Jump to content
The World News Media

AlanF

Member
  • Posts

    1,227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by AlanF

  1. 9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    If you’d give a little bit more attention to you adhominem, it wouldn’t happen.

    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.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Low information people are prone to overestimate their command of a subject?

    Indeed, as you so amply demonstrate.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Is that really such a profound observation so as to wait for Dunning and Kruger to give it academic endorsement? Just read up on the “fool” in the Bible and you will pick up the same.

    I had you pegged well before learning about Dunning-Kruger. Learning about it simply gave me a label for your mindset.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Nor does ad hominem have much to do with Dunning Kruger. If it did, you would be in the corner wearing a DunningK cap that could be seen from Mars.

    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.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    If you could come out of yourself for five minutes, you would realize that I display the very opposite of Dunning Kruger on this forum.

    LOL! Yes, and you're a rocket scientist, too.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Per the DK definition, I should be expected to try to dominate that endlessly long 607 discussion, overestimating my ability, and thereby displaying my ignorance. Instead, I’m aware that I don’t know much about the subject, and so I sit it out. 

    Wrong as usual. Dunning-Kruger sufferers are not necessarily aggressive, and often know just enough to know that they have some limitations.

    9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    So while DK might be a notion worthy of a pamphlet, it has little application here. You just seize upon it because you think it makes a good insult.

    Like I said, I already had you pegged. Your little essays reek of "C" level writing ability masquerading as "A" level.

  2. 4 hours ago, Anna said:

    While I have been formulating a reply to Ann’s last post on here, (which I hadn’t posted yet and probably won’t bother in view of your comments here). I had been noticing blanket statements in some of the WT publications regarding some dates. I suppose this is what you mean when you and others refer to intellectual dishonesty. In my reply to Ann I was trying to reconcile two points of view for the same event, one of servitude and the other of desolation. She says that it is “this (mis)understanding (desolation) that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme."

    In my reply I wanted to say that Jeremiah does say that the land will be ruined, and it goes without saying that it’s obvious the impact an invading army would have on a sovereign state, especially if that army took victory. Although Jeremiah does not specifically use the word desolation, Daniel does: Daniel 9:2  In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. So in view of that, I don’t think it’s wrong to use desolation and servitude interchangeably. Both situations arise from the same thing; the conquest of a people.

    But it seems to me, from what you say, that the understanding of what the 70 years refer to exactly is of secondary importance, and that the key to it all is not the 70 years, but Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king. I would tend to agree with that.

    Insight says: Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)

    Secular scholars say he ruled as king 605 BC – c. 562 BC

    So where does WT get those dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s rule? Why is WT chronology regarding the Neo Babylonian period 20 years earlier than secular chronology? (and I am not looking for an answer that says in order for it to fit 1914 😄)

    Why doesn't it do that?

    Had you read the links I already gave you, you'd have all your answers.

  3. 59 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Of course, Dunning Kruger can work as you say but it can also work in the following way (per Wikipedia):

    Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that Emperor Alan is wearing nothing at all! Emperor Alan then sneers at the stupid little tyke, too stupid to know he is stupid, and laughs at his Dunning Kruger limitations.

    I think that is the application that more readily applies here, don’t you?

     

    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. 7 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

    Only degenerates and animalistic people use foul language. Get a life while the getting is still good. 

    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.

  5. 15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

    Alan de Fool

    I never claimed that Rainer Albertz supports WT Chronology and Chronology  is not the subject of his Historiography.

    Deportations by definition do not constitute an exile but are indeed a consituent part of an exile so there were deportaions in Israelite history but in terms of OT Historiography and the Biblical record there was only one exile and that is thematic of Albertz's book which of course you have not read right through as scholar has done. If there were 4 exiles proper then the title of Albertz's book is misleading for the author continuously refers to that exilic era as a descriptor for that one jewish exile of the 6th century BCE.

    Scholar is quite happy for you to interpret the book as you wish and if you believe there was more than one exile then scholar is not perturbed for the 70 years equates with the Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus as observed by Albertz.

    scholar JW

    Lie all you want. I'm done with you, you detestable liar.

  6. 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.

  7. 2 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

    Indeed. It was the WT scholars who used Albertz's expression of 'catastrophe in the Introduction to those recent WT articles on Chronology as noted by my friend Doug Mason. Such a catastrophe aptly describes the ONE Exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return lasting 70 years.

    You are still hung up on WT referencing and the sourcing of such references and this is because you have not studied the Humanities!!

    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.

  8. 4 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

    Well done for posting this page from Albertz's book. You will notice that this scholar throughout this book that there was only ONE Exile-the Babylonian Exile, "the end of Israel's history" according to the books of Kings. For this and many other reasons Exilic scholars when writing up the Historiography of the OT divide the History of Israel into three periods: 'preexilic. exilic and post exilic periods (Refer p.1) and Albertz titled his book not as the 'Exiles of Israel' but the singular-'ISRAEL IN EXILE'. I rest my case.

    Such a liar!

