scholar JW

JW Insider

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:

• Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian
• End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

Correct! These dates are based on the assumption that the reign of Darius the Mede reign was concurrent with that of Cyrus. However, if Cyrus succeeded Darius during or right after Darius' first year, then the first full year of Cyrus would run from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar, 536 BCE., or, about, March 12, 537 BCE, to March 29, 536 BCE,Julian Calendar or March 6, 537 BCE, to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.

The first full year of Darius would be from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the end of the month of Adar in 537 BCE, or, about, March 24, 538 BCE to March 11, 537 BCE, Julian Calendar or March 18, 538 BCE to March 5, 537 BCE, Gregorian Calendar.- Babylonian Chronology, 626 BC- AD 45, 1942, R.A.Parker and W.H. Dubberstein

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

Alan de Fool

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I already did it for you, you fucking liar. You're just too stupid to know it.

You have not completed the answer so try again!!!

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

This moron is not only irredeemably lazy, but stupid enough to think that he can lay a trap for JW critics by proposing a silly task that, as you and I have pointed out, can easily be accomplished via Google. I even pointed him to a website that does Julian to Gregorian conversion, etc., as well as to definitive Watchtower statements about the 539 date. I don't know what this charlatan's game is here, but I ain't playing along anymore.

It would appear that you have something to lose, afraid to put your supposed scholarship to the test. If it is so simple as you claim by simply asking Doctor Google then why has not this data been provided in any academic scholarship published or otherwise?

scholar JW

Ann O' Maly

8 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That is rich coming from you, Neil, as somebody who said he could not be bothered learning how to use an astronomy program to check the celestial positions on VAT 4956 for himself, and prefers instead to wallow in his own ignorance and self-admitted incompetence while hurling insults at those who have actually done the work

Yes, but I am not the expert on these matters on which I have fully explained. You and Alan F are the experts and even when another person who has a level of expertise such as Rolf Furuli then you ridicule him, go to great lengths to undermine his thesis of which you are entitled to do. If someone of Furuli's scholarship has examined the evidence, tested it, able to translate the primary sources, has others to peer review his research and quotes extensively from leading experts in these fields then a layman like myself can only that the' Work has been done.' Furuli has at the very least able to question the integrity and interpretation of NB Chronology in a scientific way.

So, Ann it seems that you cannot provide the answer or you are too scared to consider the matter for the said scholar has something over you like the 'sword of Damocles'.

scholar JW

Ann O' Maly

Just what I expected. You can't be bothered because you cannot perform such a simple task therefore how can anyone take you seriously when you post on subjects that you lack any expertise especially any criticisms of Furuli's scholarship. Furuli  has done WT chronology a great service in proving that NB Chronology is unreliable for at least three reasons:

1. Missing 20 years- 568/588 BCE dilemma

2. Missing 7 years regnal vacancy of Neb's Kingship

3. Failure to provide any historicity for the 70 years of Jeremiah

5. Missing 1 Year/s of Darius ' reign prior or commensurate with the 1st year of Cyrus

NB Chronology i as with all other secular chronologies are likened to simply a chain or a string of beads, each date being a link or unit in a whole. Whereas, WT Bible Chronology is likened to a cable of interwoven strands of four  events each of which lay between two key events in biblical and modern history providing irrefutable proof/ evidence for this scheme of Chronology.

scholar JW

Ann O'Maly

Seeing that you such an expert on all matters pertaining to the astronomical tablets would you or can you assist with the following question:

Regarding the 1st Regnal of full year of Cyrus, How is the beginning and end of that year expressed in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calenders?

I have not seen this question addressed in any standard text on Chronology or in any scholarly Journal to date and have put this question to Alan F and JW Insider without any success.

The fact of the matter that many consider that WT chronology is in error or simply bunkum according to Alan F so this simple question is a little test if you like in order to properly assess the scholarship of either secular scholars who attempt to disprove the strong cable of Wt  Chronology or of WT scholars who have developed that strong cable of WT Chronology over many centuries.

By the way, No excuses!!!

Awaiting in full expectation

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.

No, that is not what i ave said or implied. The simple reading of both of these articles shows that neither of these two scholars support WT Chronology. What I simply tried to show is that in these papers that there are major viewpoints that align with our Chronography such as the facts that the Exile ended not with the fall of Babylon but with the Return and that for the first time in scholarship that the 70 years is related to concepts of captivity, servitude and desolation. That is all!!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.

So what and scholars are still discussing the same issue today but only WT scholars from the time of Russell have a clear understanding of the subject of the 70 years.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.

Alan stop making a lot of noise and stick to the facts.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.

And aren't you a clever little man!! The said scholar wants to make you work.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>

I have the papers to hand and people can make up their own mind on the matter.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.

Not before Nile's thesis published in May, 2012

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.

Of course, but he relates such to the 70 years

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.

Of course,because he does not equate the periods but simply relates such to the 70 years explained in the Abstract.

