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

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.

Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.

I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming

It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

rue in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth

No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus

WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme

We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.

The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence

Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.

No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible

Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said

I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.

Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.

My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation

A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL

I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS

This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.

Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus

Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.

My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

he connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid

Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?

We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academi

So this fact should temper your criticism.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?

I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

COJ is ill and not writing any more.

Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishones

Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers

Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient

Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot

I agree so let us crank up the scholarship!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

More meaningless and irrelevant generalities

Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results

I would if I could.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

lready done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website

No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

ry reading the previous posts.

I have.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975

You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled  from both sides.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it

Opinion not fact

scholar JW emeritus

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 . . .

We can find out whether Russell really ever rejected this reasoning. We can trace his discussions of the topic from the very first to the very last. When Russell first wrote about the Gentile Times it was in the October 1876 Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs).

*** jv chap. 10 pp. 134-135 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***

• Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?”, Russell also reasoned on the matter from the Scriptures and stated that the evidence showed that “the seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” This article was printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner.

The entire article is at:  https://archive.org/stream/1876BibleExaminer/1876_Bible_Examiner_Russell#page/n0/mode/2up.  Here is some of what he said: 

• We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . ."

In explaining the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, this is the first scripture he quotes, Leviticus 26:27,33. [Actually, Russell only quotes from Levitius 26:28,32,33.] Then he quotes from Ezekiel 21:26-27 ("Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it.") Leviticus 26 is no longer part of our 1914 doctrine, but Ezekiel 21:25-27 is still a key part of it. Then he references Daniel 2:38 about Nebuchadnezzar:

• "Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments."

So far, all of this perfectly echoes the publication by Seiss nearly six years earlier. ("Prophetic Times" Dec 1870). There, the 2,520 years was also mentioned in connection with Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, after which the 1870 article goes on to make the same point from Ezekiel 21:25-27. The only mention of Nebuchadnezzar in the "Seiss" article is a similar reference to Daniel 2 as just quoted from :

• . . . with the corresponding investiture of Nebuchadnezzar, with as absolute dominion as God has ever delegated to man, as the "head of gold," contemplates the commencement of the "times of the Gentiles," which points to A.D. 1914 as the "time of the end" . . .

Of course, they both are saying the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar which would appear to preclude making Nebuchadnezzar represent the non-Gentile government, if he is such a perfect representation of the Gentile governments!

So, the publication by Seiss never attempts to bring in Daniel 4, but Russell follows Barbour's lead here and attempts it anyway. Russell seems to be only slightly aware that his thinking is getting terribly muddled here, about who Nebuchadnezzar represents. Using some long and convoluted sentences, in his 1876 article, Russell says:

• . . . as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.”

Russell's point is NOT that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom, as the Watch Tower publications tell us today. Instead, Russell is arguing that there is a "parallel" in the length of punishment because the two "events" are parallel periods: "trodding of Jerusalem" and "times of the Gentiles." The first single sentence quoted above in its entirety actually said the following:

• God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times.

Yes that was only one sentence. But the point is that there are two periods of seven times: seven times of degradation for Israel (Treading of Jerusalem), and seven times for the dominion of the image (Times of the Gentiles). They will run in parallel. The first of those periods about the punishment of Israel/Jerusalem is from Leviticus 24 and the second of those periods is about the dominion of the Gentile nations and is from Daniel 4.

Of course, Russell's overall point was that by 1914 "the Jew" would be delivered because "the nations" would be "dashed to pieces" (smashed as with an iron rod) , and 1914 would be the time when the nations would therefore acknowledge God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There would be no more Gentile governments as they would collapse in chaos, and only Israel's government (assumed to be from the physical city of Jerusalem) would now have power.

• ". . . the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation [sic], and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 
• If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc.

So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

In the Watch Tower, October 1909, Russell continues the same thinking about the "parallels" but never even mentions Daniel 4 or Nebuchadnezzar in the discussion. In fact, he defends the use of "seven" in Leviticus to mean "seven times" even though, by now, it is clear that Russell has heard the argument about the actual meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew in Leviticus 26 was about as helpful in creating "time periods" as saying that Naaman bathed 7 times in the Jordan, or that the three Hebrews of Daniel 3:19 were thrown into a furnace heated "seven times" hotter. Instead, Russell, "digs in his heels" and mixes the two meanings together to create a "continuous" period of seven times to mean 2,520 years.

