argument.
QuoteI have a peeve with you - you think if you keep on denying something and ignoring something it will become true.
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.
QuoteWhat was the root cause for the exile.... please answer...... their religious disobedience or was the reason that God had a whim to put them in a foreign land for no reason at all?
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
- Ann O'Maly and DefenderOTT
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Foreigner said:
Let's start keeping it short. There’s too much ignorance thrown in the mix by AlanF, with his attempts to look smart instead of the biggest fool.
So says someone too ignorant to answer the least of my challenges.
AlanF
-
Arauna wrote:
Quote:: 70 years ended in 539 BCE
The 70 years ended when Cyrus took the title of "King of Babylon, Sumer and Akkad and of the four corners of the world" on NEW YEARS DAY (12 day yearly festival) Nissan 538 BCE.
Wrong. They ended in October, 539 BCE when Cyrus' armies conquered Babylon, called the king of Babylon to account by killing Belshazzar and taking over his empire, and installed the Persian empire as ruler of the Near East -- all of which events are described clearly in the Bible.
But you don't actually believe the Bible -- you believe Mommy Watch Tower.
You've failed to cite a single scripture to support your claims. Rather, you've just made bald assertions.
QuoteCyrus started his campaign in September 539 BCE when he crossed the Tigris with the subsequent Battle of Opis. After this he went after Nabonidus who had fled to Sippar - who managed to get away again from Sippar. Babylon fell next. Later Nabonidus gave himself up at Babylon because he had no allies.
Your description of events is essentially correct, but your conclusion directly contradicts Daniel 5, as I have repeatedly shown.
QuoteCyrus issued his edict shortly after his crowning allowing the Jews and other nations to take their gods with them - to their home.
Correct.
AlanF
- DefenderOTT and Ann O'Maly
-
1
-
1
607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
in Topics
Posted
Arauna said:
Evidence?
To be pedagogical, the phrase is "number crunching".
And you do? Again you've presented no actual evidence -- only speculation. Speculation that I've largely debunked.
I'm fully aware of the doctrines of JWs on this. Obviously you are not. Let's examine again what I quoted:
"With thankful hearts we acknowledge God’s mercy and gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah’s organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God."--"The Watchtower", May 1, 1957, p. 285
My reference to "Mommy" was obviously satirical, but like most satire contains real truth. What truth? That whatever JWs receive from "Jehovah's organization" in reality comes from a source owned by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. You can confirm this yourself by looking at the copyright on the jw.org website, or in any Watch Tower publication.
In JW doctrinal theory, the flow of organizational information is like this:
Jehovah -> Jesus -> Angels -> Governing Body -> JW community
In reality, it's more like this:
Governing Body <-> Governing Body Helpers <-> various Watch Tower owned corporations like Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. -> various JW officials such as elders -> individual JWs.
The entire concept of "Jehovah's heavenly organization" is therefore a figment of the imagination of JW leaders, promulgated for some 100 years.
I have always treated you with respect. Why? Because you're far above your JW kin in terms of reasonable discussion.
Actually it's much harder to reason with someone who refuses to be reasoned with, like most JWs and certainly like most of the ones who post on this forum.
These JWs consistently ignore most of what I write, because they're quite incapable of refuting most of it, except by quoting questionable sources like young-earth creationists. They quickly realize that to give a substantive answer they would have to do some real research for once in their lives, and they instinctively realize that that would be dangerous to their faith in Mommy.
You mistake a solid refutation of your and the Watch Tower's claims for unreasonableness. You're invoking your Watch Tower training in this: "How dare you contradict Jehovah's organization!"
Complete nonsense. Most of what I've written is exclusively from the Bible.
And you're being hypocritical, because many of your source references are non-biblical.
That's supported by the Bible itself and by secular history: the northern nation of Israel was deported by the Assyrians around 700 BCE and scattered. Where they ended up is anyone's guess -- and the Bible gives no information.
You disprove your own claims: these people returned from Babylonia -- not from anywhere else.
Pure speculation -- and contradicting what the Bible itself sayss.
[ Lots of speculation and dicey prophetic interpretation deleted ]
All of whom came from Babylonia.
You mistake your own private speculations and interpretations for what the Bible actually says.
AlanF