Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member

JW Insider

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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:

I am not into dishonesty which as an insult is easily thrown around by those who resist sound argument, provide no evidence for their claims and are unable to accept opposing views. I discussed Jer. 29:10 many times on another forum many years ago and I stated my opinion on the matter. I am not concerned about the criticism of others but what what I am interested in is the pursuit of scholarship especially in the field of Chronology. Further, I am not a Troll but the real deal. Scholar, however is mysterious I grant you that!

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

The matter is simple. Jer. 29;10 with its distinct preposition has a range of meanings and it is up to the translator to decide which meaning is to be used. For me, I agree with 'at' but I am equally comfortable with 'for'. No problem but that really ignores our critics because scholar has stumped them. The said scholar has provided reasons for his acceptance of either word not only on this forum but on the other many years ago.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

No. I simply appeal to facts and reason. There is no room for dogmatism in Chronology but if my language is considered to be dogmatic then I withdraw that comment.My position on the seventy years as outlined is correct and remains my considered opinion if that sounds dogmatic then it should not be taken as such but simply a considered or firm opinion. I am certainly not going to pander niceties or engage in girly talk so as not to offend others all because i have formed a view. What I write here is not what I would write in a scholarly paper where the language must be tempered and unemotional.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. . .

There is always a need for alternate views and that is what drives scholarship forward and your above quote is out of context.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Not interested in your silly observation for I care nought for the opinions of others but only good, sound scholarship.

scholar JW emeritus

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 62.3k
  • Replies 774
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hmmmm......I beg to differ. How about we both ask a number of friends a simple question at the KH this Sunday or in a field service group: "do you know how to explain why we believe 1914 and 607?"

This is where Freedom and sanity, and peace come from .... when you disregard people who have proved they have no credibility whatsoever ... and STOP BEING AFRAID OF DYING.  Every living thing th

Posted Images

  • Member
6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I am not into dishonesty which as an insult is easily thrown around by those who resist sound argument, provide no evidence for their claims and are unable to accept opposing views.

Perhaps it is too easy to throw it around as an insult. I don't plan on dealing with the question of honesty or dishonesty at much length, especially not on a personal level with you, but I thought that something should be said, especially because some persons here have probably not had the pleasure of reading the long history of comments you have left at various places through the years. And some persons have made comments here which clearly show they haven't looked into any specifics of your claims. If they had, I'm sure that some think your comments are probably well-researched, but if they would look at them carefully, the same people might be appalled at the both the inanity and sometimes even the insanity of many of your comments.

But I've also noticed that dishonesty invariably becomes a part of all Bible chronology discussions, especially from those groups, including our own, that came out of the "Great Awakening" after Miller promoted a preview version of the Watchtower's first chronology. I've now read much of the Second Adventist writings, Seventh Day Adventist writings, Barbour's, Russell's and other Bible Student writings --even John and Morton Edgar. They all lead me to believe that a study of the differences among all of the following should be a prerequisite:

  • dishonesty,
  • insincerity,
  • wishful thinking,
  • shallow thinking,
  • logical fallacies,
  • shoddy scholarship
6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Further, I am not a Troll but the real deal.

There is absolutely no doubt that you are, by definition, a troll. Repeatedly calling yourself a "scholar" while simultaneously showing a complete disregard for scholarship, and an unwillingness to provide anything of any scholarly value is, in itself, a provocation. For example, going onto sites where non-JWs and ex-JWs frequent, and where you repeatedly refer to "celebrated WT scholars" can have only one purpose, especially if you have also gone to some lengths elsewhere to show why these same scholars have supposedly remained anonymous specifically so that, as they claim, they will not become "celebrated" or "celebrities" in any way.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Scholar, however is mysterious I grant you that!

Strange, maybe, but hardly mysterious to me.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

No problem but that really ignores our critics because scholar has stumped them.

That makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "that really annoys(?) our critics." At any rate, you didn't stump anyone, and I'm sure I have now completed all the "Jeremiah 29:10" discussions on the previously referenced forum where you are (or were) involved. In fact, it is easy to show you made many false statements, made many logical fallacies, acted like the opposite of a scholar, indicated that you had not read or had not comprehended any sources that anyone was quoting, made the flimsiest of excuses, asked other people to do more work when they had already demolished your argument, showed yourself unwilling to present any information that would have been easy for you to see or find, would evade instead of answering questions, or claim you had proven a point by merely asserting that another person was wrong. I could go on and on. Your posts read like a parody of scholarship. 

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

My position on the seventy years as outlined is correct and remains my considered opinion if that sounds dogmatic then it should not be taken as such but simply a considered or firm opinion.

As you already admitted: it will remain your considered opinion until the Watch Tower publications tell us to consider another one. Obviously, that will instantly become your new "considered" opinion.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

What I write here is not what I would write in a scholarly paper where the language must be tempered and unemotional.

You could not begin to write a scholarly paper with the complete lack (or even disdain) of scholarship that you have shown. It doesn't matter how tempered and unemotional it is; it would need more than just your empty claims that you are right to accept an interpretation based on little to no evidence and that everyone else is wrong to accept an understanding based on most or even all the best evidence.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is always a need for alternate views and that is what drives scholarship forward and your above quote is out of context.

That's a much better view. Although I linked to the entire context and merely included a statement you made just in front of your Jeremiah 29:10 quote and a statement from just after that Jeremiah 29:10 quote. I added your own context specifically so that you couldn't honestly make a claim that it was out of context.  But you did anyway. Feel free to explain, and I hope your explanation is NOT simply that everything you have ever said has been out of context.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Not interested in your silly observation for I care nought for the opinions of others but only good, sound scholarship.

Since it was an observation that explains so much to anyone who might find you "mysterious" I thought it worth mentioning. But I won't make any more claims about what you have said elsewhere. You may have the last word in your own defense if you wish, and I will definitely attempt to only respond to the specifics of any claims you have made here. I'm happy to look at any good, sound scholarship related to the points of this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There is absolutely no doubt that you are, by definition, a troll. Repeatedly calling yourself a "scholar" while simultaneously showing a complete disregard for scholarship, and an unwillingness to provide anything of any scholarly value is, in itself, a provocation. For example, going onto sites where non-JWs and ex-JWs frequent, and where you repeatedly refer to "celebrated WT scholars" can have only one purpose, especially if you have also gone to some lengths elsewhere to show why these same scholars have supposedly remained anonymous specifically so that, as they claim, they will not become "celebrated" or "celebrities" in any way.

Nonsense. You would not know anything about scholarship and what qualifies one as a 'scholar'. Further when it comes to honesty perhaps you should examine yourself. Are you a genuine Witness? I ask this question because you promote views that could be regarded as apostate especially in the field of Chronology. You call yourself 'JW Insider' perhaps it should be JW Outsider'. There are 'celebrated WT scholars' but you cannot understand or deal with this concept.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Strange, maybe, but hardly mysterious to me.

Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow!

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

hat makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "that really annoys(?) our critics." At any rate, you didn't stump anyone, and I'm sure I have now completed all the "Jeremiah 29:10" discussions on the previously referenced forum where you are (or were) involved. In fact, it is easy to show you made many false statements, made many logical fallacies, acted like the opposite of a scholar, indicated that you had not read or had not comprehended any sources that anyone was quoting, made the flimsiest of excuses, asked other people to do more work when they had already demolished your argument, showed yourself unwilling to present any information that would have been easy for you to see or find, would evade instead of answering questions, or claim you had proven a point by merely asserting that another person was wrong. I could go on and on. Your posts read like a parody of scholarship. 

