Jump to content
The World News Media

AlanF

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,227

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AlanF

  1. AlanF
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! So says the Elmer Fudd of Bible chronology.
  2. AlanF
    Your usual meaningless gibberish. Since the dates are given in Julian calendar dates, and other systems such as Gregorian dating is trivially derived, there is nothing to do here. Of course, for someone who admittedly is so incompetent that he does not know how to copy/paste on his computer, perhaps such matters are rocket science. And I must point out for the thousandth time: You refuse to quote Scripture because you're afraid of what the actual words mean. When someone else quotes Scripture you completely ignore the text and dismiss what it says.
  3. AlanF
    @Arauna said: Nothing useful. Those seven years are irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology. Name them. Since you have no idea what you're talking about, all you can manage is a bit of generalized sniping at scholarly conclusions. A useful tool that, combined with many independent lines of evidence, puts standard Neo-Babylonian chronology on an extremely firm footing. Such generalized sniping, devoid of specifics, is of no more value than Christopher Hitchens' statements that "religion poisons everything" have with respect to concluding that Watchtower chronology is wrong because of it. That chronology is surely wrong, but not because religion poisons everything. Arauna here quotes from a Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chronology 😞 The trouble with quoting out-of-context, generalized warnings like this is that they're meaningless with regard to specific evidence confirming or discounting something like Neo-Babylonian chronology. This is easy to see by reading the entire paragraph that this quotation comes from (The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies, John Steele, Physics in Canada, 59 (2003), 243-248, https://www.academia.edu/2360690/The_Use_and_Abuse_of_Astronomy_in_Establishing_Absolute_Chronologies ). After detailing some difficulties in using texts from Old Babylon (2nd millennium BCE) and ancient China, Steele writes (p. 247): << These examples show, I hope, the potential problems in simply approaching references to astronomical events as if they were modern data. When using any astronomical event for dating, it is necessary first to consider: (i) whether the record really refers to an astronomical event, or whether this is simply a conventional modern belief; (ii) if it does refer to an astronomical event, is the source reliable; and (iii) does the record provide an unambiguous dating requiring no, or at least only minimal, assumptions about any unknown aspects of the astronomical practices of the people who made the observation. Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but it is also a tool that must be used conservatively for it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions –- results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields. >> Note that Steele clearly stated that astronomical dating must be used conservatively -- not that it is useless. After all, even Watchtower chronology relies on astronomically confirmed dates from Babylonian astronomical tablets (which recorded lunar eclipses), plus information recorded in contract tablets showing the dates of the reign of Cyrus the Great -- the same tablets used by scholars like Parker and Dubberstein to compile modern Neo-Babylonian chronology. See Insight on Scriptures, pp. 452-453 for details. That Steele is confident that modern scholars have gotten it right for Babylonian chronology in the 1st millennium BCE is shown by the following material from his paper (pp. 245-246): << Nowhere has the role of astronomy proved to be more useful in establishing absolute chronology than in ancient Mesopotamia. Astronomical records have furnished the necessary material to provide us with a detailed understanding of the Babylonian calendar of the last seven centuries BC . . . The backbone of Babylonian chronology in the first millennium BC is in fact provided not by a Babylonian source but a Greek one. Claudius Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer of the second century AD, compiled a list of kings from the accession of Nabonassar in the mid-eighth century BC down to his own time. Ptolemy's purpose in compiling his "Royal Canon", as it is widely know, was as an aide for astronomical calculation. . . The Canon itself provides a list of Babylonian and Persian kings and the lengths that each reigned starting Nabonassar and continuing to Alexander the Great . . . Babylonian cuneiform texts, many of them astronomical, have been used to confirm the chronology of Ptolemy's Canon, and also to reconstruct the Babylonian calendar in detail. . . Parker and Dubberstein (1956) have conducted a detailed study of the Babylonian calendar and their tables can be used to convert any Babylonian date between 626 BC and AD 75 into the Julian calendar. . . many Babylonian astronomical texts from this period have been dated astronomically. The most numerous type of Babylonian astronomical text is the Astronomical Diary. . . [Many scholars including] myself have been able to date a large number of such fragments using the astronomical techniques I have outline in the earlier section. . . All of these studies have relied on the fact that fragmentary Astronomical Diaries can be precisely dated using astronomy. >> Anyone who thinks that modern scholars have gotten it wrong must be prepared -- if they are intellectually honest -- to refute, point by point and text by text, all of the conclusions of these scholars. Using the ridiculously simpleminded "it's wrong cuz Watchtower chronology is right" may cut it with the brainwashed rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses, but with no one else.
