Jump to content

scholar JW

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


scholar JW last won the day on January 19 2018

scholar JW had the most liked content!


About scholar JW

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 05/19/1947

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. JW Insider Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell for his views on WT Biblical Chronology are firm and well established as is mine thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth. scholar JW emeritus
  2. Hi Ann How are you and I hope you are well. I received from Rolf a free copy of his latest book yesterday morning and I replied to him forthwith with some of my own observations over the last few decades. Like Rolf I share his scholarly endorsement of 607 BCE and the doctrine of the Gentile Times based on Daniel 4 and the Lukan text- Luke 21:24 his now public position certainly adds some validity to the authenticity of the 607 BCE Chronology despite the criticism of current scholarship. Since our many online discussions of 607 BCE in relation to the chronology and nature of the 'seventy years' of Jeremiah a recent published article adds some weight to our current and traditional interpretation of the 70 years as opposed to view of our many critics. The article is titled 'The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' by Steven M Ruse in the Journal Of Biblical Literature, 2018 Vol.137,No.1, pp.107-126. This article is the most recent published article on this subject and has much emphasis on the exilic aspect of the seventy years as opposed to the view of a solely Babylonish servitude or domination of Judah. Enjoy!!!! scholar JW emeritus
  3. Nana Fofana Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter. scholar JW emeritus
  4. Alan F He is clearly an evolutionist but he uses theistic language in his writings as does many other evolutionists such as Dawkins and Darwin. True, he writes about the appearance of design in organisms and puts this also in the context of 19th century scientists in the introductory section. His goal was to provide a much more improved view of the adaptation of those organisms as opposed to the earlier view of natural selection. Yes he did for one only has to read that quote and its context. Contextually that is correct but the reader could also form the impression that this was his statement of matters but not necessarily his personal viewpoint. Nowhere does he refer to a 'false appearance for in the last sentence in that section he refers to a 'divine artificer'. False, the book simply makes a direct quote which HE stated. You are the master of the 'rationale'. The later revision simply reversed any implication that this was Lewontin's personal view but it was his statement of fact shown by the retention of that source. False. The Creation book reproduced Lewontin's comment or statement correctly that is that lewontin stated the fact of the matter. If the quotation correctly reproduces the words and references that quotation then a writer can use that quotation even in a different context. Lewontin made a comment and the Creation book simply used that comment. Quote mining by itself is not wrong as it is part of academic practice but it is usually the case that the reader is given or alerted to the ideological position of the source so for example it would be preferable to say that Lewontin was an evolutionist etc. The context of that paragraph in the Creation book begins with "Stephen Jay Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say...Zoologist Richard lewontin" as an example. Lewontin then should not use theistic language so he cannot complain about so-called 'quote mining'. He should write more clearly and avoid terms that could be used in a different context. This is the major problem with modern day evolutionists for they cannot write on this subject without using theistic language or terminology for a good example of this is found in Richard Dawkins. The title 'Blind Watchmaker' is both theistic and ambiguous. You have proved nothing and I will continue to torment you especially with regard to Neo-Babylonian Chronology. scholar JW emeritus
  5. Alan F Yes, indeed the entire thrust of his article was not of Design or the appearance of Design but that organisms only exist because of continuity and quasi-independence as the most fundamental characteristics of the evolutionary process. However. he stated in his introductory paragraphs that organisms appear to have been designed and that their marvellous fit to their environment was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. The expression 'appearance of design' can be another way of expressing the reality of Design for if something has an appearance then that can also be an expression of its reality, that 'conscious design took place'. The Creation correctly quoted Lewontin's passage and says that Lewontin views this as such: namely that organisms have the appearance of Design...being evidence of a Supreme Designer. The fact of the matter is that HE, Lewontin made a statement, a observation which does not accord with his personal beliefs as shown by the rest of the SA article. The Creation book later amended this quotation by omitting 'He views them' to "that some scientists viewed them" but regardless of the change, the original quotation in the Creation book remains correct because that is what Lewontin stated. scholar JW emeritus
