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

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

By the way, I also come from Africa, but by way of migrations occurring 40-60,000 years ago, and even some half a million years.

See? The problem is not with Africans or anyone else currently coming to the U.S. The damage was done long ago.

Maybe the current crop can teach the one with 40-60K tenure some manners, or better yet, some humility.

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, JWthedeceiver said:

LOL! You banned me from using vulgar and stupid language, that YOUR own rules claim, and you personally said, you don’t tolerate in your forum, LIBRARIAN. Yet you allow this A**HOLE to continue.  Hey, a**hole, cut your s**t off already. You’re making WHITE PEOPLE look like trailer tr*sh.

You miserable sack of sh*t!!!!! O’MALY B**ch!!!!!!!!!

Before you start insulting people for their English skills? And take shots at the Spanish language, Learn, English first. You miserable lowlife, rat! B*st*rd?

Librarian, STOP supporting O’Maly’s Alter Ego, alanF, F-for, **** you too!!! Moron.

A Jehovah’s Witness website Ha! Ha! Ha

Goodness gracious, AllenSmith28 (I assume). There are better ways to argue your case.

You (or at least, AllenSmith) were not banned for using foul language, but for making it personal. This is what is being done again again here. What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call people names. That's what got Allen Smith banned and disciplined so often he parodied his own case by creating AllenSmith20-something through AllenSmith28, to go along with a small army of other names to play various characters [and voting blocs]

But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used. But I don't think anyone should be banned. We can all decide to avoid seeing someone's comments by blocking them if we are sensitive to that kind of thing. And a warning is available so that others can be aware that they may not wish to read what any certain person is saying. In a discussion like this, as I've said, it's much more useful to get warnings about logical fallacies, and warnings about the difference between depending on facts and depending on speculation. Misuse of language is a trivial matter to me.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

So, if the date 605BC is attested to now, for an exile? 67 years have gone by, and you JWinsider, O’Maly are still splitting hairs over 3 years, period.

Exactly! I've said this many times myself. Long before I read anything about the 200-tablet exhibit at the BLMJ. I don't know if you noticed, but this particular exhibit of "new" tablets you have been talking about is only strengthening the same evidence that Mason and COJ and O'maly and Jeffro and AlanF and others have been pointing out for many years.

In fact all "new" archaeological evidence that comes to light, invariably continues to strengthen the general Biblical description of events and continues to weaken the claims that the Watchtower has been asking us to believe. I suspect that the frustration arising from such evidence is where the repetitions of nonsensical arguments, distractions, and temper tantrums are coming from.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

I believe you people are BIG in criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions

I have never criticized the Watchtower for their revisions. Revisions are the way to improvement and correction. I have criticized the Watchtower for "revisionist history" and making false claims about history, archaeology, scholarship, doctrines. The only revisions I would dare to criticize the Watchtower for are those revisions that create confusion and contradictions with the Bible. Most revisions, especially since around 2000 have been honest and have been encouraging and welcome.  

Claims related to chronology, early organization history, and the "generation" for example have been notable exceptions. Hopefully, this will help you understand why I started this topic.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

Once again, page 28 proves COJ’s Contradiction and his fallacy of NOT understanding, 2 Kings 24:1, as you. So, if the date 605BC is attested to now, for an exile? 67 years have gone by, and you JWinsider, O’Maly are still splitting hairs over 3 years, period. Big whoop! By secular chronology. . .

Continuing to be clueless.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is the reason, that, Carl Olof Jonsson FAILED to disprove the time of the Gentiles that was distant by . . .  the freedom of the Jews once again in 1914AD.

Allen, you have brought this up at least twice before, mentioning in one earlier post that Russell was amazingly accurate in predicting that the Jews would gain their freedom in 1914. You associated this with Zionism in 1914. Based on the above statement, it appears you are still standing by this belief. How do you square it with the Watchtower's presentation of the belief, which now denies that any freedom for the Jewish nation in the 19th or 20th centuries is unrelated to the Gentile Times?

You appear to be disagreeing with the Watchtower again.

[AlanF]

JW Insider wrote:

Quote

. . . What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call person's names.