• God foretold that if Israel would be faithful he would bless them in every sense of the word, but that if they would walk contrary to him, he would walk contrary to them and chastise them "seven times for their sins." (Lev. 26:28.) This expression in this connection is, with variations, repeated three times. In one instance the word "MORE" is used. "I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." The Hebrew word rendered more, according to Strong's translation, would properly be rendered "continuously."
• This threat of punishment we interpret to mean, not that the Lord would give Israel seven times as much punishment as they should have, but that he would punish them seven times (seven years) more (continuously) for their sins. These seven times or seven years were not literal years surely, for they received more punishment than that on numerous occasions. The seven times we interpret as symbolical years, in harmony with other Scriptures--a day for a year, on the basis of three hundred and sixty days to a year. Thus the seven times would mean 7 x 360, which equals 2520 literal years. And the word more or continuously would signify that this period of 2520 years would not be the sum of all their various years of chastisement at various "times," but this experience of 2520 years of national chastisement would be one continuous period.
• Next we should ask, Has there been such a continuous period of disfavor in Israel's national history? The answer is, Yes. In the days of Zedekiah, the last king to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, the Word of the Lord concerning the matter was, "O, thou profane and wicked prince, whose time has come that iniquity should have an end: Take off the diadem! Remove the crown! I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, the kingdom] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto him." (Ezek. 21:25-27.) This period of 2520 years, or seven symbolic times, will expire, according to our reckoning (DAWN-STUDIES, Vol. II., Chap. IV.) in October, 1914. In other words, the period of Gentile times, of Gentile supremacy in the world, is the exact parallel to the period of Israel's loss of the kingdom and waiting for it at the hands of Messiah.

In the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, Russell, also focuses on Leviticus 26:28 first, and then Ezekiel 21:25-27, but there he does include brief references to the tree dream of Daniel 4. When he wrote Volume 2, he was still concerned about the differenes in the Hebrew between Leviticus and Daniel and made a statement about the Hebrew word prior to the statement quoted above which was false (understood better in 1909, but never fixed in future printings of Volume II itself):

•  All these periods being far longer than "seven times" or years literal, yet the "seven times" being mentioned as the last, greatest and final punishment, proves that symbolic, not literal time is meant, though the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, is the same word so translated in Daniel 4:16,23,25,32, except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood.

It's like saying, it's the same Hebrew word, except that it's different. But he is still consistent that there are two parallel time periods: the "chastisment [trampling] of Israel" and the "time of the [domination by the] Gentiles." This is from Vol 2, "The Time Is At Hand," page 192, 193:

• In the same chapter in which he tells them of the punishment of seven times under Gentile rule, he tells them, also, that if they would neglect the year Sabbaths he would punish them for it by desolating their land. (And, as a matter of fact, the seventy years desolation was also the beginning of the seven Gentile Times, as already shown.) The Lord's threatening reads thus: "Your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate and ye be in your enemies' land,...because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it." Lev. 26:34,35,43 . . . The entire number being seventy, and nineteen of these having been observed in a half-hearted way by Israel before the desolation, it follows that the remaining fifty-one (70-19=51) mark the period from the last Jubilee which Israel imperfectly observed, down to the great antitype.

Notice, as an aside, that Russell comes 'curiously' close to finding a solution for the supposed "20-year gap" when he mentions that it was intended to cover for Jubilees observed in a half-hearted way for 19 of the 70 years, and failing completely for 51 of the seventy years. Just above this in the same article Russell had highlighted the connection between the separate phrases about a usual reference to the "70 years of captivity" as perhaps different from the "Biblical" reference to the "70 years of desolation." It's a side point, but might indicate that the "wheels were turning" to discover a way to push the 606 reference back to the actual chronology proposed by Seiss, instead of the 19 to 20 year mistake Russell had accepted through N.H.Barbour. (Seiss had recognized 606 as the first year of captivity and exile, referring to Daniel and others, from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th/19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. For that matter, so had E.B.Elliott.)

