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

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case.

I'm one of the readers on this forum and I can judge that you have done, as AlanF noted, almost nothing but dodge and weave and obfuscate and try several different logical fallacies to avoid evidence. When someone asks you a question you refuse to answer. When someone offers you a chance to show evidence you pretend it's a game to see how long you can go without providing it. Then you were caught lying about the evidence. I believe you have been thoroughly disgraced by haughtily and pretentiously claiming to be a scholar and then not even pretending very well.

Since you said above that we can judge for ourselves, I would have guessed you were a teenage Internet "troll." Since I can see you have been doing this for 20+ years, I guess you must not be a teenager.

I'm still entertained however.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

I guess I can ask, why 587 date is important to you. Isn't it part of secular history?

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.

• (Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.

• (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
• (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation.

No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

The good thing, the 2 point observation has come to a close with 3 exiles, doesn't it?

What else can be said? 

Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

What do all those tablets tell you? That ancient historian hasn't already mentioned. It becomes a matter of interpretation with all that evidence. So, you can safely go beyond 200 years.

Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, no amount of evidence is going to change, how “wrong” people have been for the longest time, about the authority given to Babylon, and its timeline.

You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Like you mentioned. The only thing left is to place the final piece of the puzzle. It's taken decades of erred perception. I wonder how long it will take people to figure it out.

Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

in the Al-Yahudu Tablets. So, what does that say about ABC-5 reliability? It was important enough to mention 598BC, but not important enough to mention 604BC? or at the very least 601BC.

You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, for the purpose of verification, these tablets remain suspect. Of course, the same thing can be said about 607BC (ABC-4), which, would also illustrate how unimportant it was for that, chronicler NOT to give a good account of that time period. None of which syncs with scripture, of course. But, practice makes perfect!!!!

This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, don't use wordplay by NOT knowing what I mean, about after 2011 with the 19-year, time adjustment. WT Chronology remains in sync.

You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.

Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Just like O’Maly can no longer argue, 538BC? You can no longer argue, 605BC.

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion.

7 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Since that word salad (facts) was handed to you, to feast, and chock on!!!!!

You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. 

9 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

As for the WT Chronology, it remains an accurate part of the Watchtower History, that is solely based on scripture!!!!

Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture.

WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies:

• (1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . .

 

[Ann O'Maly]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What is the opposite of a scholar?

 

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

A fool: Neil McF.

Fixed that for you. 

[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.

Quote

You 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.

Quote

You 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.

Quote

I 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.

Quote

it 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.

Quote

based on assumptions

What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out.

Quote

and 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.

Quote

In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.

Already done.

Quote

The 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.

Quote

I rest my case.

LOL!

What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

I just finished reading a few books by Seiss, after which I intended to comment further on another thread that was started only for the purpose of sharing the commonly agreed-upon history of the 607 and 1914 doctrine among Bible Students who followed Russell, Second Adventists and others who had influenced those movements.

But I just discovered something that might be just a bit controversial, so I'm presenting it over here where someone might be able to point out if I am wrong about it. (I wouldn't doubt that others have already noticed the issue I'm going to present.)

When I looked at the paragraph in the Proclaimers book again, I noticed that I had never really looked into a point made about Seiss, and just assumed it was part of Seiss's many theories, and gave the WTS the benefit of the doubt that Seiss had chanced upon a 1914 theory probably in a way similar to John Aquila Brown in Even-Tide, or E. B. Elliott in his work on the "Apocalypse" or in the chronology of Christopher Bowen. 

Here's the paragraph from Proclaimers, with the Seiss information highlighted:

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***

• As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

I had never wondered what this "reasoning" was that C.T. Russell had later rejected. The actual 1870 source material is here. The PDF is 605 pages long, and you will need to look at the first article in the December 1870 issue of "Prophetic Times" pps. 177-184. (pdf pages 386-393). I have already excerpted the relevant sections in the 5th post here:

I think I just figured out what the "reasoning" was that Russell later "rejected." The problem is, I see evidence that Russell held onto this reasoning even more strongly as time went on, and I see no evidence that he "rejected" it. I'll explain in my next post below.

[JW Insider]

This post follows up on my last post looking more closely at the words in the Proclaimers book, repeated here:

• At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

From what I can tell, the basic idea of these periods of time, especially the ones associated with 2,520 years, were about judgments visited upon the nation of Israel/Judah. As Seiss published:

• Upon this one feature all prophetic periods‘ are made to depend; “the seven  times” of Moses, the two thousand and three hundred days,” and the other shorter periods of Daniel, all have primary reference to the chastisements visited upon this people and nation.
• Taking first the "seven times," or the two thousand five hundred and twenty years of dispersion and denationalization, for the disobedience and rebellion of Israel under the Law, as predicted by Moses (Lev. 26:18,21,24,28) and indicative of the entire period of God's displeasure toward them, and accepting the historical dates of God's afflictive dispensations. . . .

The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 which says:

• (Leviticus 26:18-28) 18 "If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . .  21 But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.. . . 24 then I too will walk in opposition to you, and I myself will strike you seven times for your sins. . . . 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins."

The word here is not the word "times" in the sense of "iddan" as in Daniel which can refer especially to time periods, like weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. In Daniel the word is therefore translatable as "seven periods of time" but in Leviticus the term is not really "seven times" literally, but just "seven" as in the meaning of "7 times as much," or 7 instances. The literal word "times" doesn't even appear, and can be understood as a numerical multiple, as in the way "double/twice" or "triple/thrice" or "quadruple" can be used with numbers like 2, 3 and 4.  Something similar (and probably related) happens when Daniel prays about the fact that the 70 years of Jeremiah must be completed, and Daniel is told that it's not just going to be 70 years, but "7 TIMES 70" years before a complete fulfillment is seen. 

But did Russell really ever reject this reasoning?

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

n 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. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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 and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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. Chronology requires an open mind and 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. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you 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. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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 claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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. You 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!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

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 but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The 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? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;

1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?

2. 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. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.

3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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 and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which 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. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out

I have many times. See my above list of three.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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. SDA 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'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Already done

Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

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.

scholar JW emeritus

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

RATS!

I am completely out of Popcorn!

Keeps your thumbs on your scripts so you do not lose your places, until I get back.

[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.

Quote

Yes, 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.

Quote

and 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.

Quote

Chronology requires an open mind

Which is why you and Mommy Watch Tower fail so miserably.

Quote

and 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.

Quote

However, 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.

Quote

you 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.

Quote

The 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.

Quote

You 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.

Quote

and 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.

Quote

Now 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.

Quote

but 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.

Quote

Assumptions 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:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ

Quote

You 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?

Quote

but 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.

Quote

It 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!

Quote

You 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.

Quote

You have not considered alternative views on the matter.

What alternative views? Give references. No, you can't; you're just blowing smoke.

Quote

Have you read Thiele on this subject?

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.

Quote

The 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.

Quote

Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;

Quote

1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?

Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

Quote

2. 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.

Quote

I 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.

Quote

3. 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?

Quote

and 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.

Quote

In your case, you propose a novel thesis

So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Quote

which 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?

Quote

COJ 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.

Quote

As 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.

Quote

so 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.

Quote

SDA 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.

Quote

Do 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.

Quote

Your 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

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

http://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

[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.

Quote

Right, 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.

Quote

What 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