Anna

Didn't mean to set this up like a "tease" to drum up interest. Especially if the actual point will turn out to be such a letdown. But I'll continue . . .
Many of us probably barely noticed that the first "kernel" of the "Cities of Refuge" laws started out in Exodus 21:12-15, especially in the highlighted portion.
(Exodus 21:12-15) 12 “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death. 13 But if he does it unintentionally and the true God lets it happen, I will designate for you a place where he can flee. 14 If a man becomes very angry with his fellow man and he deliberately kills him, the man must die even if you have to take him from my altar. 15 One who strikes his father or his mother must be put to death. But we have two versions to compare for much of Exodus 21. For example, let's start out by comparing two versions, starting in Exodus 21:28-32  in the way that Wright does:


I think a lot of people already know where this is headed, but this is a good place to start. I'll follow up in the next post.

Very interesting, but not alarming. I am sure Moses Egyptian education would have exposed him to Hammurabi's code as well as whatever system existed in Egypt (although apparently it is not so clearly preseved for us as the Mesopotamian). There would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" in setting out a form and structure for a law code to govern the affairs of a nation at that time, would there?
I believe the only part of the Mosaic Law actually written by a non-human agency is the decalogue? Is there a similar listing of this nature in the Hammurabi code? 
Also, is there a similar comparison chart on sanctions? And how about matters of hygiene? 
I have just found a copy of the Code of Hammurabi in a 2nd hand book shop ( I love those places). Time to dust it off methinks!
 

The prediction was that you would see the obvious ridiculousness of your claim (that versions with errors carry more weight than versions with corrections). So I predicted that when you were questioned about this, you would do what you always do, which is to try to make it look like you were right all along through an evasion. So I said:
Just a few days ago, back in this same thread, I summarized your method like this:
You managed to perfectly fulfill every word of that prediction by not acknowledging your error and using words that completely evaded the questions, and you used words that made it seem like others were wrong an you were right all along, when you said:
I would recommend that you begin to address evidence with evidence that is actually related to the questions at hand, instead of evasions. I don't think you are incapable, but each time you do what you just did, it makes it more difficult for anyone interested to take your future posts seriously. Most people will just think you are dishonest.

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.

....
 

Nice to see you commenting again @Gone Fishing 

True of course. But I didn't want to focus so much on whether Jewish sources were always reliable, but in this case it would make sense because the point of the cities of refuge was not punishment, but rather a merciful provision for those who otherwise would have to be executed, because that was the law, regardless whether it was accidental or not. It would make no sense for example  if the accidental manslayer was a wife, and  her husband and dependent children would have to abandon her. I don't think the point of this law was to break up families.There are so many other  scenarios one could think of, that obviously could not all be covered by the law in detail, so the law must have been applied in principle. This wasn't even my observation but a friend of TTH suggested that the father of a fugitive son who had accidentally killed his brother would be allowed to go with him. It made sense to me....

I agree with the comment by JWI on the speculative nature of scenarios in connection with the cities of refuge. I haven't investigated cities of refuge in a historical context simply because reliable information seems rather scant.
Apart from the setting out the provision in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the use of the provision in the Hebrew Scriptures, like for example, the cameo appearance of Ruth with reference to the provision of "levirate" marriage.
There is a lot of what I term as higher-critical gobbledegook on the matter, but really only of some academic interest (to me). Perhaps, rather like the Sabbath Year and Jubilee provisions, there was little adherence to the legislated procedure over the years. (Compare Jer.2:34 "Even your skirts are stained with the blood of the innocent poor ones, though I did not find them in the act of breaking in")
Anyway, with regard to TTH's comment, this manslayer, self assessesed as "guiltless", has rather missed the point. Where human blood has been shed there is no "guiltlessness" as the basis for the Mosaic provision makes clear at Genesis 9:5-6. Anyone of that opinion was not thinking in harmony with Jehovah God's view of the matter of shedding human blood in any circumstance, and would be putting themselves greatly at risk of an execution of judgement without mercy.

You can look around and see.  Eyes can detect ratio.  Sort of predicted too.  Forgot this?
(Psalm 68:11) Jehovah gives the command; The women proclaiming the good news are a large army.
 
 
 
 

Something similar happens when you put out a contract to have someone killed, when you are too old or disinclined to do it yourself.
Your "hit man" does your bidding, but it can be traced back to you.
So you get a second "hit man" to bump off the first one.
Then you get a third one to off the second one, etc., etc.
..... but ultimately, it's free !
By the way, with the Hatfields and McCoys, the reason that stopped their feuding is the Hatfields, most of them I am told, became Jehovah's Witnesses. It may or may not be true, as I have forgotten where I got that info ... so just consider it an old man's fairy tale.
However, I had the distinct pleasure of dancing with Libby Hatfield, of Chattaroy, West Virginia, at a "gathering" in Roanoke, Virginia., circa 1976.
THAT ... I remember.
 

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.

Hey, does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode where the driver strikes and kills the kid? -obviously and accident. His wife remarks over dinner how horrible it is that the unknown driver did not turn himself in, and is puzzled by her husband's agitation. His car begins to haunt him. It wakes him up out of a sound sleep with blaring horn. (as a child, it was spooky as all get-out!) He tells his wife the next morning that he will walk to work, since the car has been acting funny. She is amazed to see the garage door open, and the car follows him - he panics and falls. The car stops inches from crushing his head. The passenger door opens. He gets in and it drives him presumably to the police station to confess. The car is the avenger of blood!!

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   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?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?

You don't need to tell us what you are going to do......why not just do it

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.
And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.
(Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.
You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.
Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

RATS!   I lost my Captain Midnight Babylonian Calendar Decoder Ring!

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him.
(Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.” I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question.
(Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

I think that when someone is raptured, all earthly references to them disappear.

Interesting

It was once said that Hillary worshiped Satan, which is of course not the case.
Satan worships her!

Interesting

No, don't look because this thread is about 607, not about chastising strangers on the internet. I think @TrueTomHarley meant that suggestion to be purely rhetorical. Plus I don't think Alan F gives two monkeys bottoms.

Except when he said that small flies become bigger flies