AlanF

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!
"Mah Big Daddy gon' kikyo ass!"

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!
"Mah Big Daddy gon' kikyo ass!"

Actually there are likely about 50,000  Neo-Babylonian tablets, and MOST of them have dates on them.
The dates are in the form of the YEAR, the MONTH and the DAY of the month. The YEAR is in the form of the King's name and whether it is his accession year or which year of his reign we are in. The accession year was the equivalent of saying Year ZERO, the year before the official reign began.
It's the same as if the United States dated all years by the President's name and Presidential year. For example, 50-some years since 1933 would be named like this:
FDR0 to FDR12, TRUMAN0 to TRUMAN8, IKE0 to IKE8, JFK0 to JFK2, LBJ0 to LBJ6, NIXON0 to NIXON5, , FORD0 to FORD3, CARTER0 to CARTER4, REAGAN0 to REAGAN8.
So let's say a person was born in "1933" and died in "1982" but they only used dates of the presidencies.
They would say they were born in the year FDR0 (accession of FDRs presidency) and died in the year REAGAN2. If you wanted to know how old that person was you would say they lived for all 12 years of FDR, 8 under TRUMAN, 8 under IKE, 2 under JFK, 6 under LBJ, 5 under NIXON, 3 under FORD, 4 under CARTER, and 2 under REAGAN. That's 12+8+8+2+6+5+3+4+2= 50. They died in their 50th year. We would also say the person was 49 years old, but it is also accurate to say they were in their 50th year. That checks out 1982 - 1933 is 49.
Their own memory or community memory would supply the order of the presidents (or NB kings) and later historians would make sure to make a president's list to keep them in order. (Although in truth, flipping two or more of the presidents into the wrong order could still give you the right answer.)
You are probably referring to royal inscriptions. Most of the nearly 50,000 dated tablets don't refer to some great local event. They may only say things like:
"NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 7, MONTH 1 (Nisannu) DAY 12 - Received 20 bushels of wheat and 10 bushes of barley from Uruk"
You can't necessarily track these to our time. But if you get an average of say 400 of them for every year of the near 90 years of the full Neo-Babylonian timeline, you could easily put together a full timeline for those 90 years, especially if several of them crossed over between the reign of two kings. And if you find that about two dozen of these years are also marked on other tablets with unique astronomical positions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars then you can track the year in our own time.
For example, as you say, you can't tell the year of the mundane tablet above, but if another tablet (like LBAT 1420) says:
NEBUCHADNEZZAR YEAR 4, MONTH 1, DAY 13: [with a lunar position described in such detail that it could only belong to an observation on April 11, 601 BCE]
So now you have evidence --not proof-- but evidence that if NEB4 was 601 BCE then NEB7 above was 598 BCE. You now have a date to put on the mundane tablet.
Although you are only dealing with evidence, not proof, what would you say if you tested 40 of these astronomical settings and every single one of them consistently supported each of the others in putting together the order of the NB timeline? And what if every one of the 50,000 tablets fit perfectly into this timeline without an exception?
You probably would feel that the evidence was like a strong cable.

That's why I didn't say it was. Why would you think it necessary to say something untrue about what I said?
I finished over 100 pages. It is clear enough what he thinks. And it's clear enough that you either misunderstand him, or are being dishonest.
Then you absolutely do not know what historiography is. COJ's book is a treatise that combines discussions of the proper use of historiography. There are times when it is limited in how much help it provides, and times when it is so misused as to be subverted. This is why several of his sources are specialists in historiography. Of course, you can always give an example of the historiography you learned about and explain why he does not present any "such" but you already started out telling an easily countered untruth about COJ, and you were caught. So I'm not going to be terribly interested since you can't be trusted anyway.
It's an interesting topic that proves nothing to me one way or the other. I like the fact that the strong cable of archaeological evidence confirms the Bible accounts through this period of history. But I don't need that secular evidence personally to trust the Bible. I also think it is revealing that the WTS arbitrary cherry-picking, of which NB dates are good and which are not, has created a pseudo-chronology that is defended by persons who won't look at the data for themselves. If all persons, so far, who defend it will prefer incompetence or dishonesty, instead of looking at the evidence, then this says something about the quality of the evidence, too.
I trust the Bible, and I trust that in Jehovah's good time, this secular, human tradition about 607 will be dropped from our teachings. If not, it doesn't mean it is right, but it is not so important to concern ourselves about. 607 could be absolutely right, but this doesn't make 1914 right.
We are living in the last days, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says we are. Jesus is present, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Jesus is king of kings and lord of lords, not because of 1914, but because the Bible says he is. Paul said Jesus was ruling at God's right hand until Jehovah puts all enemies under his feet, even Death. That's the time we are awaiting, praying for God's kingdom to come, and not because of a date, or the length of a generation. The end can come at any time, and it is our duty as Jehovahs' Witnesses to be ready. Most prophecies about judgments in the past were predicted by prophets, so that even the time period would be known. Jesus said this particular parousia would come like a thief in the night, like lightning, as if without warning as in the days of Lot leaving Sodom. Our preparation this time has nothing to do with knowing the day or the hour, or the times and seasons, but in our Christian conduct. It's about our love for Jehovah and for our neighbor. It's our love for the ransom, and our love for Jehovah's government. This is the primary message of the Bible:
(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