  4. AlanF
    Utter rubbish.
  5. AlanF
    Rubbish! I already told you: your questions were completely irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology, and all of us already know the answers. You're dissembling to try to confuse the dummies on this forum.
  6. AlanF
    Hypocrite! You complain when others use your own tactics on you.
  7. AlanF
    You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.
  8. AlanF
    Already done a number of times.
  9. AlanF
    Already done in the Julian calendar. Conversion to the Gregorian calendar is easily found with a search engine.
  10. AlanF
    No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
  11. AlanF
    No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
  12. AlanF
    No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
  13. AlanF
    No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
  14. AlanF
    You obviously haven't a clue what that is. Now that is circular reasoning. And of course, you're merely repeating what you've repeated dozens of time before and been shown to be wrong on every count. Not a bit problematic, as shown ad infinitum on this forum and elsewhere. And proved by the fact that you can not -- or will not -- provide a shred of evidence against the conclusions reached by Rodger Young and others. Even though you have been challenged to do so many, many times. Scholastic cowardice has no place in this thread. Utter nonsense. And stated without evidence. As Christopher Hitchens used to say, "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Of course, you've been given humongous quantities of evidence but dismiss it out of hand. LOL! That's funny, coming from someone too incompetent to operate a simple computer display. Nonsense again. The 70 year period, however one defines it, cannot be established outside a clear secular timeline. The secular timeline has nothing to do with the biblical timeline. The former stands on its own, independently of any claimed biblical timeline. So now you admit to 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. Very good! Not hardly. It was a minor event in the affairs of a minor nation in the overall history of Babylon.
  15. AlanF
    JW Insider said: I will argue that particular series of such tablets provide more than just one sixth witness, because some of them are independent of the others. A series of some 1,700+ tablets known as the archive of the House of Egibi ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Egibi ) contains thousands of dated tablets pertaining to business transactions during the entire Neo-Babylonian period and beyond (ca. 606-484 BCE). All by itself, it establishes the length of that period. The Wikipedia link provides good information, but there are others: http://persiababylonia.org/archives/fieldnotesandarchivalstories/the-egibi-nur-sin-archive/ https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/470226 In the first edition (1983) of The Gentile Times Reconsidered Carl Olof Jonsson described the significance of the Egibi tablets. The material below is adapted from Jonsson's website ( http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm ), The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed., pp. 122-125. Footnotes are shown inline due to limitations of this forum's formatting. Now of course, a record of at least 1,700 tablets that covers virtually every year of the Neo-Babylonian period cannot be dismissed out of hand. Nor can a "missing period" of 20 years be inserted anywhere. Since this record is completely consistent with the other records listed by JW Insider above, and is entirely consistent with the thousands of tablets of all sorts used by Parker and Dubberstein to compile their record of Babylonian chronology (Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), all honest people must admit that the evidence for standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is firmly established. Of note is the fact that, so far as I can find, the Watchtower Society has never commented on the Egibi tablets. This shows that they have been unable to find any evidence to dismiss this amazing archive. The same goes for all Watchtower apologists.
  16. AlanF
    Not really. The Big Bang was not in any sense an explosion, at least not in any normal sense of "explosion". Rather, it was an expansion of space-time from a tiny blob of whatever. You can read about this at any number of websites that explain physics. The expanding primordial matter, consisting of quarks, electrons, photons and lots of other stuff, according to the latest ideas was opaque to light. This is because all that stuff formed a plasma, which absorbs light. After 300,000 years of expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow quarks to join up into protons and neutrons, and then combine with electrons to form atoms. At that point the plasma was mostly gone, and the universe became transparent to light.
  17. AlanF
    Excellent material!
  18. AlanF
    Arauna said: Of course I do. Your words on this forum tell a great deal about you. Your "science" consists of parroting ancient mythical "knowledge", along with a conspiracy-theory take on modern science. So what? Anyone can read science, but without a solid science education, much goes over their heads. Or in one ear and out the other. The brains of religious fanatics contain an information filter that does that job. You've tried that before and failed miserably. Your objections all boil down to some form of The Argument From Personal Incredulity and reflect the worst sins of Young-Earth Creationism and so-called Intelligent Design, all of which has been thoroughly trashed by proper scientists and knowledgeable commentators. Of course not. The world of conspiracy-theorists is chock full of nonsense.