But back to the point at hand.

Russell showed again and again that his primary source for the 7 times, even the "seven Gentile Times" was Leviticus 26, not Daniel 4. Without further quoting long passages, we can see this in several more places, in no particular order. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of every time the period of "seven times" (as 2,520 years) was mentioned by Russell in the Watch Tower magazine:

• The Watch Tower article in July 1915, supports the "seven times" only with Leviticus, not Daniel.
• The February 1892 Watch Tower, page 61 also only uses Leviticus, not Daniel, and states the prediction for "1915" instead of 1914:
  •  Seeing Israel's kingdom cut off, and finding themselves for centuries uninterfered with in ruling the world, they conclude that it shall so continue always, and know not that their days of empire are limited to "seven times" or 2520 years, which will end in A.D. 1915
• The June 1912 Watch Tower still speaking of the literal, physical nation of Israel only uses Leviticus 26, not Daniel.
  • as a nation, they have for centuries been receiving the very "curses" specified under their Covenant. (See Deut. 28:15-67.) Verses 49-53 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. As shown in previous writings the Lord (Lev. 26:18-45) declared the symbolical "seven times," 2,520 years, of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles, and their deliverance--A.D. 1914.
• The October 1909 Watch Tower is quoted earlier in this post, and only uses Leviticus, not Daniel.
• The December 1912 Watch Tower is actually about the potential problem with the potential existence of the "zero year" between BC and CE, and the article also makes a point that even back in 1904 the Watchtower had already hedged toward 1915 anyway, just in case. The parallel time periods are mentioned, without any mention of either Daniel or Leviticus, however:
  • "We find, then, that the Seven Times of Israel's punishment and the Seven Times of Gentile dominion are the same; and that they began with the captivity of Zedekiah, and, as will be seen from the Chart, they terminate with the year 1915.
• In the November 1914 Watch Tower,  the Times of the Gentiles is still being discussed with only references to Leviticus, and not Daniel. Just as in the Seiss publication, the primary references are to Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 21, and the only reference to Nebuchadnezzar is to Daniel 2 where he is called the "head of  gold:"

  • Through our Lord Jesus Christ, God has mentioned the Gentile Times (Luke 21:24), and now in the Old Testament we find out how many Times there are-- how many years; for in Scriptural usage a Time means a year. As we studied the subject still further, we found that God had told the Israelites that they would come under His disfavor for Seven Times. (Leviticus 26:14-28.) . . . each symbolic "Time" would be 360 years. So then, this period of Seven Times must mean 7 x 360 years, or 2520 years. Thus we found that this was to be the period of time during which Israel was to be overturned (Ezekiel 21:25-27) --to have their kingdom and their government subject to the Gentiles.

So, it turns out that Daniel 4 might never have been used as a proof text for the 2,520 years in the Watch Tower itself during Russell's lifetime. It was in Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, but even there it was not used much, but was discussed in a section more than two-thirds of the way into the article, after 20 pages, under a subheading of the chapter on the Gentile Times, called "Another Line of Testimony." So even here, it was considered to be an additional perspective, treated as secondary, after the Leviticus 26 explanation had been given as primary.

Another side point I found interesting is that there are several phrases that echo Seiss's publications, even though it may have been Barbour who had already provided the direct conduit to Seiss, and Russell's references are perhaps only through Barbour. But it's also true that when Seiss published this work in 1870, that it didn't actually quote Ezekiel 21:25-27, per se, but quoted the exact same verses from Ezekiel 21:30,32 using Leeser's Reading, which renumbers some verses. The Watch Tower began selling Leeser's translation as a recommended study aid back in 1884, but rarely quoted from it in the Watch Tower. The first quote from it that I have found was in February 1884, and the second quote from it was 8 years later in the same article mentioned above from February 1892, and the quotation is from Ezekiel 21:31,32, just as Seiss had published this passage (and only this passage) from Leeser's in 1870.

