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, scholar JW said:
Alan de Fool
Hardly irrelevant when I ask you a simple question in relation to your paper, 5 pages of nonsense on the Return. You are the one that is confused just read your rambliings. Go away and good riddance.
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.
-
@Arauna said:
Nothing useful.
Quote12 hours ago, JW Insider said:
that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness?This why your arguments are useless. You do not definitely know for sure if the seven years accounts for madness or if it includes the years that nebuchadnezzar did duties for his father as regent. As I said..... he went to war in the name of his father.....
Those seven years are irrelevant to Neo-Babylonian chronology.
QuoteToo many assumptions.
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.
QuoteLike evolution these scholars are too cocksure...... It is merely a useful tool.
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 😞
QuoteAstronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...
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.
—John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies."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.
-
26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
JW Insider
Reminder of basic facts:
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.
Utter rubbish.
-
34 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
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. !!!!
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.
-
10 hours ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
What are you trying to hide. Are you not the expert in Chronology so why can't you answer this simple question or you could ask your fellow critics like JW Insider, COJ or Ann O'Maly?
scholar JW
Hypocrite! You complain when others use your own tactics on you.
-
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
Well answer the question. Show the postings
scholar JW
You can barely read, but enough to find them for yourself. Quit being so lazy.
-
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
You cannot answer this question or you refuse to answer the question!
scholar JW
Already done a number of times.
-
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
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?
scholar JW
Already done in the Julian calendar. Conversion to the Gregorian calendar is easily found with a search engine.
-
2 hours ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
But you have no training in Semitic languages, or being able to translate the Akkadian language of the cuneiform clay tablets. Further, with all of your brilliance you have been unable to debunk or refute WT chronology and nome of the material posted on such websites fails to properly account for the 70 years.
Is it so sad that the said scholar is such a dummy yet for the last 20 years or so you have continued to dialoque with me which perhaps proves that scholar is a burr in your saddle.
scholar JW
No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
-
2 hours ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
the evidence is there but it is in the interpretation of that evidence and the fact of the 70 years disproves your nonsense.
scholar JW
No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
-
1 minute ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
So you say.
And I will keep repeating it.
Yes it is and if it was not so problematic then why is it that Rodger Young has written so much about it?
Why not try it out and examine the evidence for yourself?
At least I can appreciate the pretty colours.
So are you saying that NB Chronology can't be falsified?
True, but when one compares the two schemes alongside each other then a gap of 20 years is manifest so something is wrong. Terribly wrong!!!
Supremacy equals servitude equals Exile as on definite historical period of 70 years.
That is just a cop out to minimize such and important event in Jewish,OT history namely the Exile.
scholar JW
No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
-
1 minute ago, scholar JW said:
Alan F
No I am not wrong, There were a number of deportations but only ONE Exile as recognized by historians and scholars such as Rainer Albertz who described the Exile as a 'catastrophe' and this was the Exile that began with Neb's destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. The two accounts that you quoted nicely from 2 Kings 24 and 25 have at least one major difference and that is that the events of ch. 25 had a much longer seige, total destruction and the removal of the sacred items from the Temple. thus. the latter event with the last deportation of Jewry had a far greater effect on not just the Monarchy but also Worship, City, Temple and the Land.
No, for there were no four exiles but deportations culminating with the Exile that ended with the Return in 537 BCE
No evidence presented -- no further evidence needed to dismiss.
-
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
Absolute rubbish and complete nonsense. Talk about circular reasoning
You obviously haven't a clue what that is.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:for you maintain that there are five witnesses and thousands upon thousands to prove your timeline but how do these facts account for the insertion of the biblical 70 years and the missing seven years of Neb's kingship for starters
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.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:notwithstanding the problematic 586/587 BCE debate?
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.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:When one examine each and every one of these so-called 'lines of evidence' such easily fall over as each one of these witnesses proves unreliable, lacking precise chronological data.
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.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:This scheme that you have presented nicely coloured is similar to Alan F's contrivance on the 538/537 BCE debate which amounts to gibberish.
LOL! That's funny, coming from someone too incompetent to operate a simple computer display.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:The simple fact of the matter is this, that the 70 years falsifies NB Chronology no matter how well it is presented and how pretty you make it.