  19. AlanF
    Arauna said: The latter is what is used in Genesis 1. The former is irrelevant. Did I not say that? They all come from the same roots -- something big and strong. Nonsense. You're simply too proud and ignorant to understand what I've said. Are you prepared for a much more detailed exposition? No, of course not.
  20. AlanF
    Arauna said: "Respectable" is a relative term. Many of these believe that God created animal life beginning about 20,000 years ago. Far more believe God created the entire universe 6,000 years ago. So what? These people reject real science in favor of religious belief that they fall all over themselves to think is real science. And of course, we still find no argumentation from you justifying the Watchtower's false claim about Isaiah and E=mc^2. Obviously you've conceded my point but are too arrogant to admit it. Now you're just putting out a lot of smoke. Like God creating ALL marine and bird life before ANY land-based-life, beginning just 20,000 years ago. Like my debunking of the Watchtower's claim that Isaiah wrote about E=mc^2. A standard refrain from religious fanatics who believe nonsense like Young-Earth Creationism. YOU have clearly demonstrated that you do not. So have Watchtower writers. All proper scientists, and those who truly know science, know this. So what? Many people understand that in the long run, science tends to be self-correcting. That's because there are so many scientists who would love to make a name for themselves by overturning the findings of other ones. After a long time, whatever ideas survive the fray become recognized and solid science. Because such ideas have been tested rigorously and are backed up by copious real-world data, it's not likely they will be overturned, because a new idea will have to go through the same rigorous tests, plus explain all new data. Religious fanatics like Jehovah's Witnesses know little of this process, because their beliefs are based, not on real science and observation and theorizing, but on whatever the leaders dictate. Correct. And the fact that such people seem to be having real success in coming up with an effective vaccine -- despite the opposition from certain criminal political elements -- confirms how real science works. Which all proves what I've seen from you for some time now -- you're a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, with all that that implies. Nonsense. Most scientists are quite willing to change their ideas -- so long as proper evidence is given. So what? Science is an ongoing process. Neither the overall enterprise of science, nor any sane scientist, claims to know everything. Your mistake is thinking that science-accepting people are religious fanatics like you. Hence you think that proper science must be able to explain every phenomenon in the universe right now. You're wrong. Science has SOME answers -- far more than anything coming from the Bible or religious circles. Science knows that the earth is not shaped like a pizza pie. The Bible does not. Correction: you've blinded yourself. That's why you don't "see". Back to the standard, fact-free ad hominems. But I consider that a compliment. Been there, done that. You obviously have not. I make no wild statements. You can give no examples of such. Demonstrably false. So what? The Watchtower Society has long taught that life on earth is only some 27,000 years old. Depends on which society you're talking about. The Greeks on the whole certainly knew the earth is a globe by about 600 BCE. There is evidence that the Sumerians knew it by about 3000 BCE. That says nothing about the beliefs of the common people, who have always -- and still do -- believed all manner of nonsense. But not with regard to concepts like E=mc^2. Wow! Such a treasure trove of scientific knowledge! So what? The archaeologist/historian Irving Finkel of the British Museum has argued that the traditional circular boat called a coracle used in Iraq for as much as 5,000 years best fits the pre-biblical Flood story found in the Akkadian epic of Atra-Hasis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis ). A coracle is more stable than an "ark" such as described in Genesis. Finkel is quite entertaining and his take on the Noah's Flood story is easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I&list=RD92bjJ-prtyk&index=10 Furthermore, careful scientific studies have shown that a wooden structure as large as "Noah's Ark" would not be able to support its own weight if subjected to real-world forces. That's why the largest wooden ships built in the 19th century, some 110 meters long, all quickly fell apart, and had to be replaced by iron vessels. Merely because you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. Wrong. I first present argumentation and data, and after various ignoramuses reject it without counter argumentation, only then do I dismiss them. Of course, when such peoples' behavior forms a pattern, anyone with any brains comes to view them as crackpots. Been there, done that. LOL! Said like a true religious fanatic. Do you know how many times I've seen such nonsense claimed by such fanatics? And of course, such people direct their vitriol against ANY and ALL people who argue scientifically against their religious myths. Your continued refusal to deal with the fact that the Watchtower's claim that Isaiah knew about E=mc^2 is a good example. Lots of huffing and puffing, but no actual arguments.
