AlanF
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by AlanF
-
-
Anna wrote:
Thank you for posting this interesting material!
QuoteAccording to Gerard Gertoux:
“Chronology is the backbone of history” is usually taught in schools but in the same time the first fall of Babylon is currently fixed today (2016) either in 1595 BCE or in 1651, 1531, 1499 depending on historians! In Egyptology the situation is still worse because each Egyptologist has his own chronology (+/- 20 years)! Such a difference in timeline prevents one from reaching the historical truth. It is for this reason that from Herodotus, the “father of history” (in fact the father of scientific and chronological inquiry), Greek historians gradually established a system of scientific dating in order to write a universal history.
Yes, and an abbreviated form of that history has come down to us in the form of the so-called Ptolemy's Canon.
QuoteMany astronomical phenomena (observed and described by Babylonian astrologers), which are well identified such as eclipses, enable anyone today (with at least an undergraduate level) to synchronize these ancient dating systems and anchor them on absolute dates.
Indeed. Many serious amateur students, like me and Ann O'Maly, have done that for parts of the Neo-Babylonian period. Modern astronomical software is amazingly accurate, and pretty much necessary for amateur work.
QuoteAs incredible as it may seem this is still not done
Not true.
Quote(among the hundreds of thousands of theses in history there is none which focuses on chronology, except the one of Isaac Newton in 1728 entitled: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended).
Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but Newton is well known for his fanatical devotion to religious studies. Among the most brilliant scientists of all time, having invented classical physics and calculus, it's no surprise that he undertook such a tedious and difficult study. His dates for the Neo-Babylonian period are generally no more than 1-3 years different from the modern commonly accepted dates.
QuoteThe purpose of the present brochure is to give the chronologies of the main ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Hittite, Mitannian, Israelite, etc.) with their synchronisms as well as all absolute dating based on astronomical events (which have been precisely dated in a calendar) like eclipses, solar or lunar, and some Sothic risings".
Having skimmed the dates for the Neo-Babylonian period, it's clear to me that Gertoux accepts modern chronology as set forth by the latest scholars.
I should point out that for Near-Eastern dates much earlier than about 600 BCE, accuracy to within one year is increasingly questionable. Not that dates are necessarily wrong, but some are not on as firm a footing as dates after about 600 BCE, such as Neo-Babylonian chronology. That's because, the further back you look, the less ancient documentation exists. But for many dates near and after 600 BCE, multiple independent sources pinpoint them.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendicus trollicus wrote:
Quote:: No, just very amused.
I am glad that I amuse you.
You amuse LOTS people.
Quote:: So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.
How can I increase the sins per post?
Keep doing what you're doing.
Quote:: Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.
Does not matter for I will always get their attention.
Much like Bozo the Clown did.
Quote:: Been doing that for 15 years.
:: We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.
Been doing the same with you over the last 15 years. We both have a shared history.
So says the Monty-Python-esque Black Knight. Armless, legless, lying on the ground, hollering "come back and fight!" That's why you amuse so many.
QuoteIt is rather curious how you showed up on this forum after being sacked from the JWD forum.
LOL! I was sacked for telling the truth: back then, Simon and other moderators were drinking heavily while doing their moderating chores, and annoying serious posters with their inebriated foolishness. It appears that they've learned some self-control since then.
AlanF
-
scholar JW trollicus wrote:
We note the inflated self-importance:
QuoteLooks like scholar JW has you rattled.
No, just very amused.
QuoteI care nought for your appraisal of my scholarship because you have offered nothing but a lot of blustering and 'hot air'.
So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.
QuoteI will continue to respond to your efforts to discredit WT Chronology and whether or how you respond to my rebuttals is of little concern to me.
Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.
Quote:: Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.
Bring it on.
Been doing that for 15 years.
We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.
AlanF
-
On "scholar JW's" dishonest scholarship
By now, anyone who has read the back and forth between "scholar JW" and myself and others, with understanding, can see that his main approach to debating is based on repeating false arguments and so forth that have been repeatedly debunked in this thread and on other forums years ago. He fails even the most basic tests of good scholarship by refusing to provide source references, demanding that others provide source references that have already been provided, out and out lying, ignoring arguments, misrepresenting debate opponents' arguments, misrepresenting source references including the Bible, arguing by straw men, red herrings, and misdirection, deliberately giving false arguments, and generally committing every scholarly sin known to man.
For example, in my post above, I counted the following numbers of "scholar JW's" scholarly sins in the post I replied to:
Lies: 16
False arguments: 10
Misdirections/evasions: 9
Red herrings/straw men: 7
Ignoring arguments: 14"Scholar JW" only managed literally a handful of true statements in his post that were true.
These scholarly sins would get any scholar-in-training thrown out of University. Perhaps that's why "scholar JW" flunked out of his Master's program. In online forums, they generally get the sinner labeled a troll, since that's the definition of an Internet troll -- someone who enjoys throwing out lies and deliberately provocative material just to sit back and enjoy the reaction.
Some trolls are just plain sociopaths. Others are quite insane, and might not even realize that they're trolling when they lie. It's hard to tell about them without a clinical diagnosis. But they're easy to recognize as trolls after reading a few of their posts, because they always pretend to be truthful and scholarly, but act the opposite. And of course, there are always the laughably naive readers who are taken in, in the same way that conspiracy theory promoters are often very good at trolling, when the troll's lies jibe with their prejudices.
It's quite obvious how "scholar JW" goes about replying to a post. He states clearly that he doesn't bother to edit them after the first draft. Rather than carefully reading and understanding what he's replying to, he skims it, looking for keywords that access a canned reply somewhere in his brain. Then he spews back the canned reply, without regard for how well it relates to his opponent's statements.
That's why, when "scholar JW" is challenged with material he's not seen before, he tends to fall on his face. He has no canned replies forthcoming, and so he must actually try to read material with comprehension.
For example, in my last few posts, I challenged "scholar JW" to see if he could "detect problems" in Watch Tower literature. He claimed he could, but my challenge demonstrated that, even after three attempts, with stronger and stronger hints from me, he was unable to detect them.
To see how badly "scholar JW" failed my challenge, use your browser to search for "lewontin" in the last few posts from him and me.
Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.
AlanF
-
scholar JW emeritus flunkedouticus wrote more debunkable nonsense:
Before I begin debunking yet another of this guy's posts, I want to point out another of his deceptions. Some years ago "scholar JW" seems to have gotten an undergraduate degree in general religious studies. Then he enrolled in a Master's program, but flunked out. He simply couldn't cut the mustard as a scholar, and that's quite evident in his posts on all forums. As I've said many times, he's no more a scholar than he is an astronaut.
In this post, I've restored the parts of the previous post that "scholar JW" deleted because he didn't want to reply to my arguments that debunked his claims. I'll point them out as we go along.
Note that even numbers of "::" preface my responses; odd numbers of ":::" preface "scholar JW's" responses.
Quote::::::: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
:::::: This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.
:::::: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment
::::: A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.
:::: Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.
::: Your point?
:: Trolling now? Or just stupid?
:: The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for"
It is you that is being stupid not Jeremiah. Jeremiah simply used preposition or construct that in English can mean 'at' for', 'to', 'of' 'against'. NWT with References, 1984, App.3B, p.1571.
Yes, "le" CAN mean any of those words, IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT, but only one of them at a time. It can mean ONE AND ONLY ONE of them in a single context. Why? Because "at" does not mean "for" which does not mean "to" which does not mean "of" which does not mean "against". The basic meaning of "le" is "with respect to", and ONLY CONTEXT can determine what that means.
In Jer. 29:10 "le" means ONE AND ONLY ONE THING: "FOR", as proved by all modern scholarship, including -- why do I have to keep saying this? -- all modern Bible translations not based on the obsolete King James Version.
Quote:: Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".
Modern scholarship is one thing, Bible Scholarship is more important.
We're talking about modern Bible scholarship, you moron. Yet another red herring.
QuoteThe fact is that modern scholarship says no such thing for anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew would not find this to be a issue.
Of course it does, you despicable liar, as you admit right here:
QuoteMost modern translations render the 'le' as 'for'
Precisely!
Quotebut the older traditional ones including the Versions do not.
Exactly! And why is that? Because MODERN BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP has determined that the old KJV rendering is WRONG, and so are more modern renderings based on this obsolete KJV scholarship.
QuoteEither way, scholar on the grounds of exegesis
False. Scholar JW pretendus generally uses eisegesis, not exegesis, and demonstrably so (see above) in this case.
Quotehas accommodated both renderings
LOL! You mean "rationalized dishonestly".
Quotein proof of the fact that the seventy years are of Judah and not Babylon.
Demonstrably false. I've quoted Bible scholars on this, the Bible, and other sources that prove you're wrong.
QuoteScholar has outsmarted you all and you do not like to be beaten.
SuperTroll in action.
Here is SuperTroll ignoring an entire section demolishing one of his lies:Quote:::::: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store."
::::: No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.
:::: Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wrong
::: Nope, have always presented both views in the main,
:: What you said 13 years ago on the JWD forum proves you're a liar:
:: << Leolaia, Narkissos and Alan F
:: I am not the smartest fellow around and you characters in comparison to me are geniuses. However, let me warn you of this sobering fact that I am very stubborn, open minded and persistent as a dog with a bone. The matter of this Hebrew proposition in Jer 29:10 is of singular importance to me and has the potential of fatally destroying the Jonsson hypothesis.
:: My scholarship whatever its status and my gut instincts tells me that the NWT is brilliantly correct in this example. >> -- https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
SuperTroll ignoring another demolishing of his lies:Quote:::::: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. . .
:::::: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.
::::: The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.
:::: "Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.
:: Readers who are not simple-minded will note that "scholar JW" ignored my counter-example.
SuperTroll ignoring another debunking of his lies:Quote:::: Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.
::: The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'.
:: Here, let's try scholar JW pretendus' method of argument: FALSE!
:: Now let's try a valid method of argument: Your claim is false for reasons shown repeatedly in this thread -- which you've largely ignored -- and for reasons shown to you repeatedly for at least 15 years, such as in the above link.
SuperTroll ignoring still another debunking of his lies:Quote::: The matter is open to the opinion of the translator
:: Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".
Finally we see SuperTroll actually attempting an answer:Quote::: and interpretation of the 70 years
:: Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.
What modern scholarship says on this matter is interesting
Not merely interesting, but correct by any measure of good scholarship. Watch Tower Tradition, on the other hand, has NO scholarly support.
Quotebut is also very misleading because there is no consensus on many matters pertaining to the seventy years
So what? The exact disposition of the 70 years is unimportant when all historical dates of interest have been solidly established by secular and biblical studies, and by correspondences between them. The exact disposition of the 70 years is important only to Watch Tower Tradition.
Furthermore, the consensus of modern scholarship is that WTS Tradition is wrong about what the 70 years means, so if you want to invoke "consensus", you're hosed.
Quoteso your claim here is nonsense.
LOL!
QuoteThe seventy years was a full period of seventy years with zero months.
Already disproved dozens of times. Repeating your lies does not make themm true.
QuoteYour claim of four exiles is rather bogus as well.
Nonsense. Jeremiah 52 explicitly lists THREE (597, 587, 582) -- which you claim you agree with.
Daniel 1 describes Nebuchadnezzar's besieging of Judah and taking Jehoiakim, in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year. He also took a tribute of temple utensils, and according to Berossus, took Jewish captives, which other considerations indicate were Daniel and other elites. Jeremiah 46:2 states that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Secular history dates the battle of Carchemish to Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, 605 BCE; therefore Jehoiakim's 4th year (by Non-Accession-year Tishri dating) equals his 3rd year by Accession-year Nisan (Babylonian) dating, which equals Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Therefore, exiles were taken in 605 (possibly early 604).
That's a total of FOUR exiles.
Quote::: so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.
:: No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.
No because you do present any scholarship only making wild claims about what scholars say about these matters
Really. Quoting what they say is making wild claims. Yes indeed. SuperTroll at his finest.
Quoteand I do not have to work hard at all because I am abreast of the scholarly literature.
You're quite insane.
In the material below, SuperTroll demonstrates his incompetence in doing simple arithmetic.
Quote::::: The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home
:::: You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.
::: No. It does not for the simple reason that the 70 years was also tied to the land and that remained desolate until the Return thus ending the 70 years or fulfilling the period. This means that all of the conditions of the 70 years had to be met for there are three: Servitude-Exile- Desolation. Yu got it?
:: You're again proving that you can't do simple arithmetic or even read with comprehension. So let's try again, but with a diagram that shows your above-stated sequence of events.
:: 1. Jews are at/in Babylon.
:: 2. 70 years end.
:: 3. Some unspecified time passes.
:: 4. Jews leave Babylon.
:: 5. About 4 months pass in travel.
:: 6. Jews reach Judah; 70 years plus unspecified time plus 4 months end.
