AllenSmith

The only person here who claims superior intelligence is scholar JW.
AlanF

Foreigner wrote:
Correct. That is what we have said.
Wrong. We have clearly argued that that is one possible scenario. We have argued it based on the Watch Tower Society's insistence that Jeremiah's "seventy years" must be an exact number, and most of the time in our simplified arguments that is the position we have assumed. We have also argued that it could be a round number ranging from 66 to 70 years, depending on the event with which it is viewed to have begun. Since the Bible is not specific about this, neither are we. What is certain, however, is that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE.
An important point: You don't seem to know the difference between accession-year and non-accession-year dating of kings, nor that Nisan-Nisan dating was used in Babylon, and that some Bible writers sometimes used Nisan-Nisan dating and sometimes Tishri-Tishri dating. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself.
To properly state some date for a king, the dating method must be known either by context or explicitly.
A good illustration of variation in the dating methods. Modern historians put the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign in Tishri, 609 BCE, and the death of Josiah a few months earlier. (cf. Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", 1998, pp. 253-255) Jehoiakim's accession year, then, would be Tishri, 610 through Elul 609 -- all of this using Tishri-Tishri dating.
However, there is a bit of fuzziness in these dates for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Suffice to say that some historians argue that Jehoiakim's reign should be numbered according to the accession-year or non-accession-year system, and using Nisan-Nisan or Tishri-Tishri dating. So, whether Jehoiakim's accession date in Tishri, 609 should be counted as part of his accession year or his 1st regnal year is not agreed upon by historians.
So far so good.
Here you miss the fact that February, 604 lies in the regnal year that ran Tishri, 605 to Tishri, 604, or in the regnal year that ran Nisan, 605 to Nisan, 604. In either case, February, 604 is part of a regnal year that began in 605 and ended in 604.
Given that you call yourself Foreigner, your ignorance of the English language can be forgiven. English has many styles of writing, not just one formally correct style such as is used in Grammarly. Thus, a military commander might yell, "Fire cannons!" whereas Grammarly would demand "Fire THE cannons!"
So far so good.
Again we see ignorance of English on display.
LOL! Sez he who uses four exclamation points, and says "writings skills". Forgot to use Grammarly on this, eh?
It means that, in your ignorance, you are hopelessly confused.
Since Jehoiakim's 1st year of rule ran from Tishri, 609 through Elul, 608 BCE, his 4th year of rule ran from Tishri, 606 through Elul, 605. Depending on the method of counting regnal years, these can be numbered "accession" (zero) through "3rd", or "1st" through "4th". Various pieces of evidence strongly indicate, but do not prove, that the book of Jeremiah uses Tishri and non-accession-year dating. So it seems a pretty good bet that when Jeremiah refers to the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 25:1), he's referring to the period up to but not including Tishri, 605 BCE, since Nebuchadnezzar began reigning the previous month, Elul of 605 BCE. Now count the end year of Jehoiakim's years of reign on your fingers: 608<->1st, 607<->2nd, 606<->3rd, 605<->4th with the latter = Nebuchadnezzar 1st.
To recap, Nebuchadnezzar began his rule Elul 1 = Sept. 7, 605 BCE (cf. Finegan, p. 253). In Babylonian Nisan-Nisan, accession-year dating, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from Nisan, 605 through Adar 604, and his 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 604 BCE. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon (by accession-year dating) occurred in Elul, 605 BCE, which was in Jehoiakim's 4th regnal year (by non-accession-year dating). Simple, no?
The word is "prophesied".
It depends on how the historian is counting years of reign. Some place Josiah's accession year in 641/640 and argue that his actual rule began then. Others place his 1st regnal year in 640/639 and argue that his actual rule began then. The Bible is not clear about this. Cf. Edwin R. Thiele, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", 1983, p. 180.
But you're not even counting properly. If 641/640 is Josiah's 1st year, then his 13th year is 629/628 (use your fingers to count). But if 640/639 is his 1st year, then his 13th is 628/627. And 23 years more brings us to 605/604. Wow! That's Jehoiakim's 1st regnal year!
Wrong.
Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
No, because the Bible does not say that the 70 years began with Nebuchadnezzar. It consistently refers to Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. While Nebuchadnezzar was at least partially in command of his father Nabopolassar's armies in 609, Nabopolassar was Babylon's king when the armies deposed Assyria and made Babylon supreme.
Of course. One can be in servitude by being subject to a ruler but not being captive. Read Jeremiah 27 to get the sense of this. It clearly tells the Jews and nations round about: "Serve Babylon and you will remain on your land."
Exactly. The working phrase is "for Babylon".
The word is "muddling" or "muddying".
Hopefully, my above exposition will help you with your confusion. Get hold of the books I reference and read them for more help.

