scholar JW
-
Posts
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by scholar JW
-
-
JW Insider
Now you will be able to check Furuli's use of the data for the years 588/587 and 568/567. Further, Furuli used the The Sky 6 and Sky Map Lite 2005 so Why not check those programs?
scholar JW
-
Alan F
You cannot answer this question or you refuse to answer the question!
scholar JW
-
Alan F
Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:
Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars?
scholar JW
-
Alan F
17 hours ago, AlanF said:Of course we do. I certainly have the professional capacity, demonstrated by a degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT, a Masters Degree in the same from Oregon State University, by straight A's in a pile of graduate courses in mathematical physics, classical physics, quantum mechanics, etc. Plus a highly successful 33-year career designing all manner of microchips for prominent electronics companies, which also entailed a good deal of scientific computer programming. And I have thousands of pages of often highly technical written material available on my website https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/ . And again, of course, Ann O'Maly's excellent papers speak for themselves, as does pretty much everything written here by JW Insider. And then we have the many excellent websites that thoroughly debunk all of Watchtower chronology, such as https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/ , https://ad1914.com/ , https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ , https://jwfacts.com/ and a host of others.
But you have no training in Semitic languages, or being able to translate the Akkadian language of the cuneiform clay tablets. Further, with all of your brilliance you have been unable to debunk or refute WT chronology and nome of the material posted on such websites fails to properly account for the 70 years.
17 hours ago, AlanF said:Correction: Woe is you! You're demonstrably not competent to comment on anything in this thread, since you're incapable of reading, understanding and analyzing the Bible, or quoting it, or properly understanding or summarizing academic papers or any other scholarly material.
Is it so sad that the said scholar is such a dummy yet for the last 20 years or so you have continued to dialoque with me which perhaps proves that scholar is a burr in your saddle.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
2 minutes ago, AlanF said:No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss
1 minute ago, scholar JW said:The evidence is there but it is in the interpretation of that evidence and the fact of the 70 years disproves your nonsense.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
the evidence is there but it is in the interpretation of that evidence and the fact of the 70 years disproves your nonsense.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
4 minutes ago, AlanF said:You obviously haven't a clue what that is
So you say.
4 minutes ago, AlanF said:Now that is circular reasoning. And of course, you're merely repeating what you've repeated dozens of time before and been shown to be wrong on every count.
And I will keep repeating it.
5 minutes ago, AlanF said:Not a bit problematic, as shown ad infinitum on this forum and elsewhere. And proved by the fact that you can not -- or will not -- provide a shred of evidence against the conclusions reached by Rodger Young and others. Even though you have been challenged to do so many, many times. Scholastic cowardice has no place in this thread.
Yes it is and if it was not so problematic then why is it that Rodger Young has written so much about it?
7 minutes ago, AlanF said:Utter nonsense. And stated without evidence. As Christopher Hitchens used to say, "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Of course, you've been given humongous quantities of evidence but dismiss it out of hand.
Why not try it out and examine the evidence for yourself?
8 minutes ago, AlanF said:LOL! That's funny, coming from someone too incompetent to operate a simple computer display.
At least I can appreciate the pretty colours.
9 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nonsense again. The 70 year period, however one defines it, cannot be established outside a clear secular timeline.
So are you saying that NB Chronology can't be falsified?
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:The secular timeline has nothing to do with the biblical timeline. The former stands on its own, independently of any claimed biblical timeline.
True, but when one compares the two schemes alongside each other then a gap of 20 years is manifest so something is wrong. Terribly wrong!!!
12 minutes ago, AlanF said:So now you admit to 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. Very good!
Supremacy equals servitude equals Exile as on definite historical period of 70 years.
13 minutes ago, AlanF said:Not hardly. It was a minor event in the affairs of a minor nation in the overall history of Babylon.
That is just a cop out to minimize such and important event in Jewish,OT history namely the Exile.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
17 hours ago, AlanF said:While these figures are problematic (which is neither here nor there for our dicussion), the point is again that about FOUR TIMES AS MANY were taken captive in 597 as in 587.
