Ann O'Maly

scholar JW pretendus wrote:
LOL! Seventeen lines of evidence from COJ (and of course, from the dozens of recognized scholars he got it from) against Watch Tower quote mining of the Bible! Amazing anyone but a JW could buy this.
That old fallacy for the thousandth time.
The fact is that the Bible itself provides the grist for that mill, by being quite ambiguous about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Some scholars have decided on 586, others on 587, with modern secular scholarship generally preferring 587.
As you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwitmt7qxOrYAhVO1mMKHZ4RAe4QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ) Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587.
Rodger Young did. Carl Olof Jonsson did. Again you lie in God's name.
Totally misleading on all counts. All that happened was that during 1943-1944, Fred Franz decided that 607 should be the date, finally accepting what C. T. Russell and other Bible Students had known as far back as 1912. And of course, the correct dates that Franz used to manufacture 606/607 were well known to proper scholars well back in the 19th century.
Until 1943, the WTS claimed 606 BCE for Jerusalem's fall and the start of the Gentile times. In the middle of the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" the WTS moved the date for the start of the Gentile times back by one year, leaving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE intact throughout the entire book. In a thoroughly dishonest exposition on pages 238-239 the book made this change. The result was that the Gentile times began in October, 607 BCE, while Jerusalem was destroyed ten months later in August, 606 BCE! The date for Jerusalem's fall was changed, in a dishonest footnote, on page 171 of the 1944 book "The Kingdom Is At Hand".
Full details on "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" can be found here:
https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html
When a religious doctrine like "1914" is founded on a false date like 606 BCE, its entire exposition of biblical chronology will be wrong. And when the doctrine becomes fully set, and historical sources demand some revision but the doctrine must remain intact by adjusting the calculations leading to it, you KNOW the whole structure is built on fantasy.
AlanF

scholar JW pretendus wrote:
It's more correct to say that WTS publications are often scholastically dishonest.
Yes indeed! WTS literature provides a rich source for such studies.
Wrong. That practice is known as quote mining. It is a thoroughly dishonest practice of those who have no way of defending their claims aside from dishonesty. It's a practice that young-earth creationists and the Watch Tower Society are especially known for. For example ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining ):
<< Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote. >>
Another example ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context ):
<< Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. . . Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. >>
And a third, which mentions WTS dishonesty: https://jwawaken.com/2016/06/08/what-is-quote-mining/
Still lying about this, eh? We had extensive debates about this years ago, and various posters fully established that the Aid book was lying -- despite your many attempts at rationalizing its quote mining.
The fact that WTS writers dropped it from Insight proves that even they knew the lie was unsustainable.
AlanF

That's true, and we should be glad of it. But you are also talking about a record of what has been said on the forum(s). Remember "evidence"? This isn't the first time you got an idea that was never true, and then even when you quoted the supposed evidence that you still it thought meant one thing, and it turned out that it meant something else entirely, sometimes the very opposite of what you were claiming.

