scholar JW
-
Posts
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by scholar JW
-
-
Alan F
47 minutes ago, AlanF said:stonishing! You actually managed to get to get this part right. Except that you missed the fact that Lewontin made the important point in his SA article that the appearance of design was just that -- a mere appearance, not reality. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be. The very first sentence in the article was this:
<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Alan F
16 hours ago, AlanF said:No, just very amused.
I am glad that I amuse you.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.
How can I increase the sins per post?
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.
Does not matter for I will always get their attention.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Been doing that for 15 years.
We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.
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
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:By now, anyone who has read the back and forth between "scholar JW" and myself and others, with understanding, can see that his main approach to debating is based on repeating false arguments and so forth that have been repeatedly debunked in this thread and on other forums years ago. He fails even the most basic tests of good scholarship by refusing to provide source references, demanding that others provide source references that have already been provided, out and out lying, ignoring arguments, misrepresenting debate opponents' arguments, misrepresenting source references including the Bible, arguing by straw men, red herrings, and misdirection, deliberately giving false arguments, and generally committing every scholarly sin known to man
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.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.
Bring it on.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Trolling now? Or just stupid?
The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for"
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.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".
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.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:How long were the Jews AT Babylon?
How long was the desolation of Judah?
Seventy years for both questions to the very month.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.
Yes please.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.
You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.
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?
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2
Not mostly, but definitely.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.
Well, heed it!
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.
Read Daniel 9: 2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey!
6 hours ago, AlanF said:The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.
Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:
<< . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.
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.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.
Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:
Not really and scholar loves a trap.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.
YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGEThere is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge?
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Nope. Just gobble-de-goop
6 hours ago, AlanF said:.
Not gobble-de-goop but history.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.
No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:ou know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.
Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.
So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.
'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:
AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.
Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone
AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."
So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".
You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.
No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold.
6 hours ago, AlanF said:So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this
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.
7 hours ago, AlanF said:Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.
Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive
Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.
7 hours ago, AlanF said:So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.
In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.
Trolling indeed
The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction.
7 hours ago, AlanF said:'ve told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.
Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use.
7 hours ago, AlanF said:I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!
Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does.
7 hours ago, AlanF said:Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.
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
-
JW Insider
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:Anyone who can read can learn exactly what qualifies one as a "scholar." You don't have to be a scholar to know what qualifies a person. I think that even you yourself probably know what qualifies one to be a scholar.
Indeed
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:Yes, in previous topics, I've already explained the difficulties I go through from the perspective of what I can and can't teach in the congregational setting. I don't get into trouble in the congregation, but it would be very easy for this to happen, and a few people are well aware of my conscientious stance on a couple of subjects. Naturally, I don't consider my views to be "apostate," as they are based on prayer, study, conscience, the Bible, and a desire to be honest in all things. I probably would only be aware of these differences between the Bible view and the Wathtower's view because several persons in the Writing Department and even a couple people on the Governing Body were helpful and instrumental in pointing out some of these things to me while I was at Bethel. Based on their own example and recommendations, I held back from speaking about the wonderful things I was learning, and it was not until just the last few years that I realized I should not hold bak due to fear of men, fear of loss of position, or attachment to traditions. I still think that discussing such things in a congregational setting could be damaging to unsuspecting and unwary ones, but, like you, I find persons in this type of online environment to be much better prepared for controversial subjects and I find it to be a fairly good venue to be always ready to make a defense and let our reasonableness be known to all.
You have explained your position.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:hat would be nice. Any idea of a time frame for mentioning these "in due course"?
I am going to make a brief summary of facts now.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:Only to the extent necessary to keep strict watch over my teaching, and thereby keep a clean conscience:
You will be held to that.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:I've said all I need to say about your own scholarly issues, but I can see you know nothing about mine.
I don't have any scholarly issues and your posts indicate a lack of research.
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:I hope so. I'd sure hate to see a rehash of the gibberish I've already seen on this subject.
You should talk to Alan F about gibberish.
scholar JW emeritus
-
JW Insider
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:There is absolutely no doubt that you are, by definition, a troll. Repeatedly calling yourself a "scholar" while simultaneously showing a complete disregard for scholarship, and an unwillingness to provide anything of any scholarly value is, in itself, a provocation. For example, going onto sites where non-JWs and ex-JWs frequent, and where you repeatedly refer to "celebrated WT scholars" can have only one purpose, especially if you have also gone to some lengths elsewhere to show why these same scholars have supposedly remained anonymous specifically so that, as they claim, they will not become "celebrated" or "celebrities" in any way.
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.
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:Strange, maybe, but hardly mysterious to me.
Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow!
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:hat makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "that really annoys(?) our critics." At any rate, you didn't stump anyone, and I'm sure I have now completed all the "Jeremiah 29:10" discussions on the previously referenced forum where you are (or were) involved. In fact, it is easy to show you made many false statements, made many logical fallacies, acted like the opposite of a scholar, indicated that you had not read or had not comprehended any sources that anyone was quoting, made the flimsiest of excuses, asked other people to do more work when they had already demolished your argument, showed yourself unwilling to present any information that would have been easy for you to see or find, would evade instead of answering questions, or claim you had proven a point by merely asserting that another person was wrong. I could go on and on. Your posts read like a parody of scholarship.
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.
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:As you already admitted: it will remain your considered opinion until the Watch Tower publications tell us to consider another one. Obviously, that will instantly become your new "considered" opinion.
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?
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:You could not begin to write a scholarly paper with the complete lack (or even disdain) of scholarship that you have shown. It doesn't matter how tempered and unemotional it is; it would need more than just your empty claims that you are right to accept an interpretation based on little to no evidence and that everyone else is wrong to accept an understanding based on most or even all the best evidence.
