AllenSmith

Allen,
Imagine there are 100 people in a room and 98 of them say 2+2=4. Two of them say 2+2=5. Who are the opposers? It's not the 98 who are "opposers." It's the two people claiming they have their own "good" reasons to say that 2+2=5, and it might even be a belief that stands alongside some of the best beliefs one can imagine. Still, if they continue to insist that 2+2=5 then those two persons are the more natural opposers. They are the ones who oppose mountains of overwhelming evidence. Sure, the 98 would "oppose" the idea that 2+2=5, but the more natural "opposers" are the two who oppose the facts and evidence.
Another thing is this idea of "their OWN secular history." It's another sign of not thinking clearly. Secular history and the evidence for it is not something that belongs to the people you oppose. It's not their OWN secular history. You are merely referring to the facts and the weight of the evidence available to all of us, you and me, and billions of other people.  It would be more accurate to say that you oppose people who try to sync the secular evidence to Bible chronology. But, of course, this doesn't make sense because both 539 and 607 are secular dates that you and other opposers of the evidence have tried to sync to a version of Bible chronology.
It's a legitimate concern to wonder whether you can sync the non-Biblical chronological evidence with the Biblical chronological evidence. If you can't then you might consider the following options: 
there might be something wrong with your understanding or interpretation of the Bible, or the Bible is wrong, or there might be something wrong with your understanding of the secular evidence, or the secular evidence is wrong, or it is some combination of the four possibilities above. As you know, Thiele for example, did a pretty thorough job matching up the kings of Israel with the kings of Judah with the secular chronology of Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. But he finally got to a couple points where he just said that the Bible must have it wrong. McFall and others take another pass at it, some in defense of the Bible and some in defense of secular evidence. (And some just to improve Thiele's work, in any way they still can.)
But after finding a solution to 99% of the issues, there is a controversy over this 1% that is still unsolved. It feeds a conflict that the secular data is somehow the enemy of the Bible data. Now, any time someone comes up with something that seems to fit a Bible interpretation, they can now get support for it by just claiming that "opposers" to their interpretation are taking the secular data over the Bible. They have made use of a ready-made propaganda tool. Bible vs. Secular. Just by approaching the problem this way, it's obvious who is going to win among Bible believers.
But what happens when those Bible believers look into the data and evidence for themselves and find that there is no conflict at all? In this case the Bible believers are very happy that the secular data corroborates the Bible data. No problem.
But what happens to that key interpretation that was set up as a supposed conflict to the secular data? What if they built a life or religion around that interpretation? They have a couple of choices. They can look at the data and be honest and humble about it and explain that the evidence doesn't seem to support their interpretation. But this doesn't mean they are immediately required to change their belief. They might be able to admit the strength of the opposing data, but still go through each and every bit of it and still explain why they think their interpretation supersedes the data. This might end up being right or wrong, and honest people would appreciate being given the opportunity to make up their own mind. They might still consider the interpretational theory as a strong possibility. At least it's a more honest way to deal with it.
But what would you think if you saw them do the following?
Perhaps they avoid most of the data, avoid trying to explain the differences, and try to keep other people from seeing the data, even pretending that experts agree with them about the data. Any books or websites that consider the data are presented as apostate, poison, cancerous, "spiritually pornography," etc. They can pretend that they have explained all the opposing data by misrepresenting that data. Perhaps there are 12 strong pieces of data and one of them has a weak point, and they deal only with that one weak point and hope no one notices that they ignored or misrepresented the other 11. They can find unrelated quotes that people have said about different sets of data and hope that their listeners don't notice it was unrelated. They can use two sets of scales to be able to utilize pieces of the evidence that they accept, without explaining why those pieces are any better or worse than the pieces they reject.

The point of writing on this kind of topic is for clarification. These were only a few examples of literally 2,500+ times when a secular date was used that differed from the evidence for that secular date with no explanation as to why.

If you had always read that the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, what would you think if you read a new set of history books that always said it was 1046, but with no explanation? In some cases this new date was seemingly listed to be even more accurate by saying it was was October 14, 1046. Then in an attempt to show that there is scholarly backup for the 1046 date, a source is quoted that shows that, yes, it happened on October 14, but it put 1046 in brackets, even though the scholarly book said 1066 elsewhere. In cases like this, especially if there is a pattern that can be confusing, it is important to clarify that this set of brackets was not in the original.
The following is from a book on an unrelated topic, but it speaks to the same types of things that might need academic clarification:

And this of course goes both ways, especially if it is something that should be clarified:

 

I didn't say I couldn't remember stating this. I said I never stated it. I couldn't have stated it because it is not a true statement.