:: 7. Jews are in Judah, so Judah is no longer desolate.:: How long were the Jews AT Babylon?
:: How long was the desolation of Judah?
Seventy years for both questions to the very month.
LOL! Even with the help of a simple chart, SuperTroll gets it wrong.
Yes, indeed: 70 years plus 8 months equals exactly 70 years which equals 69 years plus 4 months. Wheee!
Quote::::: The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon
:::: Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.
::: The Bible says so
:: Scholar pretendus style bald assertion: No.
::: and I have argued accordingly.
:: And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.
Yes please.
Provided on almost every page where someone intelligent replied to your lies. Too many to list.
A comprehensive list of appropriate debunking resources is provided here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
Quote::::: and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.
:::: No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.
::: Yes but the problem for critics is how to interpret the seventy years
:: Nope -- that's a fake problem -- a problem that YOU and Mommy WTS invented.
:: Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.
Be that as it may, for the Bible account cannot have the 70 years ending at Babylon's Fall because the Jews remained captive to and in Babylon until their release under Cyrus'Decree.
Repeating your lies does not make them true.
Jeremiah clearly states that the Jewish exiles were to be captive not just to Babylon as a sort of nebulous entity, but to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons (Jer. 27), and 2 Chronicles clearly states that the exiles were captive to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons UNTIL the Persian empire began to rule. Therefore the captivity to "Babylon" -- to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons -- ended upon Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE. Daniel 5 is extremely clear about this.
The captivity of the Jews in Babylon to the Persian empire ended when, under Cyrus' edict, they returned to Judah. The FOUR captivities lasted no more than 68 years, but the Supremacy of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar and his sons lasted as much as 70 years. That's what Jeremiah clearly states was to be.
QuoteThe Bible most certainly provides a starting point for the 70 years at the Fall of Jerusalem when the land became totally desolated.
False. The Bible NOWHERE makes such a provision. You can quote no Bible verse to that effect.
QuoteI thank you for the reference I will consult same for my research paper on 537 BCE.
You will find that it debunks many of your claims, but fully supports what I've said here and elsewhere on Neo-Babylonian chronology, and supports STANDARD secular views.
Quote::: not being able to distinguish the Fall of Babylon and the actual Return which were two distinct events, the former brought the 70 years to its conclusion with the Return as the actual end or 'fulfillment' of the period.
:: Incoherent gibberish. I'll try to decipher it and comment accordingly.
:: Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.
:: You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.
No, the Fall of Babylon marked the closing phase or conclusion of the 70 years with its final end with the Return in 537 BCE There is a difference between a 'conclusion' and an 'end'. Got it?
You're just winging it now and making up bullpucky as you go. You've made up an artificial distinction between 'conclusion' and 'end' and applied the terms to your own hypotheses -- all without any evidence whatsoever. Not even support from Mommy Watch Tower, and no support from real scholars. But the Bible uses the same word "male'" in the relevant cases for the end of the 70 years (Jer. 25:12; 29:10), which is variously translated as "completed", "fulfilled", "accomplished", etc.
You're dead wrong on this, and too pigheaded to admit it.
Quote::::: The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.
:::: Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.
:::: However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.
::: Daniel was not known for ambiguity for he presents a precise history and chronology.
:: Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2
Not mostly, but definitely.
Above we find SuperTroll evading the main point again, which was his claim of "not in 9:1,2". Anyone want to defend this pathological liar?
Quote::: He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events.
:: True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.
Well, heed it!
SuperTroll evades a major point yet again.
I've already explained many times what Daniel meant. You continue to ignore it, and substitute bald assertions for reasoned, evidence-based argument.
Quote::: He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment,
:: Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.
Read Daniel 9:2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey!
SuperTroll shoots himself in the foot every time he wants to cite the Bible. So here we go:
Original NWT:
<< I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. >>Analytical Key to the Old Testament, John Joseph Owens, Vol. 4, p 739. For each verse in the Old Testament, word by word, this gives the Hebrew, an English translation, and a reference to the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:
<< I Daniel perceived in the books the number of years which according to the word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years >>
Nope, not a word about "near fulfillment". The Bible itself proves that you've lied again.
Quote::: the desolations
:: The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.
:: Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.
The Hebrew word chorbah does not describe the totality of the destruction
Wow! Another rare admission of fact!
Quotebut there are many texts in Jeremiah that do describe the totality of the destruction such as 'without an inhabitant'.
Which we've already established is hyperbole for "damaged badly with lots of captives taken".
QuoteJerusalem only experienced one desolation
It was never completely desolated, as virtually all modern scholars attest, and as my quotation showed.
Quoteand that was the time accompanied by servitude and exile from the fall lasting for 70 years.
Continuing to be stubbornly wrong. Exiles occurred FOUR times: 605/4, 597, 587, 582. Each was called a "devastation".
QuotePlurality of devastations is simply idiomatic of emphasis or totality and not of number.
More bald assertion. Any scholarly evidence for this? I can post scholarly evidence against your assertion.
Quote::: of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon.
:: That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:
:: << . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>
It seems that you do not like Daniel because he discredits your nonsense
Wrong. As shown above, Daniel discredits YOUR nonsense.
Quotefor Daniel received the angelic vision prior to the release of the captives, after Babylon's fall in Darius' first year.
So what? The angelic vision has NOTHING to do with the sequence of events we're talking about: whether Daniel's looking into Jeremiah's words occurred before or after Babylon's fall. The sequence described in my above reference is simple:
1. Babylon falls.
2. Daniel looks into Jeremiah.
3. Angelic vision.
4. Cyrus' edict.You claim that 1. and 2. should be swapped. But you've given NO evidence, just a bald assertion. And 3. and 4. have nothing to do with the order of 1. and 2.
Quote::: In ch. 5 he describes the end of Babylon and in combination with the prophecies of Jeremiah later in ch.9 describes the end of the 70 years linked not to Babylon but to Jerusalem thus ending later with the Return.
:: A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.
This is simply your exegesis of matters
Nonsense. It is the exegesis of almost all modern biblical scholars.
Quotefor Jer. 25:11-12, 27; 2 Chron. 36:21 were only fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE
Wrong. They CLEARLY state that the 70 years ended with the calling to account, or conquering, of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty by the Persians.
Quotewith the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE.
What you've done is execute eisegesis based on WTS Tradition.
QuoteDan. 5 deals with the events of Babylon's Fall
Yowee! Another true statement!
Quotewhereas Dan. 9 deals with later events with the Return
For which claim you've given ZERO evidence -- only bald assertion.
Quoteand the coming of the Messiah. Dan. 9 by means of v2. connects the seventy years of Jeremiah with the exile's returning home to restore true worship.
Wrong. I debunked this claim above.
Quote::::: In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.
:::: Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.
::: This statement is meaningless.
:: Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.
:: Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:
Not really and scholar loves a trap.
Which SuperTroll has blindly fallen into.
Quote:::::: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?
SuperTroll still can't answer this.
:::::: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).
::::: The 70 years ended at Judah.
:::: But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?
:::: If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.
::: Nope. The 70 years ended with the Return in 537 brought to close with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Is that clear?
:: What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.
:: YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGE
There is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge?
SuperTroll is at it again. If the Jews were AT Babylon for 70 years, then they were AWAY FROM Judah for 70 years plus 8 months of two-way travel time.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Do you really want to double down on claiming that 8 months equals ZERO TIME?
Quote::::: There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.
:::: More gobble-de-goop.
::: No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.
:: Nope. Just gobble-de-goop
Not gobble-de-goop but history.
It's your language that's gobble-de-goop, you moron. Your sentence makes NO SENSE.
Quote:: The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.
No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land.
SuperTroll evades again! The point was your false claim that the 587 (607) exile was the largest. Not a major claim but it proves that you're incapable of admitting error.
Quote:: You know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.
:: Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.
So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good.
Nope. SuperTroll strikes again.
Quote:: Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.
:: You are nothing but a pathological, lying troll.
'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at.
SuperTroll continues his red herring.
Quote:::::: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.
::::: Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.
:::: Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".
::: No, 'these nations' in my opinion were non-Jews but of those of surrounding nations.
:: You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:
:: AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.
:: Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone
:: AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."
:: So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".
:: You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.
No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold.
SuperTroll lies again with another bald assertion.
Quote:::::: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.
::::: Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.
:::: Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25).
::: We may have the same chronology but the interpretation is different.
:: Yet again, scholar JW pretendus ignores my point, but this time adds a meaningless red herring.
SuperTroll ignores another pointing out of his fallacy.
Quote::::: Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.
:::: Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.
:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
And SuperTroll ignored it a 2nd time.
Quote:::::: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.
::::: The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.
:::: Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.
:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
Quote:::::: You're contradicting yourself
::::: No. Read more carefully what I have written.
:::: I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?
::Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
Quote:::::: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date
::::: Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.
:::: So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.
:::: Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.
:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored this, too.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
Quote::::: But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.
:::: Still begging the question.
:: And again scholar JW pretendus ignored my comment.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
Quote:::::: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.
::::: Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.
:::: Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.
:: Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
Quote:::::: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims
::::: No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.
:::: Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.
:: Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.
SuperTroll ignores another one.
This must be some kind of a record -- SuperTroll ignores 8 arguments in a row.
Quote:::::: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon
::::: Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.
::: Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah
:: So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this
The statement 'for Babylon' is a rendering in English and can be easily translated with a locative meaning 'at',
Self-evident nonsense.
Quotetherefore in view of this fact there is no text that assigns the 70 years to Babylon but only to Judah and Judah alone.
Nonsense based on nonsense is still nonsense.
And of course, SuperTroll refuses to admit that he lied about WTS teaching, so his triply nonsensical claim is another red herring.
Quote::: The 70 years were for Judah not Babylon but they were in servitude to Babylon, the 70 years was fulfilled whilst in Babylon but actually ended at their Return.
:: Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.
:: Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive
Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.
Which again ignores the simple fact that you can't spend 70 years AT Babylon and AWAY FROM Judah when the two-way travel time is 8 months.
SuperTroll is definitely insane.
Quote:::: Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.
::: It is you who has introduced the bogus 70 years plus not scholar.
:: So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.
:: In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.
:: Trolling indeed
The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction.
LOL! Yes, 8 months of two-way travel time is imaginary. Absolutely bonkers, this one!
Quote:::::: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
::::: The period was a full 70 years with zero months.
:::: Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.
::: Yep! So sayeth the fool.
:: Yep, 70 years + 8 months = 70 years = 69 years + 4 months
Anyone! Anyone? Is SuperTroll stupid or insane?
Quote::::::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'
:::::: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources
::::: Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.
:::: Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
:::: But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.
::: If that is the case why are there translations that have 'at' rather than 'for'? The greatest translation ever, NWT says differently.
:: I've told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.
Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use.
LOL! So your argument boils down to the standard refrain of JWs everywhere: It's true because Mommy Watch Tower says so.
Quote::::::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.
:::::: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.
::::: The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.
:::: Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.
::: Your post are long and stuff gets lost so repost for my attention.
:: I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!
:: Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does.LOL! Yet another SuperTroll evasion. The point is not about "the debate and Jenni's opinion". It is that you demand of others what you are not willing to do yourself.
You, Mr. SuperTroll, are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Quote:::::: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
::::: The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.
:::: That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.
::: So when something does not suit you or your argument you dismiss such facts as 'hyperbole' because it conflicts with your Poppa's hypothesis.
:: Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.
:: << ftn. [11] This is now strongly refuted by the commonly used term "the myth of the empty land" (see also [[H. M. Barstad, "After the 'Myth of the Empty Land': Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20]]. . . >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 358.
:: This is nothing new for Watch Tower views. Jesus said you must hate your family to be his disciple. Did he mean literally hate? Or hate in a relative way? If the latter, then his words were hyperbole.
:: We have a similar situation with the creation story in Genesis. A literal reading indicates that the universe is some six thousand years old, yet the Watch Tower argues that that figure, derived from its own version of biblical chronology, is not to be taken literally -- it's hyperbole.
Supertroll again ignores my argument, instead posting another series of red herrings:
QuoteNow you are a professional scholar so let us see what you can do with your 538 novelty and harness such scholarship.
As an amateur, I've posted in amateur forums like this one my entire writing 'career'. That's not likely to change. Nor is my basic "thesis": there is more evidence in favor of a Return in 538 than in 537 BCE.
QuoteIt is simply your opinion and that of others regarding the 'Myth of the Empty land' and whether Biblical references to the 'desolated land' are hyperbole.
So you and Mommy Watch Tower are far more knowledgeable than the world of modern scholars. You morons, who took nearly 70 years to realize there is no "zero year". LOL!
QuoteYet, you claim to take the Bible seriously,
I do in many instances, especially when use of it makes it so simple to debunk entire sections of Watch Tower doctrine.
Quotetalk about' scripture-text mining'.
Quoting is not mining. MIS-quoting is mining -- as you've now learned with respect to the Creation book.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendus totalus debunktus wrote:
:: You completely ignored my post which debunked more of your nonsense.
