AlanF
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by AlanF
-
-
4 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Just remember that lunar eclipses will show up in different months. Babylon used sun years. Juda used 2 calendars. The calendar for spiritual / holy events and the planting calendar.
Let me get this straight: YOU, an uneducated, verified Watchtower drone and conspiracy theorist, presume to lecture someone about such things? LOL!
-
1 minute ago, Arauna said:
You deliberately remain obtuse.
You need to look in your mirror. And try to convince your pathologically lying compatriot ScholarJW to change his ways.
1 minute ago, Arauna said:The insight book uses the date of cyrus's death 530BCE because this date is set in stone. This is the most accurate, reliable, quick and accurate way to get to 539 BCE.
Your pathologically lying, moronic compatriot ScholarJW disagrees. Naturally, he's far too dishonest to explain what he actually believes -- something vaguely connected with Darius the Mede, apparently -- but he certainly disagrees with the Insight book's dating of Cyrus' reign. You don't believe me? Read his posts above.
1 minute ago, Arauna said:True. Jerusalem was desolate....... and jehovah did not allow other nations to move in and take it over. It remained desolate. A miracle!
Nope. Scholars are nearly unanimous that most of Israel was inhabited by the poorest of the poor during that time. After all, Nebuchadnezzar wanted ALL of his conquered territories to be productive for Babylon's benefit, agriculturally and otherwise.
1 minute ago, Arauna said:So when these scholars do not accept the bible as the word of God and do not accept these sterling examples of Jehovahs power, then it is reasonable to accept that they would accept any old scholarly paper ( no matter how badly it clashes with the events of the bible) .... just because it clashes with the bible. Their motives are clear.
Uh huh. Yet you and your Watchtower Mommy still cannot explain how some 3 million Israelites wandering around Sinai for 40 years could leave not a trace -- not even buried poop.
-
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:
I have never heard you explain how it is possible to both agree with and contradict the Watchtower on this point at the same time.
That's because this moron hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.
-
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:
Yada yada yada yada . . . . . .
This supremely pathological liar's response is exactly as I predicted: Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.
-
ScholarJW has now, for at least 20 years in the time I've dealt with him on JW-related forums, proved himself to be a truly pathological liar, on the order of current U.S. President Donald Trump. Various commentators have observed that it's easy to tell when Trump is lying -- his mouth is moving. It's similar with ScholarJW. The bulk of what he posts on forums such as this is either a flat-out lie, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. He has actually misrepresented the Bible itself over these past 20 years. He often tries to make some dishonest claim, is proven to have lied, and then completely ignores that proof, thus compounding his lie because he has, by failing to admit it, doubled down on it.
So how does one tell when ScholarJW is lying? He's typing on his keyboard.
Below I present some examples of these failings, which are mostly deliberate.
Recently, in the thread "Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE", ScholarJW referred to a couple of academic papers presented by scholars Steven M. Bryan and Jeffrey Niles that considered the implications of "the 70 years" of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11, 29:10, etc.). He made some outrageous claims for these papers, which amounted to claiming that these secular scholars actually supported Watchtower chronology and the summaries of that chronology that ScholarJW usually makes. His claims are false, of course, because no normal scholars support Watchtower chronology. His basic claim can be read here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-149440 . Here is an excerpt:
<< Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26.
This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.
Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated. >>
This excerpt contains ScholarJW's basic lie about "servitude-desolation-exile": "these three principal elements ... are equated". But he is so intent on promoting this lie that in the same sentence he refutes his own claim of support: "... in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated".
ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.
Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.
Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.
When I read ScholarJW's obviously false claims, I replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-149446 😞
<< I have not read that article, but I have no doubt that, as with virtually all articles you've cited in support of your views, it will turn out actually to debunk those views. Would you like to clarify now, before I read the article and point out where you've mucked it up? >>
After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.
ScholarJW's reply was typically garbled and full of lies, without any real evidence of anything. He seems to think that merely denying a fact or an argument makes it disappear.
JW Insider soon called out ScholarJW's lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-151338 😞
<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>
In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.
Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.
The terms servitude, captivity, and desolation receive examination. Servitude refers to the period in which Judah and the surrounding nations would submit to the dominion of Babylon. This thesis proposes that the servitude lasted from 609 to 539 BC. Captivity resulted from the seventy-year period of Babylonian servitude, but the two must not be equated. Several captivities resulted in Babylon’s invasion of Judah and ended with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC. Desolation also resulted from the period of servitude, but must not be equated with it. This refers to the period of destruction that followed the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and lasted until the construction of the temple in 515 BC.
I agree that the period of servitude would be about from 609 to 539, although I wouldn't haggle over a couple years on either side. >>
And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.
Many more posts along these lines were made in that thread, but I want to move on to the meat of this post in the present thread "SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)".
It so happened that the dishonest 'research' of Norwegian JW apologist Rolf Furuli was discussed. After some discussion ScholarJW again falsely invoked support for his claims from scholars Bryan and Niles, and said this ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152102 😞
<< You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics. >>
Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means) that the 70 years are related to "three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics."
I had pointed out several times before that COJ (Carl Olof Jonsson) and many other scholars discussed these matters plenty of times during the past two millennia, but ScholarJW doubled down on his lie. I then stated ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152113 😞
<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?
And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology". >>
ScholarJW replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152118 😞
<< COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years. >>
To refute that lie I quoted COJ's first version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152132 😞
<<<< Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93:
<< . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >>
Read it and weep, Neil.
>>>>Naturally, ScholarJW completely ignored COJ's exposition. Rather, he tried his usual trick of sidestepping by posing a completely irrelevant 'problem' ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 😞
<< Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:
Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars? >>
Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.
JW Insider perfectly described ScholarJW's sidestepping tactic ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 😞
<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>
And of course, ScholarJW quickly replied with yet another set of lies:
<< Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars????
Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! >>
Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.
And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.
Clearly then, ScholarJW thinks we are all so dumb as to not understand his dishonest tactics of sidestepping complete debunkings of his lies.
After the above debunkings, ScholarJW again doubled down on his lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152286 😞
<< The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:
1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young
2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. >>
Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.
Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.
Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.
ScholarJW consistently lies, misrepresents scholars and opponents, ignores scholars he disagrees with, refuses to quote sources, even the Bible itself, often gives no references to claimed sources or refuses to provide links or computer copies, sidesteps arguments and debunkings in every possible way, almost never admits error, almost never concedes a point, and generally commits about every sin possible in the world of scholars.
In short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.
Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.
-
11 hours ago, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
Read it carefully you clown. Notice the statement according to that reckoning concluding hence forth.
Yes indeed, and it accepts that reckoning. It must, because without it, the Watchtower cannot use 539 as an anchor date.
Such a complete moron!
11 hours ago, scholar JW said:Also, the context of that discussion was under the heading Babylonian Chronology.
So what?
11 hours ago, scholar JW said:What an idiot!!
What a master of irony you are!
-
19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:
Sometimes, it gets hard to make people understand something they can’t comprehend. I try my best to illustrate them with good examples.
I learned these simple things, decades ago in college.
Astronomy in the Ancient World_ Early and Modern Views on Celestial Events (2016)
One feature of this saros cycle that is shared by all others is of relevance here. The first 15 as well as the final 19 of the eclipses of this cycle are only partial eclipses. As we saw before, the reason for this is that the path of totality in these eclipses will be off the surface of the earth due to the movement toward the poles. In
the first eclipses of the series, the shadow will graze the earth near the pole, and in the final eclipses the same will happen near the opposite pole as the shadow retreats. The reason that the paths move either northward or southward and that there are thus a limited number of eclipses in a saros cycle is that the alignment between the earth, moon, in the same configuration once every 18 years 11 and 1/3 days will be
slightly different against the background of stars, and this will cause precession of lunar nodes from the perspective of the earth, thus accounting for the changing paths and the finite existence of each saros cycle.