You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one.
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:That's a much better view. Although I linked to the entire context and merely included a statement you made just in front of your Jeremiah 29:10 quote and a statement from just after that Jeremiah 29:10 quote. I added your own context specifically so that you couldn't honestly make a claim that it was out of context. But you did anyway. Feel free to explain, and I hope your explanation is NOT simply that everything you have ever said has been out of context.
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!
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:Since it was an observation that explains so much to anyone who might find you "mysterious" I thought it worth mentioning. But I won't make any more claims about what you have said elsewhere. You may have the last word in your own defense if you wish, and I will definitely attempt to only respond to the specifics of any claims you have made here. I'm happy to look at any good, sound scholarship related to the points of this topic.
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
-
JW Insider
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:I know it's not fair to call you dishonest here just because you have been dishonest on other forums. And I am not doing that. You have already left a trail of dishonesty here, too. But I'm still marveling at how you appear to have learned nothing in the 13 years since that particular topic was discussed in such detail. Your method has not changed either. Much more scholarly persons than you summarized your own method there so perfectly by saying things like this about you:
I am not into dishonesty which as an insult is easily thrown around by those who resist sound argument, provide no evidence for their claims and are unable to accept opposing views. I discussed Jer. 29:10 many times on another forum many years ago and I stated my opinion on the matter. I am not concerned about the criticism of others but what what I am interested in is the pursuit of scholarship especially in the field of Chronology. Further, I am not a Troll but the real deal. Scholar, however is mysterious I grant you that!
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:I notice that you claim above in your discussion with AlanF that you have always argued undogmatically for a range of meaning for Jeremiah 29:10. You have an odd method of doing this which involves 2 steps. Your argument is that, yes, there is a range of meanings in the lexicon, but then you move on to arguing that "therefore" the NWT is absolutely right in the meaning they give it in the context of Jeremiah 29:10. It's a simple assertion until you are pressed to add some evidence, and then you just literally make stuff up.
The matter is simple. Jer. 29;10 with its distinct preposition has a range of meanings and it is up to the translator to decide which meaning is to be used. For me, I agree with 'at' but I am equally comfortable with 'for'. No problem but that really ignores our critics because scholar has stumped them. The said scholar has provided reasons for his acceptance of either word not only on this forum but on the other many years ago.
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:You try to play this one out of both sides of your mouth however. You claim that others cannot be dogmatic, but then go on to dogmatically claim that this means that only the NWT here is correct. Just as you already said on a forum 12 years ago: (Last quote of yours from another forum, I promise.)
- There is no need to offer an alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is incomplete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme. Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of those exiles living in Babylon up until their release. . . . There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years based upon the Bible.
No. I simply appeal to facts and reason. There is no room for dogmatism in Chronology but if my language is considered to be dogmatic then I withdraw that comment.My position on the seventy years as outlined is correct and remains my considered opinion if that sounds dogmatic then it should not be taken as such but simply a considered or firm opinion. I am certainly not going to pander niceties or engage in girly talk so as not to offend others all because i have formed a view. What I write here is not what I would write in a scholarly paper where the language must be tempered and unemotional.
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:That is such a good summary you made of your own views: There is no need to offer an alternative to the WT view unless the celebrated WT scholars devise a new scheme for you. Jeremiah 29:10 is accurate in the NWT. And then, most dogmatically of all, "There are no other views other than that of the celebrated WT scholars. . .
There is always a need for alternate views and that is what drives scholarship forward and your above quote is out of context.
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds.
Not interested in your silly observation for I care nought for the opinions of others but only good, sound scholarship.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
23 hours ago, AlanF said:I've made very few bald assertions. Most assertions are accompanied by detailed explanations or source references. You have yet to debunk any of them -- and your bald assertions are not debunking.
All that you post is simply assertions, without evidence with no source references unless scholar cites an authority.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:I agree that you're knowledgeable enough that your denial of facts is nothing but lying.
More excuses!
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. You can find precious few supporters of the WTS "explanation" about this. You have yet to cite a single source reference.
Well what date then figures in the literature? Not 538 but 537.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Given the above, try answering the questions again:
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
Lewontin's article was correctly quoted by the Creation book. Lewontin made an admission picked up by the Creation book.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Totally wrong. Neither Lewontin nor Darwin made any such "admission". You cannot produce any quotations to support your claim.
Totally false. Lewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer" and Darwin did the same in the last paragraph of his Origin wherein he refers to the "Creator".
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. As I've said several times now, I've consulted many commentaries and other reference works. None contain anything related to my "thesis"; therefore there is nothing to report.
In short, you have done no such thing for if you had you would have said something.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:I've gone over this in detail several times now. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand it?
There is nothing to understand for it is bunkum.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:No, because the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537/536 BCE, and the 2nd month of that year was Iyyar of 537 -- not 536. But I already told you this.
That depends on how you count the Cyrus' second year. Was it from Spring or Autumn? Further, Ezra makes no such mention of the 2nd year of Cyrus but only the 2nd year after they came to the house of the true God. Biiiig difference!!!
23 hours ago, AlanF said:For one thing, it shows your gross hypocrisy in demanding peer review from your opponents, but excusing Mommy Watch Tower for not having peer review.
WT literature does not require a peer review but your novelty does.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:The most accurate? Don't make readers laugh. It's reasonably accurate most of the time, but also contains deliberate mistranslations when doctrinal expediency required Fred Franz to do it.
NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references
Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.
You are making me warm and fuzzy.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Rather, you've ignored it.