This troll STILL has not responded.
Quote:::: Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions. You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.
::: I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.
:: I've made very few bald assertions. Most assertions are accompanied by detailed explanations or source references. You have yet to debunk any of them -- and your bald assertions are not debunking.
All that you post is simply assertions, without evidence with no source references unless scholar cites an authority.
LOL! Super Troll at his finest.
Would you like to count the number of bald assertions, unevidenced claims and other scholarly omissions in my above post (and of course, list them), or shall I do it for you?
Quote:::: Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.
::: Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar.
:: I agree that you're knowledgeable enough that your denial of facts is nothing but lying.
More excuses!
For what? For not proving for the thousandth time that you're a pathological, lying Super Troll?
Quote::: Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.
:: Nonsense. You can find precious few supporters of the WTS "explanation" about this. You have yet to cite a single source reference.
Well what date then figures in the literature? Not 538 but 537.
You mean WTS literature? If so, that's merely citing WTS literature to "prove" WTS claims.
You mean non-WTS literature? I've posted sources listing 538 on other forums, and will post more as soon as I've finished compiling them. Meanwhile, here are a handful:
A real, live, recognized scholar writes:
<< The precise historical setting for the emergence of this community [of returned exiles] is still debated, depending mainly on one's attitude to Cyrus's delaration in Ezra 1:2-4. There, Cyrus grants permission to the Jewish community in Babylonia to rebuild the temple, and to return to Jerusalem for that purpose. The description following in vv. 5-6 relates how Jews in Babylonia rose up immediately to actualize the provisions of this permission.
Scholars who accept the basic reliability of this sequence would see the emergence of the community of returned exiles as early as 538 B.C.E. >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 97.
Some amateur websites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Zion
<< According to the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, a number of decades later in 538 BCE, the Jews in Babylon were allowed to return to the Land of Israel, due to Cyrus's decree. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
<< According to the biblical book of Ezra, construction of the second temple in Jerusalem began around 537 BCE. >>https://www.harding.edu/rdiles/old testament/ezra, nehemiah, esther.htm
<< Three stages of Israelite return from exile: Zerubbabel (538 B.C.)... >>http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/SalvationHistory/_L21_THE RETURN PT I.htm
<< The book of Ezra relates the story of two of the returns from Babylon'the first led by Zerubbabel to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple in 538-7BC (Ch. 1-6) >>Now of course, amateur websites are worth little, since they usually just repeat well accepted information. One can find plenty of websites that use 537 BCE for the Return.
The questions are: What do recognized scholars argue, and what is their evidence?
So far, scholar JW pretendus has supplied ZERO such scholarly references for 537 BCE.
Quote:::: You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:
:::: 1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
No answer from scholar JW pretendus.
Quote:: You again failed the test. This time you failed even to answer the question. Try again.
:::: 2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
:::: 3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
:::: Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine
::: I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman.
:: Surely that's no impediment to a great scholar.
:: But you're wrong. The article is not that technical, and SA has always been specifically written for the layman.
::: Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.
:: Actually he does define it, but implicitly and throughout the article. Of course, that must be understood by actually reading and understanding the article -- not merely skimming to mine for quotes.
:: The very first sentence in the article, in the summary at the top of the page (213), states:
:: << The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>
:: According to this, does Lewontin view this "manifest fit" as a product of evolution or of a Supreme Designer?
:: Here's more:
:: pp. 214-215
:: << Much of evolutionary biology is the working out of an adaptationist program. Evolutionary biologists as sume that each aspect of an organism's morphology, physiology and behavior has been molded by natural selection as a solution to a problem posed by the environment. >>:: Does Lewontin accept evolution or design?
:: p. 220
:: << The mechanism by which organisms are said to adapt to the environment is that of natural selection. The theory of evolution by natural selection rests on three necessary principles: Different individuals within a species differ from one another in physiology, morphology and behavior (the principle of variation); the variation is in some way heritable. so that on the average offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble other individuals (the principle of heredity); different variants leave different numbers of offspring either immediately or in remote generations (the principle of natural selection). These three principles are necessary and sufficient to account for evolutionary change by natural selection. >>:: How does Lewontin view the origin of adaptation? Through evolution by natural selection, or by Design?
:: p. 230
:: << Adaptation is a real phenomenon. It is no accident that fish have fins, that seals and whales have flippers and flukes, that penguins have paddles and that even sea snakes have become laterally flattened. The problem of locomotion in an aquatic environment is a real problem that has been solved by many totally unrelated evolutionary lines in much the same way. >>:: Given the above, try answering the questions again:
:: 2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
:: 3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
Lewontin's article was correctly quoted by the Creation book. Lewontin made an admission picked up by the Creation book.
Wrong.
We note that you again failed to answer the specific questions I posed. Evade, evade, evade -- that's all you can manage.
You sense a trap, and you're right. But it's one of your own making, since you claim you can detect problems in WTS literature, but you've failed three times in a row -- even with hints from me.
Quote::: I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.
:: Totally wrong. Neither Lewontin nor Darwin made any such "admission". You cannot produce any quotations to support your claim.Totally false. Lewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer" and Darwin did the same in the last paragraph of his Origin wherein he refers to the "Creator".
Darwin did, but he later explained that that reference had only to do with the fact that he had buckled to popular belief in creationism. Here is one summary:
<< Charles Darwin closed the last paragraph of the first edition, (publication date 24 November 1859), of his On the Origin of Species with this sentence:-
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
It happened, however, that many persons felt that there was not enough ' grandeur ' to ' the view of life ' being offered by Charles Darwin in his On the Origin of Species such that Darwin it necessary to insert an additional "creationist" phrase in this closing sentence as it appears in subsequent editions from as early as January 1860:-
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
In March, 1863, Darwin wrote about this inclusion of the three significant words ~ by the Creator ~ to his friend and scientific confidante Joseph Hooker:-
"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter." >> -- http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/charles_darwins/quotes/grandeur_view_life.html
Back to the Lewontin misquote.
QuoteLewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer"
Yes, but what did he refer to? Certainly not his own belief in a Supreme Designer. After all, he made it clear in his article that he accepts fully naturalistic evolution -- not a Supreme Designer. As I already pointed out, he made his view clear at the very beginning of the article. The abstract for the article is quite clear: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."
As I have told you several times now, it is CONTEXT that allows one to accurately understand what Lewontin was trying to convey. I'll help you out again, by bolding the necessary bits of context. From the first page (213) of the SA article:
<< The theory about the history of life that is now generally accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, is meant to explain two different aspects of the appearance of the living world: diversity and fitness. There are on the order of two million species now living, . . . Where did they all come from? By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 it was widely (if not universally) held that species had evolved from one another, but no plausible mechanism for such evolution had been proposed. Darwin's solution to the problem was that small heritable variations among individuals within a species become the basis of large differences between species. >>
This clearly establishes the historical time frame -- Darwin's day, the 19th century.
Referring back to Darwin's day, Lewontin wrote of the general view of religious people, including religious scientists:
<< It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. >>
Did you get that? "It WAS the marvelous fit . . . that WAS the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer".
Now wasn't that easy?
Clearly, then, Lewontin was not referring to his own views, but to those of people in the 19th century in Darwin's day.
Now consider the Creation book's claim that "Richard Lewontin said that organisms 'appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.'" Was Lewontin referring to his own personal views? Of course not, because he accepts a fully naturalistic view of evolution. In view of his references to Darwin's time, he clearly meant that it was the 19th-century view that organisms appear to be designed. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be.
The Watch Tower Society received a lot of flak over this bit of quote mining. Eventually it did a bit of revision to tone down the worst of it. Compare the pre-2004 version with the post-2004 version:
<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>
<< Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed,” so that some scientists viewed them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>
The later version corrected "he views them" to "some scientists viewed them".
Of course, the quotation loses all of its punch without the misrepresentation.
And of course, it's easy to see that even the revised version misrepresents Lewontin's article by failing to point out that Lewontin's "admission" was merely a statement of what SOME 19th-century scientists believed, and that Lewontin himself rejects the view that organisms really are designed, but merely seem to be designed.
With all this in mind, read again part of Lewontin's article:
<< Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. >>
So, scholar JW pretendus, do you still think you can detect problems in WTS literature?
I have little doubt that you'll wrap all this into a little mental ball and bury it as deeply as you can.
Now, some might think that this is all a lot of unfair criticism of the Watch Tower's misrepresentations of Richard Lewontin's article in Scientific American. But here are some statements from Lewontin himself complaining about the selective quoting done by creationists of his SA article:
<< Partly through honest confusion, but also partly through a conscious attempt to confuse others, creationists have muddled the disputes about evolutionary theory with the accepted fact of evolution to claim that even scientists call evolution into question. By melding our knowledge of what has happened in evolution with our doubts about how this has happened into a single "theory of evolution," creationists hope to challenge evolution with evolutionists' own words. Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology, and the transparent subterfuge of passing off the Old Testament myth of creation as if it were creation "science" rather than the belief of a particular religion, has convinced most evolutionists that creationism is nothing but an ill-willed attempt to suppress truth in the interest of propping up a failing institution. But such a view badly oversimplifies the situation and misses the deep social and political roots of creationism. >> -- Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism, p. xxiv, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983.
Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35:
<< Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists. >>
It is one thing to cite and describe opposing viewpoints. It is something else again to repeatedly attribute those opposing views to an author or to a publication that merely describes them, especially when it is evident that the description is for the purpose of dismissing it.
On a final note, it is possible that the Creation book got Lewontin's statement wrong via poor scholarship rather than outright dishonesty. Apparently the author was too lazy to do his own research, or he might not have mangled the quotation so badly. Lewontin's statement was apparently lifted from paranormalist Francis Hitching's book The Neck of the Giraffe, page 84 (page 65 paperback). Hitching's quotation of Lewontin is identical to the Creation book's, but his book was published in 1982, whereas Creation was published in 1985. Hitching apparently in turn lifted this from the young-earth creationist publication Impact, No. 88, October, 1980, from the article "Creation, Selection, and Variation" by Gary E. Parker, a well-known creationist. On page 2 Parker wrote:
<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms "... appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
See the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, pages 35-44 for more details.
Quote:::: How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.
::: You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals.
:: Nonsense. As I've said several times now, I've consulted many commentaries and other reference works. None contain anything related to my "thesis"; therefore there is nothing to report.
In short, you have done no such thing for if you had you would have said something.
LOL! Your ridiculous claim is that I've consulted no commentaries because I haven't said anything about doing so? This is your usual ass-backwards reasoning.
I've told you many times now: I've consulted various commentaries about Ezra, etc., and they say nothing about the details of my "thesis" for the simple reason that my "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. Indeed, if my "thesis" had specific support from specific scholars, it would not be "my thesis" and I most certainly would have posted that scholarly material long ago.
Quote::: This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation.
:: I've gone over this in detail several times now. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand it?
There is nothing to understand for it is bunkum.
LOL! Yet another bald assertion without evidence.
Once again, one summary of it is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/And I've posted details on this thread a number of times, with nothing but bald denials or handwaving from you.
Quote::: Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?
:: No, because the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537/536 BCE, and the 2nd month of that year was Iyyar of 537 -- not 536. But I already told you this.
That depends on how you count the Cyrus' second year. Was it from Spring or Autumn?
It doesn't matter; it works either way. But I've told you this many times. Do you need a two-by-four upside the head to shake the marbles loose?
QuoteFurther, Ezra makes no such mention of the 2nd year of Cyrus but only the 2nd year after they came to the house of the true God. Biiiig difference!!!
But irrelevant. Once again: The 1st year of the Return ended with Elul, 538 or 537. The 2nd year of the Return began with Tishri, 538 or 537. Got it so far? Since Tishri is the 7th month of the sacred year, and all mentions of month numbers in the OT, so far as anyone knows, refer to the sacred year, even if the year at issue is the secular year, the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return must be Iyyar of 537 or 536. Got that yet? So now we have to consider the overlap between Cyrus' 2nd year -- 2nd by various dating methods -- between that year and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Got that? And a careful look at those figures shows that such an overlap occurs in 537, if Josephus counted by either Accession-year Nisan (Babylonian) dating, or Non-Accession-year Tishri (common Jewish) dating. Such an overlap occurs in 536 if Josephus counted by Accession-year Tishri dating. But the latter is unlikely, because according to various scholars it was rarely, if ever, used by the Jews, and there is no evidence that Josephus used it. Got it now?
You could actually understand all this if you were capable of diagramming the four years 539 through 536 and the relevant events within them. Obviously you're not capable, and so there is little point in your denial and puffery. You're demonstrably just blowing wind.
Quote:::: Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology
::: So what?
:: For one thing, it shows your gross hypocrisy in demanding peer review from your opponents, but excusing Mommy Watch Tower for not having peer review.
WT literature does not require a peer review but your novelty does.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! The stereotypically gross double standards on display!