Exactly. Watch Tower practice -- and sometimes that of Scholar JW as well -- is to substitute "Peter" for "Paul" and hope readers fail to notice. Which they almost always do.
So the Watch Tower Society's scholastic dishonesty in these practices is deliberate.
AlanF

Which is precisely the goal of many Watch Tower writers.
One can find hundreds of similar egregious examples in Watch Tower literature. I myself have documented more than two dozen instances where WTS literature has given the impression -- usually without actually stating outright -- that all manner of pre-1914 WTS predictions came true, when the fact is that no visible prediction came true.
AlanF

I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it.
On second thought . . .
AlanF

If you want to carry your case with you, you can buy wheels at Home Depot.

... and   *koff* ... as you correctly pointed out ....
One man's gorilla ... is another mans guerrilla.

 
First of all, I am not aware, nor have I EVER been aware that Allen Smith had a .... "condition".  What is he ....  a one legged tap dancing midget with dandruff? (????). 
I ridicule him for his screwball ideas and goofy Snowflake perspective on the Universe.
However, if you tell me what your ..."condition" is ... perhaps I can make a special effort to make fun of it.
Think of it as having your dandruff scratched.
And as I have stated at least eight times ... I never claimed to be a JW, merely a Barbarian interested in justice, and equity for all, and COMPLETE freedom of speech, as long as there is no "biologically based vulgarity".  
I think the phrase "low down scum sucking pig" where appropriate, is quite acceptable ... IF (and ONLY IF) I have been attacked first ... or it's an idea or philosophy that I feel that tongue needs to be stuck to a sub-zero metal pole.
I try NOT to waste my time attacking people.
They are ephemeral, and biodegradable.
IDEAS ARE FOREVER.
If it was up to me, AllenSmith(n), I would never have censured or restricted ANYTHING you have ever said ... as with the mountains of insults and arrogant condensation , occasionally you come up with a gem of an idea.
Or several.
Never fear insulting me, that I will take offense.  Give it your best shot.  If you wish, hire professional insulters.
I like to think I CANNOT be insulted ... so I never take offense.
One mans vicious insult is another man's belly laugh.

Nana Fofana said to AllenSmith:
Agree with what, exactly? Certainly not with anything AllenSmith wrote, because his gibberish has nothing to do with anything you've written below. In fact, on page 25 of this thread he contradicts your citation below from WTS literature. In his usual gibberish style, AllenSmith wrote:
<< Until people like Carl Olof Jonsson can explain the contradiction in secular history that DEMAND, there were only,  2 instances, in the exile of the Jewish people in, Babylonian time? It’s futile to argue against any skeptic, since 2015, recent Babylonian tablets, found, indicate 3 exiles NOT 2, meaning 3 points of interest. So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE . . . >>
As proof he cites this link:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/
which states:
<< The exhibit is accompanied by a beautiful catalog, By the Rivers of Babylon,1 which describes the Al-Yahudu Archive and addresses the three waves of exile—in 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. >>
The exile referenced as in 604 is actually the one described in various ancient sources as having occurred sometime in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE. Only a small number of captives were taken then, among the elite, such as Daniel.
So AllenSmith not only does not support your "agreement", but contradicts your WTS citation, which claims that there were only TWO exiles.
Once again we find JW defenders hard put to write coherent arguments.
Also note that 2 Kings 24 gives only a brief, unspecific statement, but Daniel 1 directly describes the exile:
<< In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets. >> -- 2 Kings 24:1-2
<< In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god.
3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . 6 Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. >> -- Daniel 1:1-6
Comparing the two passages, 2 Kings does not refer to the year of Jehoiakim's reign when Nebuchadnezzar came against him, but Daniel says it was in Nebuchadnezzar's "third year". A careful study of biblical chronology by many scholars has shown that various Bible writers used different dating systems to date events. Some used an accession-year system, some a non-accession-year system. Some dated the years of reign according to a calendar in which the religious year Nisan was counted as the first month of the regnal year, others used the secular calendar which began in Tishri. In all cases the Jewish and Babylonian months were numbered with Nisan = 1 and Tishri = 7.
Other careful studies have shown that the writer of Daniel almost certainly used a Babylonian style accession-year system beginning with Nisan. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar would have come up against Jerusalem in his accession year, 605 BCE, shortly after the battle at Carchemish, which according to Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2 was also Jehoiakim's 4th year and Nebuchanezzar's 1st year (Jeremiah obviously used non-accession-year and Tishri dating). The exile of Daniel and company would likely have happened at that time (although there is some chance that exiles were deported sometime in 604 BCE since no biblical passages explicitly date this deportation).
I'll analyze your citation from WTS literature (Insight) in view of the above.
Clearly 2 Kings 2 is referring to Nebuchadnezzar's siege in Jehoiakim's 4th year (by Jeremiah's dating, 3rd year by Daniel's dating). We know this because of 2 Kings 24:1-2:
<< In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it. >>
The text clearly implies that these attacks by marauder bands went on for quite some time, and other texts show that the attacks ended only when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim for the last time in 598 BCE, and captured Jerusalem a few months later in 597 BCE.
So when Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in 605, Jehoiakim capitulated and became his vassal for three years, then Jehoiakim rebelled and was attacked for some time by marauder bands.
Nonsense. The only reason the WTS makes this claim is that its entire chronological structure would be wrecked if the above scriptural exposition were true. The only "evidence" it gives is this false claim:
False, because the author is neglecting the fact that Daniel used accession-year dating, whereas Jeremiah used non-accession-year dating, and as shown above, Jehoiakim's 3rd year by Daniel's dating was his 4th year by Jeremiah's dating.
See above.
Speculation disproved by the above information.
Nonsense. Jehoiakim's vassalage, according to this, lasted about three full years and ended early in his 11th year, when he was removed from the throne and apparently killed by Nebuchadnezzar's forces in 598 BCE. Immediately after that, Jehoiachin became king and in about three months surrendered. There would have been insufficient time for the marauder bands of 2 Kings 24:2 to keep coming up against Jehoiakim if he rebelled after three years beginning in his 8th year. The Watch Tower's exposition simply ignores the Bible here.
So far so good. But the WTS author then proceeds to deliberately mix up the siege in 605 with the siege in 598/597:
The passage certainly describes the capitulation of Jehoiachin, but the Bible gives no indication that this had anything to do with Jehoiakim's capitulation in his 4th year (3rd according to Daniel).
Right, in late 598 BCE.
All of which is immaterial to the dating of the reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, and of the various exiles.
A flat out lie -- Daniel 1 describes this earliest exile.
Far more could be written about these events, but the above outline is sufficient for now.
AlanF

