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
    English, Neil, English.
  2. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Scholars, even the fake Watchtower ones, generally agree that the reign of Darius is too problematic to say anything substantive about. Yet they almost all agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year began Nisan 1, 538 BCE. Even the Watchtower more or less agrees (Insight Vol. 1, p. 568): << 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. >> Saying "problematic" is not an argument. There is no real justification for late 538. If you think there is, then lay it out. But again no one will be holding his breath. False. Read it for once. False again. And briefly explained above. Your blithely refusing to make actual arguments shows nothing. False yet again. The Jews were in their cities by Tishri; they had six months of travel time plus an additional 5-6 months of preparation time -- exactly what you claim for your precious 537 date. If what you claim for my arguments is right, then it is equally true that there was not enough time for your 537 scenario. But yet again we see no actual argument from ScholarJW here -- just unargued dismissals and denials of facts. I've never said different. I have said that it is WRONG and shown why. 4 hours ago, AlanF said: Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above. All that you have presented is a contrivance with no attention to the history and circumstances of the Decree. LOL! Another manifestation of your growing dementia and inability to reason. And saying "contrivance" is not an argument. Wrong again. Josephus ALSO says that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Jews' return, and equates that with the 2nd year of Cyrus. Those two items do not fit a 537-Return scenario. That's why Josephus is the tie-breaker.
  3. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Read my above material again that establishes 621 as Nabopolassar's 5th year and 568 as Nebuchachadnezzar's 37th year by means of lunar eclipses that fit no other dates. So you have no point. I won't hold my breath waiting for substantive comment from you. When the entire world of academic opinion is against some religious tradition like Watchtower chronology, you can bet it's wrong. Correction: historical science proves it. The 70 years are irrelevant to establishing the secular history. But you constantly utter ridiculous opinions as if you do. Already discounted a dozen times. False. They are NOT new findings, not by a long shot. And these terms are NOT ignored. I could quote a few dozen commentaries which discuss them. But you already know that, so I won't bother. 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". 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. Utter nonsense. Of course we do. I certainly have the professional capacity, demonstrated by a degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT, a Masters Degree in the same from Oregon State University, by straight A's in a pile of graduate courses in mathematical physics, classical physics, quantum mechanics, etc. Plus a highly successful 33-year career designing all manner of microchips for prominent electronics companies, which also entailed a good deal of scientific computer programming. And I have thousands of pages of often highly technical written material available on my website https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/ . And again, of course, Ann O'Maly's excellent papers speak for themselves, as does pretty much everything written here by JW Insider. And then we have the many excellent websites that thoroughly debunk all of Watchtower chronology, such as https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/ , https://ad1914.com/ , https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ , https://jwfacts.com/ and a host of others. Correction: Woe is you! You're demonstrably not competent to comment on anything in this thread, since you're incapable of reading, understanding and analyzing the Bible, or quoting it, or properly understanding or summarizing academic papers or any other scholarly material.
  4. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: That should be the end of the story. The "few"? You obviously neither know nor believe the Bible. And of course, you refuse even to quote the Bible. So let me do if for you. The Bible clearly states that the deportation of 597 BCE was much greater than the one of 587 BCE: 2 Kings 24:12-16 describes the deportation of 597 BCE. It reads: << 12  King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign. 13 Then he took out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house. He cut into pieces all the gold utensils that Solʹo·mon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah, just as Jehovah had foretold. 14 He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land. 15  Thus he took Je·hoiʹa·chin into exile to Babylon; he also led away the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his court officials, and the foremost men of the land, taking them into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 The king of Babylon also took into exile to Babylon all the warriors, 7,000, as well as 1,000 craftsmen and metalworkers, all of them mighty men and trained for war. >> 2 Kings 25:11, 18-21 describes the deportation of 587 BCE. It reads: << 11  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. 18  The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah the second priest, and the three doorkeepers. 19  And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, five close associates of the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city. 20  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Ribʹlah. 21  The king of Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath. Thus Judah went into exile from its land. >> Jeremiah 52:15-27 describes the deportation in 587 BCE: << 15  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. 24  The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah the second priest, and the three doorkeepers. 25 And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, seven close associates of the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city. 26  Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Ribʹlah. 