Quote::: It says something when the WTS can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world
:: The most accurate? Don't make readers laugh. It's reasonably accurate most of the time, but also contains deliberate mistranslations when doctrinal expediency required Fred Franz to do it.
NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.
That and a penny will get you to Chicago.
But seriously, you've just illustrated perfectly that you're a Troll.
Quote:::: Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this. Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.
::: You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder,
:: Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references
Excuses.
Nope. Just asking you to quit being a gross hypocrite and do the same work you demand of others.
QuoteJust do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.
But scholar JW pretendus has no problem being a blatant hypocrite.
Quote::: if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.
:: Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.
You are making me warm and fuzzy.
Only to be expected.
Quote:: Only for 537. I consider people who advocate any year but 538 or 537 as crackpots, not because they choose that year, but because they choose so many other dates at odds with accepted scholarship
Are SDA scholars crackpots?
Some are. The ones who accept Willian Miller's prophetic speculations certainly are.
QuoteThe only accepted scholarship favors 537 and not 538.
Nonsense. I disproved that with a handful of references in my above post. More to come.
Quote::::: So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.
:::: Bald assertion. Try an argument for once
::: Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment.
:: More meaningless verbiage.
Meaningless to you but not so for Ezra.
Were Ezra alive he would agree that your comment is meaningless gibberish.
Quote:: I'm sure it will be of similar quality to what you normally produce.
:: I suggest you get help with your English. It's in no way the quality needed for a real scholarly paper. Even WTS writers would reject it on that basis alone.
:: And I have no doubt that your paper will be peer reviewed by real scholars
It will be far better not just in content but also in style.
Really. So you admit that what you normally write in online forums is crap.
QuoteYou would not know what constitutes a scholarly paper as you have never written one
Of course I have. They're all over online forums.
Quoteand yes it will be peer reviewed.
By who? AllenSmith?
Quote::::: Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum
:::: Meaningless gobble-de-goop
::: You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!
:: Your statement at the top of the quote above contains English words but is not an English sentence. Not a good sign for your paper.
I do not bother to edit my posts.
You'd obviously be hard put to produce intelligible English sentences even if you did.
QuoteIn writing a scholarly paper a number of drafts are usually necessary and then proof read which is a common practice with all authors and scholars.
True, but you've never written such, and have no idea how to go about it. I mean, all you really know is Trolling.
Quote::::: and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.
:::: Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.
:::: Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.
:::: Your statement is more gobble-de-goop
::: I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.
:: More nonsensical gobble-de-goop. Try answering the questions.
Try answering my questions to you.
Already done in spades. Do you really need help finding them?
All you've done here is spew another evasion.
Quote::::: Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.
:::: More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.
::: Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.
:: Since the date of the Return cannot be established directly, via Bible statements alone or via secular history alone, an indirect approach is necessary. Combining Ezra and Josephus is a valid indirect approach, and the combination directly provides the date of the Return -- 538 BCE.
So can I take this as an admission that some speculation or assumptions are necessary in order to posit a date for the Return?
Yes. How many times do I have to tell you this?
QuoteCombining Ezra and Josephus can be tricky because they do not share a common chronological datum which of itself negates 538.
Already explained in detail above. Of course, you're incapable of understanding such detail.
Quote:::: As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.
::: Nonsense.
:: What sentences above do you disagree with?
The first one.
Ah, something specific! But yet a another bald assertion. How many does that make in these two latest posts? Fifty?
Your disagreement will remain worthless bald assertion until you can come up with an actual argument.
:: Oh yeah -- none. You just disagree with the conclusion because it contradicts Mommy.
You proved my point.
Quote::: Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return.
:: A meaningless generality. You're just full of them!
Not so.
Without specifics, it's indeed a generality, and meaningless. And another bald assertion.
Quote::: You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return'
:: Already done many times. See the parts of my posts that you ignored.
I ignore nothing. More substance is required from you.
You ignore everything you can't refute, and more to boot. You excuse your transparent dishonesty with meaningless bluff like this.
Quote::: and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?
:: Since I've already done this, and you have not argued your case -- bald negative assertions are not arguments -- the onus is on you.
Your argument is sloppy without scholarship. Yes the onus is on me and I will respond with my paper.
More puffery and bald assertions! LOL! Yeah, you're just full of them.
Quote:::: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
::: It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking.
:: Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.
You have already admitted to some speculation.
At least, when I speculate, I don't pretend to my readers that I'm telling them established fact. Quite unlike you and Mommy Watch Tower.
Quote::: Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.
:: I already explained this to you: the difference between 11 months for a 538 Return and 20 months for a 537 Return is immaterial: both 11 and 20 months are more than sufficient preparation time.
There can be no 11 months for 538 nor can there be no 20 months for 537 either. Such assumptions are simply nonsense.
You're again either Trolling or just plain stupid. I made it quite clear that those numbers represent the maximum amounts of time possible in each year -- not that they are the actual preparation time.
Quote:::: I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.
::: Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.
:: Yet another meaningless generality.
Not to me.
Which means piss. Yet another evasion of argument.
Quote:::: Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.
::: No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty.
:: Yes. Do you need me to quote Steinmann at you?
No response from Super Troll.
Quote::: At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.
:: Sure. And you'll duly reject it for the good reason that he favors a 533 Return
His paper is a significant piece of scholarship that should not be ignored. I will not ignore it.
You'll reject it after not ignoring it, because it contradicts Mommy's claims.
Quote:::: One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:
:::: According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation. Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
::: The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree.
:: I've been saying this in this entire thread. Having memory problems again?
No. Your theory about extra months for journey preparation is nonsense for Ezra gives no account of this historically or theologically. It fails on these two grounds.
Bald assertions without evidence or actual argument.
Quote::: There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense.
:: Of course they wouldn't have known for certain! So what? I already brought that out. The point here is deciding what are the maximum and minimum times available for preparation, and then arguing for what is the most likely. If we had definite information, none of this would have to be considered.
Wow! What an admission. Let us deal with facts and not too much speculation which has little place in Chronology. You are not writing fiction are you Alan?
Admission? Not at all. As I said, I've been saying this all along. You're simply too dishonest, stupid and Trollish to have absorbed what I've said. Since we have no definite information about a lot of stuff, conclusions can hardly be definite -- if one is honest. Conclusions are reached on weight of evidence, where the evidence is clearly stated. But of course, the Watch Tower speculates every which way and pretends that its claims are based on definite evidence. So do you.
Quote::: They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2.
:: Wrong. They would have had to wait for an official decree to DEPART, but not to prepare. After all, Daniel was among the highest officials in the Empire, and would have done all he could to prepare his people for the Return that he knew was inevitable.
No. Ezra's account gives no room for such fiction for it deals with reality and that began with an official Decree which only then gave the Jews reason for prep. and departure.
Pure speculation, since Ezra says nothing about preparation or departure.
Let's see if you can quote Ezra to support your claim.
QuoteDaniel was rather old at that time and his role is totally absent having nothing to do with the Return. Next, you will have convinced yourself that Daniel led the Exiles back as a mighty Prince.
Resorting to inventing straw men again.
Quote::: Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?
:: I already told you: Darius is irrelevant, because we know Cyrus' years of rule.
Yes we know of Cyrus but we also know something of Darius' reign according to Daniel.
We know that he existed, and very little more.
Quote:::::: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
::::: Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE
:::: That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.
::: It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.
:: It's a false statement, and it has no relation to what I said. Another red herring
It is you who raised it.
I raised a valid point, and you made a false statement about it. You're evading again.
Quote:::: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
::: Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history.
:: Still speculation, unless there are specific statements in the Bible or secular sources that pinpoint the date.
:: Oh yeah, we already have those by combining Ezra and Josephus.
Be careful in combining Ezra with Josephus.
Yet another evasion.
Quote::: Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.
:: LOL! Continuing to equate WTS speculation with hard fact.
Scholar pretendus evades again.
Quote::::: but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra
:::: What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery
::: The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.:: You're repeating yourself. And I've already explained in some detail why these passages are exactly in harmony with my "thesis". You have not, and you can not, show different.
I have debunked your thesis.
A flat out lie. You can't even produce a time line for 539-536, much less argue validly why the data I've set forth are wrong, or the conclusions based on that data.
Quote:::: By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.
:::: Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked
::: I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.
:: Suuuure. But you should submit part of your personal "thesis" to this forum for a sort of peer review, just as I have. After all, if it can't stand the scrutiny of a handful of knowledgeable amateurs, it certainly won't stand up to that of peer-reviewing scholars.
:: But no one will be holding their breath. After all, after nearly a dozen years, you still can't produce a simple timeline of a 537 Return. Nor can you read and understand slightly technical literature, such as is required to understand the Creation book's misrepresentation of a Scientific American article.
My paper will not be released in part but in full and will not be posted on this forum but will be available upon request.
Right. Just like with John Aquila Brown's TWO PAGES. LOL!
QuoteI am sure that it will not be of interest to you as you have already noted that I have not produced a 537 timeline which incidentally neither have you
Of course I have. You yourself admitted that I did years ago, but claimed it was wrong. And one exists here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ . And of course, even after several go-rounds you were unable to show why it was wrong -- just your usual bald denials and the usual puffery.
Quoteand that my comprehension skills are rather lacking
You've proved that in a great many ways over 15 years.
Quotebecause I do not share your view of the alleged misrepresentation of the SA article in the Creation book.
That's just one example. And I'll wager that you STILL won't get it, even after my extensive demonstration above.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendus trollus said:
Quote:::: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
:::: This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.
:::: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment
::: A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.
:: Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.
Your point?
Trolling now? Or just stupid?
The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for".
QuoteThe writer makes his or her point and the reader will react accordingly to his/her comprehension or emotions-making own interpretations.
Completely meaningless as a response to my point. Another non sequitur.
Quote:::: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store."
::: No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.
:: Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wrong
Nope, have always presented both views in the main,
What you said 13 years ago on the JWD forum proves you're a liar:
<< Leolaia, Narkissos and Alan F
I am not the smartest fellow around and you characters in comparison to me are geniuses. However, let me warn you of this sobering fact that I am very stubborn, open minded and persistent as a dog with a bone. The matter of this Hebrew proposition in Jer 29:10 is of singular importance to me and has the potential of fatally destroying the Jonsson hypothesis.
My scholarship whatever its status and my gut instincts tells me that the NWT is brilliantly correct in this example. >> -- https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
Quote:::: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. . .
:::: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.
::: The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.
:: "Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.
Readers who are not simple-minded will note that "scholar JW" ignored my counter-example.
Quote:: Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.
The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'.
Here, let's try scholar JW pretendus' method of argument: FALSE!
Now let's try a valid method of argument: Your claim is false for reasons shown repeatedly in this thread -- which you've largely ignored -- and for reasons shown to you repeatedly for at least 15 years, such as in the above link.
QuoteThe matter is open to the opinion of the translator
Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".
Quoteand interpretation of the 70 years
Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.
Quoteso there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.
No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.
Quote::: The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home
:: You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.
No. It does not for the simple reason that the 70 years was also tied to the land and that remained desolate until the Return thus ending the 70 years or fulfilling the period. This means that all of the conditions of the 70 years had to be met for there are three: Servitude-Exile- Desolation. Yu got it?
You're again proving that you can't do simple arithmetic or even read with comprehension. So let's try again, but with a diagram that shows your above-stated sequence of events.
1. Jews are at/in Babylon.
2. 70 years end.
3. Some unspecified time passes.
4. Jews leave Babylon.
5. About 4 months pass in travel.
6. Jews reach Judah; 70 years plus unspecified time plus 4 months end.
7. Jews are in Judah, so Judah is no longer desolate.Some really hard arithmetic questions based on your own words:
How long were the Jews AT Babylon?
How long was the desolation of Judah?
Quote::: The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon
:: Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.
The Bible says so
Scholar pretendus style bald assertion: No.
Quoteand I have argued accordingly.
And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.
Quote::: and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.
:: No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes but the problem for critics is how to interpret the seventy years
Nope -- that's a fake problem -- a problem that YOU and Mommy WTS invented.
Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.
Note a recent scholar's comments (The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation, John Sietz Bergsma, Brill, 2007, pp. 215-216):
<< . . . Regardless, according to the construal of history in the book of Daniel, Darius the Mede received the kingship of Babylon directly after it was conquered by Medo-Persian forces (Dan 5:30-6:1), i.e., ca. 538 B.C.E.
