AlanF

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

like your 5 page nonsense

English, Neil, English.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.

Quote

Your thesis has too short of a timeframe for the events under the Decree of Cyrus by not accounting for the reign of Darius.

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. >>

Quote

The dating of the beginning of Cyrus' first year is problematic because it could be counted either according to Babylonian custom from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE or beginning late in 538 BCE.

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.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
discussed those things above

Those things are given scant attention in your paper

 

False. Read it for once.

Quote

and that is the problem, too short for all that needed to happen within a period of 12 months or less. makes no sense at all.

False again. And briefly explained above. Your blithely refusing to make actual arguments shows nothing.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.

it is relevant to the matter as an adequate time of resettlement is essential

 

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.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
Did I not say that? What's your point?

Good to see some recognition that our theory has some validity.

 

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.

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

 

Quote

Utter nonsense for Josephus simply states that in the second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid which also can be used in our chronology of the period for this occurred in the following year of 536 BCE

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.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?

Quote

You have not established 605 BCE

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.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.

Correct

 

So you have no point.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!

Thanks

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for substantive comment from you.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong

Matter of opinion

 

When the entire world of academic opinion is against some religious tradition like Watchtower chronology, you can bet it's wrong.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

Science proves that but not the case with NB Chronology falsified by the 70 years

 

Correction: historical science proves it. The 70 years are irrelevant to establishing the secular history.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Since you're both unwilling and unable to judge Furuli's astronomical claims, you have no say in this matter.

That is why i do not get into those astro programs

 

But you constantly utter ridiculous opinions as if you do.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM

Nile's thesis is a good example.

 

Already discounted a dozen times.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?

Which all WT critics choose to ignore.

 

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.

Quote

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
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".

Quote

COJ did no such thing

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.

Quote

and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years.

Utter nonsense.

Quote

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.

Quote

Neither do you or COJ have the facility to properly examine Furuli's research.

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.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
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?

. . .

 

Quote

Bully for you!!

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.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

1 hour ago, AlanF 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?

Quote

Agreed

That should be the end of the story.

Quote

but let us not confuse the exile/deportation of the few with the EXILE of the greater number in order to be historically correct.

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.

Quote

 

ScholarJW: An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

AlanF: LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.

No it is not

 

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.

Quote

and i checked a number of reference works which state similarly.

State what? Quote them -- if you dare.

Quote

But speaking of dictionarys, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'exilic'-"to that of the Jews in Babylon'.

So what? "Exile" is a general term and does not apply exclusively to the exile of the Jews in Babylon.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
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?

 

Since ScholarJW is afraid to quote the Bible, above I've done it for him.

Quote

So if the population was so small or minimal in number why did Neb bother?

You'll have to ask him about that in the resurrection.

Quote

And was not king Zedekiah present in the city at that time?

Yeah. So?

Quote

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
There were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?

Quote

Only ONE Exile in the OT

Shown above by the Bible to be false.

Quote

and recognized by historian for that

False again.

Quote

it is why it is described as catastrohe  and Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations as a consequence thereof.

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.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

 2 hours ago, AlanF 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.

Viewing is one thing, Understanding the thing viewed is another.

 

I've clearly explained how to do so. It's really not hard.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number Two: You've already stated that you cannot be bothered, so everything you said here is irrelevant -- just smoke and mirrors.

True. Is it really necessary when it is the subject of much technical controversy?

 

There is no technical controversy.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Number Three: Ann O'Maly has already quoted Rolf Furuli as saying that he is no expert, but another amateur

Well Ann O Maly has repeatedly refused to identify her academic credentials when asked by me and Furuli has publicly identified his academic credentials.

 

Irrelevant to the fact that Furuli admits he is not competent with astro programs.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

So what for that is simply their opinion.

 

Nope. Measuring a distance as two centimeter when it really is two centimeter is not mere opinion.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

Then how is it that it is so complicated with many offering different views.

 

What different views? The incompetent Furuli versus competent professional and amateur scholars?

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.

So you say.

 

You're not competent to judge.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.