Exactly. And I find the history and usage of cusswords in any language fascinating. My stepson and I had an extremely amusing conversation about the use of cusswords in the Hispanic community in Colorado.

Quote

But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used.

Fair enough; I won't go there.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

22 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Nice try, attempting to twist words as usual, when you DON'T  have a leg to stand on anymore. You were wrong 3 years ago, and your still wrong 3 years later.

OK. I'm not saying your belief is "apostate" but we know it is different from the Watchtower's current view of the matter. But would you be willing to answer the question? @Arauna already pointed out that this is not part of our current teaching (in this topic/thread a few pages back when John Aquila Brown was the side-topic-of-the-day here).

[JW Insider]

On 1/8/2018 at 3:18 PM, allensmith28 said:

A good example is “THE EGIBI TABLETS” For a long time, this became indispensable for opposers to use these tablets to refute the WT Chronology. Then it became a problem because on the tablets it indicates Nebuchadnezzar III starting reign in 604BC. This BANKING HOUSE is a reputable banking institution, but all of a sudden, it became a 19-century mistake.

This was from several pages back in this thread. Page 20, I think. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone addressed it, although it was addressed the previous time you brought it up. (If you recall, you were shown to be wrong, and your 19th century source had made the error. It was not related at all to the original tablets.) This particular thread/topic was initially intended to discuss the scriptural reasons why the WT chronology doesn't match all the Bible evidence very well. We need a new thread on the secular evidence itself. For me, this thread has become too unwieldy to try to cover both perspectives. I'm happy to continue using it for posts related to the Biblical evidence for the events we have tied to the year 607, however.

[JW Insider]

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is the reason, that, Carl Olof Jonsson FAILED to disprove the time of the Gentiles that was distant by . . .  the freedom of the Jews once again in 1914AD.

Allen, you have brought this up at least twice before, mentioning in one earlier post that Russell was amazingly accurate in predicting that the Jews would gain their freedom in 1914. You associated this with Zionism in 1914. Based on the above statement, it appears you are still standing by this belief. How do you square it with the Watchtower's presentation of the belief, which now denies that any freedom for the Jewish nation in the 19th or 20th centuries is unrelated to the Gentile Times?

Perhaps you still plan to answer the question, although I noticed you requoted the question but didn't respond to it. As a reminder, it could be worded many different ways, but the basic question remains as follows: Do you think that Russell proved himself accurate in predicting 1914 as a time when the Jewish nation gained their freedom?

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is hilarious. My old account is still, blocked!!!!!!!!!

If you’re going to allow lewdness, then do the right thing and *UNBLOCK* my old account,

As you probably know, I was given some moderator functions in order to keep some level of control over my own topics/threads which tend to go on about as long as my individual posts. I still don't think you should have been deleted in the first place, and have made that known to @The Librarian. I'd be happy to see you back, in your original avatar.

I don't have the power to do it myself, but consider this as another request to the Librarian or admin to get your original account back online. After all, what's the difference between the original account and all these dozens of alternate accounts that are even messier, especially when it becomes a useful part of a discussion to quote a previous post?

Of course, my own reasons might have initially been more selfish than altruistic because your particular brand of abusive behavior made it so much easier to point out when an argument had finally boiled down to "Evidence vs. Ad Hominem." Some people don't notice the more subtle forms of "ad hominem" but have no problem identifying it in its more extreme forms.

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

Continuing to be clueless.

No matter how many vile filthy despicable horrendous nasty ugly scandalous scurrilous things Foreigner may say about AlanF......there will always be a few he forgot to mention and I will have to help him out.

C'mon. Poor, lowly, salt-of-the-earth Foreigner, disadvantaged in every way compared to AlanF,  who has likely seen hardship that Alan cannot imagine, contributes to this discussion more meaningfully than I - and Alan slams, bullies, mocks, insults him until he finally loses it and launches a tirade of bad words - and I am to be put out over the bad words?

Okay, I am, somewhat. But after listening to Alan, Foreigner is like Robert Frost.

8 hours ago, AlanF said:

Deliberately substituting your personal interpretation for a fact, and then claiming it is a fact, is a reprehensible lie.

Full Disclosure: I am (GASP!) @allensmith28!!!