Ann O'Maly

Those 'greater minds' haven't benefited you any as far as scholastic honesty and integrity are concerned, unfortunately, even when your face is repeatedly slammed with the scriptural and historical evidence.
Well, that was a success story, lol.
Neil's heart-warming experience of how JWs helped an educated, professional couple convert to Judaism will doubtlessly be included in a forthcoming JWdotOrg Broadcasting production. You read it here first, folks.
The rest of your post is even sillier than your first paragraph so isn't worthy of comment.
Tap or click on the image, then tap/click again, then swipe or Ctrl + to enlarge? Your browser may need a cache clear-out and relaunching?

Alan F
This is simply your opinion. The Jews remained in Babylon after 539, remained in captivity to Babylon even though there was a new rulership in Babylon until their release under Cyrus in537 BCE thus ending their captivity.
The Bible clearly states that the Jewish nation would serve Babylon and describes in detail the fact of their deportation, exile in Babylon and the desolation of Judah. It was Ezra that also described the end of the captivity-exile-servitude as ending with Persian rulership ending the Babylonian dynasty-'Nebuchadnezzer and his sons' and the release of the captives in 537 BCE. How can it be that you are now virtually certain of 538 whilst admitting to the possibility of 537? Make up your mind!
Says you. We are not talking about Temple rebuilding at all but the fact of the Return before they began rebuilding the Temple. I am now starting to worry that you are conflating Josephus' building of the temple with the building of the Altar at the time of their Return. tThere is no way that the Jews could have returned in 538 BCE for it is too long  a stretch and my imagination has a limit. Best stick to the more comfortable 537 date.
Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed?
Have you not dreamt of being an astronaut?. Please do not crush my fancies or dreams for life is painful enough. I must amount to something to attract your attention over the many years and to be so rigorous in having to denounce my scholarship. Am I a worry to you?
Not really just a simple request to reveal to the scholarly community a solution to a piece of neglected Jewish history- the date of the Return. I am sure that post Exilic scholars would love to know of some scholarship that would prove beyond any doubt that 538 is the correct date. Jack Finegan and Rodger Young which you reference at the end of your online article would be most grateful for such enlightenment. Has it been peer reviewed yet?
Wrong. Jeremiah most certainly prophesied about the land paying of its sabbaths according to Ezra and Ezra most certainly associated this with the seventy years as described in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Perhaps you Alan have a different Bible which omits this passage. I would have thought that a careful reading of this text is clear enough but I forgot that you have excellent reading comprehension so that explains your contradictory statement as above.There is nothing that can associate the 70 years with 609 or any such claim to Babylonian supremacy for such is utter nonsense for the simple fact that the Jewish nation and its internal problems were not in the frame as it were. Babylon was not even a World Power at that time so you need to get a grip on the political reality of the region.
Wrong. The link is Lev.26:34. The WBC- 2 Chronicles, 1987, vol.15, p.301 states on this text:"The Chronicler has conjoined his citation of Jer.25:11-12; 29:10 with a citation of Lev.26:34-35, 43".Now that was not difficult was it?
COJ along with many others have failed abysmally. The seventy years indeed can only be a period of servitude-exile-desolation for no other paradigm fits all of the facts. Besides this proves that I am not a WT drone because this formula is of my own origination for nowhere in any WT publication is the matter thus so simply defined. Ah! creative genius at last
So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years.