As mentioned above, there are other cycles that can be useful in tracking and predicting eclipses, including the tritos cycle. It is also the case that lunar eclipses follow cycles similar to those of solar eclipses. There are lunar saros cycles, for example, that work in the same way as the solar cycles. This is because the principles behind solar and lunar eclipses are the same, despite some important differences that will make a big difference to observers. Lunar eclipses are far more common for any given observer on the earth, because any time a lunar eclipse happens it will be visible from any place on earth from which the moon is visible.
There is no narrow path of totality as is the case in solar eclipses, because since a lunar eclipse is created by a transit of the earth across the sun from the perspective of the moon, any observer on earth who can see the moon will see the shadow of the earth fall over the moon in whatever way it does, either partially or fully
covering it. Page 179Unless you specifically know, only the lunar eclipses were used in ancient times to give you a specific rollout, then it would be acceptable. What calendar systems were used by Babylon, Egypt, and Judah.
I think we're dealing with a computerized gibberish generator here.
-
19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:
Please, you lost your credibility almost 20 years ago. You're a worthless human.
Nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyaaah nyah!
-
11 minutes ago, César Chávez said:
I guess, I'm learning bad habits from you. Are you still trying to fit the Bible account of the third year of King Jehoiakim to your delusional secular evidence?
More gibberish.
-
12 minutes ago, César Chávez said:
This is good. Then people will understand, the only honesty driven by you is dishonest and liked only by ex-witnesses and apostates within.
Gibberish as usual.
-
Srecko Sostar said:
Quote1 hour ago, AlanF said:
official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >>Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature.
QuoteFirst two WT quotes are part of my comment made to Arauna on page 4.
They changed view, it seems, in 1985 with "Creation" book. In fact, when i now looks on their quotes again, they only moved from specific number of years (7000) to sort of fog quote where they not denied same or similar possibility of length.
Exactly. Going from a specific number to a foggy number is NOT a change in their teaching. The foggy number is fully consistent with the old specific number. It was done, as I explained, to deceive the JW rank and file.
QuoteI guess, when enough time will pass and when older generations passed too, and when nobody will have interest to read what older publication said about it, than they will published some "new light" on creation days. :))
Precisely. Liars and cowards, all of them.
QuoteThere is, as we have seen, good reason to believe that the days of creation were each 7,000 years long. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970123
In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/
And in addition new one:
It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985013
The following is the latest WTS statement on the specific length of the "creative days", from the January 1, 1987 Watchtower, p. 30:
<< a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. >>
-
27 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.
i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.
Forgot to mention: Insight mentions but ignores the reign of Darius, stating on page 453:
<< As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >>
Exactly what I've stated.
-
12 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Very easy if you are only master of one!
Yeah, unfortunately I'm a fairly typical American in that, except that I speak very broken Spanish and even more broken French. Very occasionally.
But you must admit that my point is right. Speaking clearly was supposed to be goal of the old Kingdom Ministry School, right?
-
23 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
I fully accept and endorse the Insight commentary. it is your nonsense that I do not accept.
i did not create Darius the Mede, you idiot. He is mentioned in Daniel accompanied with a regnal date that cannot be ignored and WT scholars take that historical mention seriously. Your omission of this obvious fact renders your hypothesis sterile.
scholar JW
Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.
-
1 minute ago, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
You explain nothing. Never explain the hard questions put to you but simply run away and hide.
scholar JW
Already explained.
-
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
What a load of bollocks. The precise dating of the first year of Cyrus cannot be precisely known because of Darius' first year which intervened between the time of Babylon's Fall and the Cyrus' first regnal year.- Da. 9:1,2. Thus WT scholars have give two separate dates expressed in terms of the Babylonian, Julian and Gregorian calendars respectively for the first year of Cyrus however which presents the Return of the Jews in the seventh month only in 537 BCE. This is the only possible calculable date for an earlier date of 538 BCE is clearly impossible for it does not account for the short reign of Darius the Mede not does it allow sufficient time for the Proclamation and the Publishing of the Cyrus' Decree throughout the Empire and the very extensive preparations for the Return of the Exiles . Plain common sense trumps 538 BCE every time for this is simply an apostate date!!!