I am very much on top of the Jer.29:10 debate and already I have a Witness Hebrew scholar that has informed me of certain facts relating to this matter and I will be mentioning these in due course. Whether you think my posts are a parody of scholarship means nothing to me because I will match your arguments anytime, anywhere.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As you already admitted: it will remain your considered opinion until the Watch Tower publications tell us to consider another one. Obviously, that will instantly become your new "considered" opinion.

No. my opinion is based on a careful examination of the evidence. I have found WT publications invaluable and accurate in relation to Chronology but in addition I also pay careful attention to scholarship as well. Do you?

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You could not begin to write a scholarly paper with the complete lack (or even disdain) of scholarship that you have shown. It doesn't matter how tempered and unemotional it is; it would need more than just your empty claims that you are right to accept an interpretation based on little to no evidence and that everyone else is wrong to accept an understanding based on most or even all the best evidence.

You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's a much better view. Although I linked to the entire context and merely included a statement you made just in front of your Jeremiah 29:10 quote and a statement from just after that Jeremiah 29:10 quote. I added your own context specifically so that you couldn't honestly make a claim that it was out of context.  But you did anyway. Feel free to explain, and I hope your explanation is NOT simply that everything you have ever said has been out of context.

You talk gibberish. I believe in context, exegesis and linguistic analysis and apply these to the interpretation of Jer. 29:10 which you do not. Go away!

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Since it was an observation that explains so much to anyone who might find you "mysterious" I thought it worth mentioning. But I won't make any more claims about what you have said elsewhere. You may have the last word in your own defense if you wish, and I will definitely attempt to only respond to the specifics of any claims you have made here. I'm happy to look at any good, sound scholarship related to the points of this topic.

Respond as you wish and I will respond in kind but do some research and do not follow the nonsense of apostates.

scholar JW emeritus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You would not know anything about scholarship and what qualifies one as a 'scholar'.

Anyone who can read can learn exactly what qualifies one as a "scholar." You don't have to be a scholar to know what qualifies a person. I think that even you yourself probably know what qualifies one to be a scholar. :D

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Further when it comes to honesty perhaps you should examine yourself. Are you a genuine Witness? I ask this question because you promote views that could be regarded as apostate especially in the field of Chronology.

Yes, in previous topics, I've already explained the difficulties I go through from the perspective of what I can and can't teach in the congregational setting. I don't get into trouble in the congregation, but it would be very easy for this to happen, and a few people are well aware of my conscientious stance on a couple of subjects. Naturally, I don't consider my views to be "apostate," as they are based on prayer, study, conscience, the Bible, and a desire to be honest in all things. I probably would only be aware of these differences between the Bible view and the Wathtower's view because several persons in the Writing Department and even a couple people on the Governing Body were helpful and instrumental in pointing out some of these things to me while I was at Bethel. Based on their own example and recommendations, I held back from speaking about the wonderful things I was learning, and it was not until just the last few years that I realized I should not hold bak due to fear of men, fear of loss of position, or attachment to traditions.  I still think that discussing such things in a congregational setting could be damaging to unsuspecting and unwary ones, but, like you, I find persons in this type of online environment to be much better prepared for controversial subjects and I find it to be a fairly good venue to be always ready to make a defense and let our reasonableness be known to all.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow!

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I am very much on top of the Jer.29:10 debate and already I have a Witness Hebrew scholar that has informed me of certain facts relating to this matter and I will be mentioning these in due course. Whether you think my posts are a parody of scholarship means nothing to me because I will match your arguments anytime, anywhere.

That would be nice. Any idea of a time frame for mentioning these "in due course"?

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I have found WT publications invaluable and accurate in relation to Chronology but in addition I also pay careful attention to scholarship as well. Do you?

Only to the extent necessary to keep strict watch over my teaching, and thereby keep a clean conscience:

  • (1 Timothy 4:15, 16) . . .. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .
1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one.