 You're still hopelessly confused. You're confusing 607 BCE in its role as a possible beginning of the 70 years of Jeremiah (as the time of Babylonian supremacy) with its role claimed by the Watch Tower Society as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of 70 years of Jewish captivity. Read the above again, and try to understand JW Insider's response to you.
These references are also hopelessly muddled. They also contradict Watch Tower chronology. Note the one you quoted:
 
But the Watch Tower claims that Daniel and company were deported to Babylon in 617 BCE, ten years before Jerusalem's claimed destruction in 607. Again you're hopelessly confused.
 
 
This is largely gobble-de-goop, but I'll do my best to decipher it.
There is no such thing as "Bible chronology" without secular chronology. The Bible gives no absolute calendar dates, only relative dates. Somewhere along the line, these relative dates must be correlated with secular dates in order to get actual calendar dates.
In Elul (Sept 7) 605 BCE.
AlanF

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC, as per secular history and 3 years later, 602BC, he rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, and in 587BC Jerusalem was destroyed. So, either you're trying to justify 50 years to 70 years, or your calculations fall short within those 70 years. So, what would be the reason to use 609BC if you want to be precise? 608BC, then, you end up in 538BC, 1 year after the fall of Babylon. So, what would be the reason to use another speculative view about Isaiah’s Prophecy, if this claim can’t be added, either? Don’t you think, you are attempting to make things fit, just as the Watchtower is being defamed for?

Just to put things into perspective to those that get confused. AlanF, Ann O'Maly, and JWinsider, claims from 609BC-587BC=22 years. Where does the 19 years in SCRIPTURE, the SAME 3-year difference being argued about for the WT chronology, fall, then? SPECULATION IS ALL YOU HAVE!!!!!

The usual complete gobble-de-goop. Barely even English.
AlanF

The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus.
AlanF

Firstly, anointed ones can be sealed while on earth. 2 Cor 1:22; 2 Pet 1:19
Secondly, we have the example of Deborah, a prophetess.  Judges 4:4
In 1 Cor 14:34, Paul says, women cannot teach, “according to the law”. He eventually drew away from teaching according to the Jewish law, which viewed women as unclean. 
The examples we have that Jesus abolished this practice is found in Matt 9:20-22 (Eph 2:15,16)
In Gal 2:21 and 3:1,2 Paul said it is through the hearing of faith, not the works of the law that the Spirit is received. 
Col 2:20-22 – “If you died with Christ to the elements of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations; “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”?  All these regulations refer to what is destined to perish by being used up; they are human commands and doctrines.”
I can’t see the law which was embellished with Pharisaical doctrine phasing out immediately.  But through Paul’s writings, we see the change.
Rom 16:1,2 -  “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.  So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help. For indeed she has been a benefactor of many—and of me also.”
1 Cor 11:4 - "Every man that prays or prophesies having something on his head shames his head;  but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head”  
In 1 Cor 11:2-15, you’ll see that Paul began rationalizing on the need for woman to wear a head covering.  Her hair is a symbol of glory; a symbol of authority.  “For her hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.” 
A prophet teaches, and it is one of the many gifts within anointed Body.  Rom 12:6-8 
“The next day we left and came to Caesarea, where we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the Seven, and stayed with him.  This man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.”  Acts 21:8,9
"I wish all of you spoke in other tongues, but even more that you prophesied. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be built up."  1 Cor 14:5
Gal 3:28  "There is no (literal) Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This wasn’t written in the future tense, but the present.
 

Continuing to entertain us.
AlanF

LOL! Sometimes it's fun to see how the abysmally ignorant try to say something sensible.
The above is fairly typical: I certainly didn't say that to Scholar.
More abysmal reading comprehension on display.
AlanF