Opinion not fact.

 

Nope. All you have to do to see it is the spend the required couple of decades learning Furuli's astro program.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.

Insults indicate that you have lost the argument.

 

You yourself said that you couldn't be bothered. That, by definition, is intellectual laziness.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".

Scholarship cannot be devoid of bias

 

A meaningless generality in the face of definite proof of Furuli's overriding bias.

Quote

and it is the same with translation of the Bible whereupon Theology of the translator is always present. bias+scholarship=

Irrelevant.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
It's historical science. Ever hear of that?

the more precise term would be 'history of science' or 'philosophy of science'

Wrong. "History of science" etc. are completely different things. Do a little research for once.

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

 

Quote

Scholar loves real science.

Suuuure. But only so far as it doesn't conflict with Watchtower tradition.

Quote

True science relies on the principle of Falsification so how do you falsify NB Chronology or is it a sacred cow?

JW Insider already covered that.

Quote

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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

Quote

Do not forget from where you first learnt this principle- the said scholar!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Quote

So are you saying that WT Chronology is without methodology and interpretation?

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.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

It is now a good thing that you are competent but are you fully competent?

 

No one is fully competent in anything. Except perhaps basket-weaving.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

So why is it the case that you so-called experts use different programs?

 

I already explained. Can't you read?

Quote

Why not use the same programs as Furuli does/

Ditto.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.

YES. But the devil is in the interpretation.

 

Meaningless verbiage. Try making a point.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

Well you have nicely identified a problem so how does the layman proceed with this ?

 

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.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
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

Furuli is not a dishonest person and is not a liar.

 

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.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.

All scholars have bias that is why one must test the evidence himself.

 

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.

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, AlanF said:
You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.

I rely on God's Word the Bible and its 70 years

 

Which totally disqualifies you from discussing any astronomical issues.

33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

The point is that Ezra used a different calender for dating the first year of Cyrus and the dating of the month/year of the Return.

 

Or the first month of the sacred calender which marked the beginning of a new or following year.

scholar JW

You've descended to complete gobble-de-goop now.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

33 minutes ago, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

 

Quote

What about the reign of Darius during this period

Right. What about it? Do you have a point? Even the Watchtower agrees on the above dates.

Quote

and what about the proclamation of the Decree and the preparations of the journey and the its length of at least four months.

I discussed those things above.

Quote

Your timeframe  is too short and impossible

I've proved above that YOU'RE WRONG. You have no arguments -- only dismissals.

Quote

for it also does not allow time of resettlement prior to the seventh of altar celebrations.

Irrelevant. Ezra is clear: "by the 7th month the Jews were in their cities". Ezra says nothing like what you seem to claim.

Quote

 

  33 minutes 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.

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:

. . .

 

Quote

Our time frame easily accomodates the above requisites

Did I not say that? What's your point?

Quote

which invalidates your short, impossible time frame

Wrong again. See if you can ARGUE your point using sound reasoning, facts and figures. As I have done many times, including above.

Quote

as confirmed by Josephus that it was in the second year of Cyrus' reign that the foundations of the Temple were laid.

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.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
They are both equally well established.

Quote

539 BCE is well established but 605 BCE is not so prove it.

Already done above. Do you have reading comprehension or short-term memory problems?

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
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!

Quote

So, the date 605 BCE is a calculated date not an Absolute date therefore not well established.

ALL such dates are calculated! Including 539.

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
You have the books. Look at them.

Quote

True. I have the books to hand 

THEN LOOK AT THEM! I even gave you the page numbers!

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

 

Quote

I applaud COJ for his research as an independent thinker not a scholar but one must view his research in the light of current scholarship, WT Chronology and the Bible and then make one's own analysis and opinion.

Which everyone not a Watchtower acolyte has done, and concluded that Watchtower chronology is wrong.

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
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.

 

Quote

You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it.

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.

Quote

It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise

Utter nonsense. NO such scholarly works "show otherwise". If you disagree, NAME THEM AND QUOTE THEM.

Quote

or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years.