I've said all I need to say about your own scholarly issues, but I can see you know nothing about mine.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You talk gibberish. I believe in context, exegesis and linguistic analysis and apply these to the interpretation of Jer. 29:10 which you do not. Go away!

I hope so. I'd sure hate to see a rehash of the gibberish I've already seen on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

When a man speaks of his honor ..... make him pay CASH.

When a man speaks of his scholarship ... make him do hard labor breaking rocks.

Lots and LOTS of big rocks.

Slitting his throat is probably an overreach, and will get you talked about.

Everything Sir Isaac Newton did ...... his work spoke for him.

He was not even interested in being called ... for dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

... and besides .... "back then" the Egyptians and others when they suffered defeats in battle would ERASE the histories of Pharaohs, and Generals, and Reigns ... and have the dates of the ones before and after adjusted to fit.

And erasing on giant stoneworks, obelisks, and such was a lot harder than with  today's No. 2 yellow pencil eraser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

scholar JW pretendus trollus said:

Quote

 

:::: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

:::: This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.

:::: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment

::: A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.

:: 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?

 

Trolling now? Or just stupid?

The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for".

Quote

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

Completely meaningless as a response to my point. Another non sequitur.
     

Quote

 

:::: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store."

::: No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.

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

Nope, have always presented both views in the main,

 

What you said 13 years ago on the JWD forum proves you're a liar:

<< Leolaia, Narkissos and Alan F

I am not the smartest fellow around and you characters in comparison to me are geniuses. However, let me warn you of this sobering fact that I am very stubborn, open minded and persistent as a dog with a bone. The matter of this Hebrew proposition in Jer 29:10 is of singular importance to me and has the potential of fatally destroying the Jonsson hypothesis.

My scholarship whatever its status and my gut instincts tells me that the NWT is brilliantly correct in this example. >> -- https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22

Quote

 

:::: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. . .

:::: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.  

::: The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.

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

 

Readers who are not simple-minded will note that "scholar JW" ignored my counter-example.

Quote

 

:: 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'.

 

Here, let's try scholar JW pretendus' method of argument: FALSE!

Now let's try a valid method of argument: Your claim is false for reasons shown repeatedly in this thread -- which you've largely ignored -- and for reasons shown to you repeatedly for at least 15 years, such as in the above link.

Quote

The matter is open to the opinion of the translator

Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".

Quote

and interpretation of the 70 years

Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.

Quote

so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.

No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.
     

Quote

 

::: The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home

:: 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?

 

You're again proving that you can't do simple arithmetic or even read with comprehension. So let's try again, but with a diagram that shows your above-stated sequence of events.

1. Jews are at/in Babylon.
2. 70 years end.
3. Some unspecified time passes.
4. Jews leave Babylon.
5. About 4 months pass in travel.
6. Jews reach Judah; 70 years plus unspecified time plus 4 months end.
7. Jews are in Judah, so Judah is no longer desolate.

Some really hard arithmetic questions based on your own words:

How long were the Jews AT Babylon?

How long was the desolation of Judah?

Quote

 

::: The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon

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

The Bible says so

 

Scholar pretendus style bald assertion: No.

Quote

and I have argued accordingly.

And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.
     
 

Quote

 

::: and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.

:: 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

 

Nope -- that's a fake problem -- a problem that YOU and Mommy WTS invented.

Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.

Note a recent scholar's comments (The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation, John Sietz Bergsma, Brill, 2007, pp. 215-216):

<< . . . Regardless, according to the construal of history in the book of Daniel, Darius the Mede received the kingship of Babylon directly after it was conquered by Medo-Persian forces (Dan 5:30-6:1), i.e., ca. 538 B.C.E.