This reminds me of a major point that the Watchtower publications and no Witnesses have yet tried to explain.
There are tens of thousands of "dated" tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. They are not evenly distributed, but a huge portion come from Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which is the one we are most interested in anyway. Also there are dozens more of these astronomical readings that all point to the exact same chronology I pointed out earlier. I have matched several more of the eclipses, and all of them give excellent, consistent evidence that all the archaeological evidence is accurate.

  625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530   N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
With the "contract" tablets alone, there are literally tens of thousands of tablets that support the above chronology. There are zero of the tens of thousands that would discredit or falsify the above chronology.
So we can definitively say that the archaeologically supported chronology is the one shown above and the Watchtower chronology is completely unsupported for every year prior to 539. The WTS publications support the 17 years of Nabonidus, and the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and the first year of Evil-Merocach. So this leaves a 20 year gap between the EM2 and NERI4. A 20 year gap to be found somewhere in those 5 years that the archaeological evidence indicates.
Imagine that there are about 30,000 tablets that support the nearly 90 years of Neo-Babylonian timeline. If they were evenly distributed that would mean about 333 tablets per year. If the Watchtower's arbitrarily imagined gap actually existed, that would mean that 6,666 tablets of the 30,000 found are still missing. If these tablets all came from one place that might be a possibility. But many are from major temples, and many others are from personal business contracts from hundreds of different people altogether.
And of course, if this gap were a real thing, it would mean that all those eclipses could never have been predicted correctly, and all the astronomical readings from both before and after the gap would have been impossible to have faked. There really is absolutely no reason to imagine an arbitrary gap of 20 years. The Biblical evidence fits very well with the above, but would be nearly impossible to explain if the imagined gap theorized by the WTS had actually existed.
All the evidence says that the Watchtower-promoted gap is impossible. In fact, it's not even possible to propose where a ONE-year gap might go.
Most of the time the secular chronology in Biblical history is not that good. One might even surmise that if there ever a time period in history where Jehovah wanted us to know the actual definitive, absolute date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year, for example, then this would be the period of time when all those tens of thousands of documents were protected from the elements.
 
 

I changed my mind about creating a table of the Jon/Cameron comments and then commenting on various portions. It seemed that it was just a repetition of what we have already gone over, and are still going over elsewhere.
Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).
Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).
The reason so many Bible commentators use 539 back to 609 is because this is a 70-year period with actual, definable, and dateable events at each end.
So there is nothing so far off about the date 607 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years. It implies that the actual end date of the 70 years was 537, and although this would only be 2 years off the most Biblically acceptable date, it implies that the Israelites were still serving Babylon even after Babylon was destroyed. But the sense is not impossible in my opinion, because most of the exiles were still in exile in Babylon until Cyrus probably decreed they could go home in the first month of 538. (Arauna has often insisted that the decree MUST have happened in the first month of 538 at the New Year's Akitu festival. This would mean that they were back by the seventh month of 538 (c. October 538) which is actually only a couple months from January 537.)
 