Now note Ezekiel 1:1:
<< . . . while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar . . . >>
That's not talking about an exile of the Jews? THE most important one, since about four times as many were exiled in 597 as in 587?
You are completely wrong, Neil. You should display some honesty and admit it.
No I am not wrong, There were a number of deportations but only ONE Exile as recognized by historians and scholars such as Rainer Albertz who described the Exile as a 'catastrophe' and this was the Exile that began with Neb's destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. The two accounts that you quoted nicely from 2 Kings 24 and 25 have at least one major difference and that is that the events of ch. 25 had a much longer seige, total destruction and the removal of the sacred items from the Temple. thus. the latter event with the last deportation of Jewry had a far greater effect on not just the Monarchy but also Worship, City, Temple and the Land.
17 hours ago, AlanF said:Complete nonsense. ALL FOUR DEPORTATIONS resulted in four distinct exiles, all of which were eventually lumped together by blurred history into a vague "one exile" that ended when the Jews returned to Judah.
No, for there were no four exiles but deportations culminating with the Exile that ended with the Return in 537 BCE
-
JW Insider
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:So, now that we have all these witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline before us, we can present what the Babylonians would have used as their own timeline. So far, again, I have only put relative dates at the top for the 96 different years of data from the first year of Nabopolassar to the last year of Cyrus. (Wel'll fix that shortly.)
Absolute rubbish and complete nonsense. Talk about circular reasoning for you maintain that there are five witnesses and thousands upon thousands to prove your timeline but how do these facts account for the insertion of the biblical 70 years and the missing seven years of Neb's kingship for starters notwithstanding the problematic 586/587 BCE debate?
When one examine each and every one of these so-called 'lines of evidence' such easily fall over as each one of these witnesses proves unreliable, lacking precise chronological data. This scheme that you have presented nicely coloured is similar to Alan F's contrivance on the 538/537 BCE debate which amounts to gibberish.
The simple fact of the matter is this, that the 70 years falsifies NB Chronology no matter how well it is presented and how pretty you make it. Historically, the NB Period has nothing to say about its domination over Judah which lasted for 70 years which by all accounts is a significant period of the history of the ANE.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 2
In view of your paper on this subject what then is wrong with the content, facts and reasoning of this information?
scholar JW
-
Alan F
32 minutes ago, AlanF said:I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.
What about interpreting the data?
33 minutes ago, AlanF said:There is no technical controversy.
There is with Furuli's research
34 minutes ago, AlanF said:Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.
Where did he say that? I think you are misquoting him for did not claim to be a'professional archaeo-astronomer'.
39 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.
i think you will find it is more than two centimetre of distance involved.
41 minutes ago, AlanF said:What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?
But Furuli consulted with such scholars as part of his research so read his Bibliography.
42 minutes ago, AlanF said:You're not competent to judge.
true
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.
Do not need to for i can read his books
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.
I call it intellectual honesty
45 minutes ago, AlanF said:A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.
Says the one majoring in bias and prejudice
scholar JW
-
Alan F
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.
Watchtower is not in the science business and neither are you.
33 minutes ago, AlanF said:JW Insider already covered that.
I doubt that
33 minutes ago, AlanF said:No, it's just the WRONG methodology and interpretation. But Russell and his Adventist mentors really had no such things. It was all flying by the seat of their pants.
On what basis can you say that it is the wrong methodology and interpretation? Again you talk nonsense.
36 minutes ago, AlanF said:No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.
You said it so just remember it!!
39 minutes ago, AlanF said:Several have already told you: buy a program and try it out for yourself. After you've learned how to use it in a decade or two, come back here and present your results.
I already have two programs installed on my computer so in coming years i might be able to make some sense of it.
41 minutes ago, AlanF said:He is demonstrably so. I think he's sincere in a way, but sincere people can convince themselves that lies are true if they try hard enough. The Watchtower Society calls sincere believers of the Trinity doctrine liars. Same for Furuli.