Thus, the vision of Dan 9 is set at or just before the time when -- according to other biblical books -- Cyrus issued his famous edict permitting Jewish repatriation, and Jeremiah's "seventy years for Babylon" were considered complete. Any astute reader of the sacred texts, whether ancient or modern, could come to this conclusion from the data those tests supply. The data of Daniel are sufficient to recognize that the reign of Cyrus either is concurrent with, or follows hard upon, the reign of Darius (Dan 6:29. [36] From Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chron 36:20-23 it is clear that in the first year of his reign Cyrus issued an edict which fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah. That prophecy, expressed most clearly in Jer 29:10-14, stated that after seventy years Babylon would fall and be punished (fulfilled in Dan 5:30), and the exiled inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah would be brought back and their fortunes restored (fulfilled by Cyrus' edict; cf. Isa 44:24-28; Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron 36:20-23). Thus, it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 after the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. It then becomes comprehensible why Jeremiah's prophecy would be of interest to Daniel at this time. The prophecy stated that when the "seventy years" of Babylon were over, the inhabitants of Jerusalem would return and experience the restoration of their fortunes (Jer 29:10-14). The "seventy years" of Babylon were definitely over in the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 5:30-6:1), regardless of when one might place the terminus a quo of Jeremiah's prophecy. [39] . . .

ftn. [36] Cf. St. Jerome on Dan 9:1-2: "This is the Darius who in cooperation with Cyrus conquered the Chaldeans and Babylonians" (Jerome's Commentary on Daniel ... Dan 6:29 can be translated, "during the reign of Darius, that is, during the reign of Cyrus the Persian" ...). That "Darius's" reign was short could also be implied by the fact that the only year of his reign mentioned in the book is his first (Dan 9:1, 11:1; the events of Dan. 6 are by implication also in that first year).

ftn. [39] Gerald Wilson makes the following interesting observation: "Dan 1.2 assumes that Jehoakim and the temple vessels were carried into exile in the 'third year of Nebuchadnezzar [sic; should be Jehoiakim]' or 605 B.C.E. It is suggestive that once this move is made, the interval between Nebuchadnezzar's profanation of the temple and the recitation of the prayer of Dan 9 in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus (538 B.C.E.) is sixty-eight years" ("Prayer," 97). >>

Quote

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.

Incoherent gibberish. I'll try to decipher it and comment accordingly.

Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.

You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.

Quote

 

::: The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.

:: 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.

 

Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2.

Quote

He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events.

True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.

Quote

He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment,

Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.

Quote

the desolations

The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.

Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.

Quote

of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon.

That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:

<< . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>

Quote

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.

A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.

Quote

 

::: In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had  almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.

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

This statement is meaningless.

 

Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.

Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:

Quote

 

:::: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?

:::: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).  

::: The 70 years ended at Judah.

:: 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?

 

What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.
YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGE.
     

Quote

 

::: There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.

:: More gobble-de-goop.

No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.

 

Nope. Just gobble-de-goop.

Quote

 

:::: Wrong -- it was experienced by SOME exiles -- not "the" Jewish Exiles, as if there were only one group. The Bible itself says that the exile in 597 was bigger than the one in 587.

::: No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim.

:: Still rejecting the Bible, eh?

:: 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.

 

The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.

Quote

Do you?

You know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.

Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.

Quote

 

:::: So what? In each case, the CONTEXT indicates that when the preposition of location is used ("le" or "be"), it means "at" or "in" or "to" or whatever ("he took them to Babylon"). Furthermore, in no case is "le babel" used other than in 29:10; in all other cases the phrase is "be babel" (to Babylon), so your implication is a lie.

::: Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning.

:: 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.

 

Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.

You are nothing but a pathological, lying troll.

Quote

 

:::: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.

::: Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.

:: 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.

 

You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:

AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.

Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone

AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."

So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".

You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.

Quote

 

:::: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.

::: Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.

:: 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.

 

Yet again, scholar JW pretendus ignores my point, but this time adds a meaningless red herring.

Quote

 

::: Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.

:: Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.

 

Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

Quote

 

:::: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.

::: The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.

:: Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.

 

Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

Quote

 

:::: You're contradicting yourself

::: No. Read more carefully what I have written.

:: I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?

 

Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

Quote

 

:::: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date

::: Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.

