607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

Oh- but  another thing is that this study kind of tangentially shows the superiority of cities of refuge over what I've read is the universal justice system pre-law covenant [going to read the Wright thing now, JWINSiDER.  IE , haven't, yet], Hatfield and Mccoy endless cycle of revenge.

Definitely. I see some definite superiority of the Law in many ways, and this area is no exception. Best leave that conversation over there, on the other thread however. (Although I would still like to know about that COJ quote you might have been interested in following up.)

[AlanF]

4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

. . .

The ignorance lies, with how you (alanF) and your friend *JEFFRO* attempt, to adjust this servitude to a NATION that wasn’t under Babylon’s control yet, according to you, and secular history. Unless you are admitting King Jehoiakim had some kind of interaction with King Nebuchadnezzar in 609BC? If so, then, 609BC-3=606BC. The other hilarious notion is, this, of course, would be under Nabopolassar's reign under the strength of PRINCE NEBUCHADNEZZAR II.

. . .

This has all been explained to you many times by various people. No point in doing it again.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Nah! that something you're used to, doing, double talk, to come out on top. Your so predictable. As for the rest. The day you show some academic intelligence, then we will continue this debate. So, far, JWinsider, Alanf, O'Maly have failed miserably by their own secular chronology.

It's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty.

[AlanF]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty.

He has none of any of that.

AlanF

[AlanF]

20 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

Genius' @AlanF and @TrueTomHarley can't seem to learn to stay on topic.

Let me introduce you both to the "START A NEW TOPIC" link at the top of each page.....

This post WAS about 607 B.C.E.

New topic started.

There appears to be no one here capable of defending the JW viewpoint on 607 BCE without resorting to misrepresentations and all manner of scholastic cheating.

AlanF

[Arauna]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

t's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty

We have a saying in my language which translates that one can be caught by your own intelligence and get you in serious trouble!   Allan is riding an ego wave here by treating people and  relevant thoughts with distain.  

Everyone answering him is giving his inflated ego another puff of wind to get him bloated up further because he honestly believes he has superior intelligence.     

He has not carefully thought through all the processes of evolution because he would find the gaps. He only reads material which strengthens his ego - he believes he has superior intelligence and this is why he can understand evolution and us dummies can not.

He does not care about morality - as his answers clearly indicate.   Morality is going downhill at present in the world because more and more people are moving away from the values (right and wrong) of the bible.  Soon we will have a free for all - like in the days before Jehovah gave the law to israel.

The Mosaic law kept Israel cleaner than the nations around them.  The nations were doing their own thing like burning their children, having sex with whomever they wanted and even violating their own children.  Many of the ancient cultures had these practices because they made up their own good and bad values.....  

We need one set of values in the world to keep people from hurting each other, look after each other and cooperate to fix the earth - this is why I buy into the ideology of Jesus.  No other ideology or philosophy can compare to this.  Soon the worldly governments will push their values on us to try to maintain a measure of peace and security - but it is NOT going to work..... because wicked people always seek independence from any kind of moral  value provided by the true God, Jehovah.   False religion, greedy governments, financial opportunists and scientists with no moral values and  integrity...  they all will be removed!

 

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

New topic started.

Thanks, AlanF, for starting the new topic. Unfortunately, when I move older posts to that thread, the software here credits the author of the new thread with whoever has the oldest post, currently TTH. I moved the most appropriate posts over but there will always be a few that are a mix between both topics, and it's easy to make a mistake. Also, a few posts about making a new thread were just deleted since they will not make much sense now. Note: @Arauna, you responded to a post above about Allen as if it were about AlanF and related it to the atheism/evolution material, so I moved it over to the "new" topic linked below.

The "new" topic now goes back to about January 5 with all the old posts added:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/

 

 

[JW Insider]

20 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This is supposed to be a forum for serious discussion of issues. But you seem to think it's a forum for spewing ad hominems.

