Jump to content
The World News Media

AlanF

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,227

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AlanF

  1. AlanF
    I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it. On second thought . . . AlanF
  2. AlanF
    New topic started. There appears to be no one here capable of defending the JW viewpoint on 607 BCE without resorting to misrepresentations and all manner of scholastic cheating. AlanF
  3. AlanF
    He has none of any of that. AlanF
  4. AlanF
    This has all been explained to you many times by various people. No point in doing it again. AlanF
  5. AlanF
    JW Insider wrote: You're far too kind to someone who emits almost nothing but psychopathic lies. He's used to the Kingdom Hall environment, where the lies emitted by the Watch Tower Society go unchecked. He thinks he can get away with it as easily as does Mommy Watch Tower. There are at least two reasons for this attitude: (1) Most JWs are too uneducated to spot WTS lies; (2) Most JWs are too cowed by the claims of WTS leaders that they speak for God to say anything, even if they know these "speakers for God" are saying complete nonsense. Exactly the kind of scholastic dishonesty that scholar JW and Mommy Watch Tower are known for. AllenSmith's response to your excellent and clear exposition will be his usual evasions. AlanF
  6. AlanF
    Totally clueless. AlanF
  7. AlanF
    Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. AlanF
  8. AlanF
    LOL! Totally clueless, as always. AlanF
  9. AlanF
    You certainly won't get much of an education from the Watch Tower. But you'll get "thought control" in spades. AlanF
  10. AlanF
    Nana Fofana wrote: Not that you haven't been given access in this thread to a great of such historical evidence. Note what Franz wrote; he came to understand that: << . . . the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. >> All reputable scholars by the 1970s agreed, based on all manner of historical writings, cuneiform texts, stone stele, etc. that the date for Jerusalem's destruction was 587/586 BCE, with the uncertainty of one year due to seemingly inconsistent statements in the Bible itself. What adjustments are you talking about? AlanF
  11. AlanF
    AllenSmith wrote: Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983. So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983. The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books. Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides. You showed no such thing. Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR. I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal. I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar. I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered. AlanF
  12. AlanF
    You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory. You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory. In other words, you're still lying. AlanF
  13. AlanF
    Here we are, stuck in the middle with you! AlanF
  14. AlanF
    No, just irreverent. AlanF
  15. AlanF
    Ah, well then! COJ certainly had a hand in writing "The Even-Tide" and is partly responsible for its content. And your memory from about 3 years ago is definitely more certain than what's written in COJ's books. Tell us, please: what exactly is an ideology made about 3 years ago? LOL! AlanF
  16. AlanF
    James Thomas Rook Jr. wrote: I figured that out after reading 2-3 of his posts. Whatever he is, he generates massively dopey ideas and incoherent posts. Indeed. You'll have to use simpler words or these guys won't understand. AlanF
  17. AlanF
    LOL at the pretentiousness! The only one I'm aware of with less self-awareness is AllenSmith. AlanF
  18. AlanF
    AllenSmith wrote: You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions. I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in: (1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year). (2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE. (3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE. Having trouble counting to three? Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603: Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne. So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE. Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible: No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both. Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below. Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false: p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >> pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . . Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >> COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative: p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >> COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute. So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4? You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. He does. Can't you read? Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE. Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages. AlanF
  19. AlanF
    Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know. AlanF
  20. AlanF
    Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut. AlanF
  21. AlanF
    AllenSmith wrote: You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected. Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28: <<<< You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion. On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote: << Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >> Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604. On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives: << ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >> << ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >> COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives. On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's: << ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >> And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587. Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions. >>>> Still clueless. The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs. Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying. Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name. AlanF
  22. AlanF
    JW Insider wrote: Exactly. And I find the history and usage of cusswords in any language fascinating. My stepson and I had an extremely amusing conversation about the use of cusswords in the Hispanic community in Colorado. Fair enough; I won't go there. AlanF
  23. AlanF
    Continuing to be clueless. AlanF
  24. AlanF
    allensmith28 wrote: Wow, thank you for pointing out such a mysterious fact! Already dealt with on page 28 of this thread. AlanF
  25. AlanF
    TrueTomHarley wrote: Yes, indeed it is Foreigner. Look at my post on page 29 of this thread, which quotes exactly where he went wrong. You can also reference his original post on page 23 of this thread. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and not say that you're deliberately lying. Furthermore, you won't find a single instance where I took Arauna to task for minor mistakes in English grammar. Usage, occasionally, but one would think that that would be appreciated, just as I always appreciated being corrected when learning other languages. AlanF
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.