27  The king of Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath. Thus Judah went into exile from its land. >> So according to the Bible, upwards of 18,000 people were taken in 597 BCE from Jerusalem and its surroundings. Only "the poorest people of the land" were left. But in 587 BCE, only a relative handful were taken captive, leaving only "the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers." Consistent in relative terms with the above, Jeremiah 52:28-30 states: << 28  These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. >> So in 597 BCE, 3,023 Jews were deported, and in 587 BCE 832 were deported. It is unknown what the deportation of 582 entailed. While these figures are problematic (which is neither here nor there for our dicussion), the point is again that about FOUR TIMES AS MANY were taken captive in 597 as in 587. Now note Ezekiel 1:1: << . . . while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar . . . >> That's not talking about an exile of the Jews? THE most important one, since about four times as many were exiled in 597 as in 587? You are completely wrong, Neil. You should display some honesty and admit it. Sure it is, especially since you've proven to know neither the Bible nor logical reasoning. And note that ALL FOUR exiles ended with the Return in 538. At least, for the relatively small number who did not remain in Babylon. State what? Quote them -- if you dare. So what? "Exile" is a general term and does not apply exclusively to the exile of the Jews in Babylon. Since ScholarJW is afraid to quote the Bible, above I've done it for him. You'll have to ask him about that in the resurrection. Yeah. So? Shown above by the Bible to be false. False again. Complete nonsense. ALL FOUR DEPORTATIONS resulted in four distinct exiles, all of which were eventually lumped together by blurred history into a vague "one exile" that ended when the Jews returned to Judah.
  5. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard. There is no technical controversy. Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs. Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion. What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars? You're not competent to judge. Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program. You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness. A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias. Irrelevant.
  6. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition. JW Insider already covered that. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 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. No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving. I already explained. Can't you read? Ditto. Meaningless verbiage. Try making a point. 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. 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. 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. Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.
  7. AlanF
    You've descended to complete gobble-de-goop now.
  8. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates. I discussed those things above. I've proved above that YOU'RE WRONG. You have no arguments -- only dismissals. Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim. Did I not say that? What's your point? Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above. Which my above-referenced essay shows is the absolute proof that the Return was in Tishri, 538. Since I've used Josephus to prove that the Return was in 538, the temple foundations must have been laid in 537. This perfectly lines up with Josephus' statement in Against Apion that the temple lay in ruins for 50 years, along with his giving a list of kings and their reigns during that time. Read it and weep, ScholarJW.
  9. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems? ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539. THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers! Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong. Wrong. That's exactly like claiming that the fact that the earth is a ball is merely the product of bias on the part of most of the world. Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter. Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM. LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation? COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? I thought not. 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". Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here. How about using "Watchtower Library" like I do? Or is that too complicated for your little brain? Do you know how to copy/paste using Control-C/Control-V in Windows, or Command-C/Command-V in Macs, or the equivalent in any other operating system? NO WONDER you can't manage to quote people properly! OR THE BIBLE ITSELF! Are you telling me that for 20 frigging years you haven't QUOTED THE FRIGGING BIBLE because you can't figure out how to copy/paste text? How about just typing? I've typed literally thousands of passages from various Bibles?
  10. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point? Nonsense. Ezra explicitly calls Tishri the 7th month -- according to the secular calendar.
  11. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: You yourself have said it. See your own words above. Now you ignore what you said and switch gears: Both time frames are equally possible, as I and others have repeatedly proved: The captive Jews observed the fall of Babylon in October, 539. They knew that Cyrus, following his usual practice, would likely release them and most other captives fairly soon. It was standard practice for kings like Cyrus to hold massive ceremonies inaugurating their FIRST year. This happened about Nisan 1, 538 BCE, giving the Jews some 5-6 months to prepare. Part of such ceremonies would have been a proclamation releasing the captives. The Jewish captives, already having prepared, would have spent little time further preparing for the 4-month journey from Babylon to Judah. There are six full months available from Nisan 1 to Tishri 1, so the 4-month journey is easily accommodated. 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. You don't seem to realize that criticism of a short time frame for 538 applies equally well to 537. And of course, as I have repeatedly shown for some fifteen years, Josephus provides the tie-breaking data for a 538 return over 537: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf Disproved.