LOL! Like pointing out that some scholars discuss such astounding new findings as that Bible writers speak of captivity, exile and desolation?

Quote

the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics.

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".

Quote

 

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.

Only in your own mind.

 

Once again, since you admittedly have neither the mental capacity nor the facility to analyze Furuli's arguments, you have no say here.

Quote

  31 minutes ago, AlanF said:
We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.

Quote

You are correct. I will have to work on that and install the app but I am a computer dummy so must give this some priority and thank you for the correction.

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?

ScholarJW said:

Quote

The venerable said scholar is of the opinion that Ezra counted the 'first year of Cyrus'- Ezra 1:1-4 as part of the official Decree using the official/secular calender beginning in Nisan

Exactly as I've argued above as regards Nisan 1, 538 being the start of Cyrus' 1st regnal year. What's your point?

Quote

and used the sacred/ religious calender beginning in Tishri from the time of resettlement of the Jews as from Ezra.1:68-3:1 and onwards.

Nonsense. Ezra explicitly calls Tishri the 7th month -- according to the secular calendar.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

 

. . . the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.

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 Tishsri -- that was the fall of 538 BCE.

 

Quote

Wrong.

You yourself have said it. See your own words above.

Now you ignore what you said and switch gears:

Quote

the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month this means that it would have been impossible for this to be the case if you postulate such a short time frame

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

Quote

so the seventh month could only have been in the following year of 537 BCE or if in his Cyrus' first year- 538-537 BCE would have been counted from the Fall rather than Nisan.

Disproved.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

1 hour ago, AlanF said:
A deportation that results in captivity IS an Exile.

Quote

Not necessarily for a deportation can be limited to a few captives with the remaining population left alone.

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?

Quote

An Exile proper which is only the ONE in the OT as recognized by scholars and historians is the one of the  Babylonian captivity ending with the Return.

LOL! It's rare, outside debate with Watchtower apologists, to see such blatant circular argumentation and begging the question.

Quote

  1 hour ago, AlanF said:
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 .

Quote

Yes but there is a fundamental difference between the exile of a few such as Ezekiel and Daniel

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?

Quote

and the EXILE of the nation of Judah. Do you not see the difference, Alan?

There were biblically FOUR EXILES. Can you not count?

ScholarJW said:

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF 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

Quote

So 605 BCE is now fully established so what about the status of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon

They are both equally well established.

Quote

for Neb's accession year is a little fuzzy, biblically speaking.

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!

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
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.

Quote

Just give the cataloque numbers

You have the books. Look at them.

Quote

 

Quoting got a little messed up here, so:

AlanF said:
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, pp. 293-294) Carl Olof Jonsson quotes two scholars as follows:

<< the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. [Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., personal letter to Jonsson dated August 9, 1981.]

[The date for] the capture of Jerusalem in 597 . . . is now fixed exactly. [Dr. David N. Freedman, personal letter to Jonsson dated August 16, 1981]

Based on the above data, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year would be 604 BCE and his 18th 587 BCE. Therefore, the Royal Canon in conjunction with Jeremiah 52:29 show that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE.

Far more can be said about how perfectly lunar and solar eclipses verify the above. Carl Olof Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, details how several dozen lunar eclipses described in various Babylonian tablets all converge on what has become the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology.

. . .

ScholarJW: Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion

AlanF: COJ remains irrelevant. It is the scholars who supplied the comments who are relevant.

AlanF: You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank.

ScholarJW: It would appear that 597 is a better candidate then 605. How is that?

AlanF: Candidate for what? Both are equally well established.

 

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.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
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.

 

Quote

So does WtT scholars and Furuli.

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.

Quote

COJ has not debunked Furuli at all simply responded to Furuli's research and neither have others

COJ's responses thoroughly debunk Furuli's claims -- as this thread is proving.

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 2:20 AM, AlanF said:
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.

Quote

Indeed. But you forgot the most important word-interpreted

We still see no BIBLE QUOTATIONS from you in any thread. Any more than we've seen such for 20 years.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
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.

