Malum Intellectus

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?
I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.
Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.
As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
AlanF

LOL! Totally clueless, as always.
AlanF

I accept your apology. Yes, I have 2 books by Raymond Franz. CoC and iSoCF. I assume they are the latest editions. I also purchased a copy of GTR4 a few years ago, but this was after Rolf Furuli sent me his two books. He sent me Vol II for free, after I discussed some issues with Vol I with him. When I worked in Manhattan for 25+ years it was in midtown, just a few blocks from the NYPL research library at 42nd & 5th, where I made photocopies of entire books or at least key pages from almost every reference work that the WTS has quoted from Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian tablets. (Parker & Dubberstein, Sachs & Hunger, etc., etc.) Many of these had to be ordered from different libraries around the country. They never could get me a copy of JQB except on microfilm, and I never ordered it. All of this was well-before Google Books and the availability of so many works on PDF.
I don't know that Raymond Franz was ever influenced by COJ, but I have never disputed that he wasn't. Did you make that up - that I had disputed this somewhere? I could not have said either of them were or were not influenced by each other, because I don't know. If either one of them claimed to be influenced by the other, that doesn't change a thing. Whenever you, Allen, read something by anyone, I assume you are 'influenced' in some way, but it doesn't mean that you necessarily believe everything you read. I wouldn't doubt at all that there are faults in their books, but you haven't shown any. And your track record has been something like ZERO so far on being able to back up what you say with facts when it comes to these books. I have never yet heard you make a true claim about the books, and yet I have heard you make false claims about them several times. So I have my doubts you'll finally come through this time, but it still wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't depend on anything in any of their books.  (But I do appreciate them for their candor and accuracy in everything I've been able to check out so far.)

Nana Fofana wrote:
Not that you haven't been given access in this thread to a great of such historical evidence.
Note what Franz wrote; he came to understand that:
<< . . . the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. >>
All reputable scholars by the 1970s agreed, based on all manner of historical writings, cuneiform texts, stone stele, etc. that the date for Jerusalem's destruction was 587/586 BCE, with the uncertainty of one year due to seemingly inconsistent statements in the Bible itself.
What adjustments are you talking about?
AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF

I've seen a different kind of sloppiness from you - and it affects your integrity.     You have made wild statements on this forum that were unfounded, such as, only Juda were returned back to their homeland etc... which is an important mistake and affects the outcome to the understanding of the subject  607 BCE. 
I bet you had the same sloppiness when you investigated that "extremely logical" arguments made by Dawkins.  I am honest when I say - I have never met a Dawkins-disciple which has thought Darwinism through properly - they just take his 'expert' religion and follow it like a slave. As I have said before - these theories or other philosophies take the place of religion because one cannot believe in "nothing".
I asked you a question before to see how committed you are to your religion. It is a 'blind faith' if it is not based on proper science..... even if most atheist professors and their disciples adhere to its "theories" and profess it as reality and fascistically do not tolerate any opposition in the universities.
I am not going to argue this with you because you are committed to your 'faith' but if there is anything that is truthful in you, you will admit that the bone record is scant.  It seems that nature made no mistakes at all - almost like a perfect god- most species appeared perfectly formed and every organ working together in perfect synchronization....no mistakes- perfect selections - almost like a theoretical god.   There is no record of  mistakes...and one would expect millions if we look at the number of different species around and the changes that were ongoing. 
What scientists cannot answer - and they know this because it is rarely talked about...... is that the different tissues and organs (liver, eyes etc.) developed over millions of years when the earth had " goldilocks" conditions..... long-term stable conditions for perfect selections... And yet, the complex sexual organs had to develop very quickly so the mammal can survive.  What is more many mammals have such different sexual organs as to boggle the mind!  Read up about it - it will stun you! Many are totally different to other organs.  
Evolution takes the easies path to survive...... why randomly develop separate sexual organs that function totally differently? .... when it is easier to have everything in one individual?  What boggles the mind is that these organs developed totally separately by ...... chance...... and yet the one has sperm and the other eggs... and the shape of them is different and yet fits perfectly....and they can only reproduce when they are in the same area!   Unthinking random selections that by chance happen to be totally different but happen to work perfectly together...and happen to develop in close proximity -    theoretical god or miracles?   
And if you try to argue that nature could "cut and paste" the DNA language program - and add a little here and there to make up for the differences - then we need an intelligent programmer don't we - one who will cut and past just the right DNA sequence?  
Mathematics is also a 'language' which describes phenomena which cannot be described in other languages..... it depends on how the "tool" is utilized and helps to sift out ideas which are illogical..... but is it  'absolute' truth?  Some treat math as a substitute god. Many theories for which we have calculations cannot be proven because humans are mortal and history has proven that we often make mistakes in our calculations/assumptions - and then one theory is replaced by another....
 