  12. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: But for those deported and made captive for awhile, they are BY DEFINITION in exile. Do I really need to point you to a dictionary? LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question. A few? What garbage! The exile of 597 was actually bigger than that of 587. Not only Ezekiel, but all of the important people in the country were exiled -- artisans, all of the elite, etc. The 587 exile was of the leftovers. Do you need me to quote Ezekiel and other sources on this? There were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?
  13. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: They are both equally well established. The Bible says nothing directly about it. It does speak of his 18th and 19th years as when Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE -- the same year after accounting for the fact that "18th" was written by someone using Babylonian dating and "19th" by someone using Jewish dating. Starting with the 18th year and counting back to zero by accession year dating gets you to 605. Easy! You have the books. Look at them. So how does one rank COJ compared to others scholars? Again irrelevant. COJ is not a degreed academic scholar; so what? What he has done -- why do you continue dishonestly to use this irrelevant ad hominem? -- is to collate a massive amount of data published by recognized scholars in several fields. Thus, when someone dismisses COJ as if his collations were of no value, he is dismissing most of the world of academic scholarship. But because much of Watchtower argumentation consists largely of such ad hominen dismissals, it's no surprise when Watchtower accolytes do the same. Except that, as the discussions in this thread alone prove, Furuli's 'debunkings' are provably wrong. You continue to make the mistake of dismissing all of academic scholarship based solely on the Watchtower's demonstrably wrong interpretations of a handful of Bible passages, which interpretations mostly ignore without comment all passages that contradict its tradition. COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving. We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.
  14. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Number One: Anyone with an intellectual level above about seven years old can learn these programs. If you can view a web page, you can view the display of an astro program. Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors. Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur. Number Four: Scholarly experts have already examined the evidence and concluded that in the case of Furuli's disputed dates, 568 versus 588 for VAT 4956, 588 is wrong. This really is not rocket science. If I tell you that picture X displays a kangaroo two centimeters to the left of a wallaby, and then display picture X alongside picture Y which displays a kangaroo six centimeters to the left of a wallaby, would you have any difficulty figuring out which was X and which was Y? Donald Trumpolini might, but I doubt that you would. And if you would, you'd have no business participating in a discussion like this. Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six. Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions. Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so. Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship". It's historical science. Ever hear of that? Of course it does. Real science, historical or otherwise, gathers evidence, formulates hypotheses, measures the hypotheses against the evidence, eliminates those that don't work, and eventually comes up with a set of hypotheses that withstand all valid tests. Valid tests do not include the sort of wild speculations that morons like the Flat-Earthers come up with, such as claiming that all photo evidence is the product of a worldwide conspiracy of CGI experts. Your 'tests' are in that category. Academic experts have used solid historical science to come up with a fully tested Scientific Theory called Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. Something as well established as, and often better than, anything else in ancient history. Which is fully explained and justified for Standard Neo-Babylonian Chronology. And of course, which eliminates the sort of bogus methodologies and interpretations so beloved by Watchtower Tradition. No academic expert, but competent. And since you're too lazy (and self-admittedly mentally deficient) to learn, you have no basis for an opinion. Wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. In general these programs are marketed by software companies that want to make money from them. Over the past 25 years I've bought half a dozen of them. Most become obsolete after a few years, not because the underlying data and mathematical calculations need revision, but because computer operating systems change and marketing goals change. I'm quite capable of writing such a program myself, using data from easily available NASA and related sources, and I've even played around with this. But it takes an inordinate amount of time to produce a usable video display, and so it's not worth my time to do it. Besides, others are far more competent than I am in such programming. There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change. Wrongheaded again. If the document says that planet X is "two fingers in front of the moon" on date DDD, that requires NO INTERPRETATION aside from figuring out what "two fingers" means and what DDD means. In most cases all experts, academic and amateur alike, agree on most such things. Where biased people like Furuli display their bias is in claiming that a "two fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated DDD is a worse fit than is a "six fingers" video display corresponding to a text dated EEE but which also says "two fingers". Anyone not blind can SEE that the "two fingers" display is better than the "six fingers" display. So when Furuli makes such claims, we KNOW he's lying. Furuli found no such things. Rather, he fudged his judgment of "two fingers" versus "six fingers" to convince his readers of a lie. And most likely himself. Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted. You can also say that the earth is Flat. So what? The evidence counts, not mere opinions. You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.
