Jump to content
The World News Media

scholar JW

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by scholar JW

  1. Alan F Your focus is sadly misplaced because you talk only about eisegesis rather than exegesis which is what the said scholar promotes. There is a proper place for eisegesis especially when one seeks to interpret the prophetic books such as parts of Daniel, Minor prophets and Revelation but when it comes to those texts that deal with the 70 years then exegesis is essential and that is what you and COJ have not done or continue to do. You quote the passage 2 Chron. 36:17-21 but fail to discern the elements of each verse and the context which clearly makes no reference to as you sa
  2. Alan F You are living in the past when many scholars had that view that the 70 years represented only Babylonian hegemony but the tide has shifted beginning with the scholarship of Rainer Albertz, an Exilic scholar, 2003 and two others as mentioned in the cited sources have changed the previous focus of the 70 years to its Exile and the other two concepts of servitude to Babylon as hegemony and desolation of the land of Judah. The problem of the 609 BCE as a beginning for the 70 years is that it is too fuzzy with nothing historically accomplished in that year and that is why COJ discus
  3. Alan F Yes I could do this but why should i bother when you hurl insults to others,berate people and behave on this forum in an obnoxious manner. If you are so smart then you can locate these papers yourself. You fail to realize that much of what you say is simply puerile nonsense simply parroting what COJ has written, adding nothing original except your theory concerning 538 BCE for the Return. scholar JW
  4. Alan F All of which has been thoroughly refuted by many scholars, by Carl Olof Jonsson, and by competent commentators such as me. -- And now presently defeated by current and modern scholarship as shown by the two sources that I have quoted --- But it'll cost me $14.00 US. Why should I pay that for what I already know will refute your claims? I have an idea: you scan the article into PDF format and send it to me. -- You have to promise that you will be nice to me ---- Done. What you claimed is still gobble-de-goop and has nothing specifi
  5. Alan F You're beating dead horse, since you already know the answers: the 70 years were not of Jewish Exile but of Babylonian hegemony; that hegemony ended in October, 539 BCE with the fall of Babylon; Cyrus' decree of 538 has nothing to do with this -- Be that as it may. The 70 years was of the Exile-Servitude to Babylon as Babylonian hegemony-Desolation of Judah and these 3 basic elements have been recognized by Michael Niles 'Thesis which in the opening paragraph of his thesis in the Abstract states "Understanding the historical context of the prophecy (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10)
  6. Alan F Right, which once again is the fall of the Jewish nation and the exile of most of its inhabitants to Babylon. Anything more -- the way you want to do -- is reading into the text what is not there -- eisegesis == Correct but pay attention to the timing which ends at the first year of Cyrus not Babylon's Fall - Not a single Bible passage states that the Exile would or did last 70 years. Rather, various passages state or imply that a Babylonian hegemony would last 70 years, during part of which the Jews would be in exile. -- Nope the texts that indicate t
  7. Alan F I did. That's why I commented as above. On the other hand, you need to quit inserting your Watchtower-inspired biases into the context -- quit doing eisegesis and start telling the truth. --- No need for any WT bias but a simple and plain reading of the texts. --- COJ is irrelevant to this issue. Stick to the facts. -- The facts are that COJ has misled you and you have gobbled up his plain nonsense ---- Are you really as stupid as you appear? I say again: No one disagrees that the Exile ended with the return of the Jews to Palestine. That is
  8. Alan F The difficulty that you have is to determine when and what event terminated Jeremiah's 70 years Exile. Was it with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE or the first year of Cyrus with the Decree in 538/537BCE? scholar JW
  9. Alan F No one I'm aware of disagrees with that. Why are you creating another straw man? The point here is not when the Jewish exile ended -- obviously it ended when the Jews returned home in 538 BCE -- but when the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended, which is a very different but related thing. --- No 'straw man' needed. The Jewish Exile of 70 years ended with the Return which was not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but in Cyrus' first year determined to be 537 BCE. The Exile was of Jeremiah and was for a fixed period of 70 years. --- I have not read that ar
  10. Alan F The passage doesn't need to mention those things, since they're implied by the words "they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign". If the Jews were captive to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, then as soon as that dynasty ceased to exist, the Jews were no longer captive to it. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact? And if, as all Bible readers know, Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ceased to exist in 539 BCE when the armies of Cyrus the Persian captured Babylon and deposed the dynasty, then "when the kingdom of Persia began to reign" is equivalen
  11. Alan F Actually it's a colloquialism of American, New York region English. Since I grew up there, I use it as a matter of course. From
      Hello guest!
    : << US informal If you punt on something, you decide not to do or include it: We punted on a motion that makes no sense. >> Do you need more
  12. Alan F Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26. This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.
  13. Alan F Punt means to sidestep with dishonest, misleading responses. You're a master of such. Of course, anyone with half a brain is not misled, but amused and/or chagrined that a supposed Christian can be so transparently dishonest -- You must be quoting some fanciful dictionary of the English language --- Let's note here, for the record, that the Watchtower material I cited made no reference to the "royalty of Persia" ruling in terms of the "Jewish Exile". The Bible is quite clear that when it speaks of the rule of the royalty of Persia it is speaking in the ab
  14. Alan F False. What you've done is what you did here: punt the hard questions. ---- Scholar does not need to 'punt' but gives you direct answers ---- Correct. Note that the very last of the kings of this dynasty was Belshazzar, whose reign ended with Babylon's overthrow in the fall of 539 BCE. ---- Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were the last Kings of Babylon ---- Wrong again. Even the Watchtower Society acknowledges that "the royalty of Persia", in the form of Cyrus the Great, began to reign over Babylon when he conquered it in October, 539 BCE:
  15. Alan F Who were Nebuchadnezzar's "sons" that the Jews were servants to? Who was the last of these "sons"? In what year did "the kingdom of Persia" begin to reign? I believe that I have nicely dealt with these three questions before so I provide answers for you as the said scholar likes to help: 1. This is a reference to the Neo -Babylonian dynasty which included Neb's son and sons in law ending with Belshazzar as presented in a table by Prof. R.P. Dougherty in his book Nabonidus and Belshazzar, p.79 2. Nabonidus as supreme Monarch along with his son Belshazzar 3. 537
  16. 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
  17. 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 'seve
  18. 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
  19. 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 impres
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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 da
  • 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.