Baloney, Repost your sources.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Only for 537. I consider people who advocate any year but 538 or 537 as crackpots, not because they choose that year, but because they choose so many other dates at odds with accepted scholarship
Are SDA scholars crackpots? The only accepted scholarship favors 537 and not 538.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:More meaningless verbiage.
Meaningless to you but not so for Ezra.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:I've told you repeatedly: the basics are already done and available online. You know where.
You have to go back to basics and get such right.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:'m sure it will be of similar quality to what you normally produce.
I suggest you get help with your English. It's in no way the quality needed for a real scholarly paper. Even WTS writers would reject it on that basis alone.
And I have no doubt that your paper will be peer reviewed by real scholars
It will be far better not just in content but also in style. You would not know what constitutes a scholarly paper as you have never written one and yes it will be peer reviewed.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:Your statement at the top of the quote above contains English words but is not an English sentence. Not a good sign for your paper.
I do not bother to edit my posts. In writing a scholarly paper a number of drafts are usually necessary and then proof read which is a common practice with all authors and scholars.
23 hours ago, AlanF said:More nonsensical gobble-de-goop. Try answering the questions.
Try answering my questions to you.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Since the date of the Return cannot be established directly, via Bible statements alone or via secular history alone, an indirect approach is necessary. Combining Ezra and Josephus is a valid indirect approach, and the combination directly provides the date of the Return -- 538 BCE.
So can I take this as an admission that some speculation or assumptions are necessary in order to posit a date for the Return? Combining Ezra and Josephus can be tricky because they do not share a common chronological datum which of itself negates 538.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:What sentences above do you disagree with?
The first one.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:A meaningless generality. You're just full of them!
Not so.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Already done many times. See the parts of my posts that you ignored.
I ignore nothing. More substance is required from you.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Since I've already done this, and you have not argued your case -- bald negative assertions are not arguments -- the onus is on you.
Your argument is sloppy without scholarship. Yes the onus is on me and I will respond with my paper.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.
You have already admitted to some speculation.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:already explained this to you: the difference between 11 months for a 538 Return and 20 months for a 537 Return is immaterial: both 11 and 20 months are more than sufficient preparation time.
There can be no 11 months for 538 nor can there be no 20 months for 537 either. Such assumptions are simply nonsense.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Yet another meaningless generality.
Not to me.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Sure. And you'll duly reject it for the good reason that he favors a 533 Return
His paper is a significant piece of scholarship that should not be ignored. I will not ignore it.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:I've been saying this in this entire thread. Having memory problems again?
No. Your theory about extra months for journey preparation is nonsense for Ezra gives no account of this historically or theologically. It fails on these two grounds.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Of course they wouldn't have known for certain! So what? I already brought that out. The point here is deciding what are the maximum and minimum times available for preparation, and then arguing for what is the most likely. If we had definite information, none of this would have to be considered.
Wow! What an admission. Let us deal with facts and not too much speculation which has little place in Chronology. You are not writing fiction are you Alan?
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Wrong. They would have had to wait for an official decree to DEPART, but not to prepare. After all, Daniel was among the highest officials in the Empire, and would have done all he could to prepare his people for the Return that he knew was inevitable.
No. Ezra's account gives no room for such fiction for it deals with reality and that began with an official Decree which only then gave the Jews reason for prep. and departure. Daniel was rather old at that time and his role is totally absent having nothing to do with the Return. Next, you will have convinced yourself that Daniel led the Exiles back as a mighty Prince.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:I already told you: Darius is irrelevant, because we know Cyrus' years of rule.
Yes we know of Cyrus but we also know something of Darius' reign according to Daniel.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:It's a false statement, and it has no relation to what I said. Another red herring
It is you who raised it.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:till speculation, unless there are specific statements in the Bible or secular sources that pinpoint the date.
Oh yeah, we already have those by combining Ezra and Josephus.
Be careful in combining Ezra with Josephus.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:You're repeating yourself. And I've already explained in some detail why these passages are exactly in harmony with my "thesis". You have not, and you can not, show different.
I have debunked your thesis.
On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:Suuuure. But you should submit part of your personal "thesis" to this forum for a sort of peer review, just as I have. After all, if it can't stand the scrutiny of a handful of knowledgeable amateurs, it certainly won't stand up to that of peer-reviewing scholars.
But no one will be holding their breath. After all, after nearly a dozen years, you still can't produce a simple timeline of a 537 Return. Nor can you read and understand slightly technical literature, such as is required to understand the Creation book's misrepresentation of a Scientific American article.
My paper will not be released in part but in full and will not be posted on this forum but will be available upon request.
I am sure that it will not be of interest to you as you have already noted that I have not produced a 537 timeline which incidentally neither have you and that my comprehension skills are rather lacking because I do not share your view of the alleged misrepresentation of the SA article in the Creation book.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.
Your point? The writer makes his or her point and the reader will react accordingly to his/her comprehension or emotions-making own interpretations.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wron
Nope, have always presented both views in the main,
15 hours ago, AlanF said:"Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.
Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.
The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'. The matter is open to the opinion of the translator and interpretation of the 70 years so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.
No. It does not for the simple reason that the 70 years was also tied to the land and that remained desolate until the Return thus ending the 70 years or fulfilling the period. This means that all of the conditions of the 70 years had to be met for there are three: Servitude-Exile- Desolation. Yu got it?
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.
The Bible says so and I have argued accordingly.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes but the problem for critics is how to interpret the seventy years not being able to distinguish the Fall of Babylon and the actual Return which were two distinct events, the former brought the 70 years to its conclusion with the Return as the actual end or 'fulfillment' of the period.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.
However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.