  15. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Finally you admit that I've been right for some 15 years! The first year of Cyrus ran spring, 538 BCE to spring 537 BCE. Since the Jews were "in their cities" in the fall -- in the 7th month Tishri -- that was the fall of 538 BCE. Thus the Jews returned from exile in 538 BCE.
  16. AlanF
    A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile. You obviously do not believe the Bible when Ezekiel calls himself and his fellows "exiles", and dates many events as "in the 20th year of our exile . . ."
  17. AlanF
    Are you lying here? Or just plain stupid? I've consistently described -- not just alluded to -- FOUR DEPORTATIONS -- in 605, 597, 587 and 582. Daniel, his three companions, and a handful of other prominent Jews were deported in 605.
  18. AlanF
    Like most people who are semi-educated in Watchtower "science", Arauna does not know the difference between literal and metaphorical uses of words such as are translated as "spirit" and "power". Spirit literally means "breath of God". Now, God, not having lungs or breathing air, does not have literal breath. "Breath" is simply a metaphor for "the power of God" in Genesis. When Genesis says that the spirit of God was moving over the waters, it literally says "the wind of God". Ancient readers obviously knew that the literal wind was powerful, and therefore had no trouble understanding the metaphor. As regards "power", everyone can see what that means. Someone like Goliath was "powerful". Bears are powerful. The wind is powerful. Lightning is powerful. God was regarded as powerful. It's not rocket science. Many biblical literalists go way overboard in trying to attribute modern understandings, such as of scientific ideas, to ancient writings. Islamic fundamentalists do the same thing with the Koran.
  19. 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. He was educated in Egyptian knowledge and mythology. So what? Nothing in the stories allegedly written by him shows any knowledge beyond what the Egyptians had. The only cycles Bible writers knew about were what everyone else knew -- the sun and moon and stars go round and round in the sky. Of course. They could see it. Yes, people like Babylonian and Mesoamerican astronomers were excellent observers and had good knowledge of mathematics. So what? The Bible writers displayed no such knowledge. Um, it's another bit of simple observation that water falls from the sky as rain, collects into rivers which flow into the sea, and the sea is not full. And that there are yearly seasons -- cycles -- where regular patterns are observed. It doesn't take miraculous knowledge to see any of that.
  20. AlanF
    Still no connection with E=mc^2 -- the Watchtower arguments are demonstrably false. If you can't see the falsity of the Watchtower arguments, there's no help for you. Idiot savants have unexplained brilliance generally in ONE area. In most other areas they truly are idiots. Fred Franz is a fine example of this. ALL of his wild prophetic speculations have either proved false or been abandoned by present WTS leaders. Several minor revisions, one major one in 2013. So what? The fact is that Franz managed a translation that was woodenly accurate in most areas -- but not where Watchtower tradition dictated his warping the translation. Careful examination proves that he knew exactly what he was doing with these wrong renderings. He deliberately selected several possible meanings of the original Hebrew or Greek, and chose the one closest to the desired pre-existing Watchtower doctrine, even when such wrong rendering made no sense in context. For example, look at John 17:3 in the old and new NWT versions. Do you know why they're different? Do you understand that, in context, the old rendering was flat-out wrong? And why? I pointed this out to an elder nearly 20 years ago, and he happened to be smart and honest enough to admit it after I showed him half dozen Greek-English lexicons. Very few JW officials -- certainly not Fred Franz -- have shown such integrity.
  21. AlanF
    Indeed, it is "out of mind". Just as a point of language, one might best say something like, "Anyone who would translate the words in Isaiah as "dynamic energy" is out of his mind." It was Fred Franz who did that with the New World Translation. Even though he was brilliant on some level, he was certainly out of his mind -- an idiot savant. Unfortunately, Franz managed to become the "head theologian" for the Watchtower Society for perhaps 60 years. One can see the horrendus results that this brilliant idiot produced, results that most ex-JWs are very familiar with.