My beliefs are relevant to me because such are personal. I have a copy of Finegan's books both editions if you please and widely used by me.
If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years?
Nonsense. The date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria in 609? is meaningless in its relation to the seventy years because Egypt was a menacing threat to this new invader so the politics at that time was in a state of flux with rival world powers jostling for supremacy. What is certain is that your beginning of the seventy years is fuzzy for there can be no uncertainty about the beginning of the seventy years for it is well described by Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The only certain statement that you have made is that Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE upon which we agree. Your uncertain statement about the nature of the  seventy years is a bit of a worry. Methinks!
I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587.
Remember this it was I that introduced Rodger Young's research onto the online forums because of his use of Methodology in order to resolve the 586/87 conflict. The date 586 remains even today the widely accepted date amongst most serious scholars.
The 70 years can only be defined as a period of servitude or Babylonish supremacy, a period of exile in Babylon or for Babylon in recognition of its supremacy and period of a desolated land of Judah. the role of Babylonian supremacy is only part of the picture, a necessity in order to actualize the seventy years.
There were deportations of the Jews to Babylon before the seventy years began, at its onset and soon thereafter. The captives remained in Babylon even after its Fall in 539 even though the Dynasty of Neb. had come to an end all within the 70 years as foretold.
Their identity is not disclosed but Jeremiah addressed those nations in Jer. 25;15ff and this pericope is described as the OAN in the literature. Whatever the case if it refers to surrounding nations as you state they would have had to serve Babylon during that period of supremacy from 607 until its demise in 539 BCE but for Judah, their servitude was specifically tied to the land and exile which proved in their case a little longer in Babylon in order to fulfill their sentence of seventy years.
I disagree for in the case of the outworking of the seventy years it proved that their captivity, servitude or exile all amounted the same. Yes, they could have chosen to serve Babylon and remain in their land but they ignored the prophets and paid the price- 70 years of enslavement to a foreign power just as Jehovah foretold.
I do address it and have done so many times in the past. I am perfectly happy with the rendering 'for Babylon' as it proves the reality that for a period of seventy years the Jews served Babylon because they were under Babylonian supremacy right up to its end and until Babylon under new rulership released the captives in 537.
That is an interesting argument but it fails because despite the fact that Babylonian dynasty by means of Neb. and his descendants ended in 539. the Jews remained captive at Babylon even under a new rulership proving that the seventy years had not expired.
Jeremiah specifically addressed Judah for the seventy years applied to Judah and its land and by consequence other nations suffered similarly for they too were caught up in the maelstrom. Yes, servitude was generic, common to many nations during that period but seventy years of servitude =exile-desolation was assigned to Judah.
That is a subject of exegesis and there a number of explanations and I have my own independent of others. Simply put, whilst Judah served Babylon under its supremacy which dominated the entire region other nations were made to serve similarly as to their respective lengths it is unknown but as Babylon as respects to Judah was the dominant force for 70 years then they too had to serve for the period of its sovereignty.
No, you should research this matter more thoroughly try the leading Bible commentaries for starters. If you require guidance, scholar will help you because scholar likes to hel
 