  6. Alan F Lewontin simply stated that "Organisms...have morphologies, physiologies and behaviours that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvellous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer". Well stated and correctly used in the marvellous and very scientific 'Creation' book. scholar JW emeritus
  7. Alan F Nutting of da sort. Lewontin made a simple admission and this was simply picked and quoted by the WT writer for the Creation book. Lewontin should not have made that statement if he did not wish that statement to be quoted. It is too late when the horse has bolted or was he caught with his pants down? scholar JW emeritus
  8. Alan F You would not know the difference between the two just as you don understand Lewontin's quotation used properly in the Creation book. Outsmarted once again!!!!! scholar JW emeritus
  9. Alan F You are all smoke and mirrors for you have not understood Young's articles by posing some nonsense challenge which proves your childish behaviour. When I try to respond you run away with your tail between your legs. Good riddance!!! scholar JW emeritus
  10. Alan F All that you are doing is trying to make your problem or that of current scholarship regarding the controversy about 586 or 587 BCE for the date for the Fall, my problem. It is no problem for me or for other WT scholars because we have carefully determined or fixed 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Rodger Young in his paper 'WHEN DID JERUSALEM FALL? in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2004, pp.21-38 used Decision Tables to resolve the scholarly dispute over 586 or 587 BCE? Using this Methodology, Young concluded incorrectly that 587 was the correct date. In the Introduction to his study on p. 21 he reminds the reader that "all dates for that event must be derived from the scriptural record" but then continues that such must be tied to the last events not of the Biblical record as such but rather to the prior events described in the Babylonian archives which are the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE? and the initial capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachin in 597 BCE? Both dates for these events are also problematic. So already,Young begins his solution on a 'slippery slope' of at least two dates. Young should have adhered to that earlier rule "derived form the scriptural record" which is exactly what WT scholars have done and avoided his later nonsense. In order to respond to your challenge, the focus of Young's argument or solution is described in the first paragraph on p.22 wherein he describes a 'methodology' based not on the data itself but on various presuppositions and interpretation of the data in association with principles of calendation described in the previous paragraph on p.21. Then he applies this methodology to Ezekiel 40:1which in a later paper, 2006 in the AUSS, vol.44, No.2, pp. 265-283 'EZEKIEL 40:1 AS A CORRECTIVE FOR SEVEN WRONG IDEAS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION' discusses this text in some depth. (Scholar suspects that Young is a SDA) For Young, this one verse is highly significant in resolving a number of OT chronological issues but is he correct and is his Methodology correct? I would argue that the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah is the true biblical corrective and not Ezek.40:1. He further argues in the use of Decision Analysis that all possible combinations or scenarios should be used and that argument can be well applied to the 607 BCE hypothesis and to others such as the 586 or 587 BCE hypothesis. Next, he describes the difference between a 'ladder' chart favoured by some chronologists and the 'horizontal' chart favoured by others introducing a new method of the use of 'simple formulas'. The crux of the his article is the date for the captivity of Jehoiakim which he gives the traditional date of 597 BCE which again is problematic because WT Chronology assigns the date 617 BCE and the date Nisan/Tishri 593 BCE. Further, in his pursuit of 587 BCE for the Fall much is made as to whether in Ezek. 40:1 the 'start or the beginning of the year' was counted from Nisan or Tishri but by means of his Table 1a, he decides on Tishri years. But this is ambiguous according to one scholar and that is why WT scholars have been neutral on this point for it is one of theology not of chronology. I could write much more about this matter but Young's paper is informative and useful to those supporters of 607 BCE because it challenges our critics to reconsider their hypotheses and to reconsider other alternative viewpoints. scholar JW emeritus
  11. Alan F I am glad that I amuse you. How can I increase the sins per post? Does not matter for I will always get their attention. Been doing the same with you over the last 15 years. We both have a shared history. It is rather curious how you showed up on this forum after being sacked from the JWD forum. scholar JW emeritus
  12. Alan F Looks like scholar JW has you rattled. I care nought for your appraisal of my scholarship because you have offered nothing but a lot of blustering and 'hot air'. I will continue to respond to your efforts to discredit WT Chronology and whether or how you respond to my rebuttals is of little concern to me. Bring it on. scholar JW emeritus
