JW Insider

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king.

The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:

The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.

30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.

Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.

There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:

• 539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598. 
• If you accept one, you are accepting them all.

So, 539, the start of CyrusÂ’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:

•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar

•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple

•        537 for Cyrus’ 2^nd full year over Babylon

Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to CyrusÂ’ 2^nd-3^rd year.

Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to the 2^nd-3^rd year of Cyrus.

 

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it.

Here it is...

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

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

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

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

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

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

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.

I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.

The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:

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

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

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

22 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

You appear to be disagreeing with the Watchtower again.

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

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

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

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

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

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

17 hours ago, JWthedeceiver said:

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

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

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

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

A Jehovah’s Witness website Ha! Ha! Ha

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

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

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

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Let us leave unchallenged, for the moment, your 'thousands.'

I don't think it does much good to challenge it. There are nearly 120,000 congregations in the world. The first time I ever heard of a "pedophile database" was not when I was at Bethel, but near the end of the  following decade, around 1998. A couple years later, when ex-JWs were beginning to make a big deal out of it, my uncle (circuit overseer) and I called a friend in the Service Department to clear up what we should say if asked about it directly. He said that although it sounds high, it averaged out to "just a little less" than one person in every congregation, but that these were mostly USA/North America figures, and he couldn't say how this might compare to the rest of the world. Also, anecdotally at least, a large number of them had been disfellowshipped and were showing no interest in coming back.

We have about 120,000 congregations in the world, and I don't think we catch all the child abusers. Perhaps some want to become JWs to help overcome their problem. Based on the impression I got in 1998, that might translate to somewhere on the order of 50,000 abusers from the 80's through 2000. And perhaps another 100,000 from 2000 through 2017/8. This sounds way too high, 150,000 in aggregate, but is still less than one every two decades, per congregation. I don't believe it's even half that, but wouldn't be surprised if an up-to-date worldwide database contained a number like 1% of current publishers.

1% of 8 million is 80,000. Most of these would no longer be associated with a congregation anyway. But the other thing is that a high number of child abusers abuse more than one child, and continue to find persons to abuse all their life.

I recently found out that the brother who married my sister, and who was a physical abuser (over which my sister left him to remarry) was a victim of something like this when he was younger. I think we'll find out that it is much more common than people have let on. My sister was instructed not to inform the hospital workers or police under threat of disciplinary action, losing her pioneer "status" and TMS privileges. Her husband, a ministerial servant, was apparently barely talked to, and continued to advance to a position as elder. The thing is, I don't think anyone outside our own family and a couple of elders every really knew about this. My parents are of the sort that believe it shames the family to admit that my sister married such a man, and would rather only talk about his success as an elder. (I was at Bethel when this was going on.) So how much do we know about our own congregations unless we are on the judicial committee, or it blows up into the newspapers, or an Australian Royal Commission?

Another person in our congregation was an elderly special pioneer who started to get in trouble for sleazy behavior with younger sisters, mostly pioneer sisters, who were between 18 and 24 or so. Not "child abuse" and no crime of any kind, but also an issue of not disciplining him because he would lose his special pioneer stipend, and his son already had a very high position at Bethel. My father was one of the elders who talked to him, and I was a "second witness" to corroborate one of the sister's stories. I had evidently caught him improperly touching/groping on only one of many occasions.

I mention this because it was easy for me to think that one abuser per congregation is not that unlikely. Therefore 1,000s of victims who suffered from "cover-up" is not that unlikely.

From what I can tell, they are not even in the same Zip Code.

Society's Branch:

Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa Indonesia

Central Park APL Office Tower, Floor 31

Jl. S. Parman Kav. 28

Jakarta 11470

INDONESIA

Stock Exchange:

1st Tower, Jalan Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53,

Senayan, Kebayoran Baru,

RT.5/RW.3, RT.5/RW.3,

Senayan, Kby. Baru, Kota

Jakarta Selatan, Daerah Khusus Ibukota

Jakarta 12190

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

Was he considering himself ready to go to heaven and prepared in his white robes for his salvation?