Obviously you're not capable of discussing issues, but like most JW defenders have brains demoted to parroting Mommy Watch Tower and spewing their bile.

Irony sharpens irony, again.

[AlanF]

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks, AlanF, for starting the new topic. Unfortunately, when I move older posts to that thread, the software here credits the author of the new thread with whoever has the oldest post, currently TTH. I moved the most appropriate posts over but there will always be a few that are a mix between both topics, and it's easy to make a mistake. Also, a few posts about making a new thread were just deleted since they will not make much sense now. Note: @Arauna, you responded to a post above about Allen as if it were about AlanF and related it to the atheism/evolution material, so I moved it over to the "new" topic linked below.

The "new" topic now goes back to about January 5 with all the old posts added:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/

 

 

I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it.

On second thought . . .

AlanF

[AlanF]

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

. . .   False religion, greedy governments, financial opportunists and scientists with no moral values and  integrity...  they all will be removed!

Yes, just like all those things were removed in 1914, according to C. T. Russell's predictions.

The world has serious problems, alright, but they have nothing to do with Watch Tower predictions of the future. Not a single visible thing that Watch Tower prophetic speculators have predicted has come true.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana said to AllenSmith:

Quote

Agree,

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).

Quote

because:

I'll analyze your citation from WTS literature (Insight) in view of the above.

Quote

"Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought pressure upon the Judean king “and so Jehoiakim became his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he [Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him [Nebuchadnezzar].”"

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.

Quote

Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1.

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:

Quote

It could not be Jehoiakim’s third year of his 11-year reign over Judah, for at that time Jehoiakim was a vassal, not to Babylon, but to Egypt’s Pharaoh Necho.

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.

Quote

It was not until Jehoiakim’s fourth year of rule over Judah that Nebuchadnezzar demolished Egyptian domination over Syria-Palestine by his victory at Carchemish (625 B.C.E. [apparently after Nisan]). (Jer 46:2)

See above.

Quote

Since Jehoiakim’s revolt against Babylon led to his downfall after about 11 years on the throne,

Speculation disproved by the above information.

Quote

the beginning of his three-year vassalage to Babylon must have begun toward the end of his eighth year of rule, or early in 620 B.C.E.

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.

Quote

Daniel’s account (1:1, 2) states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and laid siege to it and that Jehoiakim, along with some of the temple utensils, was given into the Babylonian king’s hand.

So far so good. But the WTS author then proceeds to deliberately mix up the siege in 605 with the siege in 598/597:

Quote

However, the account at 2 Kings 24:10-15 describes the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and shows that Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin, whose reign lasted only three months and ten days, was the one who finally capitulated and went out to the Babylonians.

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).

Quote

It therefore appears that Jehoiakim died during the siege of the city, perhaps in the early part thereof.

Right, in late 598 BCE.

Quote

Jehovah’s prophecy through Jeremiah (22:18, 19; 36:30) indicated that Jehoiakim was not to receive a decent burial; . . .

All of which is immaterial to the dating of the reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, and of the various exiles.

Quote

Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon. There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, . . .

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

[AlanF]

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

 

:: 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.know,

You have to do better than that AlanF. Your incoherent prospect fails you again. Those who know, me, Know, I'm NOT comparing WT Chronology with secular chronology. That is something JWinsider, attempted to impose on me, since he enjoys twisting things around to make himself look good. My aim was to PROVE how "flawed" your secular chronology is, and AlanF, JWinsider, JTR, O'Maly, and any other person, regardless if he/she is a "fader" "opposer" or "witness" has been WRONG, about the application of secular history. YOU just proved my point with your own WORDS!!!!  

 

LOL! You're so hopelessly screwed up in your head that you don't even know what you claim.

Let's try a very simple test:

Did COJ claim there were TWO exiles?

OR

Did COJ claim there were THREE exiles?

Whatever you answer, prove it by quoting appropriate sources.

AlanF