This is my last contribution on this subject since it has eaten too much of my time - I have an active life!
Thanks to those who were kind and supporting....   I have looked at the Bible again and its consistency regarding the main theme tells me this is the only "reality".   World conditions are also progressing as predicted since 1914  and greedy/arrogant scientists are main contributors to its problems - such as the poisons which are polluting our water resources and agricultural land, genetic engineering which is causing many sicknesses and may lead to world hunger because it is removing diversity, bombs which can destroy the earth over and over and much more...   other frightening developments.
So I will definitely not put my future in the hands of fallible men/scientists  who are the brains behind the sciences which is contributing to the destruction of earth and sea (together with governments, false religions, and the economic system of the world which cares only for profits...or power) .........and all those uninformed humans who buy into its powers. 
The world is such as mess and rolling downhill quite fast....  Soon Jehovah will "prove to be" - as the meaning of his name indicates....the nations shall have to know that I am Jehovah.
 
 

You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory.
You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory.
In other words, you're still lying.
AlanF

I was never that concerned about JQB, and I'm not really that interested in getting volume 2. "Scholar_JW" already proved to me that COJ was correct in his assessment when "Scholar_JW" (Neil) admitted that the best evidence against COJ's summary was in Vol 2, p.208, but wouldn't dare show it. There was already plenty of evidence on the Internet that "Scholar_JW" was not telling the truth, because he had already been thoroughly embarrassed over a decade ago when he attempted that same dishonest claim. I'm also not so concerned about COJ. I don't know what you mean by ideologies, but I absolutely know that your claim about a copy never came from me, whether three years ago or at any time, because I never had a copy, and was never that concerned about it. There are dozens of Biblical reasons to reject the 1914 ideology, I don't need secular reasons. But I know that other people should see the secular reasons, too, because they honestly believe something about the secular evidence that isn't true. I'm also willing to share what I have learned about all the evidence because of how important this idea is, and how dangerous it can be from a Christian's perspective. (see Matthew 24, etc.)

Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!
AlanF

No, just irreverent.
AlanF

Ah, well then! COJ certainly had a hand in writing "The Even-Tide" and is partly responsible for its content. And your memory from about 3 years ago is definitely more certain than what's written in COJ's books.
Tell us, please: what exactly is an ideology made about 3 years ago? LOL!
AlanF

AllenSmith:
Thanks for the complement ... ridiculous is what I was going for !
 

... and   *koff* ... as you correctly pointed out ....
One man's gorilla ... is another mans guerrilla.

 
First of all, I am not aware, nor have I EVER been aware that Allen Smith had a .... "condition".  What is he ....  a one legged tap dancing midget with dandruff? (????). 
I ridicule him for his screwball ideas and goofy Snowflake perspective on the Universe.
However, if you tell me what your ..."condition" is ... perhaps I can make a special effort to make fun of it.
Think of it as having your dandruff scratched.
And as I have stated at least eight times ... I never claimed to be a JW, merely a Barbarian interested in justice, and equity for all, and COMPLETE freedom of speech, as long as there is no "biologically based vulgarity".  
I think the phrase "low down scum sucking pig" where appropriate, is quite acceptable ... IF (and ONLY IF) I have been attacked first ... or it's an idea or philosophy that I feel that tongue needs to be stuck to a sub-zero metal pole.
I try NOT to waste my time attacking people.
They are ephemeral, and biodegradable.
IDEAS ARE FOREVER.
If it was up to me, AllenSmith(n), I would never have censured or restricted ANYTHING you have ever said ... as with the mountains of insults and arrogant condensation , occasionally you come up with a gem of an idea.
Or several.
Never fear insulting me, that I will take offense.  Give it your best shot.  If you wish, hire professional insulters.
I like to think I CANNOT be insulted ... so I never take offense.
One mans vicious insult is another man's belly laugh.

the thing is, i accomplished four tasks with that post:
1) friendly missive to you
2) slam at @AlanF, always a breath of fresh air
3) decriminalize my demerit from the Librarian and turn it into a virtue
4) plug my book
 

No, you don't remember that at all, because nothing like it was ever said. Not by me, nor anyone else that I can remember.
The closest thing I said was that two members of the Writing Department (who shared an office) were discussing it with me, and said that it still remains on a shelf, collecting dust, because everyone in Writing considered it a "hot potato." No one wanted to be assigned to respond to it, because that would be a lose-lose situation. You couldn't respond honestly, and if you couldn't respond you'd be considered a potential apostate.
I never saw it at all until a few months later. Brother Schroeder had a small portion of it photocopied, and he took it with him when we traveled together on a trip to Europe in 1978. He did not allow me to read any of it and I never asked. I never had a research assignment related to it. I didn't see the manuscript at all until early 1980 when Brother Rusk and I were going over my wedding plans in his office and he needed to take about an hour to respond to a phone call (regarding a blood issue) while I sat in his office. While I waited, I grabbed a book from his library, and I also looked around and saw that he had the manuscript open in about three stacks on his desk, but again I never read more than the pages on top of the stacks.
I doubt it was ever discarded. It seems probable that what Fred Rusk had on his desk was already a photocopy.