Nonsense again. The 70 year period, however one defines it, cannot be established outside a clear secular timeline.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:Historically, the NB Period has nothing to say about its domination over Judah
The secular timeline has nothing to do with the biblical timeline. The former stands on its own, independently of any claimed biblical timeline.
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:which lasted for 70 years
So now you admit to 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. Very good!
18 minutes ago, scholar JW said:which by all accounts is a significant period of the history of the ANE.
Not hardly. It was a minor event in the affairs of a minor nation in the overall history of Babylon.
-
JW Insider said:
Quote. . . the jw.org publication refers to the Business/Contract tablets admitting: "Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period." So these tablets provide a sixth witness agreeing with the previous five. In effect, they are actually providing a great crowd of additional witnesses, up to 10,000 more witnesses, so far, to the entire N-B timeline.
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/10.1086/470226In 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.
Quotea) The Egibi business house
By far the largest private archive of the Neo-Babylonian period is that of the Egibi business house. Of this enterprise Bruno Meissner says:
<< From the firm the Sons of Egibi we possess such an abundance of documents that we are able to follow nearly all business transactions and personal experiences of its heads from the time of Nebuchadnezzar up to the time of Darius I. >> 66
66 Bruno Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, Vol. II (Heidelberg, 1925), p. 331. The quotation is translated from the German.
The business documents from the Egibi house were discovered by Arabs during the wet season of the year 1875-76 in a mound in the neighbourhood of Hillah, a town about four miles southeast of the ruins of Babylon. Some three or four thousand tablets were discovered enclosed in a number of earthen jars, resembling common water jars, covered over at the top with a tile, and cemented with bitumen.
The discoverers brought the tablets to Baghdad and sold them to a dealer there. In that same year George Smith visited Baghdad and acquired about 2,500 of these important documents for the British Museum.
The tablets were examined during the following months by W. St. Chad Boscawen, and his report appeared in 1878 in the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 67 Boscawen states that the tablets “relate to the various monetary transactions of a Babylonian banking and financial agency, trading under the name of Egibi and Sons.” The tablets “relate to every possible commercial transaction; from the loan of a few shekels of silver, to the sale or mortgage of whole estates whose value is thousands of manas of silver.” 68
Boscawen soon realized the importance of following the sequence of the heads of the Egibi firm, and after a more careful analysis he ascertained the main lines of the succession to be as follows:
From the third year of Nebuchadnezzar a person named Shula acted as head of the Egibi firm, and continued in that capacity for a period of twenty years, up to the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar when he died and was succeeded by his son, Nabû-ahhê-iddina. 69
The son, Nabû-ahhê-iddina, continued as the head of affairs for a period of thirty-eight years, that is, from the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar to the twelfth year of Nabonidus when he was succeeded by his son Itti-Marduk-balatu. 70
67 W. St. Chad Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets, and the Canon of Ptolemy,” in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VI (London, January 1878), pp. 1-78. As Boscawen points out (ibid., pp. 5, 6), George Smith himself, during his stay at Baghdad in 1876, had begun a systematic and careful examination of the tablets, a study that was interrupted by his untimely death in Aleppo in August that year. Boscawen’s study was evidently based on Smith’s notebooks.—Sheila M. Evers, “George Smith and the Egibi Tablets,” Iraq, Vol. LV, 1993, pp. 107-117.
68 Ibid., p. 6. A “mana” (mina) weighed about 0.5 kg.
69 Ibid., pp. 9, 10. Shula died between the dates VII/21/23 (month/day/year) and IV/15/24 of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (between October, 582 and July, 581 B.C.E.).—G. van Driel, “The Rise of the House of Egibi,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap, No. 29 (Leiden, 1987), p. 51.
70 Nabû-ahhê-iddina evidently died in the thirteenth year of Nabonidus, the year after his son had taken over the affairs. See Arthur Ungnad, “Das Haus Egibi,” Archiv für Orientforschung, Band XIV (Berlin, 1941), p. 60, and van Driel, op. cit., pp. 66, 67.