    I trashed your 'case' in my above post.

  9. 1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

    When the Oct 1, 2011 WT on p. 26-7 quoted Albertz,

    '...the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. One historian said that it led to “catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.”' 

    it apparently missed that Albertz was comparing the negative and defeatist viewpoint of the 587/6 destruction and resulting exile by the writer(s) of 1 & 2 Kings with the more positive outlook given by Jeremiah. Therefore, Albertz wasn't expressing his own view of the exile as implied by the way WT used his quote, but the books of Kings' pessimistic view of the exile.

    . . .

    I thought I'd just point this out 🙂

    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.

  10. ScholarJW Pretendus Mendacicus Maximus said:

    Quote

    Rainer Albertz wrote some 460 pages but makes the position perfectly clear that there was only one Exile which he termed as a' catastrophe'. I rest my case.

    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 ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614445?seq=1 ) 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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity 😞

    << 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.

  11. 17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

    Just remember how much the said scholar has taught and instructed you over many matters of Chronology over  these last 20 years and the contributions that the said scholar has made to the scholarship of Chronology and to the simple fact of referring you to the latest information from scholarship on this subject. You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar.

    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.

  12. 36 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    “Hi! Here’s a video that insults you! Please watch it. It only takes 10 minutes”

    For crying out loud, Alan. If you don’t have a life, why should you assume that is true of everyone else?

    Please contact your ally @Ann O'Maly, who counsels from the school guidebook. See if you can work on the point ‘Introduction that motivates.’ See if you can imitate her manner, while you’re at it. She makes points every bit as substantial as you without being personally nasty at every step.

    Had you presented it in an adult way I might actually have taken a look at it.

    Naaaah. You already know you'd have a lot of trouble with such rocket-science.

  13. JW Insider said to ScholarJW Pretendus Bullshittus Maximus:

    Quote

    I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. . . you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. . . Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. . . you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. . . it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation? . . . you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. . . When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish. . . But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. . . And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?

    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?

  14. ScholarJW Pretendus Maximus said:

    Quote

    On 12/31/2020 at 8:44 PM, AlanF said:
    ndeed: FIRST the 70 years ends, THEN Babylon falls. In practice, the two were virtually simultaneous. Read Daniel 5.

    Quote

    You have it arse about as usual. Babylon Falls-seventy years are fulfilled then Babylon is 'called to account' with its eventual desolation.

    Quote

      On 12/31/2020 at 8:44 PM, AlanF said:
    Desolation was its ultimate fate, irrespective of whether the 70 years ended in 539 or 538 or 537, you idiot

    Quote

    Desolation is the 'calling to account' after the 70 years had been fulfilled.

    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.

  15. 3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    You know, it started as a joke. Explaining a metaphor to Ann that any child would instantly understand, it reached the point of my posting a tree fallen across the road with the comment that it was blocking “Evolution Row.”

    Of course, that was a reference to Desolation Row, and I afterwards posted the lines with that phrase.

    Sometimes something gets in your head and you knock it around a bit and come up with something more. “Evolution” Row is actually not a bad interpretation of the song. Take this portion:

    At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
    Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
    Then they bring them to the factory where the heart-attack machine
    Is strapped across their shoulders and then the kerosene
    Is brought down from the castles by insurance men who go
    Check to see that nobody is escaping to Desolation Row.

    Anyone familiar with the Bible (as Dylan is—he did a stint as a born-again Christian. Listen to Slow Train Coming, for example, and you’ll see he is thoroughly familiar with scripture) will know who is “all the agents and the superhuman crew.”

    At the darkest time, they round up everyone “who knows more than they do.” Well, nobody knows more than does the “superhuman crew,” so it must be a reference to those who think that they they know more than others, who think that are very smart indeed and that take great pleasure in parading their knowledge before everyone else, quick to disparage anyone in their path, ones who don’t suffer fools gladly—and a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.

    Despite their self-heralded knowledge, they are “rounded up” and processed, as though in a “factory.” The knowledge that they take such pride in is nevertheless death-dealing, like a “heart attack machine strapped across their shoulders,” with “kerosene” thrown in for good measure. 

    Despite their knowledge being death-dealing—settling for a few dozen years lifespan at best and then eternal blackness—nobody must escape this tripe. “Insurance men” see to it. Nobody will escape from Evolution Row. (Of course, Dylan actually wrote “to Desolation Row,” not “from,” but it was probably a typo.) Let us not forget that the evolution teaching (in its full measure— not counting the intelligent design variety) is desolation to the Bible based hope of living forever on a paradise earth.

    Naw, I don’t really think Dylan had that in mind. Other stanzas don’t so readily lend themselves to that interpretation. But it’s not a bad interpretation all the same. Dylan often writes in a stream of consciousness and doesn’t necessarily have any underlying message. It’s like decrypting Kafka. The tone is distinct, but the underlying words can be taken any number of ways.

    You continue proving my point: you have a 1 horsepower brain in a 1000 horsepower world.

×
×
  • 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.