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

[AlanF]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. . . .

This business of the 70 weeks is a great example of how Bible believers start with a premise -- the Bible is completely accurate as regards prophecy, etc. -- and then marshall evidence to make it seem to fit the evidence. But they filter out all evidence that does not fit, which is thoroughly dishonest. This is classic confirmation bias.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. A WRITER will not normally write so sloppily as to mean two completely different things. A dumb reader, however, can interpret even clear writing to mean virtually anything. But it's the writer's viewpoint that counts.

Your point? The writer makes his or her point and the reader will react accordingly to his/her comprehension or emotions-making own interpretations.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Liar. You've posted a LOT of material claiming that "for" is wron

Nope, have always presented both views in the main,

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

"Jacob sod pottage" is also traditional and has lexical support.

Your excuse is irrelevant. The ONLY question is what "le" means IN THE CONTEXT OF JEREMIAH 29:10 according to the best MODERN scholarship. In context, it means "for". A word with dozens of lexical possibilities can only be properly translated when the context and the best scholarship are accounted for. "AT" accounts for neither.

The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'. The matter is open to the opinion of the translator and interpretation of the 70 years so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're so abysmally stupid that you don't realize that you just proved my point: The text of Jer. 29:10 is so obvious that even you managed to accidentally get it right. The sequence is as you stated: the 70 years ended while the Jews were still AT Babylon, and THEN the Jews returned home a year or two later. Which proves that the 70 years were NOT years of desolation of Judah.

No. It does not for the simple reason that the 70 years was also tied to the land and that remained desolate until the Return thus ending the 70 years or fulfilling the period. This means that all of the conditions of the 70 years had to be met for there are three: Servitude-Exile- Desolation. Yu got it?

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not according to the Bible, and not according to your above statement of fact.

The Bible says so and I have argued accordingly.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

No critics are doing that. The Jews were in Babylon when the 70 years ended in 539 with the conquering of Babylon, the killing of King Belshazzar, the installation of Cyrus as king, etc. It was another year or so before the Jews were in Judah. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes but the problem for critics is how to interpret the seventy years not being able to distinguish the Fall of Babylon and the actual Return which were two distinct events, the former brought the 70 years to its conclusion with the Return as the actual end or 'fulfillment' of the period.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. The language of Dan. 9:1,2 is ambiguous as regards precisely when in the time sequence Daniel was speaking about, and so, in and of itself cannot be used to prove exactly what the writer meant. Daniel might have been speaking BEFORE the fall of Babylon, as the WTS claims. Or he might have been speaking AFTER the fall of Babylon, as many scholars claim. The passage says NOTHING about the end of the 70 years.

However, Daniel 5 clearly describes the end of the Babylonian Empire -- you know -- mene, mene, tekel and parsin, and all that. The empire ended when Cyrus' army overran Babylon and killed King Belshazzar, and so forth. Combining this with Jer. 25, Jer. 27 and Jer. 29 shows that the 70 years ended the very night Belshazzar was killed. So it is most likely that Daniel 9 is speaking of the time after Babylon's fall.

Daniel was not known for ambiguity for he presents a precise history and chronology. He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events. He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment, the desolations of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon. In ch. 5 he describes the end of Babylon and in combination with the prophecies of Jeremiah later in ch.9 describes the end of the 70 years linked not to Babylon but to Jerusalem thus ending later with the Return.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Since your above exposition contradicts both yourself and the WTS, this statement is meaningless.

This statement is meaningless.

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Jer. 52:28-30 clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar's forces took 3,023 exiles in his 7th year (597), 832 in his 18th year, and 745 in his 23rd year. Which number do you conclude is the largest?

2 Kings 24:14 states that 10,000 exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (7th by Jer. 52 counting):

<< He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land. >>

But only a relative few were taken in 587 in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (18th by Jer. 52 counting), according to 2 Kings 25:11:

<< Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. >>Do you actually believe the Bible, Neil?

You have the dates wrong but I accept the narrative as quoted as scholar believes the Bible. Do you?

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

Except that your entire presentation is an attempt to deceive naive readers into thinking that "le" is used to refer to Babylon, but it is not, except in Jer. 29:10. You are a deliberate deceiver, Neil.

Nope for scholar works with facts. The 'le' prefixed to Babylon can mean either 'for' or 'at' and both can be exegetically accounted for as I have explained.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

But in your earlier statement you said it ended AT Babylon. Which is it?

If it were AT Judah, then AT Babylon is wrong. And vice versa.

Nope. The 70 years ended with the Return in 537 brought to close with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Is that clear?