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus horribilis mendacious wrote:

This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.

Quote

 

:: Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.

Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment.

 

And I will hold you to yours.

Quote

Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.

Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
     

Quote

 

:: LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.

I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.

 

You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
     

Quote

 

:: I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.

It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology.

 

More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.

Quote

I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.

Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus.

Quote

 

:: True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth

No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.

 

Another example of your ignoring an essential part of an argument. Let's examine how you've done it.

You had said:

<< ... it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. >>

To which I replied:

<< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>

So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.

You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.

Quote

 

:: I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus  

WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence

 

Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.

Quote

and I have found no examples of having done so

More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples.

Quote

nor have they ignored Bible passages

Do you want me to list them again?

Quote

but have evaluated all available evidence.

Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.

Quote

Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story

LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship.

Quote

and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.

Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
     

Quote

 

:: Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme

We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus.

 

More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"

Quote

There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ.

Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Quote

These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period.

Correct.

Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.

Quote

You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology.

But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.

Quote

Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.

So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
     

Quote

 

:: You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.

:: The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence

Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story

 

So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".

Quote

so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years.

"Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence.

Quote

It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.

I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
     

Quote

 

:: No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

'Very likely' does not cut it.

 

Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.

But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else.

Quote

You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM

False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.

No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times.

Quote

and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work.

Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work.

Quote

The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.

False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.

Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.

Quote

 

:: Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.

No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell.

 

You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.

Quote

It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before

Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?

Quote

and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities.

Very good! You admit that 6 comes before 7! Wowee!

Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.

||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||

 

Quote

The month of their actual arrival is not stated.

Correct, but irrelevant to this point.
     

Quote

 

:: No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible

Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism.

 

The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.

Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.

Quote

 

:: What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said

I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized

 

Which I debunked, and you ignored.

Quote

but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.

Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words.
     

Quote

 

:: Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.

Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.

 

Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
     

Quote

 

:: Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.

My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.

 

Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.

Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:

1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
 

Quote

 

:: I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation

A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.

 

I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?

Quote

 

:: The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.

 

False, as I've shown above and several other times.
     

Quote

 

:: Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL

I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.

 

LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
 

Quote

 

:: So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere.

:: And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS

This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.

 

Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
     

Quote

 

:: So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible.

 

Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this.

Quote

Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.

Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims.
     

Quote

 

:: have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.

:: Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus

Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return?

 

I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing.

Quote

Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible.

The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!

Quote

Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.

Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
     

Quote

 

:: Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious

 

Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
     

Quote

 

:: Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.

My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.

 

Misleading, revisionist gobble-de-goop. Here is what was said, from pages 21-22 of this thread:

<<
scholar JW: Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE.

AlanF: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?  

scholar JW: Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.
>>

Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.

In a later post I said:

<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>

Quote

Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.

So what?
     
 

Quote

 

:: The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid

Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?

 

Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
     

Quote

 

:: Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?

We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!

 

Obviously.
     

Quote

 

:: Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia

So this fact should temper your criticism.

 

Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
     

Quote

 

:: So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.

 

More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
     

Quote

 

:: I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?

I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..

 

Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.

Quote

However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.

Already done.
     

Quote

 

:: COJ is ill and not writing any more.

Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.

 

I hope so too.
     

Quote

 

:: Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest

Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.

 

Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it?
     

Quote

 

:: Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers

Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.

 

What I've done is already online in various forums.
     

Quote

 

:: Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient

Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement

 

Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.

Quote

but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.

More revisionism -- even of your own words. See above.

As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
     

Quote

 

:: No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results

I would if I could.

 

As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website

No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.

 

Whatever that means. But again you refuse to consider the actual evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: Try reading the previous posts.

I have.

 

But dismissed with almost nothing but handwaving.
     

Quote

 

:: Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975

You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled  from both sides.

 

Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
     

Quote

 

:: Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it

Opinion not fact.

 

When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

54 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.

Grandstanding again, Alan?

55 minutes ago, AlanF said:

And I will hold you to yours

Good. Bring it on.

56 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.

No. Simply affirming the obvious, giving credit where credit is due.

58 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.

Simply assertion. You do not like it when someone else goes 'toe to toe' with you.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.

