607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[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

[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

[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

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

For academic research, then the originals have more weight than those editions that have been revised. I believe you are a stickler for criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions by setting examples of past information and century-old ideology from the Bible Students.

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?

I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.

Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.

As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

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

I am amazed at how easy it was to predict this.

[AlanF]

8 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

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

Totally clueless.

AlanF

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

....

 

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

. . . haven't read anything by him except something I quoted here.  This 'something', I believe, showed deliberate-looking re-arrangement of WT quotes to make their conclusion -that he was supposedly 'correcting'-  look illogical.  You told me I was mistaken , but I didn't understand your explanation of why.

If you didn't understand my explanation then I was either wrong or I did a lousy job explaining, or something somewhere in between. I looked back through about 10 pages, and didn't find the content from COJ that you quoted. Perhaps you can tell me where it was, or how far back in this thread you think it was. I'll be happy to look at it again. As I recall, you had brought up some scriptures from Jeremiah that might have been "addressed" to me and I know I hadn't responded to all of them yet.

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

And at the risk of being thought to habitually "rail and froth" over an issue, I will again simply state that I would *prefer* that "C.O.J." weren't so very often the wall to wall search result of so, so many  searches (o.i.) undertaken!

Does "o.i." mean "on the Internet"? In Google there's a trick that lets you "subtract" out searches that contain an emphasis on a certain term. For example, I just searched on "587 607 Gentile Times" and got mostly pages that mentioned Jonsson due to the key words. Then I redid the search as "587 607 Gentile Times -Jonsson" and most of those pages were no longer on the first two pages. Some were, especially those that spelled Jonsson wrong, but at least it gave me a new set. Also, if you've looked up Jonsson before, and you're logged in, Google skews the links to include pages and subjects you have looked at before. The best way to get new and interesting material however is to leave out the words that tie it back to jw.org and discussions about JWs. How about the following Google searches:

• "Neo-Babylonian chronology and artifacts" [or "artefacts"]
• "cuneiform tablets that help to date Nebuchadnezzar"
• "site:wikipedia.org Nabonidus and Cyrus"
• "Jeremiah and Babylonian hegenomy"

Not saying you didn't already try these things already, but there are just so many options and variables to choose from.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Hmm! I guess, this is why people in ancient times considered some as Prophets. On how "easy it was to predict this".

The prediction was that you would see the obvious ridiculousness of your claim (that versions with errors carry more weight than versions with corrections). So I predicted that when you were questioned about this, you would do what you always do, which is to try to make it look like you were right all along through an evasion. So I said:

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.

Just a few days ago, back in this same thread, I summarized your method like this:

On 1/13/2018 at 7:40 PM, JW Insider said:

Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along.

You managed to perfectly fulfill every word of that prediction by not acknowledging your error and using words that completely evaded the questions, and you used words that made it seem like others were wrong an you were right all along, when you said:

14 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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

I would recommend that you begin to address evidence with evidence that is actually related to the questions at hand, instead of evasions. I don't think you are incapable, but each time you do what you just did, it makes it more difficult for anyone interested to take your future posts seriously. Most people will just think you are dishonest.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

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. What made you think no one would notice?

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The complete title in B-S 106' Aeth (and Rahlfs) is TCO paoiXei Napoij%o8ovoaop paaiAet BaputaSvoq.21 This looks to be a conflation of the only other attested variations of the name: TOO pacnAei NapouxoSovoaop (Arab), and TOONapo\)%o8ovooop paoaXel BapuXwvoq (rel.). Elsewhere in Jeremiah, Nebuchadrezzar is named in only three ways, whether in M or G: 'the king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar'. The title found in Arab is unique, though possible in theory, as it is used of Zedekiah (see §3.6.1). I therefore consider it possible that Arab attests the Old Greek, which has been universally harmonized, surviving in addition in the conflation of the B group. Nevertheless, I accept Ziegler's judgment here. [p.73]

First of all your OCR is completely illegible. It's as if you copied a portion of a page from Google Books into a program like OneNote and then used the option to "Copy Text from Image." (Or something similar.) Those types of programs only recognize "Roman-style fonts" and tend to try to read everything in your local language setting, which is likely English.

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.

In this case, the title would have given away the fact that you were playing another diversion game here:

• "The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Rescensions" by Andrew G Shead.

There is not a shred of evidence in this book that is related to the Egibi tablets. Just for fun, let's look at what Shead was actually saying. By the way, the book is excellent and covers a long known issue, which is this: Jeremiah is about 1/7th longer in the Masoretic Text (M, or MT) than it is in the LXX (G). Jerome, around 400, already had the longer "M" style text and the shorter "LXX" in front of him, and noticed this long before the "M" was finalized between 900 and 1100. Because most Bibles, including the NWT, are based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek LXX has usually been considered defective, or perhaps it came from a separate abridged version. Of course, it's not just shorter, it's in a different order, and there are times when the meaning is different. It was thought that the Qumram Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries would help, but not enough of Jeremiah was discovered to make a definitive case for the Masoretic Hebrew that we depend upon today. In fact, portions of Jeremiah that were discovered show a decided preference for the LXX even though the DSS were in Hebrew. Shead provides an "apologetic" for the MT (M) wherever he can, but he does a very fair job, I think, in showing that the Greek is likely more original than the Hebrew in many places, showing where even the Syriac version of Jeremiah depends on the LXX.   

Here is what your portion of the book actually shows, attached below, and I'll transliterate some of the Greek to make it clearer. Note that "basilei" means "king" and "to" means "the" but does not always require translation into English, much like "los manos" in Spanish, for example, can be translated as "hands" insted of a more stilted "the hands" in some contexts:

• The complete title in B-S 106' Aeth (and Rahlfs) is [to basilei Nabouchodonosor basilei Babylonos].21 This looks to be a conflation of the only other attested variations of the name: [to basilei Nabouchodonosor] (Arab), and [to Nabouchodonosor basilei Babylonos] (rel.). Elsewhere in Jeremiah, Nebuchadrezzar is named in only three ways, whether in M or G: 'the king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon'; 'Nebuchadrezzar'. The title found in Arab is unique, though possible in theory, as it is used of Zedekiah (see §3.6.1). I therefore consider it possible that Arab attests the Old Greek, which has been universally harmonized, surviving in addition in the conflation of the B group. Nevertheless, I accept Ziegler's judgment here. [p.73]

------------------

So, it should be obvious that the only differences under discussion here are which manuscripts say: "king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon" or just "king Nebuchadnezzar" or "Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon" or just "Nebuchadnezzar" (without title) or just "king of Babylon" (without specifying Nebuchadnezzar). Notice that not even the "r" in Nebuchadrezzar is under discussion here. So this has nothing to do with the Egibi tablets or any Babylonian tablets at all.

[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

[Dr. Adhominem]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

How was it so confidently ascertained- or maybe 'achieved'?  -from scratch? that adult subjects, in "A similar study Bering did with adults", definitely "thought they were being observed by a supernatural presence"?   

You're ignorance of science is breathtaking!