607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My goal is to one day place $1.00 into the outstretched hand of @The Librarian

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury."

An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Hmm! Ok. Let’s let’s pretend that you know exactly what Jesus thoughts were, by putting words into his mouth,

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:

• (Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . .

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

and he didn’t consider the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Do you believe in the Gentile Times as Jesus did? If so, where would you place this infamous 1260?

Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.

Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

I think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study:

https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE

From the introduction:

"Deportees played a key role here [in the less populated regions]: they were settled in marginal rural areas and integrated into the land-for-service sector of agriculture.33 Given plots of land to cultivate, they had to pay taxes and perform work and military service in return. The majority of cuneiform sources pertaining to Judeans originate from the land-for-service sector of Babylonian agriculture." - p. 6

"Agriculture was of huge importance to the Babylonian economy, and a great many deportees were settled in the countryside to bring new land under cultivation. There is no evidence that the Babylonians practised Assyrian-style two-way deportations, but deportees were predominantly taken to Babylonia, especially to depopulated areas in the countryside." - p. 9

I've only skimmed parts of this doctoral dissertation because it's only just come up in my email feed.

 

 

[JW Insider]

47 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:

• (Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace.

Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:

• Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea.
• “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said.
• The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy.
• “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.”

I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.

 

[AlanF]

Arauna wrote:

Quote

 

:: Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of The Bible", entry for "city"

We are not talking about the city of  Cain or the nomadic settlements in the time of Abraham - (although Ur was a city state and Melchizedek was a priest-king of Jerusalem /Salem) in his time.

We are talking about the culture of cities-states which was started by Nimrod (built many cities in Babylon and Assyria) and formed the network of cities which became the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian empires.

 

We are not just talking about city-states -- but apparently you are. Note the exchange that resulted in our little sideshow here:

Arauna: However, I believe getting in the last wheat harvest while preparing must be noted.

AlanF: Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?

My clear implication was that farming was not something important enough to most of the Jewish captives to prevent them from beginning immediate preparations for the Return.

Next post:

Arauna: They just lived in cities??  LOL Get real AlanF...  it was not 2017 AD …..but 537 BCE.

AlanF: I didn't say "just". I said this:

AlanF: << The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. >>

AlanF: Probably I should have said, "The Jews lived mostly in the cities". This is based on the common understanding among historians that it was mostly the elite Jews who were deported. . .

AlanF: People who live "in towns and villages" are also known as people who live in cities in the Bible, since in OT usage a "city" can mean what we today call a village of a few dozen people.

Clearly, then, I meant that most captives lived, not out in the country where farming is done in a big way, but in small villages, towns and larger cities where farming is not the major part of human activities. That is why they could easily begin preparation for the Return immediately.

You can talk about "city-states" all you like, but is not what I spoke of or meant.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

All these theologians seem to agree about the main significance and purpose of this 70 years.

So what? All the commentaries you cited are from the 16th to 19th centuries. A great deal has been learned since then, in particular about what "the 70 years" of Jeremiah meant.

Quote

Was it no longer respectable to take that view after the discovery that , "*ten times seven years, which Jeremiah threatened, as in the margin." [Benson Commentary at the top^] , was from an inaccurate footnote in the KJV , which made the period of "Judges"  about 100 years too long,  but was perhaps included in just about everyone's chronology?   - Though- then, as now-  so, so many variations in "the experts'" chronologies!

This borders on incoherent. Try expressing yourself clearly.

Quote

However, from what I can see they were -scripturally- definitely right about the 70 years' purpose  [THAT 70 years anyway] in their comments above.

No, they were largely wrong, as the Watch Tower is wrong and as I have repeatedly demonstrated by quoting and commenting on the Bible rather than citing ancient legends. The comments you quoted failed to account for Jeremiah 27.

AlanF

[AlanF]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

. . .  my current nefarious scheme is to change all URLs - even those of AlanF!! - in all posts to point to my blog.

@The Librarian

 

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

AlanF

[Arauna]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study:

Great job dear!  Very interesting.   I like it when we share information where everyone can learn something... even if we do not always agree. Good Move!

[Foreigner]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember itÂ’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, ITÂ’S YOU.

[AlanF]

Ann O'Maly wrote:

Quote

 

I think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study:

https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE

 

Yes indeed! Thanks for posting this.

Quote

 

From the introduction:

"Deportees played a key role here [in the less populated regions]: they were settled in marginal rural areas and integrated into the land-for-service sector of agriculture.33 Given plots of land to cultivate, they had to pay taxes and perform work and military service in return. The majority of cuneiform sources pertaining to Judeans originate from the land-for-service sector of Babylonian agriculture." - p. 6

"Agriculture was of huge importance to the Babylonian economy, and a great many deportees were settled in the countryside to bring new land under cultivation. There is no evidence that the Babylonians practised Assyrian-style two-way deportations, but deportees were predominantly taken to Babylonia, especially to depopulated areas in the countryside." - p. 9

I've only skimmed parts of this doctoral dissertation because it's only just come up in my email feed.

 

I've skimmed more of the relevant sections. They expand on the above excerpts. Clearly, the captives played a larger part in agriculture than I gave them credit for.

Nevertheless, my basic point stands in opposition to Arauna's speculation: farming was not something important enough to many of the Jewish captives to prevent them from dropping everything and beginning immediate preparations for the Return as soon as they realized that Babylon's fall would allow their release, or they heard of Cyrus' Edict. After all, various sources, including the above, and the Bible itself, indicate that the Jews in exile had become so comfortable that a large fraction -- probably the majority, since the Bible refers to the Returnees as a "remnant" -- remained in Babylonia. Only those with a particularly strong religious zeal would want to uproot themselves and go back to a nearly desolate land.

AlanF

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember it’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, IT’S YOU.

Oh dear! The incoherence is deafening!

Forgotten about Grammarly, have we?

AlanF

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember itÂ’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, ITÂ’S YOU.

I never mentioned confusion or being confused. If you are confused, you'll have to explain what confused you then. I have to admit that I have no idea what you mean by an "attempt to reverse what [I was] denying by Jesus own words. To be more honest, I know exactly what the words mean, but I also know from your further statements that you don't likely really mean what your words mean. "Reversing what you are denying" would mean no longer denying, therefore "accepting." Thus, this subtle attempt to accept Jesus' own words is somehow a deceitful thing.

If you will look back at the conversation you will see their was no deceit, just an attempt to give and get honest answers, and no deflection on my part. If you want real dialogue perhaps you can be clearer about where you thought there was deflection. I am guessing that this accusation wasn't based on anything, as is usually the case, and it's just a need to blame-shift and project back onto me what probably "hit a nerve" when I pointed out that I am accepting some words of Jesus that you appear to be rejecting or denying. This has become such a predictable form of deflection that it was already anticipated. It's exactly how several other persons have already avoided honest dialogue on this topic.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I noticed that you didn't explain at all what you meant by adding these excerpts from an article on the day-year principle. Yes, some explain it as 538 (AD not BC) to 1798 as your accompanying charts show, from the "beginning" to the "end" of papal power. I think this is ridiculous, but Charles Taze Russell agreed with it. Russell used an adjustment to it: 539 AD to 1799 AD, pointing out that 539 was a midpoint between Constantine and Charlemagne (328 to 800).  -- Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures [Millennial Dawn], Volume III, p. 67-69.

Of course, we don't use the Day-Year principle for any of these prophecies, not the 1260, 1290, 1335, or even the 2300 any more. We only use that principle for the period of 2,520 days that we now derive from the 7 "times" of Daniel 4.

Can you explain why you included this information about 1,260 years? I assume it is not something you believe, is it?