Daniel was not known for ambiguity for he presents a precise history and chronology. He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events. He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment, the desolations of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon. In ch. 5 he describes the end of Babylon and in combination with the prophecies of Jeremiah later in ch.9 describes the end of the 70 years linked not to Babylon but to Jerusalem thus ending later with the Return.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.
This statement is meaningless.
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Jer. 52:28-30 clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar's forces took 3,023 exiles in his 7th year (597), 832 in his 18th year, and 745 in his 23rd year. Which number do you conclude is the largest?
2 Kings 24:14 states that 10,000 exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (7th by Jer. 52 counting):
<< He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land. >>
But only a relative few were taken in 587 in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th by Jer. 52 counting), according to 2 Kings 25:11:
<< Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. >>Do you actually believe the Bible, Neil?
You have the dates wrong but I accept the narrative as quoted as scholar believes the Bible. Do you?
15 hours ago, AlanF said:Except that your entire presentation is an attempt to deceive naive readers into thinking that "le" is used to refer to Babylon, but it is not, except in Jer. 29:10. You are a deliberate deceiver, Neil.
Nope for scholar works with facts. The 'le' prefixed to Babylon can mean either 'for' or 'at' and both can be exegetically accounted for as I have explained.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?
If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.
Nope. The 70 years ended with the Return in 537 brought to close with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Is that clear?
16 hours ago, AlanF said:More gobble-de-goop.
No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".
No, 'these nations' in my opinion were non-Jews but of those of surrounding nations.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah
The 70 years were for Judah not Babylon but they were in servitude to Babylon, the 70 years was fulfilled whilst in Babylon but actually ended at their Return.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25)
We may have the same chronology but the interpretation is different.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.
It is you who has introduced the bogus 70 years plus not scholar.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.
Yep! So sayeth the fool.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.If that is the case why are there translations that have 'at' rather than 'for'? The greatest translation ever, NWT says differently.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Prove it by citing source references.
Will do later.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.
Your post are long and stuff gets lost so repost for my attention.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.
So when something does not suit you or your argument you dismiss such facts as 'hyperbole' because it conflicts with your Poppa's hypothesis.
16 hours ago, AlanF said:Good! Then you'll approve of the many debunkings you're going to continue to experience.
And of course, you're really bad at debunking, because you confuse bald denials and assertions with real arguments.
I say bring it on.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.
But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment
A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?
Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.
"John is AT the grocery store."
"John is FOR the grocery store."
Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.
I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store
Yes indeed both have different meanings. No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:
<< “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>
The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.
Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.
The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support. The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home which proves the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years. The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years. The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired. In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).
The 70 years ended at Judah. There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.
No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.
Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Yes, everyone knows that.
That is reassuring.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.
Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. Even the WTS, in the "Isaiah" book, admits that Tyre and other nations did not serve for 70 years.
And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.
Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah. Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.
The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign. Babylon lost its power in 539 BCE as the Bible attests.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:You're contradicting yoursel
No. Read more carefully what I have written.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date
Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years. But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.
Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims
No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon
Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?
There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
The period was a full 70 years with zero months.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Again, is it 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
See above!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources
Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Quite the contrary.
No.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.
The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Utter nonsense. Most modern scholars accept the basics, as stated above
Scholars do not accept that the land was totally devastated as described in the bible regarding it as a myth.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:he Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Further already-debunked nonsense from Neil deleted.
Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
27 minutes ago, AlanF said:Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions.
You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.
29 minutes ago, AlanF said:Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.
Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar. Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.
31 minutes ago, AlanF said:o. You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:
1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine
I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman. Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.
37 minutes ago, AlanF said:How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.
You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals. This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation. Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology
So what? It says something when the WTS can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world but also the most accurate Bible Chronology based on sound biblical scholarship.
47 minutes ago, AlanF said:hat has all been done since, as you point out, 200
You have had plenty of time to write up a decent article on the subject so hop to it!
48 minutes ago, AlanF said:f course I do. You've shown thousands of times that you reject anything that contradicts WTS Tradition
I am an independent thinker otherwise we would not be having this discussion.
49 minutes ago, AlanF said:Tell that to "celebrated WTS scholars". Hypocrite!
Peer review Alan, Peer review.
55 minutes ago, AlanF said:Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this.
Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder, if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.
I have not seen such a list. If there is one then that is fine but have you also provided a list for 537, 536 BCE?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Bald assertion. Try an argument for once
Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment. If you believe that there is need for an argument then provide it with scholarship. I wish to inform you that I am in the process of writing a scholarly paper on this subject and I will be examining all aspects of the Return:
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Decree of Cyrus
Ezra 1;1-2; 3:1; 3:8; Josephus
537 Methodology
538 Methodology
536 Methodology
Conclusion
Bibliography
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Meaningless gobble-de-goop
You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.
Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.
Your statement is more gobble-de-goo
I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.
Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:More contentless gobble-de-goop.
Simply an observation.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.
Nonsense. Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return. You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return' and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I have. Your bald assertions to the contrary are mere blowing wind.
You have not demonstrated careful background reading or research depth so it is you that is 'blowing in the wind'.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking. Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:'ve already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.
Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.
No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty. At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:
According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation.Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree. There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense. They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2. Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.
It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history. Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery
The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.
Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked
I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Indeed it is. And the opinion of every JW critic you've gone up against.
Fine with me because I like to play, HARD!!!!
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
13 hours ago, AlanF said:Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
"70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.
"70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.
'Le' the Hebrew preposition can have either meaning and in the case of Jer.29:10 both contextually and logically.
70 years at Babylon simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years. which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles. Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.
70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves. Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve, be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE
14 hours ago, AlanF said:The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.