Itti-Marduk-balatu in his turn remained head of the firm until the first year of Darius I (521/20 B.C.E.), which was the twenty-third year of his headship of the firm.
Boscawen epitomizes these findings as follows:
<<
Now, summing up these periods, we get the result that from the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis was a period of eighty-one years:
Sula at the head of the firm 20 years
Nabu-ahi-idina 38 years
Itti-Marduk-balatu 23 years
Total 81 yearsThis would give an interval of eighty-three years from the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis. 71
>>The significant fact is that this agrees exactly with Berossus, the Royal Canon, and the Neo-Babylonian historical records. Counting backwards eighty-three years from the first year of Darius I (521/20 B.C.E.) brings us to 604 B.C.E. as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees completely with the other lines of evidence presented above.
The archive of the Egibi-house alone would suffice to establish the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. With this extensive set of dated commercial tablets from the archive of one of the “Rothschilds” of Babylon “there ought to be but little difficulty in establishing once and for ever the chronology of this important period of ancient history,” wrote Boscawen already back in 1878. 72
The evidence of these documents leaves no room for a gap in Neo-Babylonian history from Nebuchadnezzar onward, certainly not one of twenty years! The archive, containing tablets dated up to the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, the second year of Awel-Marduk, the fourth year of Neriglissar and the seventeenth year of Nabonidus, gives a complete confirmation of the chronology of Berossus and the Royal Canon.
Since the last century still other collections of tablets belonging to the Egibi family have been discovered. 73 A number of studies on the Egibi family have been produced, all of which confirm the general conclusions drawn by Boscawen. 74 Thanks to the enormous amount of texts from this family, scholars have been able to trace the history, not only of the heads of the firm, but also of many other members of the Egibi house, and even family trees have been worked out that extend through the whole Neo-Babylonian period and into the Persian era! 75
The pattern of intertwined family relations that has been established in this way for several generations would be grossly distorted if another twenty years were inserted into the Neo-Babylonian period.
71 Boscawen, op. cit., pp. 10, 24. This conclusion had also been arrived at previously by George Smith in his study of the tablets.—S. M. Evers, op. cit. (note 67 above), pp. 112-117.
72 Boscawen, op. cit., p. 11.
73 During excavations at Uruk in 1959-60, for example, an archive belonging to members of the Egibi family was unearthed, containing 205 tablets dating from the sixth year of Nabonidus to the thirty-third year of Darius I. Most of the tablets were dated as from the reign of Darius. See J. van Dijk, UVB 18 (cf. note 33 above), pp. 39-41. The earliest known text of the Egibi family is dated to 715 B.C.E. Business documents of the family then appear regularly between 690 and 480 B.C.E.—M. A. Dandamaev, op. cit. (1984; see note 60 above), p. 61.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
The consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion.
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.
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:Explosion = Light
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.
-
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:
TAKING A RELATIVE TIMELINE AND MATCHING IT TO OUR OWN ERA (BCE/CE)
. . .
Excellent material!
-
Arauna said:
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
most people who are semi-educated in Watchtower "science",QuoteYou know nothing about me.
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.
QuoteMy science education comes from reading science - as I have an interest in it.
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.
QuoteI can give you many reasons why I do not believe in evolution
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.
Quoteand most of them you will not find in a watchtower publication...... lol.
Of course not. The world of conspiracy-theorists is chock full of nonsense.
-
Arauna said:
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
Spirit literally means "breath of God". Now, God,QuoteNeshamah means ' breath ' in its restricted sense. Ru'ah has a much wider application.
The latter is what is used in Genesis 1. The former is irrelevant.
QuoteIt is an "active" wind or energy which brings visible results.
Did I not say that?
QuoteIt is always in motion and cannot be controlled by humans..........whereas "power" - can be latent or active.....
They all come from the same roots -- something big and strong.
Quoteso much for your lumping of all 3 words together in such a sloppy way.
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.
-
Arauna said:
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
Still no connection with E=mc^2 -- the Watchtower arguments are demonstrably false.QuoteThere are many respectable scientists who are JWs and many other scientists who are Christians.
"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.
QuoteThey find the statements in the bible , which borders on science, highly compatible with science.
Like God creating ALL marine and bird life before ANY land-based-life, beginning just 20,000 years ago.