:: So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.

:: Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.

 

Scholar JW pretendus ignored this, too.

Quote

 

::: But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.

:: Still begging the question.

 

And again scholar JW pretendus ignored my comment.

Quote

 

:::: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.

::: Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.

:: Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.

 

    
Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.

Quote

 

:::: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims

::: No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.

:: Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.

 

Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.

Quote

 

:::: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon

::: Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.

::  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

 

So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this.

Quote

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.

Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.

Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive.

Quote

 

:::: It's nonsensical, since it must be one of 70+, 70 exactly, or 69+. You do realize that those are different numbers, right?

::: There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus.

:: 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.

 

So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.

In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.

Trolling indeed.

Quote

 

:::: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

::: The period was a full 70 years with zero months.

:: Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.

Yep! So sayeth the fool.

 

Yep, 70 years + 8 months = 70 years = 69 years + 4 months
     

Quote

 

::::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'

:::: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources

::: Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.

:: 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.

 

I've told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.
     

Quote

 

::::: for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters.

:::: Quite the contrary.

::: No.

:: Prove it by citing source references.

Will do later.

 

No, you won't.
     

Quote

 

::::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.

:::: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.

::: The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years  of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.

:: 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.

 

I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!

Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
     

Quote

 

:::: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.

::: The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.

:: 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.

 

Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.

<< ftn. [11] This is now strongly refuted by the commonly used term "the myth of the empty land" (see also [[H. M. Barstad, "After the 'Myth of the Empty Land': Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20]]. . . >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 358.

This is nothing new for Watch Tower views. Jesus said you must hate your family to be his disciple. Did he mean literally hate? Or hate in a relative way? If the latter, then his words were hyperbole.

We have a similar situation with the creation story in Genesis. A literal reading indicates that the universe is some six thousand years old, yet the Watch Tower argues that that figure, derived from its own version of biblical chronology, is not to be taken literally -- it's hyperbole.
   

Quote

 

::: Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval

:: 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.

 

Done.

AlanF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Anyone who can read can learn exactly what qualifies one as a "scholar." You don't have to be a scholar to know what qualifies a person. I think that even you yourself probably know what qualifies one to be a scholar. :D

Indeed

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, in previous topics, I've already explained the difficulties I go through from the perspective of what I can and can't teach in the congregational setting. I don't get into trouble in the congregation, but it would be very easy for this to happen, and a few people are well aware of my conscientious stance on a couple of subjects. Naturally, I don't consider my views to be "apostate," as they are based on prayer, study, conscience, the Bible, and a desire to be honest in all things. I probably would only be aware of these differences between the Bible view and the Wathtower's view because several persons in the Writing Department and even a couple people on the Governing Body were helpful and instrumental in pointing out some of these things to me while I was at Bethel. Based on their own example and recommendations, I held back from speaking about the wonderful things I was learning, and it was not until just the last few years that I realized I should not hold bak due to fear of men, fear of loss of position, or attachment to traditions.  I still think that discussing such things in a congregational setting could be damaging to unsuspecting and unwary ones, but, like you, I find persons in this type of online environment to be much better prepared for controversial subjects and I find it to be a fairly good venue to be always ready to make a defense and let our reasonableness be known to all.

You have explained your position.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

hat would be nice. Any idea of a time frame for mentioning these "in due course"?

I am going to make a brief summary of facts now.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Only to the extent necessary to keep strict watch over my teaching, and thereby keep a clean conscience:

You will be held to that.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I've said all I need to say about your own scholarly issues, but I can see you know nothing about mine.

I don't have any scholarly issues and your posts indicate a lack of research.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I hope so. I'd sure hate to see a rehash of the gibberish I've already seen on this subject.

You should talk to Alan F about gibberish.

scholar JW emeritus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

scholar JW pretendus totalus debunktus wrote:

:: You completely ignored my post which debunked more of your nonsense.

This troll STILL has not responded.