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

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

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

Allen,
Imagine there are 100 people in a room and 98 of them say 2+2=4. Two of them say 2+2=5. Who are the opposers? It's not the 98 who are "opposers." It's the two people claiming they have their own "good" reasons to say that 2+2=5, and it might even be a belief that stands alongside some of the best beliefs one can imagine. Still, if they continue to insist that 2+2=5 then those two persons are the more natural opposers. They are the ones who oppose mountains of overwhelming evidence. Sure, the 98 would "oppose" the idea that 2+2=5, but the more natural "opposers" are the two who oppose the facts and evidence.
Another thing is this idea of "their OWN secular history." It's another sign of not thinking clearly. Secular history and the evidence for it is not something that belongs to the people you oppose. It's not their OWN secular history. You are merely referring to the facts and the weight of the evidence available to all of us, you and me, and billions of other people.  It would be more accurate to say that you oppose people who try to sync the secular evidence to Bible chronology. But, of course, this doesn't make sense because both 539 and 607 are secular dates that you and other opposers of the evidence have tried to sync to a version of Bible chronology.
It's a legitimate concern to wonder whether you can sync the non-Biblical chronological evidence with the Biblical chronological evidence. If you can't then you might consider the following options: 
there might be something wrong with your understanding or interpretation of the Bible, or the Bible is wrong, or there might be something wrong with your understanding of the secular evidence, or the secular evidence is wrong, or it is some combination of the four possibilities above. As you know, Thiele for example, did a pretty thorough job matching up the kings of Israel with the kings of Judah with the secular chronology of Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. But he finally got to a couple points where he just said that the Bible must have it wrong. McFall and others take another pass at it, some in defense of the Bible and some in defense of secular evidence. (And some just to improve Thiele's work, in any way they still can.)
But after finding a solution to 99% of the issues, there is a controversy over this 1% that is still unsolved. It feeds a conflict that the secular data is somehow the enemy of the Bible data. Now, any time someone comes up with something that seems to fit a Bible interpretation, they can now get support for it by just claiming that "opposers" to their interpretation are taking the secular data over the Bible. They have made use of a ready-made propaganda tool. Bible vs. Secular. Just by approaching the problem this way, it's obvious who is going to win among Bible believers.
But what happens when those Bible believers look into the data and evidence for themselves and find that there is no conflict at all? In this case the Bible believers are very happy that the secular data corroborates the Bible data. No problem.
But what happens to that key interpretation that was set up as a supposed conflict to the secular data? What if they built a life or religion around that interpretation? They have a couple of choices. They can look at the data and be honest and humble about it and explain that the evidence doesn't seem to support their interpretation. But this doesn't mean they are immediately required to change their belief. They might be able to admit the strength of the opposing data, but still go through each and every bit of it and still explain why they think their interpretation supersedes the data. This might end up being right or wrong, and honest people would appreciate being given the opportunity to make up their own mind. They might still consider the interpretational theory as a strong possibility. At least it's a more honest way to deal with it.
But what would you think if you saw them do the following?
Perhaps they avoid most of the data, avoid trying to explain the differences, and try to keep other people from seeing the data, even pretending that experts agree with them about the data. Any books or websites that consider the data are presented as apostate, poison, cancerous, "spiritually pornography," etc. They can pretend that they have explained all the opposing data by misrepresenting that data. Perhaps there are 12 strong pieces of data and one of them has a weak point, and they deal only with that one weak point and hope no one notices that they ignored or misrepresented the other 11. They can find unrelated quotes that people have said about different sets of data and hope that their listeners don't notice it was unrelated. They can use two sets of scales to be able to utilize pieces of the evidence that they accept, without explaining why those pieces are any better or worse than the pieces they reject.

JW Insider
What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning.
scholar JW emeritus

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah and other captives were taken to Riblah . . . *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***
Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93) *** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***
. According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik. Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E. It was almost as if there was a Watch Tower policy stating that whenever a book is quoted that gives evidence of secular chronology, it is almost always necessary to make it look like it supports Watch Tower chronology even when anyone who reads the books in question can easily see that they do not.

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
 

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

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
 

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

It's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty.

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

The prediction was that you would see the obvious ridiculousness of your claim (that versions with errors carry more weight than versions with corrections). So I predicted that when you were questioned about this, you would do what you always do, which is to try to make it look like you were right all along through an evasion. So I said:
Just a few days ago, back in this same thread, I summarized your method like this:
You managed to perfectly fulfill every word of that prediction by not acknowledging your error and using words that completely evaded the questions, and you used words that made it seem like others were wrong an you were right all along, when you said:
I would recommend that you begin to address evidence with evidence that is actually related to the questions at hand, instead of evasions. I don't think you are incapable, but each time you do what you just did, it makes it more difficult for anyone interested to take your future posts seriously. Most people will just think you are dishonest.

Totally clueless.
AlanF

I am amazed at how easy it was to predict this.

Naw, I saw the original, outrageously out-of-order post but hadn't had chance to comment on it earlier. I partially agree with @AlanF in that people should be allowed to show their true colors. However, if there is to be any meaningful discussion of 'controversial' subjects at all, no matter how idiotic and difficult some posters might be and have been for years [let the reader use discernment ], one shouldn't have to wade through a quagmire of base insults and crud-slinging to get to the relevant, on-topic parts. 

Wow. I get called all the cusswords under the sun ... just for calling AllenSmith[insert#here] a kumquat several pages ago? Â 

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