 I have lost some data so will exit now.
scholar JW
 
 

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said: I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again
I hate it when juggernauts splatter our people this way.
 

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings:
------------------------------------------------------
[resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed-
ness, which immediately ensues.   I would again impress
on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon
the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as
the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at
the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur-  
rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed-  
ness ;  so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con-  
sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or
the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation.   The  
times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times "
of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo-
hammedan Imposture ;  and unless it can be shown that
erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro-
nological periods have been founded, then must it be
maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the
period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873,
are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the
general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates
with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the
1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.  It may be further ob-
served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be-
cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his
coming."  Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub-
sequently stand in judgment.
     The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se-
cond coming, foretels all these events ;  and upon that
memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down
of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive
into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob-
viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at
which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth,"
or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were
the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo-
ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the
second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away."
Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass
away till all be fulfilled."  Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209]
criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . .
--------------------------------------------------

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others:
*** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” ***
15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them?  
THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating."
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. *** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired. *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. *** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I ***
12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24. *** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”  

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:::: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book
Wrong. I wrote about this back in the mid-1990s, shortly after I got hold of photocopies from microfilm of both volumes of "The Even-Tide".
Once again you're trying to mislead readers. Only saying that there was a "connection" is meaningless. What connection? The context is that the Society is trying to justify an equation between the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", and is supposedly giving a history of that equation, so the reader will automatically understand "connect" to mean "equate", especially since the actual connection is nowhere explained.
Exactly what I've been saying all along. You're finally forced to admit that Jonsson was correct in his criticism and so was I.
:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement
You've contradicted what you wrote above. You're so accustomed to lying that you no longer know the difference between truth and falsehood, and switch between the two from paragraph to paragraph. LOL!
:: Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection".
It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.
Except that the context shows that "connect" is implied to mean "equate". Again, the author's use of italics to emphasize his statement proves his intent, and that intent was to contradict what someone else had already written. Read it again:
>>
End of the Gentile Times
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about "the times of the Gentiles" and the prophet Daniel's record of Nebuchadnezzar's dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for "seven times."--Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
>>
Once again, because most readers, especially JW readers, are well aware that the Watch Tower Society has always equated these two periods, when the Proclaimers book uses the word "connect", readers will automatically interpret that to mean "equate". That is especially so in view of the book's failure to mention that Brown did not equate the two periods.
Imagine a test of reading comprehension which asks:
What connection did John A. Brown make between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times"?
The natural and automatic answer is: He equated them.
Exactly as I keep saying.
:: Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it
Yet another red herring, as shown below.
Keep in mind that Jonsson published GTR 2nd edition in 1986, long before the Proclaimers book was published, and that some of the material in GTR 3rd edition (1998) was a response to the misinformation in the Proclaimers book.
Yet another fine example of deliberate misrepresentation by gobble-de-goop. Here is what Jonsson wrote in GTR 3rd edition, pp. 67-69:
<<
True, the Society finally admits that Russell took over his calculation of the Gentile times from Nelson H. Barbour, who had published it one year before Russell "in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of the Herald of the Morning." In the preceding paragraph the book even seeks to enlist the 19th-century expositors of the 2,520-year calculation as supporting the 1914 date. This impression is further enhanced by the bold-typed statement to the left of the paragraph: "They could see that 1914 was clearly marked by Bible prophecy." The presentation of the history, however, is narrowly limited to a few carefully selected expositors, the calculations of whom are partially obscured, adjusted and arranged so as to create the impression that the 2,520-year calculation uniquely pointed forward to 1914. None of the many other terminal dates arrived at by expositors before Russell are mentioned. Thus, although John A. Brown is stated to have arrived at the 2,520 years "as early as 1823," his particular application of the period is completely veiled and distorted in the subsequent sentences:
<< But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. >>
Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then are demonstrably false.
>>
Clearly, when Jonsson used "connect" in the above, he used it in the sense "equate". Obviously he understood the Proclaimers book to mean "equate". Obviously, as I pointed out, Jonsson used "associate" in the sense "equate" in GTR 2nd edition.
In view of the above specific information, Scholar JW Pretendus, it's obvious that your above statements are just gobble-de-goop designed to confuse readers, i.e., a red herring.
     
:: I happen to have excellent reading comprehension, and am not prone to misinterpreting subtle cues in Watch Tower literature. Once again, the overall context of the Proclaimers book here is how the "seven times" came to be equated with the "Gentile Times". With that context in mind, the statement that Brown "did connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" clearly implies that Brown equated the two periods. This is especially so because the book gives no information about how the periods were "connected" apart from the implication that they were equated.  
Oh, the wonderful hypocrisy!
I said that to goad you into yet another bit of hypocrisy.
As I continue to say, that research was done 14 years ago and a summary is available: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
The fact that you refuse to deal with that research says a great deal about your scholastic honesty.
Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation.
You're making after-the-fact excuses, now that the false implication has been clearly pointed out.
 
:: How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim
And here I'd think that you'd love to demonstrate your scholarly prowess by carefully showing exactly what Brown meant.
Yet another punt by a master of scholastic punting.
AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus Activus wrote:
:: did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.
:: For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!
What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain.
Correct. Lying and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is unchristian.
I'm not a Christian, but that is irrelevant, since my conduct on these forums far better conforms to Christian standards of honesty than yours does. And no, what I've said about you is not "rich"; it is a fact based on your reprehensible, dishonest behavior demonstrated over two decades.
     