No. Just a simple recognition that I have unlike yourself, have paid close attention to SDA scholarship

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogu

Fine. Bring it on. I must remind you that this is SDA scholarship!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>

So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.

You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.

If you wish to discuss 'these nations' then let us proceed..Methodology of whatever type can be valid and even Rodger Young used a methodology based on Decision Analysis in order to resolve the 586/7 debate. WT scholars have always had a well-defined methodology and this stated in our publications.for it  nicely harmonizes both the scriptural and secular data.in  a well defined linear argument.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.

No it does not. It does not need to misrepresent it because it does not wholly rely on it but rather relies on the biblical evidence.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples

How can I acknowledge something that does not exist?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Do you want me to list them again?

Yes, Please for scholar loves lists.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.

I have and do not ignore anything because I value and respect all of the Bible.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship

Indeed, Is it not wonderful that the world's best scholarship has been debunked by WT Chronology. That's irony

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"

No. It is wrong because it contradicts the many plain statements of the seventy years.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"

Nonsense. You would not what a critical commentary is. Did you consult such commentaries when devising your 538 thesis?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Rubbish. List those texts that we have ignored.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.

Perhaps but that does not mean that such interpretations are correct. An argument based on authority is fallacious. Far better to base interpretation on God's Word rather than the opinions of men.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.

Both schemes have their own merits. WT scholars have developed a Bible based Chronology and it is a 'stand-alone' Chronology.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.

It seems this point eludes you so it comes down to authenticity or credibility. Our Chronology works because it makes historical sense of OT history going back to Adam. In short, it works!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".

No, with the exception of your novelty you have provided no evidence just a rehash of COJ.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence

I do believe that I put some words down on paper about your novelty.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.

No I do not think so but if that is your opinion then that is fine. Remember it took COJ, 400 pages to go through such a fine piece of long-argued scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.

But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else

Yes it must be supported by good evidence and I find that in our 537 thesis and you have some good evidence in your 538 thesis but both have assumptions or speculation.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.

No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times

Yes you have some evidence for your theory but so do we. WT scholars have published much on this subject going as far back as 1949 and have explained the evidence and assumptions required to arrive at a date for the Return.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work

Correct and not too early either.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.

Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.

False, Josephus only discusses the foundations of the Temple in Cyrus' second year not the Return. The calculation is false because the beginning of that year is not established. Did Josephus count from the Spring or the Fall?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.

I know and I accept that harsh reality so scholar just plods along.No we both do not agree that 538 could be the year of the Return for that was impossible and yes Ezra did give a specific year but only the month of the Return. Common sense proves on the facts as given Ezra the only possible year must have been 537.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?

The only scenario that we mutually agreed excluded the nature, timing of events of Cyrus' Decree and was only limited to the preparations and the journey.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.

||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||

Scholar loves pretty pictures, charts and diagrams. What is your point?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Correct, but irrelevant to this point

No for it is a very relevant historical factor when you consider Ezra 2:7-3:1.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.

Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.

You have no basis for combining Ezra with Josephus because although the subject is similar the time factors are different thus both wrote from a different perspective. Such texts do not establish the year of the Return for this can only be established from Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. The disqualifying assumption relates to the content of Ezra 1:1-3:1 which proves the impossibility of all events occurring in 12 months of Cyrus' first year.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Which I debunked, and you ignored

Scholar has debunked for he is the great debunker.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words

I have already highlighted the three major problems with your thesis.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.

Does it matter whether they are stated or not for the reader using discernment can identify such as is also indicated in our explanation of the Return in our publications over many years.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.

Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:

1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?

1. Yes

2. Yes

Did I pass?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?

Simple: Literature Review indicating the scope and depth of your research and whether you have consulted Journals and views from Bible Commentaries on Ezra relating to Ezra 3;1 and 3:8 inclusive and Ezra 1;1-3:1 inclusive.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

False, as I've shown above and several other times

Are you really sure?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."