allensmith28 wrote
Wow! You do have a modicum of reading comprehension.
It's not a problem for me, Jeffro or any competent scholar.
You yourself provided the answer by quoting from "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)":
<< If we look at Cyrus as king of Babylon, however, then the Persians conquered that city on October 7, 539 BC. The Persian year ran from spring to spring and the Persians used the Accession Year method of reckoning, so probably October 539 to March 538 was Cyrus' Accession  Year and his first year ran from March 538 to March 537, his second year was 537/536 and his third year would be 536/535. >>
Exactly as I have said.
By the way, your presentation of source references is atrociously bad. You give no source reference information -- just jpg images.
The Watch Tower Society agrees with these dates:
<< Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >> -- Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453.
So some time between March 538 and March 537 Cyrus issue his decree of release. Again the Watch Tower Society agrees:
<< In “the first year” (evidently as ruler over Babylon) of Cyrus the Persian (538 B.C.E.) the royal decree went forth freeing the exiled Jews to “go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel.” (Ezr 1:1-4) >> -- Insight, Vol. 2, p. 44.
So at this point in my reply, we know that Mommy Watch Tower agrees with the dates I've given for the reign of Cyrus.
It seems quite obvious that you don't know that Julian/Gregorian calendar years do not coincide with Jewish or Persian or Babylonian years. Thus, while Cyrus actually became ruler over Babylon in October, 539 BCE, his accession year ran from Nisan (~ March) of 539 up to the next Nisan, in 538.
This statement is proof that you don't understand the calendars.
Nor do you seem to understand that Isaac Newton wrote around 1700, when far less historical information was available than today. And of course, you give no reference to your sources for Newton.
First, an accession year cannot occur in one month.
Second, as shown above, Cyrus' accession year began Nisan 1, 539 and ended the last day of Adar, 538. That's so even though his physical rule began in October (Heshvan) 539 (assuming Cyrus was credited with beginning his rule when his army overthrew Babylon and killed king Belshazzar).
Again you prove to have no idea what you're talking about.
Again consistent with the dates I've given.
Based on what reasoning, in view of the Watch Tower approved dates shown above?
This sentence fragment is gobble-de-goop.
Not according to recognized historians and Mommy Watch Tower.
Another meaningless sentence fragment.
So Mommy Watch Tower is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. I certainly agree, but not on this basis.
You have a better method? Let's see you explain it.
Another ignorant sentence fragment. Perhaps you should take a hint from scholar JW and use Grammarly.
Wrong, in view of the above information.
How about after number 1?
So does Mommy Watch Tower.
What of it?
 
 
Yep, totally clueless.
Proved by your quotation of "Beside the Ulai (Chapter 10)", which I partially reproduced above.
You other jpg here is unreadable, and since you don't even give a source reference, irrelevant.
That's neither here nor there. We're talking about Cyrus.
No one knows, since the Bible given virtually no information, nor do secular sources. Darius is irrelevant.
[ Irrelevant information regarding Darius snipped ]
What an ignorant claim. That's not even what I said. I said this: The Jews and other captives would have known that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives, based on knowledge of his military conquests all around the Near East.
This misrepresentation is sterotypical of JW apologists. Sometimes it's done because the apologist has little reading comprehension. Sometimes it's done out of sheer malice and desperation.
LOL!
LOL even more!
In addition to Grammarly, you need a spell checker.
AlanF

TrueTomHarley wrote:
 
:: You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.
"With thankful hearts we acknowledge God’s mercy and gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah’s organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father, Jehovah God."--"The Watchtower", May 1, 1957, p. 285
:: Let's see that razor sharp Watch Tower trained brain in action!
"Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?"--Matt. 33:23
See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely.
Done.
:: You obviously have no clue what evidence is.
"these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."--Jer. 25:11
"Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation."--scholar JW
Evidence: "these nations" is plural and refers both to the Jews and to the nations round about.
From one paraphrase of Hitchens you manage to make this conclusion? You haven't even read their books.
"When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating."--Prov. 18:13
AlanF

Free AS28! Free AS28! Free AS28!
He has done his time. He is repentant. And he manfully fights a disability. @The Librarian- The Americans With Disabilities Act compels you to act.
Come now - he is flawed, but the Assyrian is at the gates, taunting (boy, does he ever!) godly interests. The forces of theocracy needs him! - I am too dumb to weigh in. Few Witnesses are up on this stuff.
At least give him time for his glorious 'stache to grow back, then set him between the very pillars of peer-reviewed excellence, so he can bring down their house upon them.

allensmith28 wrote:
:: Correct. This is the argument I've been presenting.
:: Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.
That statement is meaningless. The Jewish and Babylonian calendar systems are solidly established. If you disagree, you must provide evidence along with references, if you have any.
Another meaningless statement. It's meaningless because it's not supported by any evidence.
A difference between what and what?
What on earth are you talking about, and what evidence do you have?
Based on what evidence?
Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?
Evidence, evidence, evidence!
Present your calculations, along with all supporting evidence, and especially references to scholarly sources.
Which basically contradicts Ezra 3:1-7, because that passage implies that the Jews' arrival in "their cities" was shortly before the 7th month Tishri.
Pure speculation.
Again contradicting Ezra. Ezra 3:8-10 clearly states that the work on the Temple was begun in the 2nd month (Iyyar) of the 2nd year of the Jews' return.
Which has what to do with pegging the date of the Jews' return to Judah?
By who?
Like what?
More meaningless statements.
This is approaching complete gobble-de-goop.
Pure speculation, based on a long chain of extremely questionable reasoning.
What holds true? Based on what evidence?
Except that the Watch Tower Society has declared such a claim "apostate reasoning".
References, please.
Wrong. Even if 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Judah, 607 rests on the biblically falsified claim that Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years earlier. 2 Chron. 36:20 clearly states that the 70 years ended when the Persian empire came to power, which was in 539 BCE. And Jer. 25, 27 and 29 together show that the 70 years ended when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended -- in 539 BCE.
:: Really. In what way were their writings flawed?
Wrong. You've given no evidence for anything.
Wrong. Jonsson's thesis is not that there is no such thing as the "Gentile times" -- after all, Luke 21:24 mentions it -- but that the Watch Tower Society's application of Luke 21:24, and lot of other stuff besides, is wrong.
If you disagree, then quote the parts of Jonsson's writings that you think prove your claim.
:: As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
More meaningless generalities. Try being specific.
AlanF

