AlanF

Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know.
AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:
You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.
Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28:
<<<<
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.
>>>>
Still clueless.
The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs.
Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.
Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name.
AlanF

Continuing to be clueless.
AlanF

JW Insider wrote:
Exactly. And I find the history and usage of cusswords in any language fascinating. My stepson and I had an extremely amusing conversation about the use of cusswords in the Hispanic community in Colorado.
Fair enough; I won't go there.
AlanF

Foreigner wrote:
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.
I already told you that on page 23 of this thread.
Probably the equivalent of "dick" in English.
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

Foreigner wrote:
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.
I already told you that on page 23 of this thread.
Probably the equivalent of "dick" in English.
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

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

allensmith28 wrote:
Launches into another bout of near-total incoherence:
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.
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. >>
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?
Yes, the siege began in 589, lasted about 2 1/2 years, and ended in 587. Has your brain seized up?
AlanF

Ann O'Maly wrote:
Yes indeed! Thanks for posting this.
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

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

Ann O'Maly wrote:
Yes indeed! Thanks for posting this.
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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, completely looney.
AlanF

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

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

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

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

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

Arauna wrote:
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.
Your description of events is essentially correct, but your conclusion directly contradicts Daniel 5, as I have repeatedly shown.
Correct.
AlanF

It's amazing how predictable many JW apologists are -- too ignorant to participate in the topic, so they resort to taking potshots (ad hominems) at the ones who are intelligent enough to participate.
AlanF

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