Thus, the vision of Dan 9 is set at or just before the time when -- according to other biblical books -- Cyrus issued his famous edict permitting Jewish repatriation, and Jeremiah's "seventy years for Babylon" were considered complete. Any astute reader of the sacred texts, whether ancient or modern, could come to this conclusion from the data those tests supply. The data of Daniel are sufficient to recognize that the reign of Cyrus either is concurrent with, or follows hard upon, the reign of Darius (Dan 6:29. [36] From Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chron 36:20-23 it is clear that in the first year of his reign Cyrus issued an edict which fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah. That prophecy, expressed most clearly in Jer 29:10-14, stated that after seventy years Babylon would fall and be punished (fulfilled in Dan 5:30), and the exiled inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah would be brought back and their fortunes restored (fulfilled by Cyrus' edict; cf. Isa 44:24-28; Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron 36:20-23). Thus, it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 after the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. It then becomes comprehensible why Jeremiah's prophecy would be of interest to Daniel at this time. The prophecy stated that when the "seventy years" of Babylon were over, the inhabitants of Jerusalem would return and experience the restoration of their fortunes (Jer 29:10-14). The "seventy years" of Babylon were definitely over in the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 5:30-6:1), regardless of when one might place the terminus a quo of Jeremiah's prophecy. [39] . . .
ftn. [36] Cf. St. Jerome on Dan 9:1-2: "This is the Darius who in cooperation with Cyrus conquered the Chaldeans and Babylonians" (Jerome's Commentary on Daniel ... Dan 6:29 can be translated, "during the reign of Darius, that is, during the reign of Cyrus the Persian" ...). That "Darius's" reign was short could also be implied by the fact that the only year of his reign mentioned in the book is his first (Dan 9:1, 11:1; the events of Dan. 6 are by implication also in that first year).
ftn. [39] Gerald Wilson makes the following interesting observation: "Dan 1.2 assumes that Jehoakim and the temple vessels were carried into exile in the 'third year of Nebuchadnezzar [sic; should be Jehoiakim]' or 605 B.C.E. It is suggestive that once this move is made, the interval between Nebuchadnezzar's profanation of the temple and the recitation of the prayer of Dan 9 in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus (538 B.C.E.) is sixty-eight years" ("Prayer," 97). >>
Quotenot being able to distinguish the Fall of Babylon and the actual Return which were two distinct events, the former brought the 70 years to its conclusion with the Return as the actual end or 'fulfillment' of the period.
Incoherent gibberish. I'll try to decipher it and comment accordingly.
Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.
You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.
Quote::: The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.
:: Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.
:: However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.
Daniel was not known for ambiguity for he presents a precise history and chronology.
Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2.
QuoteHe lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events.
True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.
QuoteHe does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment,
Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.
Quotethe desolations
The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.
Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.
Quoteof Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon.
That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:
<< . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>
QuoteIn ch. 5 he describes the end of Babylon and in combination with the prophecies of Jeremiah later in ch.9 describes the end of the 70 years linked not to Babylon but to Jerusalem thus ending later with the Return.
A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.
Quote::: In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.
:: Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.
This statement is meaningless.
Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.
Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:
Quote:::: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?
:::: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).
::: The 70 years ended at Judah.
:: But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?
:: If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.
Nope. The 70 years ended with the Return in 537 brought to close with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Is that clear?
What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.
YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGE.
Quote::: There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.
:: More gobble-de-goop.
No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.
Nope. Just gobble-de-goop.
Quote:::: Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.
::: No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.
:: Still rejecting the Bible, eh?
:: Jer. 52:28-30 clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar's forces took 3,023 exiles in his 7th year (597), 832 in his 18th year, and 745 in his 23rd year. Which number do you conclude is the largest?
:: 2 Kings 24:14 states that 10,000 exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (7th by Jer. 52 counting):
:: << 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. >>
:: But only a relative few were taken in 587 in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th by Jer. 52 counting), according to 2 Kings 25:11:
:: << 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. >>Do you actually believe the Bible, Neil?
You have the dates wrong but I accept the narrative as quoted as scholar believes the Bible.
The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.
QuoteDo you?
You know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.
Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.
Quote:::: So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.
::: Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.
:: Except that your entire presentation is an attempt to deceive naive readers into thinking that "le" is used to refer to Babylon, but it is not, except in Jer. 29:10. You are a deliberate deceiver, Neil.
Nope for scholar works with facts. The 'le' prefixed to Babylon can mean either 'for' or 'at' and both can be exegetically accounted for as I have explained.
Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.
You are nothing but a pathological, lying troll.
Quote:::: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.
::: Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.
:: Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".
No, 'these nations' in my opinion were non-Jews but of those of surrounding nations.
You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:
AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.
Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone
AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."
So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".
You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.
Quote:::: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.
::: Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.
:: Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25).
We may have the same chronology but the interpretation is different.
Yet again, scholar JW pretendus ignores my point, but this time adds a meaningless red herring.
Quote::: Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.
:: Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.
Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
Quote:::: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.
::: The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.
:: Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.
Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
Quote:::: You're contradicting yourself
::: No. Read more carefully what I have written.
:: I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?
Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.
Quote:::: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date
::: Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.
:: So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.
:: Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.
Scholar JW pretendus ignored this, too.
Quote::: But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.
:: Still begging the question.
And again scholar JW pretendus ignored my comment.
Quote:::: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.
::: Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.
:: Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.
Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.Quote:::: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims
::: No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.
:: Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.
Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.
Quote:::: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon
::: Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.
:: Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah
So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this.
QuoteThe 70 years were for Judah not Babylon but they were in servitude to Babylon, the 70 years was fulfilled whilst in Babylon but actually ended at their Return.
Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.
Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive.
Quote:::: It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?
::: There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.
:: Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.
It is you who has introduced the bogus 70 years plus not scholar.
So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.
In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.
Trolling indeed.
Quote:::: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
::: The period was a full 70 years with zero months.
:: Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.
Yep! So sayeth the fool.
Yep, 70 years + 8 months = 70 years = 69 years + 4 months
Quote::::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'
:::: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources
::: Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.
:: Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
:: But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.
If that is the case why are there translations that have 'at' rather than 'for'? The greatest translation ever, NWT says differently.
I've told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.
Quote::::: for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.
:::: Quite the contrary.
::: No.
:: Prove it by citing source references.
Will do later.
No, you won't.
Quote::::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.
:::: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.
::: The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.
:: Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.
Your post are long and stuff gets lost so repost for my attention.
I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!
Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
Quote:::: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
::: The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.
:: That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.
So when something does not suit you or your argument you dismiss such facts as 'hyperbole' because it conflicts with your Poppa's hypothesis.
Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.
<< ftn. [11] This is now strongly refuted by the commonly used term "the myth of the empty land" (see also [[H. M. Barstad, "After the 'Myth of the Empty Land': Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20]]. . . >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 358.
This is nothing new for Watch Tower views. Jesus said you must hate your family to be his disciple. Did he mean literally hate? Or hate in a relative way? If the latter, then his words were hyperbole.
We have a similar situation with the creation story in Genesis. A literal reading indicates that the universe is some six thousand years old, yet the Watch Tower argues that that figure, derived from its own version of biblical chronology, is not to be taken literally -- it's hyperbole.
Quote::: Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval
:: Good! Then you'll approve of the many debunkings you're going to continue to experience.
:: And of course, you're really bad at debunking, because you confuse bald denials and assertions with real arguments.
I say bring it on.
Done.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
QuoteThe trick, @AlanF, is to let someone's own words reveal that they are ill-mannered louts. You don't go around name-calling everyone you oppose. You set them up so that they torpedo themselves.
Oh, I let scholar JW pretendus do that all the time. I'm merely guilding the lily. Why? Because he has admirers among the JW defender crowd, who, like you, are too stupid to realize, or pigheaded to admit, how dishonest he is.
QuoteBut, but, but, but - what if others don't agree that this or that person is a fool? Don't I have to plainly say it?
Depends on the situation. Remember that fools, by definition, are generally too stupid to know they're fools or to recognize another.
Also try to remember that when I give you a serious answer, I'm trying really, really hard to pretend you're not a fool.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
QuoteI admit, I don't know anything of Scholar JW's scholarship.
Then you should keep your mouth shut.
"Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain(?)
QuoteI like him simply for his kickback at Alan.
Your mother wears army shoes!
There, that'll teach you!
Let me clue you in on something that, given your obvious lack of education, may not be obvious to you:
Real scholars give source references in their writings, with sufficient citations and detail to allow readers easily to look them up.
Fakers like "scholar JW" give as few source references as they think they can get away with, and try to play games with serious people. Their purpose is not to inform, but to obfuscate. As I told "scholar JW":
<< Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references. >>
Naturally, scholar JW pretendus doubled down on his obfuscation and replied:
<< Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers. >>
Asking for clear source references is NOT whinging -- it's asking someone to act like what they claim they are -- a competent, honest scholar.Anyone who can't see "scholar JW's" tactic for what it is -- an attempt to lie and evade his claim of a scholarly disposition -- is unusually stupid.
Quote15 hours ago, scholar JW said:
Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.
Like I said . . .
Quoteand
15 hours ago, scholar JW said:NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.
This reveals a sense of humor on his part (I think)
Not at all. Just like his fake "scholarship", it reveals an attempt to do something he obviously does not understand. He really does think the NWT is brilliant because he says so. He's posted many serious claims along those lines on other forums for a decade and a half.
Quoteand it sails right past Alan because, as far as I can tell, he has NO sense of humor.
Oh, I know exactly what this faker/troll is doing. After all, I've been dealing with his lies and other sins for about 15 years now.
QuoteBut I don't really know much, or care greatly, about the topic under consideration, so it is only someone's obnoxious personality that occasionally draws me it, almost against my will.
Then once again, keep your mouth shut and let the big boys play.
Quote:: In other words, "scholar JW" displays many qualities of a troll. Many "more honest minds" have wondered about that over the years, and been unable to come to a definite conclusion about whether he's a troll
Alan is calling anyone a troll? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Continuing to be clueless.
<< In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. >> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trollA pretty good description of scholar JW pretendus, who is a liar, hypocrite, bluffer, etc., par excellence.
Quote:: My "insults" toward him are merely descriptions of reality
Of course! Anyone else's insults are ill-mannered insults. Only AlanF rises above the common description to reveal truth.
Let's see now: do you actually think that "scholar JW" is NOT a liar, hypocrite, bluffer, etc.? Based on what?
You continue to ignore Jesus' insults toward his opponents:
<< Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? >> -- Matt. 33:23
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
QuoteI'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence.
Good idea. Probably best to do that on all forums.
AlanF
-
TrueTomHarley wrote:
QuoteI am coming to positively like @scholar JW,
Anyone could have predicted that. After all, you're dumb enough to be suckered in by the Watch Tower Society. And as the poster Leolaia said, in the post on another forum that JW Insider linked to:
<< Pseudo-scholar's record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims imitates quite well the example set by the Society. >>
JW Insider also summed up the purely emotionally based reason for the proclivity of JW defenders to be suckered in by the likes of "scholar JW":
<< Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds. >>
In other words, "scholar JW" displays many qualities of a troll. Many "more honest minds" have wondered about that over the years, and been unable to come to a definite conclusion about whether he's a troll. It makes sense, but most trolls get tired of trolling after awhile, so it might be that "scholar JW" has more than a few screws loose.
Quoteif for no other reason than he throws @AlanF's line by line method right back at him, and he does it minus Alan's constant insults.
My "insults" toward him are merely descriptions of reality. He is demonstrably a liar, a bluffer, a hypocrite, and thoroughly unscholarly.
My line by line response method is designed to point out such lies, bluffs, hypocrisies, and lousy scholarship line by line.
And of course, anyone who reads "scholar JW's" "throw backs" with understanding of what each side is saying quickly realizes that his responses are almost always more instances of lies, bluffs, etc.
QuoteAfter all, what was it that Eric Hoffer said?
"Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength." Scholar JW knows this. Why does not the other?
Again, even though I've reminded you and others, I'll point out what Jesus said to some liars of his day:
<< Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? >> -- Matt. 33:23
So Jesus was merely imitating strength, eh?
Incapable of participating in these discussions with substance, all you can manage is infantile ad hominems.
AlanF
-
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:
Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. . . .
This business of the 70 weeks is a great example of how Bible believers start with a premise -- the Bible is completely accurate as regards prophecy, etc. -- and then marshall evidence to make it seem to fit the evidence. But they filter out all evidence that does not fit, which is thoroughly dishonest. This is classic confirmation bias.
AlanF
-
scholar pretendus ludicrus wrote:
Quote:: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
:: This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.
:: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment
A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.
Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.
Quote:: Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?
:: Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.
:: "John is AT the grocery store."
:: "John is FOR the grocery store."
:: Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.
:: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store
Yes indeed both have different meanings.
Very good! You're not quite as dumb as you let on.
QuoteNo, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.
Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wrong.
Quote:: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:
:: << “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>
:: The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.
:: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.
The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.
"Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.
Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.
QuoteThe sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home
You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.
Quotewhich proves the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years.
Duh.
QuoteThe 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon
Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.
Quoteand this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.
No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.
QuoteThe tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.
Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.
However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.
QuoteIn view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.
Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.
Quote:: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?
:: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).
The 70 years ended at Judah.
But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?
If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.
QuoteThere is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.
More gobble-de-goop.
Quote:: Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.
No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.
Still rejecting the Bible, eh?
