Ann O'Maly

You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory.
You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory.
In other words, you're still lying.
AlanF

I was never that concerned about JQB, and I'm not really that interested in getting volume 2. "Scholar_JW" already proved to me that COJ was correct in his assessment when "Scholar_JW" (Neil) admitted that the best evidence against COJ's summary was in Vol 2, p.208, but wouldn't dare show it. There was already plenty of evidence on the Internet that "Scholar_JW" was not telling the truth, because he had already been thoroughly embarrassed over a decade ago when he attempted that same dishonest claim. I'm also not so concerned about COJ. I don't know what you mean by ideologies, but I absolutely know that your claim about a copy never came from me, whether three years ago or at any time, because I never had a copy, and was never that concerned about it. There are dozens of Biblical reasons to reject the 1914 ideology, I don't need secular reasons. But I know that other people should see the secular reasons, too, because they honestly believe something about the secular evidence that isn't true. I'm also willing to share what I have learned about all the evidence because of how important this idea is, and how dangerous it can be from a Christian's perspective. (see Matthew 24, etc.)

Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!
AlanF

Ah, well then! COJ certainly had a hand in writing "The Even-Tide" and is partly responsible for its content. And your memory from about 3 years ago is definitely more certain than what's written in COJ's books.
Tell us, please: what exactly is an ideology made about 3 years ago? LOL!
AlanF

No, you don't remember that at all, because nothing like it was ever said. Not by me, nor anyone else that I can remember.
The closest thing I said was that two members of the Writing Department (who shared an office) were discussing it with me, and said that it still remains on a shelf, collecting dust, because everyone in Writing considered it a "hot potato." No one wanted to be assigned to respond to it, because that would be a lose-lose situation. You couldn't respond honestly, and if you couldn't respond you'd be considered a potential apostate.
I never saw it at all until a few months later. Brother Schroeder had a small portion of it photocopied, and he took it with him when we traveled together on a trip to Europe in 1978. He did not allow me to read any of it and I never asked. I never had a research assignment related to it. I didn't see the manuscript at all until early 1980 when Brother Rusk and I were going over my wedding plans in his office and he needed to take about an hour to respond to a phone call (regarding a blood issue) while I sat in his office. While I waited, I grabbed a book from his library, and I also looked around and saw that he had the manuscript open in about three stacks on his desk, but again I never read more than the pages on top of the stacks.
I doubt it was ever discarded. It seems probable that what Fred Rusk had on his desk was already a photocopy.

AllenSmith wrote:
You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions.
I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in:
(1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year).
(2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE.
(3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE.
Having trouble counting to three?
Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603:
Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.
So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE.
Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible:
No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
 
 
Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below.
Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false:
p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >>
pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . .
Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >>
COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative:
p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >>
COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute.
So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4?
You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this.
 
 
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
He does. Can't you read?
Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.
Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages.
AlanF

@Ann O'Maly  I agree @Ann O'Maly
I will try to restrain my powers of banning people to a minimum. But at some point it becomes ridiculous.

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

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

Goodness gracious, AllenSmith28 (I assume). There are better ways to argue your case.
You (or at least, AllenSmith) were not banned for using foul language, but for making it personal. This is what is being done again again here. What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call people names. That's what got Allen Smith banned and disciplined so often he parodied his own case by creating AllenSmith20-something through AllenSmith28, to go along with a small army of other names to play various characters [and voting blocs]
But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used. But I don't think anyone should be banned. We can all decide to avoid seeing someone's comments by blocking them if we are sensitive to that kind of thing. And a warning is available so that others can be aware that they may not wish to read what any certain person is saying. In a discussion like this, as I've said, it's much more useful to get warnings about logical fallacies, and warnings about the difference between depending on facts and depending on speculation. Misuse of language is a trivial matter to me.

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

AllenSmith wrote:
You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.
Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28:
<<<<
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.
On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:
<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>
Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.
On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:
<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>
<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>
COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.
On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:
<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>
And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.
Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
>>>>
Still clueless.
The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs.
Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.
Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name.
AlanF

YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY DISRESPECT FOR ALANF. WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE RESPECTS WHITE TRASH, ESPECIALLY AFTER COMMENTING, BROWN TRASH?

YOU AND ANN AS THE OWNERS OF THIS SITE, HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TUFF.

A PERSON THAT DENIGRATE OTHERS FOR THEIR WRITING SKILLS IS THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE. THE EXAMPLE I OFFERED OF HIS OWN FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE *JEFFRO* ILLUSTRATED HOW MORONIC HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPTS ARE TO IMPOSE HIS WRITING SKILLS ON ANYONE. SINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, ALSO MAKE MISTAKES, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE.

O’MALY, ANNA, ALANF, WHICHEVER NAME THIS PERSON IS AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH YOU, HAVE GONE BEYOND HAVING TO TOLERATE THIS JERK, ACTIONS.

SO, DON’T EVER CLAIM YOUR BETTER THAN ME, JUST BECAUSE YOUR WHITE. I’M NOT A WITNESS YET, AND THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE FILTH HERE, I’M NOT FOR SURE I WANT TO BE ONE.

Continuing to be clueless.
AlanF

Exactly! I've said this many times myself. Long before I read anything about the 200-tablet exhibit at the BLMJ. I don't know if you noticed, but this particular exhibit of "new" tablets you have been talking about is only strengthening the same evidence that Mason and COJ and O'maly and Jeffro and AlanF and others have been pointing out for many years.
In fact all "new" archaeological evidence that comes to light, invariably continues to strengthen the general Biblical description of events and continues to weaken the claims that the Watchtower has been asking us to believe. I suspect that the frustration arising from such evidence is where the repetitions of nonsensical arguments, distractions, and temper tantrums are coming from.

Klingon?