  22. AlanF
    Arauna said: Most stars stay in orbit so as not to create chaos. The ancient Hebrews knew nothing of the modern concept of orbits. For them, "orbit" meant "going around the sky every day". You're again trying to attribute modern knowledge to ignorant ancients. The phrase "keep the stars in place" obviously refers to the sky as observed by people who see the stars go round and round every day. Nothing more than that. So what? According to the Bible, the sky was constant. Which the ancient Hebrews knew zero about. What? I have two. Really. How do you rationalize attributing such modern knowledge to the ancient Hebrews? Did they, for example, know that the stars in the central portion of our galaxy are zipping around at furious rates around our giant central black hole? Expressions like this prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Not even enough to understand what I've just said. Which most JWs are highly averse to doing. Such as you.
  23. AlanF
    Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.
  24. AlanF
    ScholarJW said: Not me: ALL proper scholars. I've merely parroted what these scholars have said. Right in line with JW Insider's purpose for this thread. I don't need to for anyone competent to participate in this thread. Either they own Thiele's books, or they have easy access to them. Let's see you do it. Thiele's analysis is mere "blustering comments"? Already you've moved beyond the stated scope of this thread. False. Argue with Thiele, Finegan and a host of other scholars. Publish a paper with your claims and see how that flies. But that's been done ad nauseum. As you well know. Merely making vague and baseless criticisms doesn't cut it. Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank. Ditto. Cite them all you want. But you're missing the point: the scholars I've cited do not merely state opinions, but clearly and vigorously lay out the basis for those opinions. As for Furuli, his claims have already been thoroughly debunked by Carl Jonsson and various other scholars. Such scholars have not merely given opinions, but given very good reasons for their debunkings. Of course. But as I have repeatedly emphasized, data such as from the Bible must be clearly laid out -- i.e., the Bible must be quoted and the passages clearly analyzed, not merely paraphrased or summarized.
  25. AlanF
    Not at all. Furuli claimed that certain astronomical events recorded in various cuneiform tablets correspond best to certain configurations of planets, the moon, etc. as displayed in several computer programs that display such astronomical configurations. The data from the tablets is along the lines of "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". It certainly takes a bit of interpretation of those ancient texts, and of the display from astro programs, to decide among several possibilities for matching textual events with displayed events for certain dates. But it's not rocket science. All it takes is a careful eye and intellectual honesty. Furuli's claims about some configurations matching certain texts displays a clear bias in favor of his preferred Watchtower dates. All other researchers disagree. Furuli was not simply wrong, but demonstrably biased. I know exactly how this works, since I've compared several such texts with the displays from several astro programs. It's quite interesting to do this. In principle, that's right. But Furuli has demonstrably been biased, in the same manner that Raymond Franz explained how he was biased when he wrote material on "chronology" that appeared in the old Aid book. Hardly. But just as the earth has been solidly shown to orbit the sun, standard Neo-Babylonian chronology has been firmly established. It would take a ridiculously unusual set of new and contradictory data to overturn what has been established these last few hundred years, on the order of showing that the earth does not orbit the sun. Not hardly. I've looked at several astro programs in the past two decades. It certainly takes a bit of learning to understand how to compare texts with astro displays, but if you're not mentally incompetent it's really not that hard. Without an interactive display visible to two people, describing such displays is not so easy, but I'll try. An astro display might show some planet as being a little to the left of some star that serves as a constant marker. The program can display how much farther to the left the planet is from the star, in degrees, say XXX degrees, on some specified date. A dated ancient text might say something like "planet X was two cubits in front of the moon at time TTT on date DDD". Your problem is to decide whether "two cubits in front of" corresponds to the XXX degrees displayed by the astro program. In many cases it's not easy to decide, for any number of reasons. When one compares the data from some text with what the astro program displays for two different dates, one has to decide which astro date display best corresponds with the textual data. Most of the time it's not difficult to decide which astro display best corresponds with the text. But in some cases the data is somewhat buggered, and the astro program might have some errors (this is a serious problem in general, but not so much for our purposes here), so it might take some finesse of interpretation to decide on the astro date that best fits the textual data. Given all that, Furuli's decisions about which astro event best fits some textual event demonstrably show bias toward Watchtower doctrine, since several independent investigators have concluded that the astro event in question best fits the textual event in terms of standard Neo-Babylonian dating. Any fair and competent person who looks at such data quickly sees how biased Furuli has been.
×
×
  • 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.