  13. Alan F It is you that is being stupid not Jeremiah. Jeremiah simply used preposition or construct that in English can mean 'at' for', 'to', 'of' 'against'. NWT with References, 1984, App.3B, p.1571. Modern scholarship is one thing, Bible Scholarship is more important. The fact is that modern scholarship says no such thing for anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew would not find this to be a issue. Most modern translations render the 'le' as 'for' but the older traditional ones including the Versions do not. Either way, scholar on the grounds of exegesis has accommodated both renderings in proof of the fact that the seventy years are of Judah and not Babylon. Scholar has outsmarted you all and you do not like to be beaten. What modern scholarship says on this matter is interesting but is also very misleading because there is no consensus on many matters pertaining to the seventy years so your claim here is nonsense. The seventy years was a full period of seventy years with zero months. Your claim of four exiles is rather bogus as well. No because you do present any scholarship only making wild claims about what scholars say about these matters and I do not have to work hard at all because I am abreast of the scholarly literature. Seventy years for both questions to the very month. Yes please. Be that as it may, for the Bible account cannot have the 70 years ending at Babylon's Fall because the Jews remained captive to and in Babylon until their release under Cyrus'Decree. The Bible most certainly provides a starting point for the 70 years at the Fall of Jerusalem when the land became totally desolated. I thank you for the reference I will consult same for my research paper on 537 BCE. No, the Fall of Babylon marked the closing phase or conclusion of the 70 years with its final end with the Return in 537 BCE There is a difference between a 'conclusion' and an 'end'. Got it? Not mostly, but definitely. Well, heed it! Read Daniel 9: 2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey! The Hebrew word chorbah does not describe the totality of the destruction but there are many texts in Jeremiah that do describe the totality of the destruction such as 'without an inhabitant'. Jerusalem only experienced one desolation and that was the time accompanied by servitude and exile from the fall lasting for 70 years. Plurality of devastations is simply idiomatic of emphasis or totality and not of number. It seems that you do not like Daniel because he discredits your nonsense for Daniel received the angelic vision prior to the release of the captives, after Babylon's fall in Darius' first year. This is simply your exegesis of matters for Jer. 25:11-12, 27; 2 Chron. 36:21 were only fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE with the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE. Dan. 5 deals with the events of Babylon's Fall whereas Dan.9 deals with later events with the Return and the coming of the Messiah. Dan. 9 by means of v2. connects the seventy years of Jeremiah with the exile's returning home to restore true worship. Not really and scholar loves a trap. There is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge? Not gobble-de-goop but history. No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land. So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good. 'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at. No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold. The statement 'for Babylon' is a rendering in English and can be easily translated with a locative meaning 'at', therefore in view of this fact there is no text that assigns the 70 years to Babylon but only to Judah and Judah alone. Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction. Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use. I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does. Now you are a professional scholar so let us see what you can do with your 538 novelty and harness such scholarship. It is simply your opinion and that of others regarding the 'Myth of the Empty land' and whether Biblical references to the 'desolated land' are hyperbole. Yet, you claim to take the Bible seriously, talk about' scripture-text mining'. Debunking Alan F's Higher Criticism of the Bible Done scholar JW emeritus
  14. JW Insider Indeed You have explained your position. I am going to make a brief summary of facts now. You will be held to that. I don't have any scholarly issues and your posts indicate a lack of research. You should talk to Alan F about gibberish. scholar JW emeritus
  15. JW Insider Nonsense. You would not know anything about scholarship and what qualifies one as a 'scholar'. Further when it comes to honesty perhaps you should examine yourself. Are you a genuine Witness? I ask this question because you promote views that could be regarded as apostate especially in the field of Chronology. You call yourself 'JW Insider' perhaps it should be JW Outsider'. There are 'celebrated WT scholars' but you cannot understand or deal with this concept. Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow! I am very much on top of the Jer.29:10 debate and already I have a Witness Hebrew scholar that has informed me of certain facts relating to this matter and I will be mentioning these in due course. Whether you think my posts are a parody of scholarship means nothing to me because I will match your arguments anytime, anywhere. No. my opinion is based on a careful examination of the evidence. I have found WT publications invaluable and accurate in relation to Chronology but in addition I also pay careful attention to scholarship as well. Do you? You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one. You talk gibberish. I believe in context, exegesis and linguistic analysis and apply these to the interpretation of Jer. 29:10 which you do not. Go away! Respond as you wish and I will respond in kind but do some research and do not follow the nonsense of apostates. scholar JW emeritus

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.