Quote

That is the problem how does a person unfamiliar with astro programs or with ancient astronomy able to make sense of it all for this really is the terrain of experts

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.

Quote

and certainly Furuli because of his expertise in the language of these clay tablets must surely be allowed to have an opinion.

Any such claimed expertise is irrelevant to deciding between measures on a screen of two and six.

Quote

Further, because you say he is wrong does not make it so for that is your opinion.

Real academic experts, and we amateur experts on this forum are unanimous: Furuli fudged his opinions.

Quote

In fact this is rocket science.

Nope. Just because you're too intellectually lazy to learn it doesn't make it so.

Quote

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
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. 

Quote

So what, Bias is part of scholarship so caution must be exercised.

Bias that results in deliberately wrong conclusions is in no way "scholarship".

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
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.

Neo-Babylonian Chronology is hardly science

 

It's historical science. Ever hear of that?

Quote

so your parallel does not work.

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.

Quote

Chronology is about methodology and interpretation based on sound 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.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

 

Quote

So now you the expert! LOL.

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.

Quote

The very fact that there are several astro programs tells me that something is not quite right.

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.

Quote

It is similar to the number of different king lists for the Divided Monarchy in the OT, so where there is a lack of consensus then one knows something is wrong .

There is no comparison. NASA's data and the underlying math does not change.

Quote

 

  On 12/12/2020 at 1:49 AM, AlanF said:
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.

. . .

 

Quote

That is the problem one has to compare the data based on the programs and then interpret that data with the interpretation of the document.

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.

Quote

Is it not strange that because Furuli finds something different that happens to fit our Chronology

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.

Quote

then he is accused of bias to WT chronology

Not merely "accused". He has DEMONSTRATED bias. He's been tried and convicted.

Quote

but i could say exactly the same thing about the other side

You can also say that the earth is Flat. So what? The evidence counts, not mere opinions.

Quote

fo how do I know that the current interpretation is also not biased towards current NB Chronology?

You could easily do so if you were not lazy or mentally deficient.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

. . . the Return of Jews was in the first year of Cyrus.

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.

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Correction here. many deportations but only one Exile!!!

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 . . ."

On 12/12/2020 at 8:55 AM, César Chávez said:

Yet, you contradict yourself by NOT accepting the first deportation in 605 BC.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 9:37 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Not so related. Spirit is in person (or in animal).

Power is in the battery of your car. :))

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

True - but you demeaned the questions asked by the bible writer.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

It is clear that Moses was a thinker and was also an educated man - having access to the highest education of the time, as well as a man who communicated with jehovah. 

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

A sheeple can come to the same conclusion..... Anyone can see mostly order in a universe where things can go badly wrong if there were not cycles.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

Ancient star watchers (priests) knew which morning star was on the horizon every day of the year.

Of course. They could see it.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

They made advanced calculations regarding the stars and wrote it all down. Any anomaly was noted so as to link it with earthly events - so as to be able to make predictions. They knew how trustworthy the events in the skies were - recurring year after year.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:57 AM, Arauna said:

In job we find description of natural cycles such as the water cycle etc. Your skepticism blinds you to many realities of the past.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:42 AM, Arauna said:

As I said before - the spirit is " projected energy" to accomplish a purpose.  Spirit and power are related. 

Still no connection with E=mc^2 -- the Watchtower arguments are demonstrably false.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:42 AM, Arauna said:

To deliberately ignore that connection is like reading excellent evidence that evolution is not possible and then to go ahead and ignore it. 

If you can't see the falsity of the Watchtower arguments, there's no help for you.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:42 AM, Arauna said:

What if you "think" you are brilliant and not a savant.  I will take an idiot - savant any time. If later he lost the help of God  - it does not demean the work he did.

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.

On 12/12/2020 at 8:42 AM, Arauna said:

However, the NW translation has been revised on 2 occasions I am aware of. 

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.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I know this phrase too. It is known in JW circle and publications. 

:))) than to translate words in Isaiah with "dynamic energy" is out of mind.

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.

Arauna said:

Quote

On 12/9/2020 at 1:48 PM, AlanF said:
What does it mean to keep the stars in place? Ce

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.