An exaggeration to boot! It is simply a direct reference to Dan.9:2 and supports all of the other Quotes from the Chronicler and Jer. 25:11-12.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.
WT scholars interpret the 70 years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile in and for Babylon. Such a holistic interpretation of all of the 70 year corpus is the only logical, compatible view that is consistent with biblical history. The 70 years was indeed a precise length period running from the Fall in 607 until the Fall in the Return-right down to the very day and month. Jehovah God is indeed the Great Timekeeper!. You need to reset your watch.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".
Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon' for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters. It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus. In short, scholars cannot believe that such an event could have occurred thus leading to the 'Myth of the Empty land' hypothesis first developed by Hans Barstad in 1996.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Logically impossible, and biblically and historically wrong.
Logically possible, biblically and historically correct.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:he fall was 587/586 as all modern scholars agree.
Scholars cannot agree as to the precise date. WT scholars have determined precisely 607 BCE
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Standard WTS speculation based on handwaving. Real evidence indicates 538 for the Return.
WT scholars have provided evidence based on Ezra's account that 537 BCE is the only date for the Return. The date 538 is rejected by scholarship and is impossible.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong, as shown above
Correct, as shown above in my rebuttal.
14 hours ago, AlanF said:Finally, one thing more or less right, even though stated in language close to gobble-de-goop.
Glad to have an admission. Alan does not like to be corrected or to think' outside the square'
scholar JW emeritus
-
JW Insider
It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning. Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall and ending in 537 BCE with the Return. Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.
scholar JW
-
Alan F
54 minutes ago, AlanF said:This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.
Grandstanding again, Alan?
55 minutes ago, AlanF said:And I will hold you to yours
Good. Bring it on.
56 minutes ago, AlanF said:Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
No. Simply affirming the obvious, giving credit where credit is due.
58 minutes ago, AlanF said:You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
Simply assertion. You do not like it when someone else goes 'toe to toe' with you.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.
No. Just a simple recognition that I have unlike yourself, have paid close attention to SDA scholarship
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogu
Fine. Bring it on. I must remind you that this is SDA scholarship!
1 hour ago, AlanF said:< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>
So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.
You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.
If you wish to discuss 'these nations' then let us proceed..Methodology of whatever type can be valid and even Rodger Young used a methodology based on Decision Analysis in order to resolve the 586/7 debate. WT scholars have always had a well-defined methodology and this stated in our publications.for it nicely harmonizes both the scriptural and secular data.in a well defined linear argument.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.
No it does not. It does not need to misrepresent it because it does not wholly rely on it but rather relies on the biblical evidence.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples
How can I acknowledge something that does not exist?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Do you want me to list them again?
Yes, Please for scholar loves lists.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.
I have and do not ignore anything because I value and respect all of the Bible.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship
Indeed, Is it not wonderful that the world's best scholarship has been debunked by WT Chronology. That's irony
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
No. It is wrong because it contradicts the many plain statements of the seventy years.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"
Nonsense. You would not what a critical commentary is. Did you consult such commentaries when devising your 538 thesis?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Rubbish. List those texts that we have ignored.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.
Perhaps but that does not mean that such interpretations are correct. An argument based on authority is fallacious. Far better to base interpretation on God's Word rather than the opinions of men.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.
Both schemes have their own merits. WT scholars have developed a Bible based Chronology and it is a 'stand-alone' Chronology.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
It seems this point eludes you so it comes down to authenticity or credibility. Our Chronology works because it makes historical sense of OT history going back to Adam. In short, it works!
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".
No, with the exception of your novelty you have provided no evidence just a rehash of COJ.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence
I do believe that I put some words down on paper about your novelty.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
No I do not think so but if that is your opinion then that is fine. Remember it took COJ, 400 pages to go through such a fine piece of long-argued scholarship.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.
But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else
Yes it must be supported by good evidence and I find that in our 537 thesis and you have some good evidence in your 538 thesis but both have assumptions or speculation.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.
No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times
Yes you have some evidence for your theory but so do we. WT scholars have published much on this subject going as far back as 1949 and have explained the evidence and assumptions required to arrive at a date for the Return.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work
Correct and not too early either.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.
Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.
False, Josephus only discusses the foundations of the Temple in Cyrus' second year not the Return. The calculation is false because the beginning of that year is not established. Did Josephus count from the Spring or the Fall?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.
I know and I accept that harsh reality so scholar just plods along.No we both do not agree that 538 could be the year of the Return for that was impossible and yes Ezra did give a specific year but only the month of the Return. Common sense proves on the facts as given Ezra the only possible year must have been 537.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?
The only scenario that we mutually agreed excluded the nature, timing of events of Cyrus' Decree and was only limited to the preparations and the journey.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . . 1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8 . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||Scholar loves pretty pictures, charts and diagrams. What is your point?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Correct, but irrelevant to this point
No for it is a very relevant historical factor when you consider Ezra 2:7-3:1.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.
You have no basis for combining Ezra with Josephus because although the subject is similar the time factors are different thus both wrote from a different perspective. Such texts do not establish the year of the Return for this can only be established from Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. The disqualifying assumption relates to the content of Ezra 1:1-3:1 which proves the impossibility of all events occurring in 12 months of Cyrus' first year.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Which I debunked, and you ignored
Scholar has debunked for he is the great debunker.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words
I have already highlighted the three major problems with your thesis.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.Does it matter whether they are stated or not for the reader using discernment can identify such as is also indicated in our explanation of the Return in our publications over many years.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.
Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:
1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
1. Yes
2. Yes
Did I pass?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:'ve already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?