Obviously you disagree with the dates given in the Insight book. Your lookout.
You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".
-
45 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
Coward's reply
scholar JW
No evidence presented; none needed to dismiss.
-
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
So then what is fundamentally wrong with the explanation given in the Insight article seeing that it does account for the brief reign of Darius which you do not and does not also occur in the tables in P&D?
scholar JW
Already explained.
-
Srecko Sostar said:
Quote3 hours ago, AlanF said:
You're not remembering correctly. The 7,000-year creative day doctrine has never been rescinded. All that the Watchtower Society has done is to begin, in the mid-1980s, to sometimes refer to the length of the creative days as "millennia long". How long is that? Could be 7,000 years. Could be 100 million. Since they never rescinded the belief, the explicit teaching of 7,000-year creative days remains official Watchtower doctrine.Now, why do you suppose the JW organization switched from "7,000 years" to "millennia"?
. . .
QuoteNo, Alan. My memory is correct about "technical change" on issue.
No it is not. You said:
<< official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >>
Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature.
QuoteBut agree with you how "7000 years of creative day" stayed in mind of many JW's (older generations more than younger, perhaps younger JW's easier accepted "new advanced view") as "fine calculation" that "make sense" about some other WT dates and chronology.
In actuality, JWs younger than about 45 years have little or no knowledge of the old teachings. The Society simply stopped talking about such, but it remains on the books. That way, old JWs won't get alarmed by such a big change, and younger ones remain clueless and can believe what they want.
QuoteBecause, as you said, WTJWorg not disintegrated that teaching, and all about other interpretations connected to such calculation, they stayed in same darkness. When WTJWorg changed "view" about "Creative Days" length, and put that on paper it looks like they didn't have "patient and time" to change all other things that needed to be corrected.
It's more like: they didn't want to rock the boat with older JWs.
QuoteBut, we all knows, how "all old truths" are nothing else but "truth" for JW's. They have no power or will or sincerity and love to call all those "old lights" with real name - lies and misconceptions.
Right. Which is why I harp on this issue as opportunity arises.
QuoteAbout last question. I guess how some "new bible scholars" obviously took some scientific book and changed perspective. :))
Not really. What seems to have happened, back around 1980, was that certain WTS writers realized that the crap they had been peddling about their idea that there were no ice ages, but that most evidence for a recent global ice age was really evidence for Noah's Flood, actually came from the Young-Earth Creationists. A couple of years into the 1980s saw the WTS explicitly declare that Young-Earth Creationism was crap, so it stands to reason that they dumped their old ideas on YEC "flood geology". I doubt that this had anything to do with new writers, but was spearheaded by one Harry Peloyan, a long-time Bethelite who eventually became Editor-in-Chief of Awake! magazine. Harry was no dope, but was quite anti-science wherever standard science contradicted Watchtower tradition. I guess hanging on to Young-Earth Creationist nonsense was too much, even for him.
-
Quote
2 hours ago, AlanF said:
What happened to you?One does not have to be a scientist to understand science.
Well, rudimentary science, at least.
QuoteScientists like to present themselves as these highly intelligent people which often is a myth.
True. So what? All scientists worth their salt know that their opinions on subjects outside their area of expertise is of no more value than those of anyone else.
On the other hand, the opinions of non-scientists who think to challenge the experts are usually worthless. Who would you rather have do brain surgery on you? Some random dodo? Or a certified brain surgeon?
QuoteThere are some smart ones - but not all are smart. My brothers are smart - I am mediocre but there is nothing wrong with my reasoning abilities and inquisitive nature.
On this forum you've shown quite the opposite. You've shown that the only 'science' you know comes exclusively from Watchtower publications. Which is dangerous, because such publications have stated that they have given JWs such a good education that JWs can be called "Bible scholars". This results in an extremely bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
QuoteReading through some of the research offered by evolutionists after the DNA was discovered in the bones of dinosaur fossils - I realized they were in a panic and were not doing a very good job at explaining it away.
