Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by AlanF

  1. When I hit you with an ad hominem, it's AFTER considering what you've said. Often, the only possible response to your incoherent or poorly written nonsense is that. Indeed, as you so amply demonstrate. I had you pegged well before learning about Dunning-Kruger. Learning about it simply gave me a label for your mindset. This is an example of your inability to think clearly. You stuck my name in your parody of The Emperor's New Clothes, which has nothing to do with that effect. LOL! Yes, and you're a rocket scientist, too. Wrong as usual. Dunning-Kruger sufferers are not necessarily aggressive, and often know just enough to know that they have some limitations. Like I said, I already had you pegged. Your little essays reek of "C" level writing ability masquerading as "A" level.
  2. The subject is too complicated to be covered in a few short paragraphs. You need to carefully go into ALL the details. The devil is in the details, right?
  3. Actually that tale is an excellent description of the JW religion. And by sticking my name in the tale -- which is pure ad hominem -- you again prove yourself to suffer from Dunning-Kruger. Wow! You've got a double whammy! From the cult you're in, plus your personal limitations.
  4. That's a compliment from someone so stupid as to talk about "Teutonic plates".
  5. I've done so many times. Again you show you haven't the mental wherewithal to understand -- which is why you so well fit descriptions of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  6. How about "offspring of a viper" and "whitewashed grave"? That's how Jesus described the foul, lying Pharisees. That's how I describe foul, lying scumbags like you and ScholarJW Pretendus. As well as using the common vernacular, which is far more descriptive.
  7. Whatever. You still haven't enough mental horsepower to understand how well it applies to YOU.
  8. It's easy to see how stupid and dishonest ScholarJW Pretendus is by examining his reasoning ability. As I quoted above from a book review of Rainer Albertz's book, Albertz "places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." That alone clobbers Watchtower chronology if Albertz is accepted as a major authority, as ScholarJW Pretendus would have it. This charlatan claims that Albertz's expression "the exilic age" comprises one and only one period of exile -- false and stupid on its face. A deportation by definition results in an exile. As I showed in my post above, Albertz clearly documents FOUR DEPORTATIONS/EXILES: in 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Therefore Albertz documents FOUR EXILES. Furthermore, the dates of these four exiles surround the period he calls "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." And since Albertz explicitly dates one deportation/exile to 587 and one to 582 BCE, his "exilic age" comprises AT LEAST 587 through 582 down to 520 BCE, as he states -- AT LEAST TWO EXILES. This is really not rocket science. But pathologically lying charlatans like ScholarJW Pretendus will go to any lengths to twist language and facts to fit their religious biases.
  9. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And still you refuse to quote Albertz's book. What's the matter? Can't see to quote and type at the same time?
  10. I told you that, you lying idiot. Are you claiming the review I linked to is wrong? When I get Albertz's book and quote directly from it -- something you are deathly afraid to do -- you'll lie about what the book itself says.
  11. You can double down on your lies all you like, but it's obvious to everyone that the Watchtower author lied by false attribution. Just as you do.
  12. Good catch! This is typical of Watchtower quoting practices. I've found a number of instances where the WTS author claims that some authority said something that it uses to support a point, but it turns out that the "authority" was describing what a third party said. Often the third party has little or no credibility -- which is why the WTS falsely attributed it to a supposed authority. This practice can be illustrated as follows: Suppose The Watchtower magazine quoted a biologist as saying "Evolution is a fact." Some other author grabs that quotation out of context and writes: "Look! The Watchtower Society now says evolution is a fact!" Either that author -- like many WTS writers -- is either thoroughly stupid or completely dishonest.
  13. ScholarJW Pretendus Mendacicus Maximus said: Such liar. Albertz never said that there was only one exile. And you, of course, have not quoted him to support your lie. I do not yet have Albertz's book, but I found a review of it (
      Hello guest!
