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

[AlanF]

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

 

:: Already dealt with on page 28 of this thread.

Once again, page 28 proves COJ’s Contradiction and his fallacy of NOT understanding, 2 Kings 24:1, as you.

 

You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.

Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28:

<<<<
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.

On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:

<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>

Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.

On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:

<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>

<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>

COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.

On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:

<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>

And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.

Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
>>>>

Quote

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.

Still clueless.

Quote

That in itself, still, doesn’t DISPROVE the Gentile Times, or the (DESTRUCTION of JUDAH) that Jerusalem was part of.

The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs.

Quote

It also proves Raymond Franz, didn’t fully understand, what COJ was presenting with his ORIGINAL WORK that COJ, has REVISED several times, now.

Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.

Quote

I believe you people are BIG in criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions, and here you are defending a revisionist, work.

Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name.

AlanF

[Ann O'Maly]

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

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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

For the record, Ann, when I reproduced FakeJW's words, I did not edit out his specific reviling of you. Perhaps I should have. I apologize for that. One gets carried away sometimes.

("kumquat": better wash that mouth of yours out with soap! see what you have unleashed?)

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For the record, Ann, when I reproduced FakeJW's words, I did not edit out his specific reviling of you. Perhaps I should have.

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. 

[AlanF]

11 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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. 

Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.

AlanF

[AlanF]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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

Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know.

AlanF

[The Librarian]

@Ann O'Maly  I agree @Ann O'Maly

I will try to restrain my powers of banning people to a minimum. But at some point it becomes ridiculous.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

By the way, JWinsider, COJ’s opinion was NOT based on the Al-Yahudu Tablets

Thanks for the information, but I never thought he did. That might help explain why I never said anything similar.

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

As I said, how does this NOT contradict COJ’s own assessment for the DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM EARLIER?

This wasn't to me, but you mentioned me elsewhere, so I'll jump in, too. I'm sure AlanF can respond to the COJ / RFranz information if he wishes. I couldn't care less if COJonsson was wrong or RVFranz was wrong. I'm sure they were both wrong on lots of things, lots of times. But I am interested in whatever problem you see in it, because I will try to keep some of these issues in mind if I get a chance to finish reading the whole book this year.

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

A vast contradiction from his “ORIGINAL” treatise that Raymond Franz accepted as true when it was a lie!

I didn't see your source on what R.Franz accepted as true. Can you give a source? Also, I see that you are mostly comparing GTR-2004 with an original treatise. But you also didn't quote here from the original treatise for comparison. Did you quote from it elsewhere? If so, I missed it. I see that AlanF has said that his revisions added to his original work rather than contradicting it. I saw you try this same type of claim earlier and it turned out you would never provide any evidence. I'll assume this is more of the same, at least until I see your evidence. 

36 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

having people POST copyrighted material from COJ, Alanf, since he allows, that, for the Watchtower Copyrighted material.

When a discussion is for academic or learning purposes most authors give a lot of leeway with respect to copyright law and on "fair use." for discussion.

[TrueTomHarley]

54 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I would suggest you HOLD everyone accountable, to your [RESTRICTIONS] LIBRARIAN,

Allen, let me suggest that you use the ground rules here to improve your communicating skills. I mean it sincerely. You will only help yourself by doing it. As for me, I would really hate to see you gone, because when you are on, you are on! You post heavy stuff that occurs to no one else, and I value you for it. 

Even if you think it unjust, roll with it if you can. It really doesn't matter if it is unjust or not. Life is unjust, and Paul would have us use the reversals of life as 'discipline' which, if we reject, we are you-know-whats and not children.

You have alluded to dyslexia. Maybe it is but the tip of the iceberg. Maybe there are other factors that affect your emotional control, for you do launch some zingers sometimes. All of us are packages. Only AlanF is a disembodied brain unimpeded by emotion. Work on your delivery if you can because you have some fine stuff and I want to see you continue offering it.

Not long ago, I was given a disciplinary point for addressing @AlanF as a blithering idiot. I deserved it. I will take it in stride. I would not over-dramatize it because AdamF must have 100 of them, so they must be meaningless in themselves. I consider it a check, as in chess. It will benefit me to study it with a view of preventing a checkmate. 

