SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Here is Ann O'Malys words on a discussion board from another apostate site, for LBAT 1420

I didn't know anything about it. But I knew you were wrong. So I wasn't concerned. But after seeing Ann O'maly's response to you, it makes me wonder. So often, as I've pointed out, whenever you quote a source to make a point, the source actually makes the opposite point. You do this constantly, so that it is hardly worth looking up the sources you quote, because it almost always turns out to be a waste of time. The only reason I sometimes read your sources and respond is because so often the source is interesting and shows another angle supporting the same point I have been making.

But here you make the same "mistake" when quoting people on this very forum. This tells me that unless you are extremely devious (and I don't believe you are) that it is merely a matter of not being able to read correctly and carefully. This is common, and I know that you (as Allen Smith) have said that you have had problems with dyslexia, which is common. I don't believe you were purposely trying to show people that you are dishonest. But unfortunately that's exactly how this will come across to many people here. If AlanF or Ann O'maly or Srecko had made such a blatant error, they would definitely have been accused of being dishonest. You've done it to me.

However, you inadvertently pointed out that Rolf Furuli was very likely being dishonest. He is the one who actually had the software to test the eclipses of LBAT 1420 and, representing himself as a scholar, made a false claim. That claim could not just be chalked up to pure ignorance, in his case. 

By the way, no matter why you made this blatant error, I already know from your past haughtiness and false representations that you will probably not apologize for the false statements about Ann O'maly's words. I hope I am wrong this time.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What does this prove for you? What observational cycle sequence does it conclude, certainly not 539 BC

Actually, it provides excellent evidence that 539 BCE is exactly correct (for Cyrus overthrowing Babylon). It shows that the WTS is correct about that date.

[Ann O'Maly]

20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know that you (as Allen Smith) have said that you have had problems with dyslexia

Is this true, @César Chávez? I might have been slightly more patient with you. 

[JW Insider]

I'm sure that TTH doesn't want to be pulled into this, and his ideas may have already changed since 2018 when he wrote this post below. But I thought he expressed it best, by allowing for the fact that Allen Smith had alluded to his dyslexia, but that TTH thought it was more than that.

As a "moderator" I don't moderate much, but I do have access to a lot of the old posts that people think are missing, so it would be pretty easy to embarrass people over this, and I shouldn't do that. But, what the hedge funds, I'll go ahead and see what happens:

 

[Ann O'Maly]

So the information is second-hand, @JW Insider (and it's TTH at that!)? It would be nice to hear a confirmation from CC.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The other issue in JWinsider's ignorance in trying very hard to make people believe 577 BCE somehow is in the month of December in order to push his conspiracy of it aligning with 587 BC which is a bunch of baloney. Other scholars suggest it falls in JUNE, therefore, it would not be 588/7 BC, it is 589/8 BC.

Actually, a lot of years have both a December AND a June in them, even 2020.

And the point you are trying to make is wrong too (of course). There are no scholars that suggest that the eclipse of December 577 actually falls in June 577, June 588/7, or 589/8 BCE, or any other year. LBAT 1420 often gives TWO eclipses for each year and marks which one, for example, is in the THIRD month (May or June) and which one is in the NINTH month (November or December).

Also you seem to think that because there is a such thing as saros cycles, that you can take an eclipse that happened in one year of the cycle and apply it to another year in the same cycle. This is not how they work. In fact each consecutive set of years in the same cycle will have recognizable differences from the other eclipse examples in the same cycle. Sometimes an eclipse seen in one year, will not have even been seen at all 18 years later or earlier.

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So the information is second-hand, @JW Insider (and it's TTH at that!)?

Not just second hand. I have the first hand statement made on this forum from Allen Smith. But at least one of those posts was deleted and is no longer part of the forum. And of course, just because Allen Smith said it about himself, isn't exactly the same thing as saying it also applies to CC.

[Ann O'Maly]

Ah OK, @JW Insider.

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Ah OK, @JW Insider.

My own copies of the forum include the same group under jw-archive.org. Where a post has been deleted, my copy is not in the exact same formatting. But since Allen himself did not delete the post, I will reproduce my copy here. It was not actually "three months ago." That's just the amount of time that had passed since the post had been made (2015, in this case):

[Ann O'Maly]

@JW Insider Hm. OK. That's if we believe him. I would think that someone with a Ph.D. in Theology would be more even-toned and, dyslexia aside, would be able to formulate a cogent argument rather than the jumbled mess he usually presents. He must have had workarounds for his problem to be able to successfully submit his doctoral thesis. 

Out of curiosity, what was your thesis on, @César Chávez?

[scholar JW]

Alan de Fool

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

Still you lie. Go back page by page and search for "Nisan 1" in my postings. In at least one post, you'll find my answers.

Your answer was incomplete so again try again!!!

scholar JW

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Stop trying to defend something you are clueless about.

About "back stage" interactions between JW members and Forum members ? Or about WTJWorg doctrinal  subjects? :))