    ) which says, in part (p. 285): << [Albertz] places the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C. . . [He] deals with different biblical conceptions of the exile. Albertz refers to the irony that, since there is no coherent description of the exile in the Bible, the Bible itself has only a gap to offer for the period he is going to describe. What we do find are a few short descriptions of the beginning and the end of the exilic period, as well as some sporadic information. It remains a major question why the exile is not portrayed in a more comprehensive manner in the Bible. . . Part two . . . treats specifically the history of the exilic period. Again, Albertz calls attention to the difficulty that the exilic period, similar to the pre-monarchic and the late Persian ones, suffers from a complete lack of sources, and must be regarded as a "dark age" in the history of ancient Israel. . . Albertz then provides us with a short review of the history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 B.C.). . . Albertz sets out to discuss the never-ending problem of how many deportations there were, as well as their dates. There were, according to Albertz, three different deportations. They may be dated, respectively, to the years 597 B.C., 587 B.C., and 582 B.C. >> A deportation, by definition, results in an exile. Therefore Albertz clearly states that there were THREE SEPARATE EXILES. He lumps them together into "the exilic age from 587/6 to 520 B.C." This in no way supports ScholarJW's claim of only "one Exile", because an "exilic age" is by definition a period during which more than one exile occurs. Apparently ScholarJW Pretendus is both stupid and dishonest enough to claim that Albertz's reference to an "exilic age" means "one Exile". It does not. As a Wikipedia article on "Babylonian captivity" states (
      Hello guest!
    😞 << The Babylonian captivity or Babylonian exile is the period in Jewish history during which a number of people from the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon. . . The dates, numbers of deportations, and numbers of deportees given in the biblical accounts vary. These deportations are dated to 597 BCE for the first, with others dated at 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE respectively. . . After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. >> So the Wikipedia article also lumps all of the deportations into one period of exile -- not just "one Exile". The article displays a chronological chart based on Albertz's book, which lists the above deportation events and also states: << [Jehoiakim] began giving tribute to Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BCE. First deportation, purportedly including Daniel. >> So the Wikipedia article clearly lists FOUR DEPORTATIONS AND FOUR INSTANCES OF EXILE -- just as I, Ann O'Maly, JW Insider and others have clearly documented. Information similar to the above is found in the Google Books link to Albertz's book given by JW Insider. Case closed.
  14. LOL! Your opinion of yourself is much like Donald Trump's opinion of himself -- a stable genius. Both of you are massive sufferers from the Dunning-Kruger effect -- too stupid to realize just how stupid you are. And both of you have another detestable quality: overriding dishonesty. As for your supposedly teaching me anything -- that's laughable. What has actually happened is that you've set forth any number of falsehoods, which I've looked into and found almost always to be deliberately false. If you call that "instruction", well that's on a par with the way the Nazis "instructed" the Jews in the ways of genocide.
  15. You passed. Now consider the order of events. FIRST the 4 years ended; THEN he returned home. Now see if you can apply the same concepts to Jeremiah 25:12, and tell us the order of events listed there.
  16. Naaaah. You already know you'd have a lot of trouble with such rocket-science.
  17. JW Insider said to ScholarJW Pretendus Bullshittus Maximus: Now you see why, for nearly twenty years, those of us JW critics who have dealt with this charlatan have referred to him as a charlatan, a pathological liar, a fake scholar, and so on. After dealing with his lies and manipulations for some time, our patience has ended and we simply call a spade a spade. It's easy to see how easily the, um, less astute JW apologists on this forum are manipulated. They're uniformly uninterested in facts and truth, but only in defending Mommy Watchtower. Since this charlatan gives them what they want, and they're too stupid and dishonest to investigate or understand the arguments presented, they simple-mindedly high five his lies. Nothing new here. We've seen this on many forums these past twenty years. ScholarJW Pretendus is only following the example set by Mommy Watchtower these past 140 years. Its literature is rife with lies and manipulation and fallacious reasoning of all sorts. Like Mommy, like son, no?
  18. ScholarJW Pretendus Maximus said: Which is exactly my point, you idiot. Let's see if you can manage a simple test. Suppose a Bethelite tells you: "When my 4 years at Warwick are completed, I will return home." Question: Which event occurs first? The completion of his 4 years at Warwick? Or his return home? My prediction: You will either ignore this altogether, or disgorge a mass of gibberish that only braindead JW apologists could agree with.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.