Simple: Literature Review indicating the scope and depth of your research and whether you have consulted Journals and views from Bible Commentaries on Ezra relating to Ezra 3;1 and 3:8 inclusive and Ezra 1;1-3:1 inclusive.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:False, as I've shown above and several other times
Are you really sure?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."Scholarship means what has been published within the worldwide community of biblical scholars and presented in a academic format. Research means the accessing of such published materials.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw ma
That is your problem for it is based on its own merits. It has to be tested alongside other competing views and established facts, clearly identifying any underlying assumptions. You do not know what I will think but you need to do more work, get it peer reviewed.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this
False. Do the research! You really cannot be taken seriously.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims
Why should I do your work for you. Are you lazy?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing
Well you have now gained admittance into the club of scholars engaging in speculation. Welcome.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!
At least 537 is in the scholarly literature whereas 538 is missing in action.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple. Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text. Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return. It is up to you to prove any connection for I can disprove your claim by simply saying 'what does the text actually say'.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.No it is not decisive at all and that is your problem for one must have a degree of certainty as to which calendrical method Ezra used throughout his book so it when assigning a Chronology to Ezra one has to adopt a certain methodology. You need to display an awareness of the issues raised. WT scholars have approached the Chronology quite differently to not so much Thiele but his contemporary, Siegfried Horn. These matters are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion and I am not a Chronologist so lack some competence in this area.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.
In a later post I said:
<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>
Within the confines of year 538 or 537 then the Return would be possible but this excludes all of the other circumstances that occurred prior to their four month journey which makes on year far more likely than the other. The timing and nature of the Decree with its proclamation renders 538 impossible as also noted by Steinmann with regard not to the date but to the substance of things.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:So what?
Well this is another factor that gives one extra month for the returnees in order to make the journey and to be nicely resettled in their cities or homes so it takes the rush out of things and makes it comfortable for the oldies and the young-uns.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Obviously.
You should not associate with dummies otherwise it may rub off.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
Perhaps I am already there because of my human failures. The truth of an argument is not based on a personality or group but rather should be based on following the evidence where it leads and unfortunately it leads directly to 607 BCE.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
Well the matter of the zero year is troubling to you but I simply wave my hands and it disappears in the pursuit of sound biblical scholarship that began in 1944. No problem!
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.
It seems you give me no credit at all.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it
All that I am requesting of you is to improve, raise the bar, dress it up a little.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:What I've done is already online in various forums.
True, but it lacks scholarship, displays no research and is simply an opinion-a novelty.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.
Have not WT scholars inferred this?
3 hours ago, AlanF said:As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70 years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
The problem lies in the equating an expectation with actual time of preparation and the unknowing precisely when Cyrus' decree would be promulgated. Such a scenario sounds good on paper but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra and it these facts that must take priority when assigning a precise date for the Return. Meanderings are helpful but have little place in Chronology. One could argue that with such tumultuous events after Babylon's Fall the last thing on the minds of the Jewish exile was a sudden trip home.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
I would if I could
3 hours ago, AlanF said:Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
At least I am aware of such.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.
That is your opinion
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.
Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.
I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming
It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:rue in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth
No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus
WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme
We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.
The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence
Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.
'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.
No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible
Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK
1 hour ago, AlanF said:What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said
I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.
Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.
My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation
A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.
Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL
I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS
This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.
Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.
Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus
Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.
True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.
My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:he connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid
Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?
We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academi
So this fact should temper your criticism.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?
Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?
I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:COJ is ill and not writing any more.
Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishones
Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers
Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient
Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot
I agree so let us crank up the scholarship!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:More meaningless and irrelevant generalities
Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results
I would if I could.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:lready done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website
No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:ry reading the previous posts.
I have.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975
You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled from both sides.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it
Opinion not fact
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:n a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make
Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.
Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.
There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.
There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted
Now this is a more refreshing attitude. Chronology requires an open mind and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply showing.stupidity and ignorance. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.
Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.
Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:
An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis. You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:
<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>
Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.
Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book. You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!
1 hour ago, AlanF said:And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims
You have not given me a full set of evidence but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;
1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?
2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.
3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.
You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.
Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.
Peer review is reserved only for those in academia and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out
I have many times. See my above list of three.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.
You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.
Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts. SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Already done
Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.
I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies
JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
21 minutes ago, AlanF said:I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Have you taken flight, Alan? You do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say. You preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver. I have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis, it lacks peer review, based on assumptions and uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research. In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.
The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case.
scholar JW emeritus
University of Sydney
-
JW Insider
12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:What is the opposite of a scholar?
A fool.
scholar JW emeritus
-
Alan F
1 hour ago, AlanF said:LOL! You challenge me, and then deny you challenged me, because you think that denial is a defense.
We both challenge each other.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Still lying. The evidence is in. 587 BCE is the date. Period
Sorry, the overwhelming evidence demands 607 BCE . Period.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Still lying. Ezra and Josephus together pin it to 538. Period
Nonsense, Scholars favour 537 BCE. Your date of 538 BCE is impossible.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:The end date is pegged by Jeremiah and Daniel: 539 BCE. Period.
The start date is fuzzy because the Bible itself does not define it.
Remember that speculations by you and Mommy Watch Tower do not define what the Bible does not
The end date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel, and Josephus.
The start date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Josephus.
Your Daddy, COJ has developed a theory that does not honour the Bible as God's Word. It is nice to see that your start date is fuzzy just as the said scholar has maintained for sometime.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Complete gibberish. You always resort to this when you know you've lost the battle.
Methodology is not gibberish for it is the basis of both Thiele and Young's research.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:That's Rodger Young's area, and I've simply checked that he made solid, biblical and secular arguments.