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

More gobble-de-goop.

No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. That claim comes from a deliberate misintepretation of various passages, which JW critics have proved over and over again. Such as claiming that "these nations" means "the Jews".

No, 'these nations' in my opinion were non-Jews but of those of surrounding nations.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong on two counts. First, you've proved my statement true: You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon. Second, as you yourself admitted above, the 70 years ended while the Jews were AT Babylon, not IN Judah

The 70 years were for Judah not Babylon but they were in servitude to Babylon, the 70 years was fulfilled whilst in Babylon but actually ended at their Return.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. We have exactly the same chronology for the 70 years for Judah and the nations round about (Jer. 25)

We may have the same chronology but the interpretation is different.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong on its face. An argument that claims that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months is inherently bogus.

It is you who has introduced the bogus 70 years plus not scholar.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.

Yep! So sayeth the fool.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Again you demonstrate unbelievable stupidity. Recognized, modern scholars who know the original Hebrew extremely well are unanimous that "God's Word" here means "FOR Babylon", not "AT Babylon". The meaning of "God's Word" for Hebrew scholars and those who read their translations is entirely dependent upon their scholarly understanding.
But you know this full well, and your above statement is yet another straw man.

If that is the case why are there translations that have 'at' rather than 'for'? The greatest translation ever, NWT says differently.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Prove it by citing source references.

Will do later.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Of course, but I said something quite different from your misrepresentive summary. Read it again.

Your post are long and stuff gets lost so repost for my attention.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

That's hyperbole -- which you refuse to understand, because it's not in Mommy's interest.

So when something does not suit you or your argument you dismiss such facts as 'hyperbole' because it conflicts with your Poppa's hypothesis.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Good! Then you'll approve of the many debunkings you're going to continue to experience.

And of course, you're really bad at debunking, because you confuse bald denials and assertions with real arguments.

I say bring it on.

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Alan F

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

I've made very few bald assertions. Most assertions are accompanied by detailed explanations or source references. You have yet to debunk any of them -- and your bald assertions are not debunking.

All that you post is simply assertions, without evidence with no source references unless scholar cites an authority.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

I agree that you're knowledgeable enough that your denial of facts is nothing but lying.

More excuses!

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. You can find precious few supporters of the WTS "explanation" about this. You have yet to cite a single source reference.

Well what date then figures in the literature? Not 538 but 537.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Given the above, try answering the questions again:

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that APPEAR to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "APPEAR"?

3. Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning for the word "appear"?

Lewontin's article was correctly quoted by the Creation book. Lewontin made an admission picked up by the Creation book.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Totally wrong. Neither Lewontin nor Darwin made any such "admission". You cannot produce any quotations to support your claim.

Totally false. Lewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer" and Darwin did the same in the last paragraph of his Origin wherein he refers to the "Creator".

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. As I've said several times now, I've consulted many commentaries and other reference works. None contain anything related to my "thesis"; therefore there is nothing to report.

In short, you have done no such thing for if you had you would have said something.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

I've gone over this in detail several times now. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand it?

There is nothing to understand for it is bunkum.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

No, because the 2nd year of Cyrus was 537/536 BCE, and the 2nd month of that year was Iyyar of 537 -- not 536. But I already told you this.
     

That depends on how you count the Cyrus' second year. Was it from Spring or Autumn? Further, Ezra makes no such mention of the 2nd year of Cyrus but only the 2nd year after they came to the house of the true God. Biiiig difference!!!

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

For one thing, it shows your gross hypocrisy in demanding peer review from your opponents, but excusing Mommy Watch Tower for not having peer review.

WT literature does not require a peer review but your novelty does.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

The most accurate? Don't make readers laugh. It's reasonably accurate most of the time, but also contains deliberate mistranslations when doctrinal expediency required Fred Franz to do it.

NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references

Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.

You are making me warm and fuzzy.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Rather, you've ignored it.

Baloney, Repost your sources.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Only for 537. I consider people who advocate any year but 538 or 537 as crackpots, not because they choose that year, but because they choose so many other dates at odds with accepted scholarship

Are SDA scholars crackpots? The only accepted scholarship favors 537 and not 538.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

More meaningless verbiage.

Meaningless to you but not so for Ezra.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

I've told you repeatedly: the basics are already done and available online. You know where.

You have to go back to basics and get such right.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

'm sure it will be of similar quality to what you normally produce.

I suggest you get help with your English. It's in no way the quality needed for a real scholarly paper. Even WTS writers would reject it on that basis alone.