Scholarship means what has been published within the worldwide community of biblical scholars and presented in a academic format. Research means the accessing of such published materials.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw ma

That is your problem for it is based on its own merits. It has to be tested alongside other competing views and established facts, clearly identifying any underlying assumptions. You do not know what I will think but you need to do more work, get it peer reviewed.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this

False. Do the research! You really cannot be taken seriously.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims

Why should I do your work for you. Are you lazy?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing

Well you have now gained admittance into the club of scholars engaging in speculation. Welcome.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!

At least 537 is in the scholarly literature whereas 538 is missing in action.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.

So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple. Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text. Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return. It is up to you to prove any connection for I can disprove your claim by simply saying 'what does the text actually say'.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.

No it is not decisive at all and that is your problem for one must have a degree of certainty as to which calendrical method Ezra used throughout his book so it when assigning a Chronology to Ezra one has to adopt a certain methodology. You need to display an awareness of the issues raised. WT scholars have approached the Chronology quite differently to not so much Thiele but his contemporary, Siegfried Horn. These matters are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion and I am not a Chronologist so lack some competence in this area.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.

In a later post I said:

<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>

Within the confines of year 538 or 537 then the Return would be possible but this excludes all of the other circumstances that occurred prior to their four month journey which makes on year far more likely than the other. The timing and nature of the Decree with its proclamation renders 538 impossible as also noted by Steinmann with regard not to the date but to the substance of things.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

So what?

Well this is another factor that gives one extra month for the returnees in order to make the journey and to be nicely resettled in their cities or homes so it takes the rush out of things and makes it comfortable for the oldies and the young-uns.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.

Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Obviously.

You should not associate with dummies otherwise it may rub off.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?

Perhaps I am already there because of my human failures. The truth of an argument is not based on a personality or group but rather should be based on following the evidence where it leads and unfortunately it leads directly to 607 BCE.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!

Well the matter of the zero year is troubling to you but I simply wave my hands and it disappears in the pursuit of sound biblical scholarship that began in 1944. No problem!

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.

It seems you give me no credit at all.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it

All that I am requesting of you is to improve, raise the bar, dress it up a little.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

What I've done is already online in various forums.

True, but it lacks scholarship, displays no research and is simply an opinion-a novelty.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.

Have not WT scholars inferred this?

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.

The problem lies in the equating an expectation with actual time of preparation and the unknowing precisely when Cyrus' decree would be promulgated. Such a scenario sounds good on paper but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra and it these facts that must take priority when assigning a precise date for the Return. Meanderings are helpful but have little place in Chronology.  One could argue that with such tumultuous events after Babylon's Fall the last thing on the minds of the Jewish exile was a sudden trip home.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.

I would if I could

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.

At least I am aware of such.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.

That is your opinion

scholar JW emeritus

[JW Insider]

The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish NWT ("2013 Revised") were just released in the last few days.

Of course, these are not direct translations of the original Hebrew and Greek into those languages, but translations of the English NWT into those languages. Evidence of this is the new and updated translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in Danish and Swedish. This particular translation (in the English especially) has been used to prop up the idea that the 70 years mentioned here might have meant the exact time period of the Jewish exile in Babylon. In Jeremiah, however, the "70 years" always refers to 70 years of Babylonian domination that Jehovah allowed to them so that the nations all around them would ultimately end up in servitude to Babylon at various times during these 70 years of "empire" or domination that Jehovah gave to Babylon.

The new Danish revised translation that just came out on JW.ORG:

• “Jehova siger nemlig: ‘Når der er gået 70 år i Babylon, vil jeg rette min opmærksomhed mod jer, og jeg vil opfylde mit løfte og føre jer tilbage hertil.’

BING.com's translation into English:

• "Jehovah says: ' When 70 years have passed in Babylon, I will direct my attention to you, and I will fulfill my promise and take you back here. '

Yet here is the Danish NWT as it still appears on JW.ORG if you change the translation back to the Reference NWT: https://www.jw.org/da/publikationer/bibelen/bi12/bøger/jeremias/29/

• 10  „For således har Jehova sagt: ’Først når halvfjerds år er udløbet for Babylon vil jeg vende min opmærksomhed mod jer,+ og jeg vil over for jer stadfæste mit gode ord ved at føre jer tilbage til dette sted.’