Nonsense. No panic at all. Rather than reading actual scientifically valid material, all you've read is Creationist claptrap. There's a lot of that, and most of it is crap. Not just crap, but crap designed to promote the idea that the universe was created some 6,000 years ago.
QuoteMuch of the reasoning was flawed but was accepted by their peers...... this made my skepticism grow about science.
Sure, based on Young-Earth Creationist pseudo-science.
QuoteMy view of scholars changed after I studied Islam intensely. When scholars were presenting papers that were untrue - I started investigating where they got their funding from and realized the corrupting influence of money from donors to universities. Many universities were accepting large donations from Qatar. The same happened in the medical field - when FDA approved medicines that were compromised by global companies being allowed to provide their own self-research. I realized that money talks.
You don't seem to realize that Qatar is quite secular for a Muslim society. So far as I can see, they're interested in empirical evidence for stuff. While the fanatical wing of Islam is at least as bad as American Young-Earth Creationists, that doesn't seem to characterize Qatar. What's your point?
QuoteMy view of scholars also changed when I read papers how monotheism started with Akhenaton etc. Moses stole his information according to them.
You're dancing to the Watchtower's tune -- lumping all non-JWs into one big, nasty pile. Do you realize how stupid that is?
QuoteI realized that scholar is just a name (in some fields of study) that gives the person an opportunity to promote their own ideas and that of the money donors.
LOL! Pure Watchtower-ism along with conspiracy-theory-ism.
QuoteIt does not have to be based on actual evidence.
It does if they want to have longer than a five-year career. They have colleagues eager to knock down such nonsense. What happened to "cold fusion" in the late 1980s?
QuoteThese scholars often ignored uncomfortable facts. One such example was the temple of Melchizedek which was discovered. This gave evidence of a single god (YHWH) being worshiped 4000 years ago...... Long before Akhenaton.
So what? Most of these scholars are nowhere nearly as educated in the hard sciences as they ought to be. A great many are highly motivated by their religious views, and are not to be trusted without much verification.
Can you supply links to where you got your information on this? What I've found is basically nothing more than that a pillar was found in Jerusalem that certain Christian scholars decided was connected to Melchizedek, but such pillars don't come with theology lessons attached.
QuoteEvidence of Joseph in Egypt is regularly ignored by scholars.
What evidence?
QuoteMany ring seals (seals that were put on messages and letters) have been found with names of Israeli kings on them. These are ignored - such as the one which has David's name on it..... and I can go on and on.
Nonsense. Such evidence is NOT ignored. The very fact that you know about it is proof.
On the other hand, Christian Fundamentalists completely ignore far more important facts. Like the fact that ZERO evidence has been found of the supposed 40-year sojourn of 2.5 million+ Israelites in Sinai. What? Nearly three million Jews could wander in a small desert area for 40 years and leave NO evidence? Not even piles of buried poop?
Certain scholars have tried to rationalize the lack of evidence for the Sojourn by saying that the traditional translation of certain numbers from Hebrew is wrong: numbers concerning the Exodus that traditionally speak of "thousands" really mean something far smaller, so that the reference to "600,000 men" of military age that left Egypt really means perhaps 10,000. But even that fails to explain the complete lack of evidence in Sinai.
QuoteI only respect a scholar that earns his bread by good research and evidence. One such scholar I am following at present is Dan Gibson. He has done research of all the stones inscriptions around mecca and petra and the original Qiblas. It turns out that Petra may have been the original mecca.
What does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread? You keep going off on tangents.
QuoteSo yes - allow me to be skeptic of the learned ones who like to ennoble themselves.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.
-
7 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
JW Insider
It is not a diversion at all but simply a request for those who appear to be or claim to be far more competent in matters of Chronology pertaining to the intricacies of NB Chronology and the use of astro programs. The matter is important because we now have a controversy raised by Alan F in his 5 page paper whether the date of the Return is 538 or 537 . Thus a definite establishment of the 1st year of Cyrus is critical as explained in our publications.