Of course, the Watchtower publications, although they once used 606 to 536 for these dates, do not allow for an adjustment even by a month. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in the summer, it must be October 607 for the start, and since we claim (without any evidence) that Cyrus waited until months after the beginning of the year to make the decree, and therefore NOT at the festival of Akitu and 538, that it must have been the following year 537 in the 7th month (Tishri/October) when the Jews returned. (And we count back a few more months to give them time to prepare and travel, putting the decree as likely in the first month of 537, not 538.)
Here's how INSIGHT puts it:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize what INSIGHT means by "In view of the Bible record . . ." It has nothing to do with anything written in the Bible about Cyrus or the exile or the return. It means, basically: "In view of our interpretation of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Cyrus must have made the decree late enough after the beginning of 538 so that they could not have resettled in 538, otherwise WWI and our interpretation of 1914 would not quite fit, and the "parousia" would have started in 1913."  I'm not kidding in the least about that. Those words are about our interpretation of 1914 and nothing else.
And of course the big difference between any scholars who might start the 70 years in 609/608 and the Watchtower publications is that the Watchtower says that 609/8 is when the siege on Jerusalem began, resulting in it's final destruction in 607. That's Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. The other scholars and Bible commentators indicate that the archaeological date of 609 is 4 years before Nebuchadnezzar even began his first accession year after his father died, but that it was marked by the Battle of Harran in 609 BCE, not the destruction of Jerusalem which happened about 22 years later. So the Watchtower chronology says 607 is Jerusalem's destruction 18 or 19 years into Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the archaeologically-supported chronology says 607 is near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's father's reign, more than 20 years different.
Saying that Babylon began dominating the region for 70 years fits the Bible's account, but the Watchtower publications would like an easier explanation of Daniel 4, which requires a different event in 609/608/607. The ending of the Davidic/Messianic kingdom makes for a better event, so the destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrarily changed from 657 to 607. Other commentators note that the death of the last good king Josiah in 609 (archaeological time not Watchtower time) makes for a pretty good demarcation of the 70 years with respect to Judea and Jerusalem. A commentary by Albertz considers the start of the reign Jehoiakim to be the reason that the Chronicler begins discussions of deportations (exiles) in the reign of Jehoiakim which would have started in 609/8 after the death of his father Josiah.
If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:
(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, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:"

Then notice that Albertz does not consider a "simple" demarcation at the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, and most definitely does not end it at the usual demarcation of Cyrus in 539/8:

Read it carefully. He prefers to consider the exilic period from 587/6 but says there was already a golah -- an EXILE -- in 598/7.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golah
History and Etymology for golah
Hebrew gōlāh exile
That's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile:
*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision
593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon
And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE):
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians.
And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.
I expect that Ann O'maly and AlanF probably already covered this for you, but you had addressed me with the claim on a previous page where I pointed out that your claim about Bryan and Albertz was wrong. You included this false statement.
The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ?
Here are some quotes from COJ from GTR4. The main theme of the whole book is about historiography. Since you obviously need to learn some skills about how to search words to avoid spreading untrue statements, I'll leave it to you to find the page numbers:
In his discussions of historiography, he quotes from several different sources about it:
The Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 453), devotes only one paragraph to Berossus. Almost the whole paragraph consists of a quotation from A. T. Olmstead’s Assyrian Historiography in which he deplores the tortuous survival history of Berossus’ fragments via Eusebius’ Chronicle (cf. note 6 above). Although this is true, it is, as noted, essentially irrelevant for our discussion
Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.
Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 106, 260, 261.
In fact he correctly uses the term historiography in a discussion of the Watchtower's misuse of historiography and misrepresentation of authorities on historiography here:
It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower Society in its “Appendix” to “Let your Kingdom Come” does not give a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 B.C.E. date:
(1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32312, and contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation. They erroneously indicate that priests and kings might have altered historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence shows the opposite to be true.
(2)They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting them out of context and attributing to them views and doubts they do not have.
(3)They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6, by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of the period to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the second century bishop, Theophilus, without mentioning that he ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but also in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (as did his contemporary Clement of Alexandria and others), thus confusing the two kings.
I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious.
Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place?
With a little effort you could learn a lot of this same information without even relying on all these secular scholars.
This doesn't mean I didn't find the Albertz book interesting. I had seen that the WTS had quoted from him before, but I had not ever read (about 70 pages of) his book until now.
Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

Good catch!
This is typical of Watchtower quoting practices. I've found a number of instances where the WTS author claims that some authority said something that it uses to support a point, but it turns out that the "authority" was describing what a third party said. Often the third party has little or no credibility -- which is why the WTS falsely attributed it to a supposed authority.
This practice can be illustrated as follows: Suppose The Watchtower magazine quoted a biologist as saying "Evolution is a fact." Some other author grabs that quotation out of context and writes: "Look! The Watchtower Society now says evolution is a fact!" Either that author -- like many WTS writers -- is either thoroughly stupid or completely dishonest.