WT scholars have a clear understanding as to the fact that these three elements are not related but are constituents of the 70 year period

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means)

Read Niles ' paper which explains that there were three concepts that relate to the 70 years

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?

COJ like most other scholars only see the 70 years as a period of Babylonian domination and that is where they err.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Read it and weep, Neil.

You need to read it again very carefully. "That the seventy years refer to a period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation". I weep over your stupidity.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.

No it is not just answer the question if you dare. Your paper is contrived for you omit the reign of Darius which falsifies your argument.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>

Scholar believes in hard work and encoutages people to read and think and do the 'hard yards' The very fact that scholar has debated this topic for 20 years proves he is no coward and does not run away for scholar is very strong.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.

No it is not trivial because scholar has a very good reason why he has put this specific question to you but you are too dumb to see why the question is asked but the question remains?

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.

Just answer it and if correct then I will award you a gold star.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.

Provei it. Show me one publication that has used 'methodology' in connection with Chronology

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.

COJ  has never discussed those three terms or concepts relating to the 70 years for he has never or hardly even used the word Exile, not even listed in his subject index .Niles was the first scholar to introduce these three concepts into the scholarly literature.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.

Except for scholar who awaits your technical answer to my technical question.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

n short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.

Poor scholar but you forgot point 3 and scholar already now has point 4. The strong Cable of Bible Chronology base on 4 witnesses from the bible. You gotta luv that scholar.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

<< As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >>

Read it carefully you clown. Notice the statement according to that reckoning concluding hence forth. Also, the context of that discussion was under the heading Babylonian Chronology.

What an idiot!!

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.

Likewise. You are expelled

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Already explained

You explain nothing. Never explain the hard questions put to you but simply run away and hide.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

57 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar.

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival.

Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon.

Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE.

What a load of bollocks.  The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Largely the usual nonsense and claptrap. And of course, zero evidence is presented, so none is needed to dismiss.

Coward's reply

scholar JW

Alan F

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).

So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D?

scholar JW

JW Insider

It is not a diversion at all but simply a request for those who appear to be or claim to be  far more competent in matters of Chronology pertaining to the intricacies of NB Chronology and the use of astro programs. The matter is important because we now have a controversy raised by Alan F in his 5 page paper whether the date of the Return is 538 or 537 . Thus a definite establishment of the 1st year of Cyrus is critical as explained in our publications.

I have not found in any published scholarship to date that provides such vital information and the only go to reference work is of Parker and Dubberstein but such a work does not account for Darius' first year as stated in Dan. 9:1. So, such an omission has implications along with Neb's missing 7 years and Jeremiah's 70 years has implications for the integrity of the whole NB Period.

scholar JW

JW Insider

Would you please give the following information for the beginning and end dates for the Cyrus' 1sr full year expressed in the following calenders:

Jewish/Hebrew-

Babylonian

Julian

Gregorian

Alan F is unable or unwilling to assist in this matter so as you have some competence in reading astro programs your input would be greatly appreciated seeing that the discussion has proceeded to the date of 537 or 538 BCE  for the Return.

scholar JW

JW Insider

You seem to be very cluey with these tables so could you give me the Julian and Gregorian calender dates for the first regnal year of Cyrus if you please.

Thanks

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

But Providence gets it right!

Absolutely!!

43 minutes ago, AlanF said:

The Watchtower has never gotten anything of significance right. And invisible 'events' don't count.

Wrong for we have that strong Cable of Bible Chronology and invisible events do matter.

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

For the millionth time, see above.

Correct your answer to the first part and attempt the next half of the question if you dare.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! After several hundred years of solid scholarship by professional scholars, you think that telling little old me that I don't make original contributions to such is an argument? You've gone completely off the deep end.

On the other hand, you cannot even manage to quote the Bible, much less tell truthfully what it says. Nor can you truthfully summarize the findings of professional scholars.

All you can do is parrot the squawks of Mommy Watchtower.

No you have not made any original contributions to the study of Chronology only parroting COJ's hypothesis. Scholar should quote the Bible when dealing with you but you are not a believer, Are you?

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

You think that is an argument? LOLOLOL!!!

Not meant to be an argument but a statement.

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

lready done a few thousand times now.

Incorrect. Complete the answer to my question.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Not an observable event.

Great War was an observable sign of the end of the Gentile Times

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Watchtower writings on chronology are in no way "scholarship". Nor is the nonsense you peddle.

Well it certainly commanded the attention of COJ, the scholarly community and yourself in a lather.

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What was OBSERVABLE about "the Gentile Times"? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And again, every other observable thing that Russell predicted did not happen.

The Great War was big enough.

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Now you've descended to the despicable but standard technique of the charlatan -- accusing your opponents of your own sins.

You fool no one, Neil.

Well just answer and complete the question

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

Why can't you admit that you cannot answer my simple question despite your superior knowledge in every thing. It would appear that the said scholar has you stumped. Your pathetic excuses doesn't cut it with me.