Your opinion
42 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which I think you're afraid to do. I really don't think you're so mentally deficient that you can't manage to operate a simple astro program. Rather, you don't want to take a chance on destroying many of your cherished rationalizations.
There is no such thing as a simple astro program but the problem is in the interpretation of the data
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.
Agreed
scholar JW
-
Alan F
46 minutes ago, AlanF said:You've descended to complete gobble-de-goop now.
like your 5 page nonsense
-
Alan F
28 minutes ago, AlanF said:Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.
Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius. The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE.
35 minutes ago, AlanF said:discussed those things above
Those things are given scant attention in your paper and that is the problem, too short for all that needed to happen within a period of 12 months or less. makes no sense at all.
40 minutes ago, AlanF said:Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.
it is relevant to the matter as an adequate time of resettlement is essential
41 minutes ago, AlanF said:Did I not say that? What's your point?
Good to see some recognition that our theory has some validity.
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above.
All that you have presented is a contrivance with no attention to the history and circumstances of the Decree.
44 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which my above-referenced essay shows is the absolute proof that the Return was in Tishri, 538.
Since I've used Josephus to prove that the Return was in 538, the temple foundations must have been laid in 537. This perfectly lines up with Josephus' statement in Against Apion that the temple lay in ruins for 50 years, along with his giving a list of kings and their reigns during that time. Read it and weep, ScholarJW.
Utter nonsense for Josephus simply states that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid which also can be used in our chronology of the period for this occurred in the following year of 536 BCE
scholar JW
-
Alan F
28 minutes ago, AlanF said:Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?
You have not established 605 BCE
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.
Correct
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!
Thanks
30 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong
Matter of opinion
31 minutes ago, AlanF said:Wrong. That's exactly like claiming that the fact that the earth is a ball is merely the product of bias on the part of most of the world.
Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.
Science proves that but not the case with NB Chronology falsified by the 70 years
33 minutes ago, AlanF said:Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.
That is why i do not get into those astro programs
34 minutes ago, AlanF said:Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM
Nile's thesis is a good example.
35 minutes ago, AlanF said:LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?
Which all WT critics choose to ignore.
36 minutes ago, AlanF said:COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? I thought not.
And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology".
COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years.
38 minutes ago, AlanF said:Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.
Neither do you or COJ have the facility to properly examine Furuli's research.
40 minutes ago, AlanF said:How about using "Watchtower Library" like I do? Or is that too complicated for your little brain? Do you know how to copy/paste using Control-C/Control-V in Windows, or Command-C/Command-V in Macs, or the equivalent in any other operating system? NO WONDER you can't manage to quote people properly! OR THE BIBLE ITSELF!
Are you telling me that for 20 frigging years you haven't QUOTED THE FRIGGING BIBLE because you can't figure out how to copy/paste text? How about just typing? I've typed literally thousands of passages from various Bibles?
Bully for you!!
scholar JW
-
Alan F
17 minutes ago, AlanF said:Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated.
What about the reign of Darius during this period and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months. Your timeframe is too short and impossible for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations.
22 minutes ago, AlanF said:The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.
You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537.
And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537:
Our time frame easily accomodates the above requisites which invalidates your short, impossible time frame as confirmed by Josephus that it was in the second year of Cyrus' reign that the foundations of the Temple were laid.
scholar JW
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:Disproved.
Nonsense
scholar JW
-
Alan F
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?
The point is that Ezra used a different calender for dating the first year of Cyrus and the dating of the month/year of the Return.
13 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. Ezra explicitly calls Tishri the 7th month -- according to the secular calendar.
Or the first month of the sacred calender which marked the beginning of a new or following year.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
1 minute ago, AlanF said:But for those deported and made captive for awhile, they are BY DEFINITION in exile. Do I really need to point you to a dictionary?
Agreed but let us not confuse the exile/deportation of the few with the EXILE of the greater number in order to be historically correct.
3 minutes ago, AlanF said:LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.
No it is not and i checked a number of reference works which state similarly. But speaking of dictionarys, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'exilic'-"to that of the Jews in Babylon'.