Quote

 

:::: Which I've debunked several times now, all without anything from you but bald assertions. You obviously don't know the difference between bald assertion and actual argumentation.

::: I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions.

:: 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.

 

LOL! Super Troll at his finest.
Would you like to count the number of bald assertions, unevidenced claims and other scholarly omissions in my above post (and of course, list them), or shall I do it for you?
     

Quote

 

:::: Deliberately missing the point: Most JW readers are INCAPABLE of "using discernment" because they're too ignorant of the necessary background historical details. And of course, the WTS's "explanation of the Return in our publications over many years" is nothing more than unevidenced bald assertions.

::: Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar.

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

More excuses!

 

For what? For not proving for the thousandth time that you're a pathological, lying Super Troll?

Quote

 

::: Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not.

:: 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.

 

You mean WTS literature? If so, that's merely citing WTS literature to "prove" WTS claims.

You mean non-WTS literature? I've posted sources listing 538 on other forums, and will post more as soon as I've finished compiling them. Meanwhile, here are a handful:

A real, live, recognized scholar writes:

<< The precise historical setting for the emergence of this community [of returned exiles] is still debated, depending mainly on one's attitude to Cyrus's delaration in Ezra 1:2-4. There, Cyrus grants permission to the Jewish community in Babylonia to rebuild the temple, and to return to Jerusalem for that purpose. The description following in vv. 5-6 relates how Jews in Babylonia rose up immediately to actualize the provisions of this permission.

Scholars who accept the basic reliability of this sequence would see the emergence of the community of returned exiles as early as 538 B.C.E. >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 97.

Some amateur websites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Zion
<< According to the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, a number of decades later in 538 BCE, the Jews in Babylon were allowed to return to the Land of Israel, due to Cyrus's decree. >>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
<< According to the biblical book of Ezra, construction of the second temple in Jerusalem began around 537 BCE. >>

https://www.harding.edu/rdiles/old testament/ezra, nehemiah, esther.htm
<< Three stages of Israelite return from exile: Zerubbabel (538 B.C.)... >>

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/SalvationHistory/_L21_THE RETURN PT I.htm
<< The book of Ezra relates the story of two of the returns from Babylon'the first led by Zerubbabel to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple in 538-7BC (Ch. 1-6) >>

Now of course, amateur websites are worth little, since they usually just repeat well accepted information. One can find plenty of websites that use 537 BCE for the Return.

The questions are: What do recognized scholars argue, and what is their evidence?

So far, scholar JW pretendus has supplied ZERO such scholarly references for 537 BCE.

Quote

 

:::: You managed to miss one question altogether, and got the other two wrong. Let's try again, with even more hints:

:::: 1. Did Lewontin say that HE views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

 

No answer from scholar JW pretendus.

Quote

 

:: You again failed the test. This time you failed even to answer the question. Try 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"?

:::: Note that to fully answer these questions, you'll actually have to read the SA article, rather than merely skimming it for quotations to quote mine   

::: I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman.

:: Surely that's no impediment to a great scholar.

:: But you're wrong. The article is not that technical, and SA has always been specifically written for the layman.

::: Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.

:: Actually he does define it, but implicitly and throughout the article. Of course, that must be understood by actually reading and understanding the article -- not merely skimming to mine for quotes.

:: The very first sentence in the article, in the summary at the top of the page (213), states:

:: << The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>

:: According to this, does Lewontin view this "manifest fit" as a product of evolution or of a Supreme Designer?

:: Here's more:

:: pp. 214-215
:: << Much of evolutionary biology is the working out of an adaptationist program. Evolutionary biologists as­ sume that each aspect of an organism's morphology, physiology and behavior has been molded by natural selection as a solution to a problem posed by the environment. >>

:: Does Lewontin accept evolution or design?