Quote

We see occasional changes

So what? According to the Bible, the sky was constant.

Quote

- which is entropy - 

Which the ancient Hebrews knew zero about.

Quote

it leads to chaotic incidence.

What?

Quote

The universe we can see with our eye

I have two.

Quote

is mostly organized with each star in its (orbit) place.

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?

Quote

If each moved where they please we will see continual explosions/fusions etc.

Expressions like this prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Not even enough to understand what I've just said.

Quote

So this verse is asking us to "think" about what we see.

Which most JWs are highly averse to doing. Such as you.

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So far, I have only really discussed independent witnesses to the relative chronology. Astronomical observations will be able to provide additional independent witnesses to several points for which one could claim an absolute chronology. I'm sure you are aware that this is exactly how BM 33066 aka LBAT 1477 aka Strm Kambys 400 had been explained in past WTS publications for "establishing" an absolute date based on the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses.

Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.

ScholarJW said:

Quote

You claim that 605 BCE is well established for Neb's accession year by means of at least Ptolemy's Canon

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.

Quote

a comment made by Thiele and two lunar eclipses which you do not give the cataloque number.

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.

Quote

 

Next you move onto 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605 BCE is firmly established by two lunar eclipse texts dated some 53 years apart. The texts are independent of each other. It is widely recognized that two or more independent sources that indicate the same historical date are extremely strong evidence that the date is correct.

These two texts must be properly analysed and examined and compared with Furuli's observations about the content of these tablets and interpretation.

 

Let's see you do it.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
Another extremely important date with respect to the several captures of Jerusalem is 597 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar's forces captured the city and took King Jehoiachin and most of the non-peasant-class Jews captive to Babylon. Concerning this date, Thiele continues (pp. 69-70)

Next you move onto Neb's seventh year and again this requires careful examination and not just blustering comments which hinder proper discussion.

 

Thiele's analysis is mere "blustering comments"? Already you've moved beyond the stated scope of this thread.

Quote

the dates that you give are asserted and not proved

False. Argue with Thiele, Finegan and a host of other scholars. Publish a paper with your claims and see how that flies.

Quote

even though accepted by the majority of scholars. Before we assign any dates to these events first examine the content of these documents and tablets.

But that's been done ad nauseum. As you well know. Merely making vague and baseless criticisms doesn't cut it.

Quote

 

  3 hours ago, AlanF said:
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, pp. 293-294) Carl Olof Jonsson quotes two scholars as follows:

<< the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. [Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., personal letter to Jonsson dated August 9, 1981.]

[The date for] the capture of Jerusalem in 597 . . . is now fixed exactly. [Dr. David N. Freedman, personal letter to Jonsson dated August 16, 1981]

Based on the above data, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year would be 604 BCE and his 18th 587 BCE. Therefore, the Royal Canon in conjunction with Jeremiah 52:29 show that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE.

Far more can be said about how perfectly lunar and solar eclipses verify the above. Carl Olof Jonsson, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, details how several dozen lunar eclipses described in various Babylonian tablets all converge on what has become the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology.

. . .

 

Well if it is good enough to bring COJ into the discussion

Quote

COJ remains irrelevant. It is the scholars who supplied the comments who are relevant.

You need to stop making ad hominem comments. They're inappropriate for a scholar of your rank.

Quote

along with Thiele

Ditto.

Quote

then it is equally proper that we cite WT scholars and Furuli

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.

Quote

but that will only cloud the issue. First, we must examine the primary evidence from both the secular documents and the biblical record then we proceed to interpretation and consult with others.

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.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

That is a matter of opinion.

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.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The fact is that Furuli provides a valuable criticism which is the province of every proper scholar , to question orthodoxy, to ask questions and test the evidence.

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. 

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Are you going to argue that NB Chronology is some sort of Sacred Cow that cannot be challenged , becoming something to further study?

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.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You accuse Furuli of incompetence in the use of the astro program but is this more of confirmation of your bias rather than intellectual honesty.

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.