QuoteYou make many wild, arrogant, statements without giving proof.
Like my debunking of the Watchtower's claim that Isaiah wrote about E=mc^2.
QuoteYou come across as patronizing
A standard refrain from religious fanatics who believe nonsense like Young-Earth Creationism.
Quote- as though you are the only one who understand science.
YOU have clearly demonstrated that you do not. So have Watchtower writers.
QuoteScience is only a tool to understand the natural world. It is not a God and not an explanation of everything as you pretend it to be.
All proper scientists, and those who truly know science, know this.
QuoteAs I pointed out earlier - scientists are just imperfect men who can make errors and are prone to ego, lying, evil , professional jealousy greedy...etc. just like any other educated or uneducated person.
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.
Quote(This Corona virus fiasco is a good example of science or rather, the scientists who run the science.
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.
QuoteAnd it seems they think they can run the world under a technocratic - corperatocricy in future under the UN...... lol. We know, bible prophecy indicates a major failure for humankind and their science.)
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.
QuoteEvidence is there that atheists make science their God.....
Nonsense. Most scientists are quite willing to change their ideas -- so long as proper evidence is given.
Quotebut it is an extremely imperfect God. Science lacks the mathematic formulas to connect the different sciences together and cannot even explain the energies that exist - such as magnetism and how it connects with weak and strong energies and gravity - to get to one conclusion for the universe and earth. There are string theory and quantum theory - all theories that give a little explanation and are NOT compatible.... they give explanations only to a certain point ...... and then it lacks that which is needed to explain it all.
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.
QuoteDo not pretend here on this forum that science has the answers - it only pretends to have the answers. The reality is - is it extremely DEFICIENT.
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.
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
Idiot savants haveI have not seen any "scientific " argument from you which is based on science-
Correction: you've blinded yourself. That's why you don't "see".
Quoteyou mostly revile others... that is all. You are a perfect advertisement for your godlessness.
Back to the standard, fact-free ad hominems. But I consider that a compliment.
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
Arauna: you demeaned the questions asked by the bible writer.AlanF: Not at all. What I have consistently pointed out is that Bible writers demonstrate no more knowledge of "science" than any other educated people of their time. And in most cases their expressions reflect the common misconceptions of their time, such as when Isaiah 40:22 clearly indicates a pizza-pie shaped earth. A fact that I've pointed out several times and you've carefully ignored.
I suggest you read up on that history and your eyes will open up.
Been there, done that. You obviously have not.
QuoteI am not here to teach a person who makes wild statements.
I make no wild statements. You can give no examples of such.
QuoteI like to speak to logical, human being which is prepared weigh evidences.
Demonstrably false.
QuoteEven in modern times there is a flat earth society.....
So what? The Watchtower Society has long taught that life on earth is only some 27,000 years old.
Quoteso what do you think they believed 4000 years ago?
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.
Quote17 hours ago, AlanF said:
excellent observers and had good knowledge of mathematics. SI said moses was educated.
But not with regard to concepts like E=mc^2.
QuoteIt is interesting to read the construction dimensions given for the tabernacle.... either moses or God gave those dimensions and they seem accurate and detailed..
Wow! Such a treasure trove of scientific knowledge!
QuoteCome to think of it - even the arc built by Noah is very much a stable construction - similar in dimension to the large modern ocean liners..... just to give 2 examples.
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.QuoteI think you are unscientific
Merely because you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time.
Quote- and your dismissiveness makes you so.
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.
QuoteA true scientist searches for the truth and follows it - wherever the conclusions may lead him to.
Been there, done that.
QuoteYou are too scared to do that. You may just have to re-evaluate your false claims
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.
-
3 hours ago, Arauna said:
The culture of the Babylonians were so set in its traditions that to deviate from it would create unrest with the people. Nabonides was hated by the people because he did not attend the festival of Akitu. He was shirking his duty with the God of the city and could bring great misfortune to the people - such was the superstition.
The festival of Akitu was centered around the King as representing the deity if the city - Marduk.... and a great king (if he was smart) would definitely attend this and allow himself to be crowned. it was a time of great festivity and the people participated... so if it did not take place they would feel bereft of its significance. It is similar to Alexander the Great being crowned in Egypt according to Egyptian customs.... not his own customs. This brought him much respect in Egypt. He was later buried there.