Jer. 52:28-30 clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar's forces took 3,023 exiles in his 7th year (597), 832 in his 18th year, and 745 in his 23rd year. Which number do you conclude is the largest?
2 Kings 24:14 states that 10,000 exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (7th by Jer. 52 counting):
<< 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. >>
But only a relative few were taken in 587 in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th by Jer. 52 counting), according to 2 Kings 25:11:
<< 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. >>Do you actually believe the Bible, Neil?
Quote:: So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.
Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.
Except that your entire presentation is an attempt to deceive naive readers into thinking that "le" is used to refer to Babylon, but it is not, except in Jer. 29:10. You are a deliberate deceiver, Neil.
Quote:: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.
Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.
Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".
Quote:: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.
Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.
Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25).
QuoteTyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.
Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.
Quote:: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.
The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.
Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.
QuoteBabylon lost its power in 539 BCE as the Bible attests.
Wow! Another true statement!
Quote:: You're contradicting yourself
No. Read more carefully what I have written.
I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?
Quote:: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date
Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.
So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.
Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.
QuoteBut the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.
Still begging the question.
Quote:: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.
Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.
Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.
Quote:: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims
No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.
Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.
Quote:: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon
Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.
Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah.
Quote:: It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?
There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.
Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.
Quote:: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
The period was a full 70 years with zero months.
Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.
Quote::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'
:: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources
Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.
Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.
Quote::: for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.
:: Quite the contrary.
No.
Prove it by citing source references.
Quote::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.
:: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.
The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.
Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.
Quote:: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.
That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.
QuoteDebunking nonsense has my tick of approval
Good! Then you'll approve of the many debunkings you're going to continue to experience.
And of course, you're really bad at debunking, because you confuse bald denials and assertions with real arguments.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendus biggus dummus:
You completely ignored my post which debunked more of your nonsense.
Quote:: Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions. You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.
I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.
I've made very few bald assertions. Most assertions are accompanied by detailed explanations or source references. You have yet to debunk any of them -- and your bald assertions are not debunking.
Quote:: Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.
Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar.
I agree that you're knowledgeable enough that your denial of facts is nothing but lying.
QuoteOur thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.
Nonsense. You can find precious few supporters of the WTS "explanation" about this. You have yet to cite a single source reference.
Quote:: You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:
:: 1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
You again failed the test. This time you failed even to answer the question. Try again.
Quote:: 2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
:: 3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
:: Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine
I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman.
Surely that's no impediment to a great scholar.
But you're wrong. The article is not that technical, and SA has always been specifically written for the layman.
QuoteLewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.
Actually he does define it, but implicitly and throughout the article. Of course, that must be understood by actually reading and understanding the article -- not merely skimming to mine for quotes.
The very first sentence in the article, in the summary at the top of the page (213), states:
<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>
According to this, does Lewontin view this "manifest fit" as a product of evolution or of a Supreme Designer?
Here's more:
pp. 214-215
<< Much of evolutionary biology is the working out of an adaptationist program. Evolutionary biologists as sume that each aspect of an organism's morphology, physiology and behavior has been molded by natural selection as a solution to a problem posed by the environment. >>Does Lewontin accept evolution or design?
p. 220
<< The mechanism by which organisms are said to adapt to the environment is that of natural selection. The theory of evolution by natural selection rests on three necessary principles: Different individuals within a species differ from one another in physiology, morphology and behavior (the principle of variation); the variation is in some way heritable. so that on the average offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble other individuals (the principle of heredity); different variants leave different numbers of offspring either immediately or in remote generations (the principle of natural selection). These three principles are necessary and sufficient to account for evolutionary change by natural selection. >>How does Lewontin view the origin of adaptation? Through evolution by natural selection, or by Design?
p. 230
<< Adaptation is a real phenomenon. It is no accident that fish have fins, that seals and whales have flippers and flukes, that penguins have paddles and that even sea snakes have become laterally flattened. The problem of locomotion in an aquatic environment is a real problem that has been solved by many totally unrelated evolutionary lines in much the same way. >>Given the above, try answering the questions again:
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
QuoteI believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.
Totally wrong. Neither Lewontin nor Darwin made any such "admission". You cannot produce any quotations to support your claim.
Quote:: How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.
You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals.
Nonsense. As I've said several times now, I've consulted many commentaries and other reference works. None contain anything related to my "thesis"; therefore there is nothing to report.
QuoteThis new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation.
I've gone over this in detail several times now. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand it?
QuoteDo not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?
No, because the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537/536 BCE, and the 2nd month of that year was Iyyar of 537 -- not 536. But I already told you this.
Quote:: Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology
So what?
For one thing, it shows your gross hypocrisy in demanding peer review from your opponents, but excusing Mommy Watch Tower for not having peer review.
QuoteIt says something when the WTS can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world
The most accurate? Don't make readers laugh. It's reasonably accurate most of the time, but also contains deliberate mistranslations when doctrinal expediency required Fred Franz to do it.
Quotebut also the most accurate Bible Chronology based on sound biblical scholarship.
LOL!
Quote:: Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this. Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.
You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder,
Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references.
Oh yeah, but we see your usual double standards at work again.
Quoteif you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.
Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.
Quote:: Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.
I have not seen such a list.
Rather, you've ignored it.
QuoteIf there is one then that is fine but have you also provided a list for 537, 536 BCE?
Only for 537. I consider people who advocate any year but 538 or 537 as crackpots, not because they choose that year, but because they choose so many other dates at odds with accepted scholarship.
Quote::: So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.
:: Bald assertion. Try an argument for once
Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment.
More meaningless verbiage.
QuoteIf you believe that there is need for an argument then provide it with scholarship.
I've told you repeatedly: the basics are already done and available online. You know where.
QuoteI wish to inform you that I am in the process of writing a scholarly paper on this subject and I will be examining all aspects of the Return:
I'm sure it will be of similar quality to what you normally produce.
I suggest you get help with your English. It's in no way the quality needed for a real scholarly paper. Even WTS writers would reject it on that basis alone.
And I have no doubt that your paper will be peer reviewed by real scholars.
Quote::: Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum
:: Meaningless gobble-de-goop
You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!
Your statement at the top of the quote above contains English words but is not an English sentence. Not a good sign for your paper.
Quote::: and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.
:: Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.
:: Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.
:: Your statement is more gobble-de-goop
I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.
More nonsensical gobble-de-goop. Try answering the questions.
Quote::: Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.
:: More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.
Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.
Since the date of the Return cannot be established directly, via Bible statements alone or via secular history alone, an indirect approach is necessary. Combining Ezra and Josephus is a valid indirect approach, and the combination directly provides the date of the Return -- 538 BCE.
Quote:: As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.
Nonsense.
What sentences above do you disagree with?
Oh yeah -- none. You just disagree with the conclusion because it contradicts Mommy.
QuoteEzra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return.
A meaningless generality. You're just full of them!
QuoteYou need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return'
Already done many times. See the parts of my posts that you ignored.
Quoteand how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?
Since I've already done this, and you have not argued your case -- bald negative assertions are not arguments -- the onus is on you.
Quote:: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking.
Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.
QuoteAllowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.
I already explained this to you: the difference between 11 months for a 538 Return and 20 months for a 537 Return is immaterial: both 11 and 20 months are more than sufficient preparation time.
Quote:: I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.
Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.
Yet another meaningless generality.
Quote:: Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.
No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty.
Yes. Do you need me to quote Steinmann at you?
QuoteAt any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.
Sure. And you'll duly reject it for the good reason that he favors a 533 Return.
Quote:: One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:
:: According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation. Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree.
I've been saying this in this entire thread. Having memory problems again?
QuoteThere are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense.
Of course they wouldn't have known for certain! So what? I already brought that out. The point here is deciding what are the maximum and minimum times available for preparation, and then arguing for what is the most likely. If we had definite information, none of this would have to be considered.
QuoteThey would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2.
Wrong. They would have had to wait for an official decree to DEPART, but not to prepare. After all, Daniel was among the highest officials in the Empire, and would have done all he could to prepare his people for the Return that he knew was inevitable.
QuoteBesides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?
I already told you: Darius is irrelevant, because we know Cyrus' years of rule.
Quote:::: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
::: Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE
:: That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.
It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.
It's a false statement, and it has no relation to what I said. Another red herring.
Quote:: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history.
Still speculation, unless there are specific statements in the Bible or secular sources that pinpoint the date.
Oh yeah, we already have those by combining Ezra and Josephus.
QuoteSuch a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.
LOL! Continuing to equate WTS speculation with hard fact.
Quote::: but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra
:: What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery
The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.
You're repeating yourself. And I've already explained in some detail why these passages are exactly in harmony with my "thesis". You have not, and you can not, show different.
Quote:: By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.
:: Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked
I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.
Suuuure. But you should submit part of your personal "thesis" to this forum for a sort of peer review, just as I have. After all, if it can't stand the scrutiny of a handful of knowledgeable amateurs, it certainly won't stand up to that of peer-reviewing scholars.
But no one will be holding their breath. After all, after nearly a dozen years, you still can't produce a simple timeline of a 537 Return. Nor can you read and understand slightly technical literature, such as is required to understand the Creation book's misrepresentation of a Scientific American article.
AlanF -
scholar JW pretendus maximally stupidus said:
:: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.
But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment.
Quote:: "70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.
:: "70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.
Quote'Le' the Hebrew preposition can have either meaning and in the case of Jer.29:10 both contextually and logically.
Yet another nonsense sentence. Forgot about Grammarly, eh?
Extracting some meaning from your nonsense, you're trying to claim that "le" simultaneously means "at" and "for", but that's not possible, as the following sentences illustrate.
"John is AT the grocery store."
"John is FOR the grocery store."
Obviously they mean completely different things, which I hope even "scholar JW" can figure out.
I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store".
The following rationalizations are called "dancing the Watch Tower two-step". It's entertaining to watch Neil at work:
Quote70 years at Babylon simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years. which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles. Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.
70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves. Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve, be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE
The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. Here is the passage, from the older NWT:
<< “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’ >>
The Hebrew word translated as "fulfilling" can also be translated "completion", and is so translated in many Bible versions. The sequence of events as described in this passage is clear: the 70 years would be completed, and after that Jehovah would bring the Jews back to Judah. Yet both the WTS and "scholar JW" also claim that the 70 years ended only when the Jews arrived back in Judah. You can't have it both ways, guys: either the 70 years ended while the Jews were IN Babylon, or were IN Judah. But these idiots want it both ways: 70 years ending IN Babylon and IN Judah. Not logically possible.
Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.
Now let's examine "scholar JW's" claims in more detail:
Quote70 years at Babylon simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years.
Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).
Quotewhich was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles.
Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.
QuoteContextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used.
So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.
Quote70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves.
Yes, everyone knows that.
QuoteThus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve,
Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.
Quotebe subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.
Wrong. Even the WTS, in the "Isaiah" book, admits that Tyre and other nations did not serve for 70 years.
And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.
Quotefrom the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.
Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.
QuoteOther periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years
You're contradicting yourself.
Quoteand scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE
So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date.
Quote:: The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.
An exaggeration to boot!
What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.
QuoteIt is simply a direct reference to Dan.9:2 and supports all of the other Quotes from the Chronicler and Jer. 25:11-12.
Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims.
Quote:: Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.
WT scholars interpret the 70 years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile in and for Babylon.
They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon.
QuoteSuch a holistic interpretation of all of the 70 year corpus is the only logical, compatible view that is consistent with biblical history.
It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?
QuoteThe 70 years was indeed a precise length period
Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
Quoterunning from the Fall in 607 until the Fall in the Return-right down to the very day and month.
Again, is it 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?
QuoteJehovah God is indeed the Great Timekeeper!. You need to reset your watch.
LOL!
Quote:: Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".
Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'
Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources.
Quotefor later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.
Quite the contrary.
QuoteIt could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.
Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.
QuoteIn short, scholars cannot believe that such an event could have occurred
Utter nonsense. Most modern scholars accept the basics, as stated above.
Quotethus leading to the 'Myth of the Empty land' hypothesis first developed by Hans Barstad in 1996.
The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.
Further already-debunked nonsense from Neil deleted.AlanF
-
Continuing:
Quote:: Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words
I have already highlighted the three major problems with your thesis.
Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions.
You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.
Quote:: Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details. The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
Does it matter whether they are stated or not for the reader using discernment can identify such as is also indicated in our explanation of the Return in our publications over many years.
Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.
Quote:: Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.
:: Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:
:: 1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
:: 2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
Wow, even with hints you got it wrong.
Quote1. Yes
2. Yes
Did I pass?
No. You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:
1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?
3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?
Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine.
Quote::: A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.
:: I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?
Simple: Literature Review indicating the scope and depth of your research and whether you have consulted Journals and views from Bible Commentaries on Ezra relating to Ezra 3;1 and 3:8 inclusive and Ezra 1;1-3:1 inclusive.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.
Quote:::: The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.
::: Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.