You've done no such thing, and you don't even claim you have.
I can well imagine how thorough your checking was. I have done no such thing because I simply believe that Young is totally wrong in regards to the precise date for the Fall.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I already told you several times: for the world of scholarship to come up to speed on almost anything takes a long time.
But that's not the point. The point is that Rodger Young's arguments are demonstrably correct. And neither you, nor "celebrated WT scholars", nor anyone else I'm aware of, have proved his arguments wrong.
So now you use such delay as an excuse but it simply does not wash for it does not explain the continued debate in scholarship regarding 58/587 BCE. How can Young's arguments be demonstrably correct when it conflicts with the plain statements regarding the seventy years and his thesis about 587 has not been universally accepted?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Riiiight. Just like Mommy Watch Tower had "the generation of 1914" tied up nice and tidy in the 1970s. And the 1980s. And then changed everything in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s
That is simply a 'red herring'. Are you changing the subject Alan?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Not so far as I can see. What we do see is various current authors quoting outdated material, simply because there is so much outdated material out there that it takes a long time for people to realize it's outdated and come up to speed on the new stuff.
It's like how some people still use the outdated picture of an atom as a sort of miniature solar system, with a central nucleus and electrons spinning around in their orbits. But this picture was abandoned by physicists in the 1920s. Yet now, almost 100 years later, a lot of the public still hasn't got it right
In relation to Chronology, history of its development is instructive for it makes us cautious and humble. A consideration of older materials can be instructive for one cannot know where one is going unless he knows where he has been.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I'm trying, so far partly unsuccessfully, to move on to more interesting things. When people like you show up, I just can't help mysel
That is commendable. You should be pleased that scholar is around to push you a bit.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Back to your standard circular argument
I would not have thought that our argument for the seventy years is circular for it works nicely as a linear model.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Wrong. Both the Bible and secular history agree that the 70 years ended with the overthrow of Babylon in October, 539 BCE. The book of Daniel -- which you obviously reject -- is quite clear on this, and so is Jeremiah
That is impossible because the seventy years were still continuing right up to the first year of Darius who reigned post 539 BCE- Daniel 9:1,2; Jeremiah 25:11,12.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Nonsense. If my bio shows anything, it's that I respect only evidence, and not authority.
Only a reprehensible, pathological liar like you could turn that on its head without blushing.
Reading your bio does not give me confidence that you respect evidence perhaps evidence like beauty lies with the mind of the beholder. If I am truly a liar then why do you continue to dance with me?
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Except, of course, that we've seen little from you of methodology and valid interpretation -- all you can manage is "Mommy says so!"
Do you want me to write a book or publish a thesis on WT Chronology? I have thought about it or even a scholarly article on the 'seventy years'. Perhaps one day, who knows!
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Mostly on Internet forums
Likewise.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:I don't need to. The evidence is simple and speaks for itself. And I've seen scholars point out the same thing
Quote the scholars that have pointed out the same thing. Name them.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Again, Josephus and Ezra alone validate what I've said. You have yet to offer a single valid objection. All you manage is pure denial. Mommy has taught you well
Nonsense. Ezra and Josephus simply describe when the Temple foundation was laid from a different perspective and different dating/regnal formula.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Sigh. Repeating defeated arguments will not make them true
Sigh. The presence of a closed mind here at work.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:Lying by omission yet again. Even Mommy Watch Tower acknowledges that Cyrus' 2nd year ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE through the end of Adar, 536 BCE, by Babylonian-style dating. And we all agree that the Return occurred in Tishri, 538 or 537 BCE, which means that the FIRST year of the Return ended immediately before Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE. Thus the SECOND year of their return ran from Tishri 1, 538 or 537 BCE until immediately before Tishri 1 of 537 or 536 BCE. Thus the 2nd month (always numbered with Nisan = 1) was Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE. But Iyyar of 536 comes in the THIRD year of the Return, and Iyyar of 537 comes in the SECOND year of the Return, so a claim of Iyyar of 536 contradicts Ezra. Therefore you cannot have an objection, since my "thesis" meets the Biblical and secular criteria.
No, the Return occurred before Tishri 1, 537 BCE which would have been in the Cyrus' 2nd year if we use spring to spring dating or in his first year if we use the fall to fall dating system. The second month wherein the Temple foundation was laid was in the year following which would have been in 536 BCE. Your use of a second or third year of the Return is rather ambiguous because it must be established first, the precise year in which the Return occurred then from this one can then proceed with interpreting Ezra 3:8 and the text from Josephus.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:If you disagree with the above, then see if you can come up with your own timetable for these events. I.e., exactly when was the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return, and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus, and how do they all fit together?
My timetable is what has been published in our literature from 1949, The second month of the 2nd year of the Return is not mentioned by Ezra nor is the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus. You are simply deluding yourself, concocting a fiction without any scholarly support.