It's easy to see how stupid and dishonest ScholarJW Pretendus is by examining his reasoning ability. 
As I quoted above from a book review of Rainer Albertz's book, Albertz "places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." That alone clobbers Watchtower chronology if Albertz is accepted as a major authority, as ScholarJW Pretendus would have it.
This charlatan claims that Albertz's expression "the exilic age" comprises one and only one period of exile -- false and stupid on its face. A deportation by definition results in an exile. As I showed in my post above, Albertz clearly documents FOUR DEPORTATIONS/EXILES: in 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Therefore Albertz documents FOUR EXILES. Furthermore, the dates of these four exiles surround the period he calls "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." And since Albertz explicitly dates one deportation/exile to 587 and one to 582 BCE, his "exilic age" comprises AT LEAST 587 through 582 down to 520 BCE, as he states -- AT LEAST TWO EXILES.
This is really not rocket science. But pathologically lying charlatans like ScholarJW Pretendus will go to any lengths to twist language and facts to fit their religious biases.

Such a liar!
I trashed your 'case' in my above post.

JW Insider
No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology.
You are the one being deceived by apostate propaganda!!
scholar JW

When the Oct 1, 2011 WT on p. 26-7 quoted Albertz,
'...the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.”' 
it apparently missed that Albertz was comparing the negative and defeatist viewpoint of the 587/6 destruction and resulting exile by the writer(s) of 1 & 2 Kings with the more positive outlook given by Jeremiah. Therefore, Albertz wasn't expressing his own view of the exile as implied by the way WT used his quote, but the books of Kings' pessimistic view of the exile.
From p. 7 of Albertz's book for context leading up to WT's quote:


I thought I'd just point this out 🙂

ScholarJW Pretendus Mendacicus Maximus said:
Such liar. Albertz never said that there was only one exile. And you, of course, have not quoted him to support your lie.
I do not yet have Albertz's book, but I found a review of it ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614445?seq=1 ) which says, in part (p. 285):
<< [Albertz] places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C. . . [He] deals with different biblical conceptions of the exile. Albertz refers to the irony that, since there is no coherent description of the exile in the Bible, the Bible itself has only a gap to offer for the period he is going to describe. What we do find are a few short descriptions of the beginning and the end of the exilic period, as well as some sporadic information. It remains a major question why the exile is not portrayed in a more comprehensive manner in the Bible. . . Part two . . . treats specifically the history of the exilic period. Again, Albertz calls attention to the difficulty that the exilic period, similar to the pre-monarchic and the late Persian ones, suffers from a complete lack of sources, and must be regarded as a "dark age" in the history of ancient Israel. . . Albertz then provides us with a short review of the history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 B.C.). . . Albertz sets out to discuss the never-ending problem of how many deportations there were, as well as their dates. There were, according to Albertz, three different deportations. They may be dated, respectively, to the years 597 B.C., 587 B.C., and 582 B.C. >>
A deportation, by definition, results in an exile. Therefore Albertz clearly states that there were THREE SEPARATE EXILES. He lumps them together into "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." This in no way supports ScholarJW's claim of only "one Exile", because an "exilic age" is by definition a period during which more than one exile occurs.
Apparently ScholarJW Pretendus is both stupid and dishonest enough to claim that Albertz's reference to an "exilic age" means "one Exile". It does not. As a Wikipedia article on "Babylonian captivity" states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity 😞
<< The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of people from the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon. . . The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively. . . After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. >>
So the Wikipedia article also lumps all of the deportations into one period of exile -- not just "one Exile".
The article displays a chronological chart based on Albertz's book, which lists the above deportation events and also states:
<< [Jehoiakim] began giving tribute to Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BCE. First deportation, purportedly including Daniel. >>
So the Wikipedia article clearly lists FOUR DEPORTATIONS AND FOUR INSTANCES OF EXILE -- just as I, Ann O'Maly, JW Insider and others have clearly documented.
Information similar to the above is found in the Google Books link to Albertz's book given by JW Insider.
Case closed.