:: 538, actually.
Sez you.
As usual, you present no evidence, no actual arguments. Just bald assertions.
:: So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus
I've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically.
So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.
LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.
Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!
:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.
There's one of those weasel words again, which you're so fond of using.
What passage in Jeremiah gives this "link"? You can cite none. Thus you've proved my point once again.
Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.
Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.
Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.
It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date.
Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.
Yet another weasel word.
Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used.
LOL! That's like saying the earth is flat because some scientists say it's spherical while others say it's pear shaped.
:: It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
         
:::: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.
:::: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity  
It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.
Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.
No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.
Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."
More deliberate vagueness. Tyre "served" only in a limited sense, and for much less than 70 years.
Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.
Correct, but that's only because the Bible and Babylonian records say nothing more than something like "these nations". But we know for certain that Jews were taken captive in 605/4, 597, 587/6, and at other times.
Very good! But not Exile for a full 70 years. Some were exiled for about 67 years, others for about 59 years, others for about 49 years. None for a full 70 years. But all of "these nations" served Babylon in a global sense from 609 to 539 BCE.
And as I have shown, the Temple was desolate for 50 years -- 587 to 537 BCE. Josephus confirms this (see below).
Wrong.
     
:: Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.
Complete gobble-de-goop that addresses none of my arguments.
     
:: does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:
:: << . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>
:: Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.  
You continue to ignore Jer. 27, which shows that any desolation was contingent on a nation failing to bow to Babylon's power: "'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11.
Again ignoring Jer. 27.
:: Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?
In other words, you will continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that you don't like, because they contradict what you've learned from Mommy Watch Tower.
     
:: Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.
:: And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible
As has been repeatedly proved by Carl Jonsson in various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and by other scholars, Josephus' first three references to "70 years" in this context were just his repeating of current Jewish legends. In his last work he corrected himself, based on his reference to Babylonian historian Berossus, and said clearly that the Temple was devasted for 50 years -- not 70.
For a more complete discussion of Josephus, see pages 298-300 at this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjKpruOycbYAhVI5IMKHecSDa0QFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchtowerlies.com%2Flinked%2Fthe-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2qcUETI_cz35sfzx9FslCp
Wrong. I've already told you several times: a brief discussion is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
That you refuse to address the material on this forum proves that you're no scholar, and dishonest to a fault.
LOL!
AlanF

Ann O Maly
Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
scholar JW
,..

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 
The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.
The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.
Nice try, though.

Your antiquated source has Cyrus conquering Babylon in 538 rather than the established 539. It doesn't help you determine that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 538. In reality, once the year is corrected, it shows that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 539. We have no issue with Cyrus issuing his decree after Oct 539.
 
(Just saw Alan had already addressed this. Soz.)

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 
The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.
The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.
Nice try, though.

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'
It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.
It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).
The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.
Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:
(Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:
(Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Can you see the difference?
Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.
One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)
At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.
On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):
"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"
But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:
"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"
I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again Â 
This is how attentive to detail you are - you still can't even get the page number right. In the 2nd edition, Franz discussed John A. Brown on p. 142-3. There is nothing about Brown on p. 367 - just a reproduction of a letter regarding Franz's disfellowshipping. As I showed in my previous post, your assertion about Franz agreeing with the Proclaimers book statement is wrong. 
But you know all this. AlanF went over this with you many years ago. And yet you persist in these untruths.
Likely for the same reason I can't address him by his chosen online misnomer. I start breaking out in hives when I do.
------------------------------
About the 537 thing. There was a fun thread on that topic started by one of the Allen Smiths a while back. His argument for a 537 return could be summarized thus: Link to post. 
 