:: False, as I've shown above and several other times
Are you really sure?
Of course. See above.
Quote:: LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims. In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
Scholarship means what has been published within the worldwide community of biblical scholars and presented in a academic format. Research means the accessing of such published materials.
Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Quote:::: So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere.
:::: And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS
::: This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.
:: Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
That is your problem for it is based on its own merits. It has to be tested alongside other competing views and established facts, clearly identifying any underlying assumptions.
That has all been done since, as you point out, 2005.
QuoteYou do not know what I will think
Of course I do. You've shown thousands of times that you reject anything that contradicts WTS Tradition.
Quotebut you need to do more work, get it peer reviewed.
Tell that to "celebrated WTS scholars". Hypocrite!
Quote:::: So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.
::: Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible.
:: Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this
False. Do the research! You really cannot be taken seriously.
Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this.
Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.
Quote:: Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims
Why should I do your work for you. Are you lazy?
Same excuses you've given before. And you call yourself a scholar, when you refuse to back up your claims!
Quote:: The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!
At least 537 is in the scholarly literature whereas 538 is missing in action.
Lying again. Over the years I've provided readers with a number of references to 538 in scholarly literature.
Quote::: Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.
:: Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence. And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.
Bald assertion. Try an argument for once.
QuoteYour argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum
Meaningless gobble-de-goop.
Quoteand do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.
Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.
Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.
Your statement is more gobble-de-goop.
QuoteBoth texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.
More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.
QuoteIt is up to you to prove any connection for I can disprove your claim by simply saying 'what does the text actually say'.
More contentless gobble-de-goop.
Quote:::: Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.
::: True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious
:: Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors. If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
No it is not decisive at all and that is your problem for one must have a degree of certainty as to which calendrical method Ezra used throughout his book so it when assigning a Chronology to Ezra one has to adopt a certain methodology.
As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.
QuoteYou need to display an awareness of the issues raised.
I have. Your bald assertions to the contrary are mere blowing wind.
QuoteWT scholars have approached the Chronology quite differently to not so much Thiele but his contemporary, Siegfried Horn. These matters are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion and I am not a Chronologist so lack some competence in this area.
More irrelevant, meaningless verbiage.
Quote:: Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.
:: In a later post I said:
:: << Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>
Within the confines of year 538 or 537 then the Return would be possible
Exactly what I said, you moron.
Quotebut this excludes all of the other circumstances that occurred prior to their four month journey which makes on year far more likely than the other.
I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.
QuoteThe timing and nature of the Decree with its proclamation renders 538 impossible as also noted by Steinmann with regard not to the date but to the substance of things.
Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.
Quote::: Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.
:: So what?
Well this is another factor that gives one extra month for the returnees in order to make the journey and to be nicely resettled in their cities or homes so it takes the rush out of things and makes it comfortable for the oldies and the young-uns.
One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:
According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation.Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.
Quote:::: The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid
::: Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?
:: Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
:: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE
That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.
Quote:: Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
Perhaps I am already there because of my human failures. The truth of an argument is not based on a personality or group
Really! Tell that to the Governing Body.
Quotebut rather should be based on following the evidence where it leads and unfortunately it leads directly to 607 BCE.
LOL!
Quote:: More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
Well the matter of the zero year is troubling to you but I simply wave my hands and it disappears in the pursuit of sound biblical scholarship that began in 1944. No problem!
LOL! A better demonstration of how JW apologists blow off arguments they hate but know are true would be hard to find.
Quote:::: Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient
::: Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement
:: Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.
Have not WT scholars inferred this?
Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.
Quote:: As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70 years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory. So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
The problem lies in the equating an expectation with actual time of preparation and the unknowing precisely when Cyrus' decree would be promulgated. Such a scenario sounds good on paper
It certainly does.
Quotebut does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra
What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery.
Quoteand it these facts that must take priority when assigning a precise date for the Return.
By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.
Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked.
QuoteMeanderings are helpful but have little place in Chronology. One could argue that with such tumultuous events after Babylon's Fall the last thing on the minds of the Jewish exile was a sudden trip home.
One could argue exactly the opposite, too.
Quote:: As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
I would if I could
We already know that.
Quote:: Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
At least I am aware of such.
LOL! Like Mother like son.
Quote:: When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.
That is your opinion.
Indeed it is. And the opinion of every JW critic you've gone up against.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendus maximus said:
Quote:: This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.
Grandstanding again, Alan?
Not at all. Educating.
Quote:: Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
No. Simply affirming the obvious, giving credit where credit is due.
Such a liar! Having been caught so many times lying about COJ's work, and how it reflects modern scholarship, you're finally admitting it.
Quote:: You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
Simply assertion.
Nope. This thread is full of examples.
QuoteYou do not like it when someone else goes 'toe to toe' with you.
Actually I do, because it gives me another opportunity of showing up someone who lies or distorts the facts in the name of the Watch Tower Society.
Quote:: More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.
No. Just a simple recognition that I have unlike yourself, have paid close attention to SDA scholarship
So what? SDA scholarship disagrees with WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology on most details. All you've done so far is brag that you've read SDA scholarship, and after repeated requests you continue to avoid quoting what they say. Just as you avoided giving any evidence for your false claims about what John Aquila Brown said.
Quote:: Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus
Fine. Bring it on. I must remind you that this is SDA scholarship!
No need to. MacCarty's arguments closely reflect those of good modern scholarship, and so there is no need to repeat them.
Quote:: < True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>
:: So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.
:: You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.
If you wish to discuss 'these nations' then let us proceed..
Go ahead with a new post on that subject. It'll be entertaining for those readers who haven't seen you dance and weave to your full potential.
QuoteMethodology of whatever type can be valid
"Can be" is rather different from "is".
Quoteand even Rodger Young used a methodology based on Decision Analysis in order to resolve the 586/7 debate.
Correct. But Young's, as opposed to WTS ad hoc "methodology", is demonstrably valid.
QuoteWT scholars have always had a well-defined methodology
Yes -- after about 1912, start with the magic date of 1914, and twist everything to fit.
Quoteand this stated in our publications.
Not really. Rather, WTS writers have simply dived in and made their ad hoc arguments. Apologists like you call this "methodology".
Quotefor it nicely harmonizes both the scriptural and secular data.in a well defined linear argument.
Disproved thousands of times.
Quote:: Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.
No it does not. It does not need to misrepresent it because it does not wholly rely on it but rather relies on the biblical evidence.
I love it! You've managed to mix up your "its" here. What you've said is that "WTS Chronology does not need to misrepresent evidence because WTS Chronology does not wholly rely on misrepresentation but rather relies on the biblical evidence". LOL!
WTS chronology most definitely misrepresents evidence, both biblical and secular. If it doesn't outright ignore certain Bible passages, it twists them into saying something they don't. Secular evidence is filtered, and whatever doesn't fit is ignored or twisted. You're well aware of dozens of examples.
Quote:: More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples
How can I acknowledge something that does not exist?
This is a good example of Orwellian doublethink.
Quote:: Do you want me to list them again?
Yes, Please for scholar loves lists.
Once again, my essay on https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ contains a good list.
Quote:: Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.
I have and do not ignore anything because I value and respect all of the Bible.
Nonsense. Just like the WTS, you respect the Bible only to the extent that it supports WTS Tradition.
Where have you discussed Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5? Show us the evidence.You deliberately ignore the clear statement in 2 Chronicles 36, that the Jews were captive to Nebudhadnezzar's dynasty until the Persians began to reign. You ignore the passages in Jeremiah 25 that clearly state that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy would end when God punished Babylon in 539 BCE. You ignore the parts of Jeremiah 27 that clearly say that the Babylonian empire would end when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended. You ignore the parts of Daniel 5 that explicitly state that the Babylonian empire ended the night that King Belshazzar of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was killed.
Quote:: More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"
Nonsense. You would not what a critical commentary is.
I have many in my own library, and have consulted dozens.
QuoteDid you consult such commentaries when devising your 538 thesis?
We've already discussed this: My "thesis" is new, and has not been discussed in any commentaries I'm aware of.
Quote:: Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Rubbish. List those texts that we have ignored.
See above for a link, for starters. Then reread "The Gentile Times Reconsidered", and reread the extensive material on COJ's website ( http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm ) for a comprehensive list.
Quote:: Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.
Perhaps but that does not mean that such interpretations are correct.
Correct, but as always, the devil is in the details. And again, for your "thesis" that the Jews returned in 537 BCE, all we have is speculation based on WTS Tradition, tradition that interprets passages in Ezra. For my "thesis" we have that, PLUS the testimony of Josephus.
QuoteAn argument based on authority is fallacious.
Not necessarily. You invoke authority right here:
QuoteFar better to base interpretation on God's Word rather than the opinions of men.
Furthermore, the arguments of modern scholars are not based on authority, but on actual evidence from various ancient written sources and archaeology, and usually represent the best "weight of evidence" from many such sources. WTS arguments, on the other hand, always go back to WTS Tradition begun by C. T. Russell, and modified somewhat as old claims became untenable in the face of evidence.
Quote:: But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.
Both schemes have their own merits. WT scholars have developed a Bible based Chronology and it is a 'stand-alone' Chronology.
Yes, just like Flat-Earthers have their own Bible based beliefs that contradict all manner of facts.
Quote::: Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.
:: So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
It seems this point eludes you so it comes down to authenticity or credibility.
Completely ignoring the point.
QuoteOur Chronology works because it makes historical sense of OT history going back to Adam. In short, it works!
It works in the same sense Flat-Earthism works for Flat-Earthers: It ignores all facts that don't fit the preconceptions.
Quote:: So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".
No, with the exception of your novelty you have provided no evidence just a rehash of COJ.
Since COJ's extensive writings represent the sum of a great deal of evidence accumulated by the best of modern scholarship, your statement is a flat-out lie.
Quote:: Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence
I do believe that I put some words down on paper about your novelty.
Which amounted to nothing but handwaving.
Quote:: I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
No I do not think so but if that is your opinion then that is fine.
You can think what you like, but books and websites and online forums contain MANY examples of the WTS ignoring and twisting evidence.
QuoteRemember it took COJ, 400 pages to go through such a fine piece of long-argued scholarship.
So?
Quote:::: No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.
:: 'Very likely' does not cut it.
:: Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.:: But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else
Yes it must be supported by good evidence and I find that in our 537 thesis and you have some good evidence in your 538 thesis but both have assumptions or speculation.
That's an honest admission, for once.
But again: the WTS's "thesis" is based on nothing but speculation; reasonable speculation but specularion nonetheless. My "thesis" is based on similar speculation PLUS the testimony of Josephus.
And of course, you've never been willing or able to present evidence against my "thesis", even though I and others like Jeffro have challenged you many times to do so. Your only argument is that WTS speculation magically trumps my "thesis" -- mere bald assertion.
Quote:: False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.
:: No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times
Yes you have some evidence for your theory but so do we. WT scholars have published much on this subject going as far back as 1949 and have explained the evidence and assumptions required to arrive at a date for the Return.
Yes, all of which "evidence and assumptions" amount to pure speculation.
Quote::: The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
:: False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.:: Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.
False, Josephus only discusses the foundations of the Temple in Cyrus' second year not the Return.
You're deliberately being dense. If you say, "John bought a house in August, and then he bought a car in April", and I say that "John bought his car in April, 2017", then when did he buy his house?
My "thesis" is that simple.
QuoteThe calculation is false because the beginning of that year is not established.
The beginning of both years of interest are well established. The 1st year of the Return ended in September of 538 or 537. We know that because Ezra explicitly states that the Jews were in their cities BY Tishri, which means they had returned BEFORE Tishri -- by August or September at the latest. Therefore the 2nd year of the Return began in Tishri of 538 or 537. Using this counting, and noting that when Jewish writers say "the 2nd month" they mean Iyyar, Ezra's statement that the Temple foundations were laid in "the 2nd month of the 2nd year" of the Return means that they were laid in Iyyar of 537 or 536. Got it so far? Think of John buying his car. It is well established that Cyrus' 1st regnal year, by Babylonian/Persian dating was Nisan, 538 up to Nisan 537 BCE. Thus, assuming Josephus used such dating, his statement that the Temple foundations were laid in "the 2nd year of Cyrus" means that they were laid in Iyyar of 537 BCE. Still with me?
Thus, the only question remaining is exactly what Josephus meant by "the 2nd year of Cyrus". Or, what kind of dating system did he use for the reign of Cyrus?
QuoteDid Josephus count from the Spring or the Fall?
I think it's more likely Spring, since Josephus used sources that seem to have used accession-year Nisan dating. But Fall dating -- non-accession-year Tishri dating -- works for my "thesis" as well.
But neither systems works for the Temple foundation being laid in 536. The only system that works is accession-year Tishri dating -- which is quite unlikely for Josephus, as Edwin Thiele argues.I'll leave you, oh great and wondrously competent scholar, to work out the details for youself.
Quote:: You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.