ScholarJW Pretendus Mendacicus Maximus said:
Such liar. Albertz never said that there was only one exile. And you, of course, have not quoted him to support your lie.
I do not yet have Albertz's book, but I found a review of it ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614445?seq=1 ) which says, in part (p. 285):
<< [Albertz] places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C. . . [He] deals with different biblical conceptions of the exile. Albertz refers to the irony that, since there is no coherent description of the exile in the Bible, the Bible itself has only a gap to offer for the period he is going to describe. What we do find are a few short descriptions of the beginning and the end of the exilic period, as well as some sporadic information. It remains a major question why the exile is not portrayed in a more comprehensive manner in the Bible. . . Part two . . . treats specifically the history of the exilic period. Again, Albertz calls attention to the difficulty that the exilic period, similar to the pre-monarchic and the late Persian ones, suffers from a complete lack of sources, and must be regarded as a "dark age" in the history of ancient Israel. . . Albertz then provides us with a short review of the history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 B.C.). . . Albertz sets out to discuss the never-ending problem of how many deportations there were, as well as their dates. There were, according to Albertz, three different deportations. They may be dated, respectively, to the years 597 B.C., 587 B.C., and 582 B.C. >>
A deportation, by definition, results in an exile. Therefore Albertz clearly states that there were THREE SEPARATE EXILES. He lumps them together into "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." This in no way supports ScholarJW's claim of only "one Exile", because an "exilic age" is by definition a period during which more than one exile occurs.
Apparently ScholarJW Pretendus is both stupid and dishonest enough to claim that Albertz's reference to an "exilic age" means "one Exile". It does not. As a Wikipedia article on "Babylonian captivity" states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity 😞
<< The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of people from the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon. . . The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively. . . After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. >>
So the Wikipedia article also lumps all of the deportations into one period of exile -- not just "one Exile".
The article displays a chronological chart based on Albertz's book, which lists the above deportation events and also states:
<< [Jehoiakim] began giving tribute to Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BCE. First deportation, purportedly including Daniel. >>
So the Wikipedia article clearly lists FOUR DEPORTATIONS AND FOUR INSTANCES OF EXILE -- just as I, Ann O'Maly, JW Insider and others have clearly documented.
Information similar to the above is found in the Google Books link to Albertz's book given by JW Insider.
Case closed.

Your "case" was that there was only one Exile and that "That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus. "
So if you rest your case it's the same as admitting that your case was defeated. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. I don't trust you to admit it, but I'm sure you will at least see it if you read the same book where, as you say, he makes his position perfectly clear.
For me, deception means obfuscation and lying. To you, as you admit here, "deception" is your word for rejecting "our sacred Bible Chronology."

I know that comment was not to me but to AlanF. I think it reveals your goal. You have pretty well established the fact that you are here to try to provoke chaotic arguments. And as answers are resolved, you will pretend they were not resolved by simply repeating the weaknesses of your argument as if they were strengths. The resulting chaos works. It produces 60 pages of confusion which was obviously the goal all along. It works because it plays on the prejudices of those who were never going to look things up for themselves anyway. I've seen how this same method works in other areas of ideology and propaganda, both online and to a large extent in the media. I've seen revealed documents that show that it is a preferred covert method of government agencies, too. (I.e., when all else fails, create chaos.) 
From chaos, people will pick up from where they started, and will often dig in their heels even a little deeper to the ideas they held before the chaos. And it's not that people never change their views. But, unfortunately, there have even been several studies that show that the "side" with the least facts and least evidence tends to win more adherents after a lengthy argument is observed.
So, we could go on and on. I notice that you often throw out some "bait" which must be intended to keep an argument going. Sometimes you appear to give in and agree when it's too tough to hold your ground. But then a few pages later you'll pretend you hadn't learned a thing, after all. Even when you "walk it back" as you did with your "two exilic scholars" you moved the goalposts and gave two new reasons why you had recommended them. It turns out that it is easy to show that even these new criteria are wrong. You claim they have stated:
But even this is wrong. Fortunately, the first 70 or more pages of Rainer Albertz book "Israel in Exile" is available here for free: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_in_Exile/Xx9YzJq2B9wC?hl=en&gbpv=1
I wrote up a summary, but rather than lengthen the conversation here, I'll leave it to you to figure out where you went wrong.
I think that honest-hearted Witnesses will see through these attempts to cloud the issue. Not everyone will, of course. You might even be some kind of hero to the ones who won't look up things for themselves. There are people here who wish to be right at all costs, and to protect their ideology they project their issues onto anyone else with strong evidence they don't want to deal with. But as bad as it sounds, being right at all costs is still a bit better than being wrong at all costs.