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:: Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:
:::: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book
You continue with your gross dishonesty. You refuse to acknowledge that what I said was correct. You refuse to admit that the Watch Tower Society's words were not meant in some vague way, where "connect" has no specific meaning, but were meant to convey to the reader that Brown equated the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times".
This is actually a very good illustration of how the Watch Tower Society dishonestly uses language. It uses ambiguous language to convey a clear meaning to naive readers, while actually saying something non-committal or even opposite. That way, when called out on a false statement, they can claim, "well, we didn't actually say blah blah blah".
Still not defining exactly what "connection" means in the offending Proclaimers book statement.
     
:: Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.
:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement
Continuing to try to pull the wool over readers' eyes.
Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection".
     
::: The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary.
:: No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree
It's astonishing how dishonest you can be when you put your mind to it.
Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it.
One is still left wondering why the Proclaimers book's author bothered to italicize his statement. There is no reasonable explanation other than that he wanted to contradict someone else.
:: the Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation
I happen to have excellent reading comprehension, and am not prone to misinterpreting subtle cues in Watch Tower literature. Once again, the overall context of the Proclaimers book here is how the "seven times" came to be equated with the "Gentile Times". With that context in mind, the statement that Brown "did connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" clearly implies that Brown equated the two periods. This is especially so because the book gives no information about how the periods were "connected" apart from the implication that they were equated.
     
:: Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath
How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim.
So far you're batting zero, as I said you would.
     
AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.
:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule   
I'm perfectly well aware of the Watch Tower Society's claims, but I'm talking about reality: the reality is that 1914 must be maintained at all costs, and 1914 is based on these dates: return of the Jews -- back 70 years -- fall of Jerusalem -- forward 2,520 years -- 1914. The date of Babylon's fall (539) is undisputed. The date of the return of the Jews is undetermined in the scholarly community but Watch Tower chronology is fundamentally based on it being 537. Therefore it is the real, practical pivotal date.
Still lying. I and others have pointed out a number of sources to you. That you continue to ignore them proves your scholastic dishonesty.
Lying still more. I've given you a brief reference ( https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ), and you've read and ignored far more extensive writeups.
Wrong. Jer. 25 and 27 clearly define the 70 years as a period of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations in the Near East. Whether desolation of a nation occurred was contingent on how it reacted to Babylon's supremacy.
A flat out lie. As I pointed out, and you have steadfastly ignored, Jer. 27 shows that you're lying:
<< 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’ 9 “‘“‘Therefore, do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your magicians, and your sorcerers, who are saying to you: “You will not serve the king of Babylon.” 10 For they are prophesying lies to you, so that you will be taken far away from your land and I will disperse you and you will perish. 11 “‘“‘But the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to cultivate it and dwell in it.’”’” >>
You know you're lying because these scriptures have been pointed out to you dozens of times over the years.
If the outcome was definitely to be desolation, then there was no contingency. Get your story straight.
:: Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date
 
As I said above: the whole focus of Watch Tower efforts has been to maintain the 1914 date.
The difference is that the Watch Tower Society has always claimed that its chronology is divinely directed, and has treated critics as if they were heretics. Scholars don't do that.
:: More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished
Straw man. Josephus did not use the modern Gregorian calendar since it did not exist, nor the Julian calendar. He used some form of the Jewish calendar, as anyone can see by reading his works.
Very little interpretation is needed. Ezra 3:8, 10 states that in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the return of the Jews to Judah, the temple's foundations were laid. Since Ezra is clear that the Jews returned in the 7th month (Tishri of 538 or 537), the 2nd month of the next year must necessarily be Iyyar of 537 or 536. The Watch Tower Society claims 536, based on Ezra's statements.
Understanding Josephus' statement that "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid" requires little interpretation. Whether that 2nd year is in a Nisan or Tishri calendar makes no difference to the final result -- the temple foundation was laid in Iyyar of 537, requiring the return of the Jews in 538.
Now, you can deal with actual details for once, or resort to your usual meaningless generalities and gobble-de-goop, as you do here:
Surely a competent scholar such as yourself could easily point out where Josephus and Ezra combined are wrong, thus saving us all a lot of trouble. But you can't, not now and not a decade ago. Thus you'll just bluster and spew gobble-de-goop.
Readers with a bit of scholastic honesty will read my linked article, analyze the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. But most of them already know that my argument is correct, and that you cannot refute it.
Irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway: Josephus mentioned the 70 years four times. In the earliest three instances he said that Judah was desolated for 70 years, but a good deal of evidence shows that he was merely repeating the current popular legend. But in the last instance Josephus referenced material from an earlier Babylonian writer, set down various dates, and showed why the temple was desolated for fifty -- not seventy -- years. This latter material is consistent with most other historical material.
But you already know all this, so your bringing it up is a red herring and another instance of your scholastic dishonesty.
     
:: Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation
More gross lying. The Watch Tower Society is so convinced that these speculations are divinely inspired that it actually declares anyone who disagrees an apostate from God, declares them wicked, and disfellowships them. That is NOT intellectual honesty but intellectual terrorism.
Furthermore, only in a handful of instances does the Society admit that its 537 date is speculative. In most cases, the date is stated or implied to be definitively established, thus definitively establishing a base for the 1914 calculation. The Watch Tower Society is lying about this. Like mother, like son.
     
:: Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any
As I said: you cannot cite any historical sources to support your claim. You lose.
     
:: Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion
Because I'm the first one to have written about it, so far as I know.
Already done. Read the material at the link I provided.
You disagree with it? Then argue your case. Otherwise you're just blowing wind, as all readers can see.
COJ was not aware of this argument until after he published the last edition of GTR.
 
:: Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.
LOL! The Watch Tower Society and you are thoroughly dogmatic about your fake 537 date and about a host of other chronological matters. Such a gross hypocrite!
     
:: It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.
Read my linked essay.
     
:: Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.
I've read Lipschits' book. It says nothing to support Watch Tower traditions.
Readers should note that "scholar JW" normally cites no scriptures or scholarly souces. Rather, he resorts to bald assertions and statements of opinion without presenting actual evidence.
AlanF

Alan F
Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.
You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?
Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.
 
It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.
Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.
Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.
Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.
T
 
here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.
Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.
That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.
The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.
scholar JW emeritus
 
 
 
 

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:: Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia . . .   
I did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.
For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!
538, actually.
So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus.
:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.
You just proved my point: Jeremiah nowhere makes such a prophecy.
If you disagree, then cite the appropriate passage.
More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. You still can't cite the Bible for evidence.
:: According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years
Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.
Pure speculation and a fine example of circular argumentation. Far more likely, Daniel had already observed the fall of Babylon, and therefore concluded that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy had ended, based on Jer. 25:11, 12: "'... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,' declares Jehovah." Since Jehovah had clearly called to account the king of Babylon by removing him (Nabonidus) from power and killing his viceroy (and probably son, Belshazzar) Daniel could only conclude that the 70 years had ended.
:: This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.
It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
     
:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.
:: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity   
It does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:
<< . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>
Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.
Exactly. But just as many of them capitulated to Babylon and were not made captive or desolate, so did Judah have the opportunity (Jer. 27) but rejected it, and suffered the consequences.
Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?
Yes, of Judah and the surrounding nations.
Wrong.
Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.
And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible.
AlanF

Whatever happens, don't nobody leave the keys in the chariot when it is idling.

Even the Watch Tower Society agrees that Cyrus conquered Babylon in early October of 539 BCE, and that his accession year was most likely 539-538. Thus Cyrus' 1st regnal year was 538-537, and he most likely issued his decree freeing the Jews and many other captives in early 538. Therefore there was sufficient time for the Jews to prepare for and journey back Judah by early October, 538 BCE.
AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:
:: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book.
Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.
Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement?
No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree.
I did not. You are either a liar or abysmally stupid.
The Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation.
Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath.
Almost nothing but unevidenced gobble-de-goop.
AlanF