Is the @The Librarian being especially hard on me? I don't go there. It doesn't matter if she is or not. She is helping me, whether she knows it or not, to improve my writing, and for this I am grateful. In not too long, I will release the ebook about Russia that I have been working on. Much of it was written here. At times, I already had stuff written, and I replaced it with material here - forged from the experience of explaining things before people who I know are going to try to shoot it down.

Even if she was hard on you or me, it could be for a good motive. Witnesses have more or less sworn to communicate in a Christlike manner. Alan and crew renounced kindness long ago, so it may be that he is allowed 20 times the abuse as you or I. 

It is hard for me communicating with Alan because if I say "Help me out here. There is an expression: "______ happens" and I cannot think of the word' - everyone here will know I am joking. Except Alan. He will mock me for not knowing the word. Then when he learns I was just putting him on, he will call me a 'reprehensible liar,' which he has done - an epithet considerably stronger than 'blithering idiot' in that it imputes motive. This pretty much happened recently with pengajo, which I deliberately misspelled wondering if I could trigger his insatiable 'need' to correct. Like hooks in the jaw, it worked. You cannot do any play on words with him! Such as:

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

[let the reader use discernment ]

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO USE DISCERNMENT!!!!! YOU SHOULD PLAINLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH FACTS. I HATE TO THINK WHAT ALAN WOULD CALL YOU IF YOU WERE NOT ALREADY ON THE SAME PAGE.

It is what it is, Allen. View it as discipline from which you can benefit. I miss you when you are gone.

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

NO ONE has a *RIGHT* to impose their writing skills on ANYONE. TTH!!!!!!!!

 

[AlanF]

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

 

:: You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.

It seems the one being deliberately deceptive, is you, and you have been corrected several times already. As I said, how does this NOT contradict COJ’s own assessment for the DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM EARLIER?

 

You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions.

I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in:

(1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year).

(2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE.

(3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE.

Having trouble counting to three?

Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603:

Quote

 

GTR4 2004

The Babylonian invasion of Judah soon after the battle at Carchemish

 

Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.

Quote

 

is also reflected in Jeremiah chapter 35, dated in “the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.” (verse 1) The Rechabites, who normally dwelt in tents in obedience to the command of their forefather, Jehonadab the son of Rechab, lived in Jerusalem at that time. Why? They explained to Jeremiah:

But it came about when Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon came up against the land that we began to say, “Come, and let us enter into Jerusalem because of the military force of the Chaldeans and because of the military force of the Syrians, and let us dwell in Jerusalem.”— Jeremiah 35:11, NW.

Thus, some time earlier in the reign of Jehoiakim, the Babylonian army had invaded the territory of Judah, forcing the Rechabites to seek refuge inside the walls of Jerusalem. Either this invasion was the one described in Daniel 1:1–2, or the one that took place in the following year, when, according to the Babylonian chronicle,“all the kings of Hattu” presented their tribute to the Babylonian king as a sign of their vassalage.

That Judah became a vassal of Babylon early in the reign of Jehoiakim is clearly stated in 2 Kings 24:1, which says that in the [p.208]

 

So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE.

Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible:

Quote

 

2 Kings 24:1-2 New International Version (NIV)

24 During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he turned against Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled. 2 The Lord sent Babylonian,[a] Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the Lord proclaimed by his servants the prophets.

 

No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
 
 

Quote

A vast contradiction from his “ORIGINAL” treatise

Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below.

Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false:

p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >>

pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . .

Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >>

COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative:

p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >>

COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute.

So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4?

Quote

that Raymond Franz accepted as true when it was a lie!!

You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this.
 
 

Quote

So, either he’s confused or you don’t understand scripture. I prefer the later.

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

Since at the very least, he should have been HONEST to consider 605BC as a starting point, to 538BC.

He does. Can't you read?

Quote

With the explanations already given for either a coregency in Cyrus reign by either Darius, or Cambyses, thus, Cyrus official regnal year would have started in the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashanah.

Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.

Quote

Before, 605BC, COJ remains clueless as to what he is talking about, yet, he didn’t DISPROVE Gentile Times, by admitting to 605BC.

Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages.

AlanF

[TrueTomHarley]

11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

When JTR (Someone calling himself a witness) insulted my condition,

As far as I am concerned, if his posts roam free, there are effectively no standards here, and one is disingenuous to say that there are. I will admit, though - it is very strange - that I am almost getting fond of the old pork chop.

To his credit, he pretty well admits as much, in that he is not one to countenance anyone being censured.