8 minutes ago, AlanF said:A few? What garbage! The exile of 597 was actually bigger than that of 587. Not only Ezekiel, but all of the important people in the country were exiled -- artisans, all of the elite, etc. The 587 exile was of the leftovers.
Do you need me to quote Ezekiel and other sources on this?
So if the population was so small or minimal in number why did Neb bother? And was not king Zedekiah present in the city at that time?
11 minutes ago, AlanF said:here were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?
Only ONE Exile in the OT and recognized by historian for that it is why it is described as catastrohe and Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations as a consequence thereof.
scholar JW
scholar JW
-
Alan F
2 minutes ago, AlanF said:They are both equally well established.
539 BCE is well established but 605 BCE is not so prove it.
3 minutes ago, AlanF said:The Bible says nothing directly about it. It does speak of his 18th and 19th years as when Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE -- the same year after accounting for the fact that "18th" was written by someone using Babylonian dating and "19th" by someone using Jewish dating. Starting with the 18th year and counting back to zero by accession year dating gets you to 605. Easy!
So, the date 605 BCE is a calculated date not an Absolute date therefore not well established.
5 minutes ago, AlanF said:You have the books. Look at them.
True. I have the books to hand
6 minutes ago, AlanF said:So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars?
Again irrelevant. COJ is not a degreed academic scholar; so what? What he has done -- why do you continue dishonestly to use this irrelevant ad hominem? -- is to collate a massive amount of data published by recognized scholars in several fields. Thus, when someone dismisses COJ as if his collations were of no value, he is dismissing most of the world of academic scholarship. But because much of Watchtower argumentation consists largely of such ad hominen dismissals, it's no surprise when Watchtower accolytes do the same.
I applaud COJ for his research as an independent thinker not a scholar but one must view his research in the light of current scholarship, WT Chronology and the Bible and then make one's own analysis and opinion.
9 minutes ago, AlanF said:Except that, as the discussions in this thread alone prove, Furuli's 'debunkings' are provably wrong.
You continue to make the mistake of dismissing all of academic scholarship based solely on the Watchtower's demonstrably wrong interpretations of a handful of Bible passages, which interpretations mostly ignore without comment all passages that contradict its tradition.
You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics.
17 minutes ago, AlanF said:COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.
Only in your own mind.
18 minutes ago, AlanF said:We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.
You are correct. I will have to work on that and install the app but I am a computer dummy so must give this some priority and thank you for the correction.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
cont'd
15 minutes ago, AlanF said:It's historical science. Ever hear of that?
the more precise term would be 'history of science' or 'philosophy of science'
16 minutes ago, AlanF said:Of course it does. Real science, historical or otherwise, gathers evidence, formulates hypotheses, measures the hypotheses against the evidence, eliminates those that don't work, and eventually comes up with a set of hypotheses that withstand all valid tests. Valid tests do not include the sort of wild speculations that morons like the Flat-Earthers come up with, such as claiming that all photo evidence is the product of a worldwide conspiracy of CGI experts. Your 'tests' are in that category. Academic experts have used solid historical science to come up with a fully tested Scientific Theory called Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Something as well established as, and often better than, anything else in ancient history.
Scholar loves real science. True science relies on the principle of Falsification so how do you falsify NB Chronology or is it a sacred cow?
18 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which is fully explained and justified for Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. And of course, which eliminates the sort of bogus methodologies and interpretations so beloved by Watchtower Tradition
Do not forget from where you first learnt this principle- the said scholar! So are you saying that WT Chronology is without methodology and interpretation?
21 minutes ago, AlanF said:No academic expert, but competent. And since you're too lazy (and self-admittedly mentally deficient) to learn, you have no basis for an opinion.
It is now a good thing that you are competent but are you fully competent?
23 minutes ago, AlanF said:Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. In general these programs are marketed by software companies that want to make money from them. Over the past 25 years I've bought half a dozen of them. Most become obsolete after a few years, not because the underlying data and mathematical calculations need revision, but because computer operating systems change and marketing goals change. I'm quite capable of writing such a program myself, using data from easily available NASA and related sources, and I've even played around with this. But it takes an inordinate amount of time to produce a usable video display, and so it's not worth my time to do it. Besides, others are far more competent than I am in such programming.
