Ann O'Maly

Actually with the help of swine (I knew the quote I posted went over your head.)

Negating the main reason I used this example  in the first place..... typical evolutional thinking. Negate the real issue and answer a side issue.  

I see that, again, you didn't dare answer the question: Who is right? Your source or the Watchtower?
As usual, you are using "wordplay" (by your definition) to avoid and evade answering the questions. Let's see if you are able to answer directly:
Did your source say that there was an eclipse reported for July 4, -567 that failed? Did it say that an eclipse was expected but did not occur? It's a YES/NO question so a simple YES or NO should suffice.
But I can pretty much assume that you will not stand by what you wrote when you quoted the author. I think you will either find an excuse to ignore this question or you will use "wordplay" to evade it, or backtrack.
And the second part of this question is this:
Did the Watchtower claim that an eclipse did in fact occur on that date? A simple YES or NO should suffice.
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
It is a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred on July 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during 568 B.C.E.

That's right. ALL of the rationalizations for the reality of a global Flood 4,400 years ago evaporate in the face of physical facts.
But think about the implications of the use of supernatural powers. The world of mankind was so wicked that God decided to destroy it, along with nearly all animal life. That's using a hydrogen bomb to swat a fly. After all, didn't just one angel kill 185,000 Assyrians in one night? Why wipe out everything?
This doesn't even touch the fact that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for a recent global Flood. What kind of physical evidence should be present globally? Do a little research on the "MIssoula floods" that occurred some 12,000 to 18,000 years ago in the U.S. in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. The devastation from even those huge floods is small compared to what a global flood would have produced worldwide.

Anna said:
The beginning -- as I've explained several times -- no. The end -- as I've explained several times -- YES: 539 BCE.
You have no choice -- IF you believe the Bible. Once again: Jeremiah 25:12 and 2 Chronicles 36:20 decisively settle the issue: servitude of ALL the nations to Babylon ended when Cyrus conquered it and the Persian Empire came to power.
Don't you believe what the Bible says?
Daniel did NOT use desolation as the end of the 70 years. What Daniel said about the 70 years is AMBIGUOUS. About half the commentators I've read understand his words to mean that, now that Babylon had fallen, and based on Jeremiah's words in Jer. 29:10 and most likely 25:12 and chapter 27, the 70 years had just ended, and Jehovah would go about restoring the Jews to Judah.
The Watchtower and others get the cart before the horse, claiming that Daniel anticipated the soon-to-come fall of Babylon based on his 'understanding' that the 70 years were about to end. But that notion makes several assumptions that are not stated anywhere in the book of Jeremiah, because Jeremiah said nothing about 70 years of desolation. In other words, it's a fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
The beginning, yes. But not the end.
The Bible often uses a specific number to describe an approximate period. "70 years" works with the dates 609 to 539, 605 to 539, etc.
You've just argued away the Watchtower's arguments for the 70 years having an exact beginning and end.
No, because that view directly contradicts a number of Bible passages, as described above and elsewhere.
That's a big deal alright. And it comes about precisely because the WTS needs to maintain the 1914 date.

Billions of people may be smarter than me. But it doesn't require as much smarts as you probably think it does to understand this.
I did. It was pretty simple.
No, I never said I was attending college. I haven't attended college for many years. If you were confused about the university account I use for JSTOR, etc., I have stated that it was an "alumni" account. Alumni means I already finished.
Is that why you think people go to college? How did that work out for you when you went for those PhD's? I pioneered my way through college. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew, and I thought that my computer science degree would result in more choices of part time jobs, to continue pioneering. Instead I ended up with full time jobs, and retired about 10 years ago. No more college for me.
If you are continuing to project, I apologize for bruising your ego.
Who is this Adam? Is this supposed to be another name you are guessing is me? If so, wrong again.
 

Arauna is grossly ignorant of even Watchtower teaching, much less science generally. She seems to have got stuck in what the WTS was more or less teaching 40 years ago and more. By 1983 the WTS was condemning Young-Earth Creationism as "unscriptural" and unscientific. Today's YECs, following the completely nutty Walter Brown's "hydroplate theory", claim that all phenomena of plate tectonics were caused by a rapid movement of the tectonic plates just 4,400 years ago -- ludicrously and physically impossible.