I have not found in any published scholarship to date that provides such vital information and the only go to reference work is of Parker and Dubberstein but such a work does not account for Darius' first year as stated in Dan. 9:1. So, such an omission has implications along with Neb's missing 7 years and Jeremiah's 70 years has implications for the integrity of the whole NB Period.
scholar JW
Largely the usual nonsense and claptrap. And of course, zero evidence is presented, so none is needed to dismiss.
-
18 minutes ago, Arauna said:
It is true! When he cannot answer he focusses on mistakes in language!
We're watching a couple of morons here trying to discuss what ScholarJW thinks is rocket science.
I've answered all of your challenges, Arauna. You're a blatant liar. The fact that you, but especially Cesar Chavez, have serious problems with English is YOUR problem, not mine. Clear language is necessary for clear communication.
Of course, since Watchtower publications for several decades have been written in 3rd grade level English, y'all wouldn't know that.
-
Arauna said:
Quote3 hours ago, JW Insider said:
Your theory allows the Jews to be back in 538,QuoteHow can this be if Cyrus was only crowned in 538 BCE on Nissan 1-14 (festival of Akitu) and gave the edict to return? You work on assumptions which you stick onto me which are incorrect.
Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar.
The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14).
Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival.
Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon.
Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE.
Now, Arauna dearie, which of the above bits of information do you disagree with? Which do you agree with? State your reasons and your reasoning. If you disagree with the conclusions, please contact your scientist brother and run it all by him. Perhaps he can explain it to you. Finally you should present a well-documented exposition like I've given you above.
-
Arauna said:
QuoteOn 12/14/2020 at 8:27 AM, AlanF said:
What does any of this have to do with the issue at handQuoteIt has a lot to do with the holding of the festival and Cyrus' attendance of it to be crowned "King of the four corners of the earth!" If you just look up the numbers/dates and do not understand the culture then you are lost! It is about the Babylonian traditions and its importance in the social life of the nation, its acceptance of the new kings (satrap and emperor) and the most important festival to be attended by Cyrus. To dismiss it is an ERROR!
Still no answer to my question: "What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?"
Merely saying "it has a lot to do . . ." without specifying what "a lot" means is just stupid.
SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)
in Topics
Posted
With reference to ScholarJW's complete buggering of the evidence leading to the Watchtower's acceptance of 538 BCE as the date of Cyrus' 1st year, Arauna said:
This is a well known, reasonable speculation not proven by any clear evidence. Do you need references in Watchtower publications?
"Later"? Nonsense. According to contemporary business tablets, Cyrus was viewed as having acceded the throne as early as October 10, 539 BCE in Sippar, a city near Babylon that Cyrus took just two days before conquering Babylon. See Parker and Dubberstein, page 14.
On page 14, P&D lists six tablets as evidence for the beginning of Cyrus' accession year. Therefore, irrespective of whether or when Darius the Mede was installed as a satrap over Babylon, Cyrus was still viewed as having been installed as king on Nisan 1, 538 BCE, according to hundreds of business tablets and other contemporary records.
And as I have carefully explained -- and you and your idiot compatriot have ignored -- this was almost certainly done on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival and Cyrus' inauguration.
Irrelevant to the chronology.
Where have I heard that before?
Of course. You're impressed only by Watchtower publications and conspiracy theories.
Nonsense. Virtually all intelligent people not part of the conspiracy theory community can see such nonsense for what it is. No different in principle from Flat-Earthism, Young-Earth Creationism, etc.
So what? You obviously recheck using bogus sources.
I guess the entire world of solid science has also fallen.
A standard trope of conspiracy theories.
Slander will get you everywhere with your fellow conspiracy theorists.
LOL!
Tell me again now:
How did 3 million Israelites wander the Sinai wilderness for 40 years without leaving even bits of poop as evidence?
How can the Bible's "God of love" have created a world of incredible pain and suffering in the animal world lasting more than half a billion years? Doesn't 'creation' itself tell you that this "God" does not exist?