Arauna:
You yourself just proved what I said:
:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone.
Since you insist, I'll have to demonstrate my claim.
The GNT is a "dynamic equivalence" translation that often relies on interpretation rather than literal interpretation. The above misrepresents what Jeremiah said, because it is an interpretation not a literal translation. Much better is the NWT's rendering:
Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia.
Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.
Thus, various other Bible passages must be understood in light of the clear and unambiguous statement in 2 Chron. 36:20 that the Jews were captive to the Babylonians until the Persians began to reign, which was in 539 BCE.
A good example of what I just said, and of the interpretation put upon Daniel 9 by the GNT. A literal translation shows that Daniel did not say that Jerusalem would be in ruins for 70 years. The NWT is again much more literal:
This does not state that the desolation of Jerusalem would end when the 70 years ended. Indeed, it could not mean that, since we have the direct statement in 2 Chron. 36:20 that the 70 years of captivity ended when the Persian empire came to power in 539 BCE.
The ESV allows for this fact:
According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years.
So Daniel 9 cannot be used to prove anything; it is ambiguous and therefore must be understood in light of other Bible passages.
This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.
 
Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.
Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity.
So you can see how easy it is to disprove Watch Tower Chronology using the Bible alone -- as long as you don't saddle the Bible with Watch Tower traditions.
For a great deal more information on this topic, see here:
https://ad1914.com/
Also see:
https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
These links contain many links to other definitive deconstructions of Watch Tower chronology.
AlanF

I feel privileged as though watching a superhero movie with fantastic heroes and villains converging, ready for combat & settling old grudges once and for all. But what will happen if I get up for popcorn or to use the restroom?
(wait till @Top Cat O'Malighan reveals his true identity)
(and just where does the Librarian fit in? What great personage was she back in the day before ruin set in and she gathered some books to start a new persona?)
(and exactly who is @Ann O'Maly and how did she get her paws on every paper that's ever been printed?)
(why does @AlanF call @scholar JW Scholar Pretendus and how did Christopher Hitchens become Yoda the wise?)
(has @JW Insider succeeded beyond his dreams summoning up the spirits, perhaps scaring even himself?)
(who is Neil Galt?)
(Am I full of you-know-what?)

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:: As usual, JW defenders with their preset agenda are here making pronouncements on subjects they know little or nothing about. I'll disabuse them of some of their notions with facts
As usual you provide no evidence whatsoever -- just your bald assertions which are contradicted by a world of facts.
:: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.
:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule.   
So they claim, but their actual statements prove this wrong.
Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date.
The WTS's basic claim is that the beginning of the "Gentile Times" is to be counted from 70 years back from 537 BCE. This counting back 70 years has always been the most fundamental claim for WTS chronology.
More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished?
Easily falsified with some examples:
Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation.
Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any.
Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion.
Translation: "in accordance with Watch Tower Tradition".
As shown above, even the Watch Tower admits it's speculation. It is proved by the complete lack of definitive evidence.
Wrong again. Do I have to cite page numbers from GTR for you, oh great and wonderful Oz?
Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.
It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.
Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.
AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
LOL! A leopard doesn't change its spots, and pathological liars rarely quit lying.
I never claimed that Brown wrote or implied that there is no "connection" between "the seven times" and "the Gentile Times". Rather, I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book.
The overall topic is stated in the title to the section "End of the Gentile Times". The section begins:
Most readers, especially JW readers, are well aware that the Watch Tower Society has always equated these two periods. Therefore, when the Proclaimers book uses the word "connect", readers will automatically interpret that to mean "equate". That is especially so in view of the book's failure to mention that Brown did not equate the two periods. Here is the offending statement:
So then, SJWP, in exactly what sense do you think that the Proclaimers book connected the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times"? And how did Brown connect them? Justify your answer by quoting the appropriate sources.
Of course, all who know your wily ways understand that you'll never answer, any more than you did in our old debate 14 years ago. Rather, at best you'll unleash a blather of gobble-de-goop in an attempt to sidestep.
Ann O'Maly is well aware of exactly what the "connection" is. You are obviously clueless.
AlanF