You made far more than a mere spelling mistake -- you made a gross conceptual mistake. You proved -- contrary to your implied claims -- that you've never read one iota about plate tectonics, or even geology, from reputable sources.
There are billions of fossils. What planet are you living on?
Not suddenly. Over tens of millions of years. Read the book Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It will give you a lot to chew on.
It didn't. Wings developed over many tens of millions of years. First in insects, later and independently in pterosaurs, still later in the dinosaurs that morphed into birds, and finally in bats.
And of course, the fossil record of these creatures completely disproves "the order of creation" stated in Genesis -- a subject you carefully avoid. Amphibians appear in the fossil record of some 365 million years ago -- some 130 million years before the first pterosaurs. Dinosaurs first appear some 230 million years ago -- some 70 million years before the first more-or-less birds like Archaeopteryx. True mammals first appear some 200 million years ago -- 150 million years before any bats. Yet Genesis says that ALL flying creatures were created before ANY land creatures.
It did not. I've corrected you several times on this. The Cambrian period began about 541 million years ago -- something like 90 million years after a great number of pre-cambrian creatures first appeared. Read about the Ediacaran fauna, for example. Once sufficient oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, animals with little teeth and small shells appeared in the earliest Cambrian, then animals with bigger teeth and shells -- all over a period of some 20 million years. You've been misled by your Creationist sources. I suggest reading The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Erwin and Valentine as an antidote.
NO trilobites have been found in pre-cambrian strata. Obviously you can't even remember what your Creationist sources say. Trilobites appear some 20 million years AFTER the beginning of the Cambrian Period: https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/collections/fossil-invertebrate-collection/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/the-first-trilobites
Complete nonsense.
Utter nonsense. Prove it.
There's that defective memory again.
Yes, suggesting that you read reputable sources rather than nonsensical, dishonest Creationist crap is highly insulting.
Read the books I suggested.
Yes, your usual conspiracy theory garbage.
Ah, yes -- a perfect proof of conspiracy theory nonsense. And that you're reading Creationist nonsense.
Do the math and prove it.
That's rich, coming from someone too ignorant to know the difference between "Teutonic" and "tectonic".
Nowhere near as much faith as demonstrably false Bible and Watchtower stories.
Homework? LOL! Creationist sources -- condemned even by Watchtower writers -- is rather bad homework.
[Nonsensical blah blah blah deleted ]
More proof you don't know what you're talking about: the origin of life -- abiogenesis -- is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution. Despite what the Watchtower and Creationists would have you believe.
Nonsense. Point us to your sources for the math. Oh yeah, it's just more Creationist crap.
Oh? WHICH mathematicians? Members of the Creationist Discovery Institute like William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski? Committed Creationists all?
Ah yes. But not Discovery Institute members, who generally accept the old age of the earth and life, but nonsense from the Young-Earth Creationists. Again, you're so ignorant even of Watchtower teaching that you don't understand that the Society explicitly condemned YECism nearly 40 years ago. See Awake!, March 8, 1983, p. 12.
Not that I'm aware. Give it to me again. I probably already have it in my library.
Spare me.

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.

Thank you. It's not hard. You should try learning these kinds of skills too ...
... if you can be bothered, of course 😉
I didn't notice that at all. I did notice that he talked about the exilic era consisting of more than one deportation to Babylon. 
Ahh, so you are acknowledging the exile/diaspora of Israel in the 8th century BCE too (p. 2). OK.

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 🙂

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.

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.

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.

Alan de Fool
Just remember how much the said scholar has taught and instructed you over many matters of Chronology over  these last 20 years and the contributions that the said scholar has made to the scholarship of Chronology and to the simple fact of referring you to the latest information from scholarship on this subject. You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar.
scholar JW

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.

That being the case, put down the violin and pick up the dentist’s drill.

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.
😉😁

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:
 

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?