AlanF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it.
On second thought . . .
AlanF

New topic started.
There appears to be no one here capable of defending the JW viewpoint on 607 BCE without resorting to misrepresentations and all manner of scholastic cheating.
AlanF

He has none of any of that.
AlanF

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

I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it.
On second thought . . .
AlanF

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

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

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

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

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

Totally clueless.
AlanF

Totally clueless.
AlanF

Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
AlanF

LOL! Totally clueless, as always.
AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:
Not that you haven't been given access in this thread to a great of such historical evidence.
Note what Franz wrote; he came to understand that:
<< . . . the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. >>
All reputable scholars by the 1970s agreed, based on all manner of historical writings, cuneiform texts, stone stele, etc. that the date for Jerusalem's destruction was 587/586 BCE, with the uncertainty of one year due to seemingly inconsistent statements in the Bible itself.
What adjustments are you talking about?
AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF

You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory.
You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory.
In other words, you're still lying.
AlanF

Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!
AlanF