Akitu was held for 14 days and started in the first day of NISSAN. The cultural history of the period tells me that Cyrus would have had himself crowned as 'king of the four corners of the earth' at this festival. Assyrian kings also had themselves crowned there. it was the most important festival on the pagan calendar.
What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand -- whether the Jews returned to Judah in 538 or 537 BCE?
-
JW Insider said:
Quote5 hours ago, AlanF said:
The Watchtower allows that Cyrus' proclamation could have been as late as early 537 BCE, by which it allows as little as the same six months for a journey in 537 compared to one in 538. Thus, the Watchtower Society itself allows for BOTH "short" time frames.I'm not sure you noticed, but I saw your question to @Arauna about the festival of Akitu. @Arauna has repeatedly berated me for not accepting the idea that Cyrus must have made his proclamation at the festival of Akitu in Nisan 538. I believe she has thought that this is a similar argument to the one "scholar JW" is making that somehow proves that the Jews must have arrived back on Tishri 537.
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.
QuoteI'm not sure most Witnesses realize that it's is a year and half, between those two points,
Surely Arauna doesn't.
Quoteand yet the WTS is quite happy with the possibility that the proclamation could have happened a full year later leaving six months or less.
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.
-
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:
Quote<< Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 2 >>
In view of your paper on this subject what then is wrong with the content, facts and reasoning of this information?
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.
-
ScholarJW said:
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.What about interpreting the data?
Already explained about five times now. I won't do it again.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
There is no technical controversy.There is with Furuli's research
Furuli's "research" is ideological, not technical.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.Where did he say that?
Read Ann O'Maly's posts.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.i think you will find it is more than two centimetre of distance involved.
I'm talking about two centimeters on a video display, you moron. Are you really this stupid?
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?But Furuli consulted with such scholars as part of his research so read his Bibliography.
Only with regard to things irrelevant to his claims about matching texts with VAT 4956 via astro programs.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
You're not competent to judge.true
Then shut the f*** up!
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.Do not need to for i can read his books
You do if you want to independently verify his results. Otherwise you're treating him as your god.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.I call it intellectual honesty
Oh, the Orwellian doublethink! Black is white! Laziness is honesty! ScholarJW is Honest!
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.Says the one majoring in bias and prejudice
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.
-
ScholarJW said:
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.Watchtower is not in the science business and neither are you.
Of course I am. Or was, until I retired. What do you think a career designing microchips requires? A degree in basket weaving?
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
JW Insider already covered that.I doubt that
No, you simply dismiss it without argument.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
No, it's just the WRONG methodology and interpretation. But Russell and his Adventist mentors really had no such things. It was all flying by the seat of their pants.On what basis can you say that it is the wrong methodology and interpretation? Again you talk nonsense.
Wrong because it's contradicted by all secular information. Just like Flat-Earthism is wrong for the same reason.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.You said it so just remember it!!
Wow. You get 100 points!!!
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Several have already told you: buy a program and try it out for yourself. After you've learned how to use it in a decade or two, come back here and present your results.I already have two programs installed on my computer so in coming years i might be able to make some sense of it.
Let's see you try. Tell us when you've done it. In the meantime, shut the f*** up!
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
He is demonstrably so. I think he's sincere in a way, but sincere people can convince themselves that lies are true if they try hard enough. The Watchtower Society calls sincere believers of the Trinity doctrine liars. Same for Furuli.Your opinion
As well as that of various scholars who have examined his works. Mostly they dismiss him as a religiously ideological crackpot.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which I think you're afraid to do. I really don't think you're so mentally deficient that you can't manage to operate a simple astro program. Rather, you don't want to take a chance on destroying many of your cherished rationalizations.There is no such thing as a simple astro program
Easy for YOU to say!
Quotebut the problem is in the interpretation of the data
Nope. I won't explain this a fifth time.
Quote4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.Agreed
Then shut up, for God's sake!
SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)
in Topics
Posted
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
So says the Elmer Fudd of Bible chronology.