So why is it the case that you so-called experts use different programs? Why not use the same programs as Furuli does/
26 minutes ago, AlanF said:There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.
YES. But the devil is in the interpretation.
27 minutes ago, AlanF said:Wrongheaded again. If the document says that planet X is "two fingers in front of the moon" on date DDD, that requires NO INTERPRETATION aside from figuring out what "two fingers" means and what DDD means. In most cases all experts, academic and amateur alike, agree on most such things. Where biased people like Furuli display their bias is in claiming that a "two fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated DDD is a worse fit than is a "six fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated EEE but which also says "two fingers". Anyone not blind can SEE that the "two fingers" display is better than the "six fingers" display. So when Furuli makes such claims, we KNOW he's lying.
Well you have nicely identified a problem so how does the layman proceed with this ?
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:Furuli found no such things. Rather, he fudged his judgment of "two fingers" versus "six fingers" to convince his readers of a lie. And most likely himself
Furuli is not a dishonest person and is not a liar.
30 minutes ago, AlanF said:Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.
All scholars have bias that is why one must test the evidence himself.
31 minutes ago, AlanF said:You can also say that the earth is Flat. So what? The evidence counts, not mere opinions.
Agreed
31 minutes ago, AlanF said:You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.
I rely on God's Word the Bible and its 70 years
scholar JW
-
Alan F
1 minute ago, AlanF said:Number One: Anyone with an intellectual level above about seven years old can learn these programs. If you can view a web page, you can view the display of an astro program.
Viewing is one thing, Understanding the thing viewed is another.
3 minutes ago, AlanF said:Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors.
True. Is it really necessary when it is the subject of much technical controversy?
4 minutes ago, AlanF said:Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur
Well Ann O Maly has repeatedly refused to identify her academic credentials when asked by me and Furuli has publicly identified his academic credentials.
6 minutes ago, AlanF said:Number Four: Scholarly experts have already examined the evidence and concluded that in the case of Furuli's disputed dates, 568 versus 588 for VAT 4956, 588 is wrong.
So what for that is simply their opinion.
7 minutes ago, AlanF said:This really is not rocket science. If I tell you that picture X displays a kangaroo two centimeters to the left of a wallaby, and then display picture X alongside picture Y which displays a kangaroo six centimeters to the left of a wallaby, would you have any difficulty figuring out which was X and which was Y? Donald Trumpolini might, but I doubt that you would. And if you would, you'd have no business participating in a discussion like this.
Then how is it that it is so complicated with many offering different views.
8 minutes ago, AlanF said:Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.
So you say.
9 minutes ago, AlanF said:Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.
Opinion not fact.
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.
Insults indicate that you have lost the argument.
10 minutes ago, AlanF said:Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".
Scholarship cannot be devoid of bias and it is the same with translation of the Bible whereupon Theology of the translator is always present. bias+scholarship=
-
JW Insider
3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:The 20-some page paper which you called "the VAT attempt" is well-referenced, well footnoted, and well-written (meaning it's relatively easy even for me to understand). And it is most definitely not her 45-page translation of Neugebauer and Weidner. If you hadn't checked academia.edu in a while, then this is a very understandable mistake. No big deal. After all, that translation was also related to VAT 4956. But when this minor mistake was pointed out to you, you didn't even have the honesty to say: 'Oh that's right, I thought you meant the other paper.' Instead you said:
Just for the record it was I who arranged for the first translation into English of that original paper in German. Leonard Tolhurst(who was taught by Siegfried H. Horn) of the SDA Seminary at Cooranbong, NSW assisted me with half of the cost of translation done by the Senior Lecturer in German at the University of Sydney some decades ago.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
Wrong. the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month this means that it would have been impossible for this to be the case if you postulate such a short time frame so the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.
scholar JW
SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)
in Topics
Posted
Alan F
Well answer the question. Show the postings
scholar JW