Seeing it all together like that, I feel shamed for responding so directly to his nonsense. But it was the same nonsense that was already answered several times. He simply can't be trusted on this topic.

ScholarJW Pretendus Maximus said:
Which is exactly my point, you idiot.
Let's see if you can manage a simple test.
Suppose a Bethelite tells you: "When my 4 years at Warwick are completed, I will return home."
Question: Which event occurs first? The completion of his 4 years at Warwick? Or his return home?
My prediction: You will either ignore this altogether, or disgorge a mass of gibberish that only braindead JW apologists could agree with.

TTH hasn't the mental horsepower to do that.

th study 8 Illustrations That Teach p. 11
HOW TO DO IT:
Make sure that the features of your illustration really apply to the lesson you are teaching so that your listeners are not distracted by mismatched elements.
😉😁

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112):
Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”13
Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111):
Jeremiah 25 places the original prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, just prior to the exile in 605. If false prophets in Judea had dismissed Jeremiah’s warning of punishment prior to the exile, false prophets in Babylon following the exile scorned the idea that it would last anything like seventy years. As a result, Jeremiah reaffirms the original prediction of seventy years of service in the form of a letter preserved in chapter 29: only when the seventy years were complete would the exile come to an end. . . . Those who have stayed behind in Judah will not be exempt from punishment. Although they have not been sent into exile for seventy years (29:16), they will nevertheless suffer a full measure of covenantal curses: “I am going to let loose on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten”
This matches his comments about Daniel's use of the 70 years (p.114):
In 9:2, Daniel understands from his reading of Jeremiah’s scroll that the exile was to last seventy years. This prompts Daniel’s prayer of repentance. The prayer is set in the first year of Darius, that is, at the passing of imperial power from the Babylonians to the MedoPersians. In the narrative, the collapse of Babylonian hegemony is the sign that points to the impending fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years.
It's curious that he seems to believe that Daniel is reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 x 7=490, but significantly counts it as 49x10=490, possibly referring to the fact that the first answer to exile with reference to Jerusalem itself was only 49 years (until the first 49-year Jubilee via Cyrus), but that there would a full 10 Jubilees before the final week of years and full restoration. Bryan won't go along completely with this interpretation but refers to it as significant.  If that count is from 587 to 538, this is exactly 49 years.
Further, the significance of the first forty-nine years in the 490-year scheme goes beyond the fact that it is the first of ten jubilees. The author seems also to see the completion of the first jubilee as corresponding to the end of the first of seven seventy-year periods.20 This is indicated by the fact that the seventy years begins with the desolation of Jerusalem according to the word of the Lord (9:2) but that the first jubilee begins with the word of the Lord concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (9:25).21(p.115)
[footnote] 21The referent of the “word” concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 is disputed but is best understood as a designation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem in Jer 30–31, which follows the prophecy in chapter 29 of the city’s desolation. So, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC (Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 243. Lucas dates the oracles of desolation to 605 BCE (Jer 25:12) and 597 BCE (Jer 29:10), preceding the oracles of restoration, which date to 587 (Jer 30:18–22, 31:38–40). Bergsma defends the view that the “word” refers to the edict of Cyrus that permitted the return of the exiles (“Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 58–60).
So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10.
Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish.
But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. Here's why:
I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.:
Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587?
I asked for any one scholar. You answered very clearly that you will give me two:
And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?
 
 

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two.
Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept.
If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you?
Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation?
Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs?
Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says:
*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.
And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years.
There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.
 

Sure I did. You're just too dumb to understand.
I didn't say that, you moron.
If you think he was truly open, then quote him about that.
Of course, you won't.
Here's a good video for you. It's animated, so you should be able to understand it:
 

Here's an excellent video, just for you. It's got cartoons, so even you ought to understand it:
 

Sure I did. You're just too dumb to understand.
I didn't say that, you moron.
If you think he was truly open, then quote him about that.
Of course, you won't.
Here's a good video for you. It's animated, so you should be able to understand it: