AlanF

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks, AlanF, for starting the new topic. Unfortunately, when I move older posts to that thread, the software here credits the author of the new thread with whoever has the oldest post, currently TTH. I moved the most appropriate posts over but there will always be a few that are a mix between both topics, and it's easy to make a mistake. Also, a few posts about making a new thread were just deleted since they will not make much sense now. Note: @Arauna, you responded to a post above about Allen as if it were about AlanF and related it to the atheism/evolution material, so I moved it over to the "new" topic linked below.

The "new" topic now goes back to about January 5 with all the old posts added:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/

 

 

I'm sure the handful of posters here can make sense of it.

On second thought . . .

AlanF

20 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

Genius' @AlanF and @TrueTomHarley can't seem to learn to stay on topic.

Let me introduce you both to the "START A NEW TOPIC" link at the top of each page.....

This post WAS about 607 B.C.E.

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

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's not about intelligence, Allen. It's about integrity and honesty.

He has none of any of that.

AlanF

4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

. . .

The ignorance lies, with how you (alanF) and your friend *JEFFRO* attempt, to adjust this servitude to a NATION that wasn’t under Babylon’s control yet, according to you, and secular history. Unless you are admitting King Jehoiakim had some kind of interaction with King Nebuchadnezzar in 609BC? If so, then, 609BC-3=606BC. The other hilarious notion is, this, of course, would be under Nabopolassar's reign under the strength of PRINCE NEBUCHADNEZZAR II.

. . .

This has all been explained to you many times by various people. No point in doing it again.

AlanF

JW Insider wrote:

Quote

 

:: It can become too predictable, just like the Egibi Tablets

I'm sure that some persons might be fooled into thinking that your "evidence" below must have been some kind of brilliant response that showed your previous false claims about the Egibi Tablets must be true. But anyone who looks this up will see it was a complete evasion, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Egibi tablets. If anyone else had tried the trick you just pulled here, you would accuse them of dishonesty.

 

You're far too kind to someone who emits almost nothing but psychopathic lies.

Quote

What made you think no one would notice?

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.

Quote

Another thing you have done, AGAIN, is to avoid the title of the book even though you mention page 73. I have pointed out before, as have others, that you often include the title of a book if you think it lends weight to your argument. Sometimes, in fact, you only show the title of a book, sometimes just an image of the book cover, even when the entire contents of the book demolishes your argument.

Exactly the kind of scholastic dishonesty that scholar JW and Mommy Watch Tower are known for.

Quote

. . . So this has nothing to do with the Egibi tablets or any Babylonian tablets at all.

AllenSmith's response to your excellent and clear exposition will be his usual evasions.

AlanF

8 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I rest my case!!! Thank You for proving my point.

Totally clueless.

AlanF

26 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Remember my objective. It is to disprove secular histories timeline with their own faulty academia. . . A true scholar will note, what’s wrong with this timeline, and why?

JEFFRO:

. . .

Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

AlanF

34 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I never said you are a good researcher or a scholar. Much less a teacher, on language. You're just a hopeless enthusiast attempting to unravel the mysteries of scripture without success.

LOL! Totally clueless, as always.

AlanF

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We don't need no educaishun. We don't need no thought control.

You certainly won't get much of an education from the Watch Tower. But you'll get "thought control" in spades.

AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: known historical evidence

I don't get get what's known, historical, or evident about it.

 

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.

Quote

 

Talk about "nooo light" adjustments!

And I don't mean on the part of the WBTS.

 

What adjustments are you talking about?

AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

Sorry, JWinsider. I would think you would have Raymond Franz book as well. A lot of what you have said indirectly in the past has the same theme. So, you know very well, Raymond Franz was *influenced* by COJ, and his faulty book. Why would you dispute the obvious?

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.

Quote

CoC 2004

Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.

Quote

 

As discussed in a previous chapter, the research I had to do in connection with the book Aid to Bible Understanding brought home to me that the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. Still, I continued to put trust in that date in spite of the evidence, feeling that it had Scriptural backing. Without 607 B.C.E. the crucial date of 1914 would be placed in question. I took the view that the historical evidence was likely defective and argued that way in the Aid book.

Then, in 1977, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Sweden, named Carl Olof Jonsson, sent to the Brooklyn headquarters a massive amount of research he had done on Biblically related chronology and on chronological speculation.

 

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.

Quote

Jonsson was an elder and had been actively associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses for some twenty years. Having had experience researching chronology myself, I was impressed by how deeply he had gone into the matter, also by the completeness and factualness of his presentation. [p.176]

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.

Quote

Unfortunately, COJ’s 4th edition doesn’t show the massive amount of research (treatise) he originally sent to the Watchtower.

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.

Quote

I believe, I, recently showed the error on his 3rd edition.

You showed no such thing.

Quote

So, I don’t see the need to include his 2nd edition. They're all worthless.

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.

Quote

Now, a “GOOD” researcher and scholar, should have available all material pregnant to his/her, goal.

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.

Quote

I'm surprised to see you lack certain material. I would think, that in itself would show, this forum is NOT for academia, but simply a forum, meant for unsustainable, critics of the Watchtower by clueless people pretending to be intelligent.

I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.

AlanF

4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Oh! I think there is plenty of that here, "not telling the truth", as well. But its good to know, your, not concerned about COJ's faulty book. That won't help Raymond Franz though, will it? Being mislead by an uneducated person.

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

18 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

AllenSmith:

Thanks for the complement ... ridiculous is what I was going for !

Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!

AlanF

7 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

With you JTR, why bother. Tell your friend, alanf the same. Both of you are irrelevant!

No, just irreverent.

AlanF

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, if you got volume 2 of John Q. Browns Even-Tide, I'm sure, you can get ahold of a copy. I was basing my comment, on ideologies made about 3 years ago.

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

James Thomas Rook Jr. wrote:
 

Quote

First of all, I am not aware, nor have I EVER been aware that Allen Smith had a .... "condition".

I figured that out after reading 2-3 of his posts.
 

Quote

What is he ....  a one legged tap dancing midget with dandruff? (????).

Whatever he is, he generates massively dopey ideas and incoherent posts.
 

Quote

I ridicule him for his screwball ideas and goofy Snowflake perspective on the Universe.

Indeed.
 
 

Quote

Never fear insulting me, that I will take offense.  Give it your best shot.  If you wish, hire professional insulters.
 
I like to think I CANNOT be insulted ... so I never take offense.
 
One mans vicious insult is another man's belly laugh.

You'll have to use simpler words or these guys won't understand.

AlanF

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

the thing is, i accomplished four tasks with that post:

1) friendly missive to you

2) slam at @AlanF, always a breath of fresh air

3) decriminalize my demerit from the Librarian and turn it into a virtue

4) plug my book

LOL at the pretentiousness!

The only one I'm aware of with less self-awareness is AllenSmith.

AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

 

:: You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.

It seems the one being deliberately deceptive, is you, and you have been corrected several times already. As I said, how does this NOT contradict COJ’s own assessment for the DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM EARLIER?

 

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:

Quote

 

GTR4 2004

The Babylonian invasion of Judah soon after the battle at Carchemish

 

Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.

Quote

 

is also reflected in Jeremiah chapter 35, dated in “the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.” (verse 1) The Rechabites, who normally dwelt in tents in obedience to the command of their forefather, Jehonadab the son of Rechab, lived in Jerusalem at that time. Why? They explained to Jeremiah:

But it came about when Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon came up against the land that we began to say, “Come, and let us enter into Jerusalem because of the military force of the Chaldeans and because of the military force of the Syrians, and let us dwell in Jerusalem.”— Jeremiah 35:11, NW.

Thus, some time earlier in the reign of Jehoiakim, the Babylonian army had invaded the territory of Judah, forcing the Rechabites to seek refuge inside the walls of Jerusalem. Either this invasion was the one described in Daniel 1:1–2, or the one that took place in the following year, when, according to the Babylonian chronicle,“all the kings of Hattu” presented their tribute to the Babylonian king as a sign of their vassalage.

That Judah became a vassal of Babylon early in the reign of Jehoiakim is clearly stated in 2 Kings 24:1, which says that in the [p.208]

 

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:

Quote

 

2 Kings 24:1-2 New International Version (NIV)

24 During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he turned against Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled. 2 The Lord sent Babylonian,[a] Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the Lord proclaimed by his servants the prophets.

 

No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
 
 

Quote

A vast contradiction from his “ORIGINAL” treatise

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?

Quote

that Raymond Franz accepted as true when it was a lie!!

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.
 
 

Quote

So, either he’s confused or you don’t understand scripture. I prefer the later.

Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

Since at the very least, he should have been HONEST to consider 605BC as a starting point, to 538BC.

He does. Can't you read?

Quote

With the explanations already given for either a coregency in Cyrus reign by either Darius, or Cambyses, thus, Cyrus official regnal year would have started in the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashanah.

Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.

Quote

Before, 605BC, COJ remains clueless as to what he is talking about, yet, he didn’t DISPROVE Gentile Times, by admitting to 605BC.

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

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Wow. I get called all the cusswords under the sun ... just for calling AllenSmith[insert#here] a kumquat several pages ago? Â 

Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know.

AlanF

11 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Naw, I saw the original, outrageously out-of-order post but hadn't had chance to comment on it earlier. I partially agree with @AlanF in that people should be allowed to show their true colors. However, if there is to be any meaningful discussion of 'controversial' subjects at all, no matter how idiotic and difficult some posters might be and have been for years [let the reader use discernment ], one shouldn't have to wade through a quagmire of base insults and crud-slinging to get to the relevant, on-topic parts. 

Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.

AlanF

AllenSmith wrote:

Quote

 

:: Already dealt with on page 28 of this thread.

Once again, page 28 proves COJ’s Contradiction and his fallacy of NOT understanding, 2 Kings 24:1, as you.

 

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.
>>>>

Quote

So, if the date 605BC is attested to now, for an exile? 67 years have gone by, and you JWinsider, O’Maly are still splitting hairs over 3 years, period. Big whoop! By secular chronology.

Still clueless.

Quote

That in itself, still, doesn’t DISPROVE the Gentile Times, or the (DESTRUCTION of JUDAH) that Jerusalem was part of.

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.

Quote

It also proves Raymond Franz, didn’t fully understand, what COJ was presenting with his ORIGINAL WORK that COJ, has REVISED several times, now.

Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.

Quote

I believe you people are BIG in criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions, and here you are defending a revisionist, work.

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

JW Insider wrote:

Quote

. . . What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call person's names.

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.

Quote

But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used.

Fair enough; I won't go there.

AlanF

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

Once again, page 28 proves COJ’s Contradiction and his fallacy of NOT understanding, 2 Kings 24:1, as you. So, if the date 605BC is attested to now, for an exile? 67 years have gone by, and you JWinsider, O’Maly are still splitting hairs over 3 years, period. Big whoop! By secular chronology. . .

Continuing to be clueless.

AlanF

allensmith28 wrote:

Quote

Yes, Foreigner. I, believe the FIRST clue that you’re are from a different country and English might NOT be your first language could have been NOTICED by You’re, handle, *FOREIGNER*.

Wow, thank you for pointing out such a mysterious fact!

Quote

Where would the actual destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, have started? 607BC-604BC, 598BC or 587BC-586BC?

Already dealt with on page 28 of this thread.

AlanF

TrueTomHarley wrote:

Quote

 

:: If a person gives comments on this forum and the syntax is not perfect it would be gracious to accommodate them and not mock them.

I know of only one person who does that. And it is not Foreigner.

 

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