AllenSmith wrote:
You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions.
I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in:
(1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year).
(2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE.
(3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE.
Having trouble counting to three?
Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603:
Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.
So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE.
Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible:
No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
 
 
Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below.
Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false:
p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >>
pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . .
Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >>
COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative:
p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >>
COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute.
So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4?
You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this.
 
 
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
He does. Can't you read?
Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.
Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages.
AlanF

Allen, let me suggest that you use the ground rules here to improve your communicating skills. I mean it sincerely. You will only help yourself by doing it. As for me, I would really hate to see you gone, because when you are on, you are on! You post heavy stuff that occurs to no one else, and I value you for it. 
Even if you think it unjust, roll with it if you can. It really doesn't matter if it is unjust or not. Life is unjust, and Paul would have us use the reversals of life as 'discipline' which, if we reject, we are you-know-whats and not children.
You have alluded to dyslexia. Maybe it is but the tip of the iceberg. Maybe there are other factors that affect your emotional control, for you do launch some zingers sometimes. All of us are packages. Only AlanF is a disembodied brain unimpeded by emotion. Work on your delivery if you can because you have some fine stuff and I want to see you continue offering it.
Not long ago, I was given a disciplinary point for addressing @AlanF as a blithering idiot. I deserved it. I will take it in stride. I would not over-dramatize it because AdamF must have 100 of them, so they must be meaningless in themselves. I consider it a check, as in chess. It will benefit me to study it with a view of preventing a checkmate. 
Is the @The Librarian being especially hard on me? I don't go there. It doesn't matter if she is or not. She is helping me, whether she knows it or not, to improve my writing, and for this I am grateful. In not too long, I will release the ebook about Russia that I have been working on. Much of it was written here. At times, I already had stuff written, and I replaced it with material here - forged from the experience of explaining things before people who I know are going to try to shoot it down.
Even if she was hard on you or me, it could be for a good motive. Witnesses have more or less sworn to communicate in a Christlike manner. Alan and crew renounced kindness long ago, so it may be that he is allowed 20 times the abuse as you or I. 
It is hard for me communicating with Alan because if I say "Help me out here. There is an expression: "______ happens" and I cannot think of the word' - everyone here will know I am joking. Except Alan. He will mock me for not knowing the word. Then when he learns I was just putting him on, he will call me a 'reprehensible liar,' which he has done - an epithet considerably stronger than 'blithering idiot' in that it imputes motive. This pretty much happened recently with pengajo, which I deliberately misspelled wondering if I could trigger his insatiable 'need' to correct. Like hooks in the jaw, it worked. You cannot do any play on words with him! Such as:
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO USE DISCERNMENT!!!!! YOU SHOULD PLAINLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH FACTS. I HATE TO THINK WHAT ALAN WOULD CALL YOU IF YOU WERE NOT ALREADY ON THE SAME PAGE.
It is what it is, Allen. View it as discipline from which you can benefit. I miss you when you are gone.
 
 

Thanks for the information, but I never thought he did. That might help explain why I never said anything similar.
This wasn't to me, but you mentioned me elsewhere, so I'll jump in, too. I'm sure AlanF can respond to the COJ / RFranz information if he wishes. I couldn't care less if COJonsson was wrong or RVFranz was wrong. I'm sure they were both wrong on lots of things, lots of times. But I am interested in whatever problem you see in it, because I will try to keep some of these issues in mind if I get a chance to finish reading the whole book this year.
I didn't see your source on what R.Franz accepted as true. Can you give a source? Also, I see that you are mostly comparing GTR-2004 with an original treatise. But you also didn't quote here from the original treatise for comparison. Did you quote from it elsewhere? If so, I missed it. I see that AlanF has said that his revisions added to his original work rather than contradicting it. I saw you try this same type of claim earlier and it turned out you would never provide any evidence. I'll assume this is more of the same, at least until I see your evidence. 
When a discussion is for academic or learning purposes most authors give a lot of leeway with respect to copyright law and on "fair use." for discussion.

@Ann O'Maly  I agree @Ann O'Maly
I will try to restrain my powers of banning people to a minimum. But at some point it becomes ridiculous.

Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know.
AlanF

Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.
AlanF

Naw, I saw the original, outrageously out-of-order post but hadn't had chance to comment on it earlier. I partially agree with @AlanF in that people should be allowed to show their true colors. However, if there is to be any meaningful discussion of 'controversial' subjects at all, no matter how idiotic and difficult some posters might be and have been for years [let the reader use discernment ], one shouldn't have to wade through a quagmire of base insults and crud-slinging to get to the relevant, on-topic parts. 

For the record, Ann, when I reproduced FakeJW's words, I did not edit out his specific reviling of you. Perhaps I should have. I apologize for that. One gets carried away sometimes.
("kumquat": better wash that mouth of yours out with soap! see what you have unleashed?)