I know and I accept that harsh reality so scholar just plods along.No we both do not agree that 538 could be the year of the Return for that was impossible
False. You've already admitted that.
Quoteand yes Ezra did give a specific year but only the month of the Return. Common sense proves on the facts as given Ezra the only possible year must have been 537.
"Common sense"? LOL! That's "common sense" for one indoctrinated with WTS Tradition. The facts are as I stated above and below.
Quote:: Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?
The only scenario that we mutually agreed excluded the nature, timing of events of Cyrus' Decree and was only limited to the preparations and the journey.
Which is the whole point, you moron!
Quote:: Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.
:: ||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
:: ||. . . . 1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
:: ||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8 . . . . ||
:: ||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||Scholar loves pretty pictures, charts and diagrams. What is your point?
Lost track already, did you?
I already told you: the picture in print characters illustrates my word picture, for those too dumb to understand a word picture.There is nothing in the above picture that you can logically disagree with, because it simply diagrams what we all agree on -- the Bible, the WTS, you, and I.
Quote::: The month of their actual arrival is not stated.
:: Correct, but irrelevant to this point
No for it is a very relevant historical factor when you consider Ezra 2:7-3:1.
Your usual contentless statement. The only relevant information from Ezra 2:7-3:1 is that the Jews were in their cities by the 7th month. We already know that -- it is the Julian year that is in question.
Quote:: The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
:: Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.
You have no basis for combining Ezra with Josephus because although the subject is similar the time factors are different thus both wrote from a different perspective.
Another contentless statement that says nothing of significance.
Both Ezra and Josephus describe events around the time of the Temple's foundation being laid. THAT is the common factor.
QuoteSuch texts do not establish the year of the Return
Combined, they certainly do, as described above. You cannot logically defeat this argument with bald assertions.
Quotefor this can only be established from Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23.
But those texts DO NOT establish the year of the Return. Neither you nor the WTS have given any arguments as to how they might -- you've offered only speculation that has nothing to do with COMBINING Ezra and Josephus.
QuoteThe disqualifying assumption relates to the content of Ezra 1:1-3:1 which proves the impossibility of all events occurring in 12 months of Cyrus' first year.
I've already debunked this many times. More bald assertions by you doesn't cut it.
Continued
-
scholar JW pretendus maximus said:
QuoteIt does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning.
Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.
"70 years AT Babylon" means that the exiles were physically IN or NEAR Babylon for 70 years. It means that the 70 years referred primarily to the time period experienced BY the Jews.
"70 years FOR Babylon" means that Babylon was supreme over the exiles in some sense for 70 years. We know from direct biblical statements that Babylon was supreme over Jewish exiles for about 66 years, 58 years, 48 and 43 years -- from 605, 597, 587 and 582 BCE to 539 BCE when the Kingdom of Persia came to power (2 Chron. 36:21). We know from secular history that Babylon was supreme over the Near East for 70 years, from 609 to 539 BCE.
The WTS puts great stock in its claim that Jer. 29:10 is the single strongest proof of its claim of exactly 70 years of exile for the Jews. This claim is emphasized on page 189 of the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", which was a sort of response to Carl Olof Jonsson's 1977 essay.
Yet, the WTS also claims that the 70 years were also years of desolation of Judah, and of servitude of the Jews IN Babylon. But these three claims are logically incompatible. If the 70 years were exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah, then accounting for the one-way travel time of about four months to Babylon, the exile IN Babylon and the servitude IN Babylon was 69 years and 4 months, contradicting the WTS's basic claim. Obviously, a claim of exactly 70 years IN or AT Babylon means a desolation of Judah of 70 years and 8 months. Either way, WTS claims are not all possible.
Furthermore, translating Jer. 29:10 as "AT Babylon" is misleading, because it results in a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible writer actually said, and of what history shows actually happened. At the time the King James Version and earlier Bibles were translated, the common misunderstanding of the 70 years was more or less the same as the WTS's present misunderstanding. But later discoveries of historical material, and more careful scholarship, showed that the 70 years were with reference to Babylon's supremacy over the Near East, not with reference to a single exile/captivity/desolation of the Jews and Judah. That's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the KJV, use something like "FOR Babylon" rather than "AT Babylon".
QuoteFurther, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation
Logically impossible, and biblically and historically wrong.
Quotebeginning in 607 BCE with the Fall
The fall was 587/586 as all modern scholars agree.
Quoteand ending in 537 BCE with the Return.
Standard WTS speculation based on handwaving. Real evidence indicates 538 for the Return.
QuoteThus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile
Wrong, as shown above.
Quotewhereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude.
Finally, one thing more or less right, even though stated in language close to gobble-de-goop.
AlanF
-
scholar JW pretendus horribilis mendacious wrote:
This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.
Quote:: Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.
Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment.
And I will hold you to yours.
QuoteYes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.
Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
Quote:: LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.
I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.
You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
Quote:: I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.
It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology.
More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.
QuoteI am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.
Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus.
Quote:: True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth
No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.
Another example of your ignoring an essential part of an argument. Let's examine how you've done it.
You had said:
<< ... it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. >>
To which I replied:
<< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>
So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.
You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.
Quote:: I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus
WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence
Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.
Quoteand I have found no examples of having done so
More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples.
Quotenor have they ignored Bible passages
Do you want me to list them again?
Quotebut have evaluated all available evidence.
Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.
QuoteYour presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story
LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship.
Quoteand that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.
Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
Quote:: Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme
We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus.
More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"
QuoteThere is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ.
Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.
QuoteThese are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period.
Correct.
Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.
QuoteYou are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology.
But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.
QuotePlease note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.
So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
Quote:: You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.
:: The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence
Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story
So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".
Quoteso this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years.
"Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence.
QuoteIt is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.
I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
Quote:: No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.
'Very likely' does not cut it.
Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.
But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else.
QuoteYou have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM
False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.
No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times.
Quoteand it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work.
Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work.
QuoteThe only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.
False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.
Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.
Quote:: Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.
No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell.
You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.
QuoteIt could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before
Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?
Quoteand yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities.
Very good! You admit that 6 comes before 7! Wowee!
Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . . 1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8 . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||QuoteThe month of their actual arrival is not stated.
Correct, but irrelevant to this point.
Quote:: No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible
Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism.
The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.
Quote:: What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said
I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized
Which I debunked, and you ignored.
Quotebut you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.
Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words.
Quote:: Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.
Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.
Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
Quote:: Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.
My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.
Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.
Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:
1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
Quote:: I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation
A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.
I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?
Quote:: The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.
Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.
False, as I've shown above and several other times.
Quote:: Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL
I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.
LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
Quote:: So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere.
:: And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS
This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.
Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
Quote:: So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.
Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible.
Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this.
QuoteThiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.
Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims.
Quote:: have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.
:: Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus
Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return?
I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing.
QuoteNow, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible.
The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!
QuoteJosephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.
Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
Quote:: Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.
True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious
Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
Quote:: Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.
My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.
Misleading, revisionist gobble-de-goop. Here is what was said, from pages 21-22 of this thread:
<<
scholar JW: Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE.AlanF: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?
scholar JW: Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.
>>Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.
In a later post I said:
<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>
QuoteFurther, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.
So what?
Quote:: The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid
Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?
Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
Quote:: Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?
We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!
Obviously.
Quote:: Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia
So this fact should temper your criticism.
Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
Quote:: So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?
Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.
More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
Quote:: I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?
I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..
Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.
QuoteHowever, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.
Already done.
Quote:: COJ is ill and not writing any more.
Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.
I hope so too.
Quote:: Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest
Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.
Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it?
Quote:: Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers
Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.
What I've done is already online in various forums.
Quote:: Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient
Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement
Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.
Quotebut it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.
More revisionism -- even of your own words. See above.
As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70 years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
Quote:: No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results
I would if I could.
As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
Quote:: Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website
No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.
Whatever that means. But again you refuse to consider the actual evidence.
Quote:: Try reading the previous posts.
I have.
But dismissed with almost nothing but handwaving.
Quote:: Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975
You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled from both sides.
Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
Quote:: Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it
Opinion not fact.
When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.
AlanF
-
Nana Fofana wrote:
Quote:: Unfortunately, you seem to have completely missed the point, which was:
:::: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:
:: The point was not whether evolution or creation is correct, but whether the Creation book's quotation of Lewontin accurately represented his views.
:: What say you on that?
He was quoted accurately.
Do you really think that? Read the SA article again. Read the quoted words carefully. Note the context of Lewontin's statement.
QuoteRight, YOUR point is not whether evolution or creation is correct, or whether any useful data on that question is presented, but whether Lewontin's views, in toto -whatever they are- are all presented.
More accurately: whether Lewontin's statements were accurately represented in the Creation book.
QuoteWhat about Stephen Jay Gould saying "the fossil record caused Darwin more grief than joy"?
This is a topic for the other thread. By all means, let's take it up there.
AlanF
-
Nana Fofana wrote:
Quotehttp://dynamics.org/~altenber/LIBRARY/REPRINTS/Lewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf
by Richard C. Lewontin. . .
Very good! Your effort just goes to show up "scholar JW" as a lazy buffoon.
Unfortunately, you seem to have completely missed the point, which was:
:: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:
The point was not whether evolution or creation is correct, but whether the Creation book's quotation of Lewontin accurately represented his views.
What say you on that?
AlanF
-
scholar JW horribilis pretentious wrote:
Quote:: In a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make
Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958.
Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.
QuoteYes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.
LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.
Quote:: Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.
Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications
Exactly what I said.
Quoteand the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?
I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.
Quote:: Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.
:: There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.
:: There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted
Now this is a more refreshing attitude.
It's the same attitude I always display.
QuoteChronology requires an open mind
Which is why you and Mommy Watch Tower fail so miserably.
Quoteand it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation.
True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth.
QuoteHowever, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd,
Yet another misrepresentation. You're just chock full of them.
I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus.
Quoteyou are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply showing.stupidity and ignorance.
Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme.
QuoteThe very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.
A total non sequitur.
Quote:: Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.
:: Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.
:: Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:
An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis.
You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.
The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence.
QuoteYou claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year
No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.
Quoteand also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year.
Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.
QuoteNow these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions
No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible.
Quotebut please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis.
What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said.
QuoteAssumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.
Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.
Quote:: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:
:: << Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>
:: Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.
Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book.
Actually, all you need to read is the first page, and finding it is really not hard. Here's a link I found in a couple of minutes, to Scientific American, “Adaptation,” by Richard Lewontin, September 1978, p. 213:
QuoteYou can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!
Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.
Quote:: And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims
You have not given me a full set of evidence
I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation?
Quotebut only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions.
The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.
QuoteIt lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter.
Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL!
QuoteYou quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries.
So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS.
QuoteYou have not considered alternative views on the matter.
What alternative views? Give references. No, you can't; you're just blowing smoke.
QuoteHave you read Thiele on this subject?
QuoteSo far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.
QuoteThe latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject?
I have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.
Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus.
QuoteNow I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;
Quote1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?
Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.
Quote2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months.
Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.
QuoteI refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.
Sure, and based on his speculation, the Return was in 533, which does you no good at all.
Quote3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.
The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid.
Quote:: Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.
:: You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.
:: Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.
Peer review is reserved only for those in academia
Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?
Quoteand as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process.
Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia.
QuoteIn your case, you propose a novel thesis
So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?
Quotewhich you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over.
I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?
QuoteCOJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return.
COJ is ill and not writing any more.
QuoteAs you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish'
Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest.
Quoteso if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?
Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers.
Quote:: What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out
I have many times. See my above list of three.
Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient.
Quote:: Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.
:: You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.
Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts.
Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot.
QuoteSDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'.
More meaningless and irrelevant generalities.
QuoteDo you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537?
No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results.
QuoteYour computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!
Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website.
Quote:: Already done
Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.
Try reading the previous posts.
Quote:: In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.
I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.
Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975.
Quote:: What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies
JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.
Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it.
AlanF
-
scholar JW horribilis pretendus said:
Quote::: Like you Alan I am here to entertain.
In a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make.
Quote:: I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Have you taken flight, Alan?
Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.
QuoteYou do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say.
Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.
There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.
There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted.
QuoteYou preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver.
Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.
Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.
Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:
<<<<
So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>
Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.
>>>>Rather than rising to the challenge, you simply ignored it.
QuoteI have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis,
And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims.
Quoteit lacks peer review,
Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.
You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.
Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.
Quotebased on assumptions
What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out.
Quoteand uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research.
Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.
You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.
QuoteIn short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.
Already done.
QuoteThe readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology.
In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.
QuoteI rest my case.
LOL!
What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies.
AlanF
-
53 minutes ago, scholar JW said:
Like you Alan I am here to entertain.
I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Just like Mommy.
AlanF
607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
in Topics
Posted
Well if he really arrived at his conclusions independently, good for him! That would provide yet another confirmation that standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is on a firm footing.
Gertoux is not the only one to have arrived at such conclusions on his own. Carl Olof Jonsson did that more than 40 years ago.
AlanF