BING.com's translation:

• 10 "For thus, Jehovah has said: ' Only when seventy years have expired for Babylon will I turn my attention to you, + and I will agree with you to confirm my good words by bringing you back to this place. '

Here is the new Swedish Revised translation that just came out on JW.ORG:

• 10 Så här säger Jehova: ’När det har gått 70 år i Babylon ska jag ta mig an er, och jag ska infria mitt löfte genom att föra er tillbaka hit.’

Yet here is the Swedish NWT as it still appears on JW.ORG if you change the translation back to the Reference NWT: https://www.jw.org/sv/publikationer/bibeln/bi12/böcker/jeremia/29/

• ¹⁰  ”Ty detta är vad Jehova har sagt: ’När sjuttio år har gått för Babylon skall jag vända min uppmärksamhet till er, och jag skall gentemot er befästa mitt goda ord genom att föra er tillbaka till denna plats.’

BING.com's translation into English:

• 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said: ' When seventy years have gone for Babylon, I will turn my attention to you, and I will fortify in you my good word by bringing you back to this place. '

 

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning. Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall and ending in 537 BCE with the Return. Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning.

It's possible that what you really meant that it doesn't matter whether you render the one word as "for" or "at" because either one can be made to seem to support the meaning the Watchtower insists upon. But if you really meant to say what you said, then you are saying that both renderings, either "for Babylon" or "at Babylon" can have either meaning. In other words:

• "for Babylon" can mean the same as "at Babylon"
• "at Babylon" can mean the same as "for Babylon"

That's an interesting proposition, because it also admits that the meaning could also be as follows.

• "When 70 years have expired for Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, when the time given for Babylon to rule the nations expires, then you'll know it's the time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home.
• "When 70 years have expired at Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, that when the 70 years of domination now centered at Babylon expires, then you'll know that it's time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home.

This is a perfect match to what Jeremiah has said about the 70 years all along.

• (Jeremiah 25:9-12) 9 I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. 10 I will put an end to the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing from them, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

Notice that Jeremiah never says that inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would be exiled for a 70 year period, or that any other particular nations would be exiled for a 70 year period. It's BABYLON that gets the 70 years of domination over other nations. It would be quite a trick if Babylon rises to domination and suddenly every nation all around begins serving Babylon at the same time for exactly 70 years. This is exactly what is perfectly stated about the meaning of Jeremiah 25 in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

And, of course, all of this has been said before, but I don't think you took an opportunity to respond to why the Watchtower publications were wrong on this point in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book.

Also, it was mentioned before, but it is clearly impossible to claim that it was the inhabitants of Judea or Jerusalem that had to be in exile for exactly 70 years. This was made perfectly clear by the passage in Jeremiah 52 that shows that exiles occurred, not just in Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year, but as Jeremiah 52 states:

• (Jeremiah 52:28-30) These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.

If it really started counting from Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, then not just some, but MOST of the exiles were taken 11 years earlier, and just about as many were taken 5 years later, as were taken in the 18th year. Obviously, the exiles taken 11 years earlier didn't get to leave 11 years earlier, before Babylon fell.  And, obviously, the exiles taken 5 years later didn't have to stay an extra 5 years after Babylon fell. So the 70 years never made sense as an exact time of exile for Judeans. This is why it was always about the start and end of Babylon's rise to power over the nations around them. 

Also, just because a preposition can have a lot of different meanings in a lexicon, does not mean it will have all those possible meanings in the specific context of the verse in question (Jer 29:10). We know that the scholarly understanding of Biblical Hebrew usage has become better, not worse, with the discovery of more Bible manuscripts. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that either term means the same thing, we should be able to explain why the majority of translations up to the King James (plus the NWT) have used "at" and the majority of translations since the KJV have used "for." Can you explain why "for" is preferred in almost all modern translations? I'm not asking why you think the Watchtower doesn't use the majority view, or why the Watchtower disagrees with the majority view; I'm asking if you can explain why modern translations prefer "for." If you can't, then your claim at the beginning of your post is merely an assertion without evidence.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

But still in 607, in the 7th month-

I have no problem with starting the 70 years for Babylon in 607 (+/-). However, since I accept that the first year of Cyrus over Babylon was in 539, then it would be dishonest for me to try to claim that the Fall of Jerusalem could have been in 607. If you accept the evidence that puts the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon in 539, then you are accepting the evidence that puts Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605, and his 18th year in 587.