Foreigner wrote:
Ah, now pulling the race card.
Racist? Not only do people on this board, like JW Insider and me, not know if you're white, brown, black, green, blue or purple -- we don't care.
Let me clue you in: a language is supposed to be used in the way that the great majority of its native speakers use it. That is the definition of proper use. If you, as a non-native speaker, choose not to speak the way natives speak, or have not learned how to speak the way they do, that's your lookout.
I already told you that on page 23 of this thread.
Probably the equivalent of "dick" in English.
You really take the cake as a hypocrite. It is YOU who started this little tiff about language. On page 23 of this thread, you castigated whoever you quoted (apparently Jeffro):
<< ... Daniel and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.* (Grammarly indicates error in given to ARE given)
 
... Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.
 
(Grammarly indicates error in throne to THE throne)
 
Those who insult writings skills are ONLY fooling themselves!!!! >>
You even emphasized your comments by putting them in red.
Then on page 24 I tried to educate you a little about the various ways in which English is used, and commented that Grammarly deals only with one formal style.
Given your obviously limited English (which is no sin, but arrogance about things you're ignorant of assuredly is) I commented:
<< LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh? >>
You've also made false statements about my postings and those of JW Insider, who has taken great pains to treat your false claims kindly. On pages 26 and 28 you said:
<< There’s too much ignorance thrown in the mix by AlanF, with his attempts to look smart instead of the biggest fool.
When you act like a child, you will be treated as a child. Go play with your rattle, dear!!!!! >>
You even accused JW insider of twisting words.
As the 1950s Warner Brothers cartoon character Yosemite Sam said, "Hey, them's fighin' words!"
Now you're whining and whinging about being taken to task for saying false, unpleasant and quite stupid things about other posters, and having your own words turned back on you.
What are you, 12 years old?
AlanF

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum.
But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along.
I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet.
Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic.
I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others:
Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.

Every time you post, you display worse and worse ignorance.
Hmm, let's see now: you think the Jews were deported before they were captured.
Yeah, makes complete sense.
AlanF

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why.
This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do?
(Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel?
Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with.
No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

allensmith28 wrote:
Launches into another bout of near-total incoherence:
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.
On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:
<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>
Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.
On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:
<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>
<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>
COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.
On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:
<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>
And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.
Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
Yes, anyone who knows anything about Neo-Babylonian chronology already knows about the dates given:
<< The exhibit is accompanied by a beautiful catalog, By the Rivers of Babylon,1 which describes the Al-Yahudu Archive and addresses the three waves of exile—in 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. >>
The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in the summer of 587 BCE, followed a few months later in 587 by the deportation of captives. What are you blathering about?
Yes, the siege began in 589, lasted about 2 1/2 years, and ended in 587. Has your brain seized up?
AlanF

I never mentioned confusion or being confused. If you are confused, you'll have to explain what confused you then. I have to admit that I have no idea what you mean by an "attempt to reverse what [I was] denying by Jesus own words. To be more honest, I know exactly what the words mean, but I also know from your further statements that you don't likely really mean what your words mean. "Reversing what you are denying" would mean no longer denying, therefore "accepting." Thus, this subtle attempt to accept Jesus' own words is somehow a deceitful thing.
If you will look back at the conversation you will see their was no deceit, just an attempt to give and get honest answers, and no deflection on my part. If you want real dialogue perhaps you can be clearer about where you thought there was deflection. I am guessing that this accusation wasn't based on anything, as is usually the case, and it's just a need to blame-shift and project back onto me what probably "hit a nerve" when I pointed out that I am accepting some words of Jesus that you appear to be rejecting or denying. This has become such a predictable form of deflection that it was already anticipated. It's exactly how several other persons have already avoided honest dialogue on this topic.
I noticed that you didn't explain at all what you meant by adding these excerpts from an article on the day-year principle. Yes, some explain it as 538 (AD not BC) to 1798 as your accompanying charts show, from the "beginning" to the "end" of papal power. I think this is ridiculous, but Charles Taze Russell agreed with it. Russell used an adjustment to it: 539 AD to 1799 AD, pointing out that 539 was a midpoint between Constantine and Charlemagne (328 to 800).  -- Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures [Millennial Dawn], Volume III, p. 67-69.
Of course, we don't use the Day-Year principle for any of these prophecies, not the 1260, 1290, 1335, or even the 2300 any more. We only use that principle for the period of 2,520 days that we now derive from the 7 "times" of Daniel 4.
Can you explain why you included this information about 1,260 years? I assume it is not something you believe, is it?

Ann O'Maly wrote:
Yes indeed! Thanks for posting this.
I've skimmed more of the relevant sections. They expand on the above excerpts. Clearly, the captives played a larger part in agriculture than I gave them credit for.
Nevertheless, my basic point stands in opposition to Arauna's speculation: farming was not something important enough to many of the Jewish captives to prevent them from dropping everything and beginning immediate preparations for the Return as soon as they realized that Babylon's fall would allow their release, or they heard of Cyrus' Edict. After all, various sources, including the above, and the Bible itself, indicate that the Jews in exile had become so comfortable that a large fraction -- probably the majority, since the Bible refers to the Returnees as a "remnant" -- remained in Babylonia. Only those with a particularly strong religious zeal would want to uproot themselves and go back to a nearly desolate land.
AlanF

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

Nana Fofana wrote:
So what? All the commentaries you cited are from the 16th to 19th centuries. A great deal has been learned since then, in particular about what "the 70 years" of Jeremiah meant.
This borders on incoherent. Try expressing yourself clearly.
No, they were largely wrong, as the Watch Tower is wrong and as I have repeatedly demonstrated by quoting and commenting on the Bible rather than citing ancient legends. The comments you quoted failed to account for Jeremiah 27.
AlanF