Playing the Jesus card! He did. What did it get him other than killed by God’s own creation…Then the Jewish nation was still under the influence of the GENTILES as their benefactors to their evil deeds by rejecting the Messiah and getting him killed to heighten their own personal religious agenda, away from God’s spoken words.

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting those two, yet.

I do not think ANYBODY hates you AllenSmitn (n) ... it's just that you are just too combustible, and trigger a "flight or fight" reflex. !
They are NOT going to flee, and they don't want to fight.
When conversation on the phone turns rabid, I have this button on my cell phone that avoids having to do either ...
As I was writing this someone called me wanting to sell me affordable group rate health insurance. I said that was all taken care of, and he kept right on talking.
I pushed the button.

Don't worry about it, Alan. There are many more numbers. Why - they go all the way up to 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!
I actually thought the @The Librarian's explanation of your ban was also a veiled rebuke to me, for she was annoyed that I had unnecessarily drawn some blowhard into the thread so as to demolish his schpiel. I decided to lay low for awhile. One can be caught up too much into things.

I don't admit that yet. But this is a definite issue to watch out for, and it's easy for a double standard develop.
That's because the biggest reason to avoid banning people for as long as possible is that no moderator has time to look into all aspects of a conversation or "level of insult" in order to treat all sides fairly. I have others who create or share memes, for example, and I know that what is truly funny often includes that which makes us uncomfortable. Still, I have been much more offended by many of the statements and memes from others on this forum than having you tell me that I'm some kind of apostate who will be destroyed forever. (Also it's been a long time since you tried to say that in any direct way.) 
But it means that you will always carry the historical baggage of a time or two when you or one of your "doubles" appears to lose your temper. This is wrong, too, when there is no such thing as a fresh start, and you end up being told that you are walking on eggshells, so to speak.
However, I personally see a huge difference, so far, in the AlanF, scholar_JW dialogue. There was never a moment when this escalation seemed out of place or unexpected. It was not about temper. It was always about honest directness. Insult was part of the "style" right from the start, and it was accepted. In your case, I grabbed a few screenshots before they disappeared, and often purposely re-quoted some of what you had said so it wouldn't get lost, because I thought it was so over-the-top, but also out-of-place, and it lashed out at the person in abusive ways that wasted a lot of dialogue space when it was supposed to be about the topic. I think it was that combination that drew so much attention to your own style and drew many complaints from people who actually were on your side doctrinally, but didn't like the way in which you created an abusive, rabid image. Even so, you were allowed to go on for months without any repercussions, as far as I could tell. I think the moderators felt it was a matter of patience. (I get the feeling that there must be "real" moderators who also consider what is good for the site overall, and know that certain types of abusive behavior result in members leaving, and other types of colorful language and imagery are just considered part and parcel of argumentation.)
So, all in all, I don't believe you should have been banned, but even less so in this particular case do I think that AlanF should be banned. Even this particular reference to the word "excrement" refers to his opponent's argument, not the person himself. Also when the person himself is mentioned, it because of their own claims they make about themselves and of course, their method of argumentation. When a person asks to be judged on their own merit, they have to expect that judgment to be forthcoming.

Lol! You Crack me up!

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. 
 

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.  

If you meant that you don't want my posts to get shorter, then you are very generous and long-suffering with respect to one of my greatest weaknesses -- long-windedness.
Not sure what that meant, but I would be just as happy to stay over here, although I always have a tendency to think that every prior false or misleading statement should be addressed before addressing any new statements that might be false or misleading. --this includes addressing any of my own errors, of course--
unfortunately, there are already at least 100 statements made in this thread that were false or misleading, even if the person making the statements meant well, or thought they were defending truth. addressing just one point in the middle of all those issues, is almost like a tacit acceptance of the errors around it. But so many of the errors had nothing to do, really, with the topic of whether 607 is Biblically supported. That was the reason to make a fresh start.

Gasp!!!!!! Neil is not allensmith28, is he? (the first one to react)
And 27, and 26, and 25, and so on all the way down to allensmith?
And - no, it cannot be! - even Allen_Smith? the one who once sported the most glorious stache I have ever seen but has since shaved it off?
(more than once I have had the impression that everyone on this forum knows one another except for me)

I do not know who Neil is. In responding to a post of mine before, you seem to assume that I do. (I have not followed this thread closely)

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.