  21. AlanF
    What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand -- whether the Jews returned to Judah in 538 or 537 BCE?
  22. AlanF
    JW Insider said: Arauna doesn't know what she's talking about, so I've paid little attention to that, but your point made me realize why the Watchtower's "early 537" speculation for Cyrus' proclamation pretty well destroys ScholarJW's arguments. Surely Arauna doesn't. Yes, the Watchtower doesn't really know what it's doing either. More on the Akitu festival so we're on the same page: This was held in early Nisan and was essentially a festival going back to the Sumerians celebrating the spring barley planting. So far as I can gather from my readings, this was also a time that various Middle Eastern rulers inaugurated their 1st regnal year. If this happened with Cyrus, then since his generally accepted accession was some time around October, 539, his 1st year would have begun Nisan 1, 538 and would therefore have corresponded with the Akitu festival, which would have been celebrated anyway. Such a big event would certainly have been accompanied by the grand gesture of Cyrus issuing his proclamation of release, along with many other significant events. According to this reasoning, that proclamation is unlikely to have been issued in late 538 -- what would occasion it? -- or early 537 but before Nisan 1 -- again what would occasion it? But as you imply, a Nisan 537 date is simply unreasonable if Arauna's point about the Akitu festival holds water. So from Nisan to Tishri of 537 or 538 would be six months (although Parker and Dubberstein assign the intercalary month Ululu II between Elul and Tishri in 537, making it seven months). Either way, six months is plenty of time for a journey from Babylon to Judah, especially if, as seems extremely likely, the Jews knew very well that Cyrus was in the habit of releasing captives soon after he conquered some city, and therefore would have begun preparations for their return to Judah soon after Babylon's fall, giving them 5-6 months of preparation time even before the proclamation. So in terms of preparation time plus journey time, a journey in 538 or 537 is equally possible. The deciding factor, if any, between the two must be something else. Which I have shown, with strong likelihood, is Josephus' statement about laying the foundation of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which Ezra also pegs as the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return, i.e., Iyyar 537 BCE. This works whether Josephus used Nisan or Tishri dating.
  23. AlanF
    ScholarJW quoted the following from the Insight book, Vol. 1, "Cyrus", pp. 568-569, but is too incompetent as a claimed scholar to have given the citation: Nothing insofar as the reasoning goes, but it's pure speculation masquerading as solidly established fact and is designed to deceive naive JW readers. And as I have explained in my paper ( https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf ) it is only one of two competing theories, and it entirely ignores the evidence brought in by Josephus -- which breaks the tie between the otherwise possible theories. Since this is all laid out in my paper, with nice pictures and formatting and such, there is no need to repeat it here. On the other hand, since you've not produced a similar paper refuting mine, here is a good place to bring up points from my paper that you think are wrong and let the mob discuss them. If you dare. Which you won't.
  24. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Already explained about five times now. I won't do it again. Furuli's "research" is ideological, not technical. Read Ann O'Maly's posts. I'm talking about two centimeters on a video display, you moron. Are you really this stupid? Only with regard to things irrelevant to his claims about matching texts with VAT 4956 via astro programs. Then shut the f*** up! You do if you want to independently verify his results. Otherwise you're treating him as your god. Oh, the Orwellian doublethink! Black is white! Laziness is honesty! ScholarJW is Honest! Ridiculously false ad hominems like that only prove you know you're on your last legs here. It's not even worth my thinking about a snappy rejoinder.
  25. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Of course I am. Or was, until I retired. What do you think a career designing microchips requires? A degree in basket weaving? No, you simply dismiss it without argument. Wrong because it's contradicted by all secular information. Just like Flat-Earthism is wrong for the same reason. Wow. You get 100 points!!! Let's see you try. Tell us when you've done it. In the meantime, shut the f*** up! As well as that of various scholars who have examined his works. Mostly they dismiss him as a religiously ideological crackpot. Easy for YOU to say! Nope. I won't explain this a fifth time. Then shut up, for God's sake!
×
×
  • 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.