SDA scholars have laboured over this matter since 1953 and they have determined that 536 is the date with all of their scholarship to boot so they would not missed your nonsense.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Exactly. Since Ezra clearly indicates that by the FIRST month of the year after the Return, namely Tishri (which is counted as month 7 of the Jewish calendar year), the Jews were "in their cities", the previous month Elul must have been in the FIRST year of the Return. Thus, because the Jews were in their cities by Tishri, that was in the SECOND year of the Return. And the 2nd month of that calendar year, using Jewish month counting, was seven months later, namely, Iyyar of the following calendar year. Hence we again arrive at Iyyar of 537 or 536 BCE, and since 536 is in the THIRD year of the Return, that dating is impossible because it contradicts Ezra
Your reference to a 'first year of the Return' or a second year of the Return is misleading for the first year of their Return could just as easily have begun in Tishri 1, 537 BCE but Ezra does not use this terminology nor is it clear what calendar he used. You assume that Ezra used the Fall to Fall system and base your opinion on that method but is this wise. Scholarship remains uncertain about this subject but WT scholars have selected much simpler methodology which harmonizes with Ezra's stated data thus fixing the seventh month, 537 BCE for the Return.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:I do not, and I proved this to you years ago. See above. Furthermore, even if Josephus used Jewish Tishri-Tishri dating rather than Nisan-Nisan dating, my scenario still works. Diagram it on paper and you'll see
You have to very careful with these issues of Calendation because scholars have not proved the matter. The Chronology of Ezra is very problematic and many of the issues raised center on what calendar Ezra used. A much simpler methodology must be sought. A diagram on paper can simply be a contrivance, designed to conform to some view or opinion based on certain assumptions.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Gobble-de-goop. Produce a diagram, just as I did years ago, and let's see what you come up with
Years ago you produced a chart purporting to prove absolutely 538 for the Return but again it was based on assumptions, so-called facts without evidence such as stating the precise month of Cyrus's decree and the exact month of their Return. This is simply plain and utter nonsense. What is your specific objection to the methodology that WT scholars have used in their publications? What is wrong with 537 BCE and how come COJ has not attended to this matter properly?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Nope. The Watch Tower completely ignores this data, so far as I remember. Can't you even count? If Jerusalem's fall were in 607, the Temple would be unobscured 50 years later in 557 BCE. But not even the Watch Tower claims that. But a fall in 587 directly yields 537, consistent with my thesis and contradicting Watch Tower claims.
Nonsense. You claim to have 'excellent reading and comprehension skills' so do just that. Josephus simply states that the Temple lay in obscurity for fifty years' What did he mean? Could he have meant that he was simply making an observation about the condition of the Temple within his previously and often stated 'seventy years' about the Temple and the Land? Could not this also be a valid interpretation considering his previous comments?
2 hours ago, AlanF said:osephus' mention of 70 years has been a vexing problem for scholars for a long time. There are two points of interest that I can remember. First, after close to 700 years from the fall of Jerusalem, the notion of "70 years of captivity" seems to have taken on legendary status, and its exact meaning was lost. Josephus may have simply repeated the commonly accepted legends of his time. This makes sense because he gives no source references for this notion, whereas he gives Babylonian historian Berossus as a reference for his statements in Against Apion I,21. Second, Jewish elites like Daniel were taken captive in about 605 BCE, and released about 68 years later. We do not know for sure when the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy began, but we know that they ended in 539 BCE. Assigning a starting date of 609 down to 605 gets us to exactly or approximately 70 years, and so if over the more than 600 years between the Return and Josephus' writing, the two 70-year periods got mixed up, that's perfectly understandable. So no cherry picking is required, just a bit of thinking about real history
Now we are embarking on a course of historical revisionism. Josephus' comments on the seventy years is a major difficulty for scholars because it deconstructs the accepted Chronology but nicely supports WT Chronology with its straightforward understanding of the seventy years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return. If the facts do not suit your views then it becomes the stuff of legends and then you dare to accuse WT of scholastic dishonesty!!!!!!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Give us a hint what he says, and I might. Otherwise, I don't trust you one bi
Get real. If you want to debate Chronology with me then do some research.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Wrong. It has been shown thousands of times, on many different forums and essays, that the Watch Tower decidedly does NOT follow the Bible. Again, both you and WTS writers think that "these nations" means "the Jews", contradicting not only what your eyes tell you when you read the words, but other parts of the Bible.
To say that WT does not follow the Bible is an absurdity and this is coming from a person who does not even believe in the Bible. You need to be more specific about 'these nations', perhaps you are referring to Jer. 25:11. If so, you have history with this and scholar can help you unlike many others who have failed.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:es, because scholars support their claims with evidence. Oh yeah. You're not a schola
Childish!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Far from it. Let's see anyone make sense of the following, from the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free, pp. 238-239, where the beginning of "the Gentile times" was changed from 606 to 607 BCE:
<< Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?.... In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. >>
According to this book, when was Jerusalem destroyed? When did "the Gentile times" begin?
I can't wait to see how "scholar" tries to wiggle away from this WTS nonsens
You are the one that possess excellent reading and comprehension skills so why ask for my help. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE and the Gentile Times began in that year from October.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Of course I am. What I am not prepared to do is acknowledge their claim that WTS leaders speak for God, or that everything they write is a product of divine direction, when it is self-evident that they have gotten so much wrong for so long, and that they lie through their teeth whenever they feel like it. Just like Fred Franz lied in his above nonsense.
You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but the proof is in the pudding but the WTS must have God's blessings because they have produced a superior Bible Chronology and translation of the Bible and that is not accidental but providential.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Give me some instances of dishonesty or mistakes in my writings, and I will take a look.
But be forewarned: mere bald assertions will not cut itThanks but no thanks for I am to busy with Chronology. Perhaps later!
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes it does. You had no idea what references the WTS writers used, but you pretended you knew exactly.
I do not know exactly but what I do know is that WT scholars used the 1942 material in 1949 and as this related to significant changes in Chronology it must have been a resource on hand during the mid-forties whereupon our Chronology was adjusted/corrected in 1944.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:Yes, scholarship that was available long before 1944.
Indeed and well utilized by the Bible Students and WTS.
3 hours ago, AlanF said:You entertain readers, alright. But not the way you'd like to think
Like you Alan I am here to entertain.
scholar JW emeritus
607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
in Topics
Posted
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