And I have no doubt that your paper will be peer reviewed by real scholars

It will be far better not just in content but also in style. You would not know what constitutes a scholarly paper as you have never written one and yes it will be peer reviewed.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your statement at the top of the quote above contains English words but is not an English sentence. Not a good sign for your paper.

I do not bother to edit my posts. In writing a scholarly paper a number of drafts are usually necessary and then proof read which is a common practice with all authors and scholars.

23 hours ago, AlanF said:

More nonsensical gobble-de-goop. Try answering the questions.

Try answering my questions to you.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Since the date of the Return cannot be established directly, via Bible statements alone or via secular history alone, an indirect approach is necessary. Combining Ezra and Josephus is a valid indirect approach, and the combination directly provides the date of the Return -- 538 BCE.

So can I take this as an admission that some speculation or assumptions are necessary in order to posit a date for the Return? Combining Ezra and Josephus can be tricky because they do  not share a common chronological datum which of itself negates 538.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

What sentences above do you disagree with?

The first one.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

A meaningless generality. You're just full of them!

Not so. 

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Already done many times. See the parts of my posts that you ignored.

I ignore nothing. More substance is required from you.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Since I've already done this, and you have not argued your case -- bald negative assertions are not arguments -- the onus is on you.

Your argument is sloppy without scholarship. Yes the onus is on me and I will respond  with my paper.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.

You have already admitted to some speculation.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

already explained this to you: the difference between 11 months for a 538 Return and 20 months for a 537 Return is immaterial: both 11 and 20 months are more than sufficient preparation time.

There can be no 11 months for 538 nor can there be no 20 months for 537 either. Such assumptions are simply nonsense.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Yet another meaningless generality.

Not to me.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Sure. And you'll duly reject it for the good reason that he favors a 533 Return

His paper is a significant piece of scholarship that should not be ignored. I will not ignore it.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

I've been saying this in this entire thread. Having memory problems again?

No. Your theory about extra months for journey preparation is nonsense for Ezra gives no account of this historically or theologically. It fails on these two grounds.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Of course they wouldn't have known for certain! So what? I already brought that out. The point here is deciding what are the maximum and minimum times available for preparation, and then arguing for what is the most likely. If we had definite information, none of this would have to be considered.

Wow! What an admission. Let us deal with facts and not too much speculation which has little place in Chronology. You are not writing fiction are you Alan?

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Wrong. They would have had to wait for an official decree to DEPART, but not to prepare. After all, Daniel was among the highest officials in the Empire, and would have done all he could to prepare his people for the Return that he knew was inevitable.

No. Ezra's account gives no room for such fiction for it deals with reality and that began with an official Decree which only then gave the Jews reason for prep. and departure. Daniel was rather old at that time and his role is totally absent having nothing to do with the Return. Next, you will have convinced yourself that Daniel led the Exiles back as a mighty Prince.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

I already told you: Darius is irrelevant, because we know Cyrus' years of rule.

Yes we know of Cyrus but we also know something of Darius' reign according to Daniel.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

It's a false statement, and it has no relation to what I said. Another red herring

It is you who raised it.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

till speculation, unless there are specific statements in the Bible or secular sources that pinpoint the date.

Oh yeah, we already have those by combining Ezra and Josephus.

Be careful in combining Ezra with Josephus.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

You're repeating yourself. And I've already explained in some detail why these passages are exactly in harmony with my "thesis". You have not, and you can not, show different.

I have debunked your thesis.

On 2/1/2018 at 13:04, AlanF said:

Suuuure. But you should submit part of your personal "thesis" to this forum for a sort of peer review, just as I have. After all, if it can't stand the scrutiny of a handful of knowledgeable amateurs, it certainly won't stand up to that of peer-reviewing scholars.

But no one will be holding their breath. After all, after nearly a dozen years, you still can't produce a simple timeline of a 537 Return. Nor can you read and understand slightly technical literature, such as is required to understand the Creation book's misrepresentation of a Scientific American article.

My paper will not be released in part but in full and will not be posted on this forum but will be available upon request.

I am sure that it will not be of interest to you as you have already noted that I have not produced a 537 timeline which incidentally neither have you and that my comprehension skills are rather lacking because I do not share your view of the alleged misrepresentation of the SA article in the Creation book.

scholar JW emeritus

[TrueTomHarley]

I am coming to positively like @scholar JW, if for no other reason than he throws @AlanF's line by line method right back at him, and he does it minus Alan's constant insults. 

After all, what was it that Eric Hoffer said?

"Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength." Scholar JW knows this. Why does not the other?

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'. The matter is open to the opinion of the translator and interpretation of the 70 years so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.

I just read several threads on this exact topic over on another forum that you have frequented in the past, such as this one:

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

I know it's not fair to call you dishonest here just because you have been dishonest on other forums. And I am not doing that. You have already left a trail of dishonesty here, too. But I'm still marveling at how you appear to have learned nothing in the 13 years since that particular topic was discussed in such detail. Your method has not changed either. Much more scholarly persons than you summarized your own method there so perfectly by saying things like this about you:

• Read all about it! Read all about it! - "Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory".
• modus operandi is basically bluffing and saying anything in favor of the NWT and seeing whether it would stick.
• record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims

And then after several of these completely false claims were summarized for you, you immediately went on to make another ridiculously false claim which you could have easily looked up for yourself, as any true scholar would have. 

I notice that you claim above in your discussion with AlanF that you have always argued undogmatically for a range of meaning for Jeremiah 29:10. You have an odd method of doing this which involves 2 steps. Your argument is that, yes, there is a range of meanings in the lexicon, but then you move on to arguing that "therefore" the NWT is absolutely right in the meaning they give it in the context of Jeremiah 29:10. It's a simple assertion until you are pressed to add some evidence, and then you just literally make stuff up.

You try to play this one out of both sides of your mouth however. You claim that others cannot be dogmatic, but then go on to dogmatically claim that this means that only the NWT here is correct. Just as you already said on a forum 12 years ago: (Last quote of yours from another forum, I promise.)

• There is no need to offer an alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is incomplete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme.  Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of those exiles living in Babylon up until their release. . . .  There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years based upon the Bible.

That is such a good summary you made of your own views: There is no need to offer an alternative to the WT view unless the celebrated WT scholars devise a new scheme for you. Jeremiah 29:10 is accurate in the NWT. And then, most dogmatically of all, "There are no other views other than that of the celebrated WT scholars. . . "

Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

in the 13 years since that particular topic was discussed in such detail. Your method has not changed either. Much more scholarly persons than you summarized your own method there so perfectly by saying things like this about you:

Yikes! I am dealing with reawakening superheroes of long ago and in forums far away! I wasn't even online 13 years ago. 

I'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence.

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley wrote:

Quote

I am coming to positively like @scholar JW,

Anyone could have predicted that. After all, you're dumb enough to be suckered in by the Watch Tower Society. And as the poster Leolaia said, in the post on another forum that JW Insider linked to:

<< Pseudo-scholar's record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims imitates quite well the example set by the Society. >>

JW Insider also summed up the purely emotionally based reason for the proclivity of JW defenders to be suckered in by the likes of "scholar JW":

<< Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds. >>

In other words, "scholar JW" displays many qualities of a troll. Many "more honest minds" have wondered about that over the years, and been unable to come to a definite conclusion about whether he's a troll. It makes sense, but most trolls get tired of trolling after awhile, so it might be that "scholar JW" has more than a few screws loose.

Quote

if for no other reason than he throws @AlanF's line by line method right back at him, and he does it minus Alan's constant insults.

My "insults" toward him are merely descriptions of reality. He is demonstrably a liar, a bluffer, a hypocrite, and thoroughly unscholarly.

My line by line response method is designed to point out such lies, bluffs, hypocrisies, and lousy scholarship line by line.

And of course, anyone who reads "scholar JW's" "throw backs" with understanding of what each side is saying quickly realizes that his responses are almost always more instances of lies, bluffs, etc.

Quote

 

After all, what was it that Eric Hoffer said?

"Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength." Scholar JW knows this. Why does not the other?

 

Again, even though I've reminded you and others, I'll point out what Jesus said to some liars of his day:

<< Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? >> -- Matt. 33:23

So Jesus was merely imitating strength, eh?

Incapable of participating in these discussions with substance, all you can manage is infantile ad hominems.

AlanF

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley wrote:

Quote

I'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence.

Good idea. Probably best to do that on all forums.

AlanF

[TrueTomHarley]

 

I admit, I don't know anything of Scholar JW's scholarship. I like him simply for his kickback at Alan. Such as:

14 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.

and

14 hours ago, scholar JW said:

NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.

This reveals a sense of humor on his part (I think) and it sails right past Alan because, as far as I can tell, he has NO sense of humor.

But I don't really know much, or care greatly, about the topic under consideration, so it is only someone's obnoxious personality that occasionally draws me it, almost against my will. 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

In other words, "scholar JW" displays many qualities of a troll. Many "more honest minds" have wondered about that over the years, and been unable to come to a definite conclusion about whether he's a troll

Alan is calling anyone a troll?   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

My "insults" toward him are merely descriptions of reality

Of course! Anyone else's insults are ill-mannered insults. Only AlanF rises above the common description to reveal truth.

And to my: "I'll be like Job (on this thread, more or less, with minor caveats) and bring my own lips to silence."?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Good idea. Probably best to do that on all forums

I feel for you, Alan. I really do. I absolutely HATE it when ones who disagree with me speak on this forum. It's just infuriating. Why do they not put their hands in their pockets and let ME speak to THEM?

[TrueTomHarley]

The trick, @AlanF, is to let someone's own words reveal that they are ill-mannered louts. You don't go around name-calling everyone you oppose. You set them up so that they torpedo themselves.

But, but, but, but - what if others don't agree that this or that person is a fool? Don't I have to plainly say it?

No. You don't. It is irresistible for you, I understand, maybe the sign of a very insecure person. But you don't. Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. So should you.

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley wrote:

Quote

I admit, I don't know anything of Scholar JW's scholarship.

Then you should keep your mouth shut.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain(?)

Quote

I like him simply for his kickback at Alan.

Your mother wears army shoes!

There, that'll teach you!

Let me clue you in on something that, given your obvious lack of education, may not be obvious to you:

Real scholars give source references in their writings, with sufficient citations and detail to allow readers easily to look them up.

Fakers like "scholar JW" give as few source references as they think they can get away with, and try to play games with serious people. Their purpose is not to inform, but to obfuscate. As I told "scholar JW":

<< Thiele wrote three versions of his book, plus many papers. No one in his right mind would demand that a reader go through three books and a host of papers with a fine tooth comb, looking for a reference that might or might not exist. As a claimant for what Thiele supposedly said, it is YOUR responsibility to provide proper source references. >>

Naturally, scholar JW pretendus doubled down on his obfuscation and replied:

<< Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers. >>

Asking for clear source references is NOT whinging -- it's asking someone to act like what they claim they are -- a competent, honest scholar.Anyone who can't see "scholar JW's" tactic for what it is -- an attempt to lie and evade his claim of a scholarly disposition -- is unusually stupid.
     

Quote

 

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers.

 

Like I said . . .

Quote

 

and
   
15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so.

This reveals a sense of humor on his part (I think)

 

Not at all. Just like his fake "scholarship", it reveals an attempt to do something he obviously does not understand. He really does think the NWT is brilliant because he says so. He's posted many serious claims along those lines on other forums for a decade and a half.

Quote

and it sails right past Alan because, as far as I can tell, he has NO sense of humor.

Oh, I know exactly what this faker/troll is doing. After all, I've been dealing with his lies and other sins for about 15 years now.

Quote

But I don't really know much, or care greatly, about the topic under consideration, so it is only someone's obnoxious personality that occasionally draws me it, almost against my will.

Then once again, keep your mouth shut and let the big boys play.
     

Quote

 

:: In other words, "scholar JW" displays many qualities of a troll. Many "more honest minds" have wondered about that over the years, and been unable to come to a definite conclusion about whether he's a troll

Alan is calling anyone a troll?   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Continuing to be clueless.

<< In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. >> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trollA pretty good description of scholar JW pretendus, who is a liar, hypocrite, bluffer, etc., par excellence.
     

Quote

 

:: My "insults" toward him are merely descriptions of reality

Of course! Anyone else's insults are ill-mannered insults. Only AlanF rises above the common description to reveal truth.

 

Let's see now: do you actually think that "scholar JW" is NOT a liar, hypocrite, bluffer, etc.? Based on what?

You continue to ignore Jesus' insults toward his opponents:

<< Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? >> -- Matt. 33:23

AlanF

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley wrote:

Quote

The trick, @AlanF, is to let someone's own words reveal that they are ill-mannered louts. You don't go around name-calling everyone you oppose. You set them up so that they torpedo themselves.

Oh, I let scholar JW pretendus do that all the time. I'm merely guilding the lily. Why? Because he has admirers among the JW defender crowd, who, like you, are too stupid to realize, or pigheaded to admit, how dishonest he is.

Quote

But, but, but, but - what if others don't agree that this or that person is a fool? Don't I have to plainly say it?

Depends on the situation. Remember that fools, by definition, are generally too stupid to know they're fools or to recognize another.

Also try to remember that when I give you a serious answer, I'm trying really, really hard to pretend you're not a fool.

AlanF