@JW Insider might remember the story of A.H. Macmillan standing on the bridge in his white robes ready to be raptured. I forget the details though.

The robes story may have shown that A.H.MacMillan was a good story-teller, but didn't care so much for research. He says there was a newspaper story about the occasion in Pittsburgh, but was probably confusing this with a story of some non-Russellite Second Adventists in Philadelphia. All the major Pittsburgh and Allegheny newspapers from the time period still exist and nothing like this was reported in Pittsburgh. The other thing is that the original "white robes" or "ascension robes" stories were probably made up out of whole cloth by non-Adventists making fun of Adventists, continuing since the Great Disappointment of 1843 and 1844, and repeated on a smaller scale among "Barbourite" Adventists in 1873 and 1874, with some Barbourite/Russellite Adventists trying again in 1878 and 1881.

But "ascension robes" were not a real, confirmed part of any of these stories. Biblically, it was the "Lord" who was going to give the robes. Boston newspapers made up stories about clothes manufacturers working overtime to create these robes in time, but there was never any evidence. 

By 1916 however these stories of white "ascension robes" had become an accepted part of the supposed culture of Second Adventists, from outsiders, but had become "true" through repetition. So it's possible that Russell believed they were a useful symbol of his true faith in his imminent ascension. And it's possible that MacMillan writing in the 1950's was recalling events through those later "filters." But at the time, Sturgeon and Rutherford made an effort to distance the "toga" from that interpretation. 

I think it was possible that Russell's mind was gone by then. The type of sickness he had was the close equivalent of being poisoned to die slowly until the mind goes, too.

Just to make it easier to read page 2:

On 1/15/2018 at 7:16 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one.

Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking.

But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway.

Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study).

I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive.

Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. 

• Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49

The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

O’Maly and JWinsider should be aware of these new finds of Filip Vukosavovic 2015, at the British Museum.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

It’s futile to argue against any skeptic, since 2015, recent Babylonian tablets, found, indicate 3 exiles NOT 2, meaning 3 points of interest. . . .

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.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE, which COJ and Raymond Franz FAILED to take into account. So, once again, COJ’s book is a contradiction unto itself and a FAILURE.

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.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE, which COJ and Raymond Franz FAILED to take into account. So, once again, COJ’s book is a contradiction unto itself and a FAILURE.

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:

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

when people can’t compete honestly, they resort to vices of deceit and pretend it never happened by changing the subject to distance themselves from such an absurd attempt.

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.

25 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

What part confuses you, that Jesus only meant 1260?

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.

28 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

So, how is this not placing ideologies that aren’t referenced in scripture?

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.

35 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Once again, stick to the question of why you don't believe scripture by giving a false claim, that Jesus Said, ONLY 1260?

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.

12 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Maybe, the sister and all others see it different.

Maybe "all others" see it different? We know that the Watch Tower Society sees it different from the poster. The Watch Tower used to say that Russell was the ONLY faithful slave, but he was "demoted" from even being a part of the slave, when the WTS changed the definition about five years ago. The slave now started in 1919, per the current view, and no members of the anointed who died before 1919, not even Peter and Paul themselves, were a part of that slave. Russell died in 1916.

I'm not explaining my own view here, which has come up elsewhere. I'm only referring to the WTS view.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember itÂ’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, ITÂ’S YOU.

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.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

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?

No trouble for me in Chrome, but Firefox doesn't display them.

47 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles:

• (Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace.

Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/  which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus:

• Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea.
• “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said.
• The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy.
• “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.”

I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.

(Proverbs 18:13) . . .When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Hmm! Ok. Let’s let’s pretend that you know exactly what Jesus thoughts were, by putting words into his mouth,

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT:

• (Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . .

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

and he didn’t consider the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Do you believe in the Gentile Times as Jesus did? If so, where would you place this infamous 1260?

Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260,  that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with.

Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE.  I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My goal is to one day place $1.00 into the outstretched hand of @The Librarian

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury."

An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.