You can't claim that you are using historical evidence to agree that WWI ended in 1918, but then claim that WWI started in 1894 under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Once someone points out that all the evidence shows that Grover Cleveland was the U.S. President in 1894, it is even more dishonest to just print up a 20 million magazines every few months that would use an expression like "When President Woodrow Wilson saw the United States enter WWI shortly after 1894. . . ." Yet, this is almost exactly what the Watchtower is doing when it uses an expression like: "When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. . . . " 

It would not be dishonest to claim that we think that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 because we disagree with the archaeological evidence. But it is completely dishonest to claim that we believe there is good evidence for 607 because we we accept the evidence for 539. After all, we have the evidence for 539 because we have the evidence for 607, and vice versa.

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

But Judah was desolated in the 7th month of Neb.'s 18/19th year, when everybody fled to Egypt.

Yes, Judah was significantly desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. But Jeremiah never said that the 70 years were to be counted as 70 years of a specific desolation of Judea. He said that the 70 years were the 70 years given to Babylon to dominate the nations all around them. This would include Ammon, Moab and Tyre and Judea, of course, but not all nations would see exactly 70 years of desolation starting and ending at exactly the same time, right?

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus maximus said:

Quote

It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning.

Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

"70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.

"70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.

The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.

Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.

Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".

Quote

Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation

Logically impossible, and biblically and historically wrong.

Quote

beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall

The fall was 587/586 as all modern scholars agree.

Quote

and ending in 537 BCE with the Return.

Standard WTS speculation based on handwaving. Real evidence indicates 538 for the Return.

Quote

Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile

Wrong, as shown above.

Quote

whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.

Finally, one thing more or less right, even though stated in language close to gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Right, as long as Judah had seen its 70 years of desolation -

Yes. Jeremiah speaks of desolation upon Jerusalem, but nowhere does Jeremiah say anything about 70 years of desolation. He speaks of 70 years of Babylonian domination over the nations around Babylon. Babylon has been granted 70 years of "empire" or hegemony.  

The first point above was that it makes no sense to speak about a 70-year period of exile, because there were several periods of exile, some longer and some shorter. Historically, there was not a 70-year period between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Cyrus' accession year. But even if there had been, we learn from the Bible that a larger exile took place 11 years earlier, and another important exile took place 5 years later. If the Bible says there were exiles several years before and several years after Nebuchadnezzar's 18th, then it makes no sense to speak of a 70-year exile, anyway. Thus, the Bible never mentions a 70-year exile.

So, after skipping that point, you have now gone on to make the point that there would be 70 years of desolation. Again, Jeremiah says nothing about 70 years of desolation. But I would agree that there is a possible implication that can be made from the statements in Jeremiah 25:18, 29 that punishment and ruination would begin with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah.

This doesn't account for the fact that the punishment and ruination was an ongoing process. This would be a major reason that Babylon was given 70 years to continue making the nations serve them. Daniel 1 says, that for Judea and Jerusalem, it started as far back as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. This fits the Babylonian chronicles, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was taking booty back from the Judean area even before he had become king (605). Ultimately, the desolation would become nearly total as far as the independent power of Judea as a nation was concerned. (habitation, agriculture, economy, etc.)

We know that the desolation was a process rather than driven by a single specific event because Daniel uses the term "desolations" (plural) even where the NWT changes it to a singular term "desolation."

We also know from the description of 70 years of desolation upon Tyre for example, as mentioned above. If the 70 years were counted by "events" then how could Tyre have a full 70 years of desolation? Did it start at exactly the same time as the 70 years of a single desolation upon Jerusalem? This would imply that the idea of 'first' is one of primacy and importance, or that it "starts" with Judea, but continues getting worse and worse for them.