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Answered yet again in a post above.

You have been outsmarted and struck dumb!!

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Another lie: all I do is tell what scholars say.

You only follow the delusions of COJ

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 BCE through Addaru 29/30 (March 11), 537 BCE, according to Parker & Dubberstein.

Now you look up the Julian to Gregorian converter website I told you about and see if you can plug in the numbers and find your Gregorian date. If you dare. Which you won't.

Finally, At last I get an answer. Why did it take you so long? Now all that remains is that you provide the answer for the Gregorian calender for I am incompetent in this regard so I ask in all humility for your assistance in this matter.Are you sure the above is absolutely correct?

24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

As I thought: you can't do it. Any more than you can quote Scripture.

I can only just quote scripture but am a master of exegesis.

25 minutes ago, AlanF said:

"No" what? you moron.

You are the moron

26 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Again proving that "providence" had nothing to do with the mistakes, and the Revelation Climax book, and other WTS publications, lied about it.

Providence - Jehovah's direction on matters is everything but you are not a spiritual person so you have no understanding of such matters.

28 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. Russell used 536.

Yes and this was the pivotal date used at that time for Cyrus' Decree which released the Exiles.

37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Prove it. Cite at least two examples of those "many".

So are you saying it was not a problem confronted by scholars of that day?

39 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I said, you moron. Again proving that the Revelation Climax book lied.

No, the Climax book made a simple and honest statement.

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Yes, but what is essentially modern chronology was in place not later than about 1910. This is even reflected in Watchtower literature beginning in the 1940s.

WT Chronology was clearly adjusted  in the mid forties with new research available at that time and became more clearly established in 1963.

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Nope. Standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is accepted by virtually all modern scholars. The crackpots like Watchtower writers don't count.

Nope, NB Chronology has become widely accepted but the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy remains problematic and as a consequence undermines the credibility of NB chronology.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

By that stupid 'reasoning' you can rationalize anything. So you think that God caused Bowen/Barbour/Russell to come up with wrong dates! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Wrong dates is simply doing Chronology hence one must rely on the superiority of God's Word and Providence.

48 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Your gibberish was not a typo. Too many misplaced words. Perhaps your mushy brain thinks in typos.

I have to use Grammarly which is on my desktop

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Done a few hundred times now

You have attempted half the question which is incorrect. So repeat and answer the rest of the question and double check your authorities or advisors

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Point being: if the uninspired J. A. Brown got it right, then the "providentially" inspired Bowen/Barbour/Russell people ought to have gotten it right.

The fact that they got it wrong proves that "providence" had nothing to do with their mistakes. And Russell, having claimed to speak for God (he was God's mouthpiece, he said), proved himself a false prophet not only by making false predictions in God's name, but by proclaiming false teachings in God's name, including his claim to speak for God.

With Chronology no one gets it right in every detail first off for as with all scholarship it is a work in progress. Providence as history shows plays its part too especially with the fulfillment of prophecy interpreted against the background of Bible Chronology now as a strong cable.

Where is my answer to my question?

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's the point, you moron!

Exactly, you do not make a point but borrow from others, having nothing original to contribute which proves your ignorance.

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Actually it's a rehash of current scholarship, just as COJ's writings are. Both COJ and I personally are irrelevant to that large body of competent scholarship.

You, like your Mommy, are quite incapable of arguing against some scholarly stance without ridiculous ad hominems. You've learned well.

And we all know how passionately you lie about virtually everything.

You do not read current scholarship for it is a stranger to you  only relying on the breadcrumbs of your  Poppa, COJ.

50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

See above.

No answer. Why not ask COJ or Ann O Maly ?

scholar JW

Alan de Fool

41 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Perhaps, but it would be better than being like you -- a pathological liar who falsely claims to stand for God's standards of Truth, Justice and The American Way.

You cannot answer a simple question but hide behind insults. You coward11

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. One only has to read his works and compare them to real history and events to see this

Read his writings and his chronological expertise is well demonstrated unlike you who cannot answer a simple question on Chronology. LOL!!!!!

44 minutes ago, AlanF said:

And every prediction for the events leading up to 1914 was dead wrong. Everything observable failed.

He got the Gentile Times right.

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Ah, yes: the fact that current incompetent Watchtower "scholars" continue with Russell's incompetence proves that Russell was a brilliant scholar. LOL!

Scholarship has verified Russell's contribution of this subject.

46 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Everything observable that he predicted for that nonsense failed. Everything! A completely invisible "end of Gentile times" is in no way a fulfillment of a prediction. Should I quote Carl Sagan on that again?

He got the Gentile Times right unlike that idiot , your mate Sagan

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

See above. And of course, your game is simple-mindedly transparent. All you're doing is trying to create irrelevant side issues in your silly attempt to sidetrack the theme of this thread.

Obfuscation at its finest. You cowardly avoid a simple question which your refusal proves your incompetence.

scholar JW