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...

Your browser does not support the HTML5 video tag.

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 Cyrus’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:
•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar
•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple
•        537 for Cyrus’ 2nd full year over Babylon
Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to CyrusÂ’ 2nd-3rd year.
Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18th-19th year to the 2nd-3rd year of Cyrus.
 

LOL! Totally clueless, as always.
AlanF

You certainly won't get much of an education from the Watch Tower. But you'll get "thought control" in spades.
AlanF

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?
I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.
Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.
As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
AlanF

So am I. So were many others, including persons who are experts in related fields. So should you be.

Nana Fofana wrote:
Not that you haven't been given access in this thread to a great of such historical evidence.
Note what Franz wrote; he came to understand that:
<< . . . the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. >>
All reputable scholars by the 1970s agreed, based on all manner of historical writings, cuneiform texts, stone stele, etc. that the date for Jerusalem's destruction was 587/586 BCE, with the uncertainty of one year due to seemingly inconsistent statements in the Bible itself.
What adjustments are you talking about?
AlanF

I accept your apology. Yes, I have 2 books by Raymond Franz. CoC and iSoCF. I assume they are the latest editions. I also purchased a copy of GTR4 a few years ago, but this was after Rolf Furuli sent me his two books. He sent me Vol II for free, after I discussed some issues with Vol I with him. When I worked in Manhattan for 25+ years it was in midtown, just a few blocks from the NYPL research library at 42nd & 5th, where I made photocopies of entire books or at least key pages from almost every reference work that the WTS has quoted from Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian tablets. (Parker & Dubberstein, Sachs & Hunger, etc., etc.) Many of these had to be ordered from different libraries around the country. They never could get me a copy of JQB except on microfilm, and I never ordered it. All of this was well-before Google Books and the availability of so many works on PDF.
I don't know that Raymond Franz was ever influenced by COJ, but I have never disputed that he wasn't. Did you make that up - that I had disputed this somewhere? I could not have said either of them were or were not influenced by each other, because I don't know. If either one of them claimed to be influenced by the other, that doesn't change a thing. Whenever you, Allen, read something by anyone, I assume you are 'influenced' in some way, but it doesn't mean that you necessarily believe everything you read. I wouldn't doubt at all that there are faults in their books, but you haven't shown any. And your track record has been something like ZERO so far on being able to back up what you say with facts when it comes to these books. I have never yet heard you make a true claim about the books, and yet I have heard you make false claims about them several times. So I have my doubts you'll finally come through this time, but it still wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't depend on anything in any of their books.  (But I do appreciate them for their candor and accuracy in everything I've been able to check out so far.)

AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF

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

See? The problem is not with Africans or anyone else currently coming to the U.S. The damage was done long ago.
Maybe the current crop can teach the one with 40-60K tenure some manners, or better yet, some humility.

Perhaps the Universe has decided you have "bad karma", and is out to GET YOU!
BrouhaHAHahahaha !!

allensmitth28 wrote:
I'll let readers decide if you're looney, a liar or just plain stupid.
I posted this link:
http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html
This is shown in the red-outlined URL in your page copy of my post.
You somehow managed to change it:
http://www.biblehistory.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html
Using your changed URL, you then marched out to left field.
LOL!
AlanF