:: p. 220
:: << The mechanism by which organisms are said to adapt to the environment is that of natural selection. The theory of evolution by natural selection rests on three necessary principles: Different individuals within a species differ from one another in physiology, morphology and behavior (the principle of variation); the variation is in some way heritable. so that on the average offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble other individuals (the principle of heredity); different variants leave different numbers of offspring either immediately or in remote generations (the principle of natural selection). These three principles are necessary and sufficient to account for evolutionary change by natural selection. >>

:: How does Lewontin view the origin of adaptation? Through evolution by natural selection, or by Design?

:: p. 230
:: << Adaptation is a real phenomenon. It is no accident that fish have fins, that seals and whales have flippers and flukes, that penguins have paddles and that even sea snakes have become laterally flattened. The problem of locomotion in an aquatic environment is a real problem that has been solved by many totally unrelated evolutionary lines in much the same way. >>

:: 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.

 

Wrong.

We note that you again failed to answer the specific questions I posed. Evade, evade, evade -- that's all you can manage.

You sense a trap, and you're right. But it's one of your own making, since you claim you can detect problems in WTS literature, but you've failed three times in a row -- even with hints from me.

Quote

 

::: I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did.
     
:: 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".

 

Darwin did, but he later explained that that reference had only to do with the fact that he had buckled to popular belief in creationism. Here is one summary:

<< Charles Darwin closed the last paragraph of the first edition, (publication date 24 November 1859), of his On the Origin of Species with this sentence:-

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

It happened, however, that many persons felt that there was not enough ' grandeur ' to ' the view of life ' being offered by Charles Darwin in his On the Origin of Species such that Darwin it necessary to insert an additional "creationist" phrase in this closing sentence as it appears in subsequent editions from as early as January 1860:-

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

In March, 1863, Darwin wrote about this inclusion of the three significant words ~ by the Creator ~ to his friend and scientific confidante Joseph Hooker:-

"I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter." >> -- http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/charles_darwins/quotes/grandeur_view_life.html

Back to the Lewontin misquote.

Quote

Lewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer"

Yes, but what did he refer to? Certainly not his own belief in a Supreme Designer. After all, he made it clear in his article that he accepts fully naturalistic evolution -- not a Supreme Designer. As I already pointed out, he made his view clear at the very beginning of the article. The abstract for the article is quite clear: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."

As I have told you several times now, it is CONTEXT that allows one to accurately understand what Lewontin was trying to convey. I'll help you out again, by bolding the necessary bits of context. From the first page (213) of the SA article:

<< The theory about the history of life that is now generally accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, is meant to explain two different aspects of the appearance of the living world: diversity and fitness. There are on the order of two million species now living, . . . Where did they all come from? By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 it was widely (if not universally) held that species had evolved from one another, but no plausible mechanism for such evolution had been proposed. Darwin's solution to the problem was that small heritable variations among individuals within a species become the basis of large differences between species. >>

This clearly establishes the historical time frame -- Darwin's day, the 19th century.

Referring back to Darwin's day, Lewontin wrote of the general view of religious people, including religious scientists:

<< It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. >>

Did you get that? "It WAS the marvelous fit . . . that WAS the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer".

Now wasn't that easy?

Clearly, then, Lewontin was not referring to his own views, but to those of people in the 19th century in Darwin's day.

Now consider the Creation book's claim that "Richard Lewontin said that organisms 'appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.'" Was Lewontin referring to his own personal views? Of course not, because he accepts a fully naturalistic view of evolution. In view of his references to Darwin's time, he clearly meant that it was the 19th-century view that organisms appear to be designed. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be.

The Watch Tower Society received a lot of flak over this bit of quote mining. Eventually it did a bit of revision to tone down the worst of it. Compare the pre-2004 version with the post-2004 version:

<< 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. >>

<< Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed,” so that some scientists viewed them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>

The later version corrected "he views them" to "some scientists viewed them".

Of course, the quotation loses all of its punch without the misrepresentation.

And of course, it's easy to see that even the revised version misrepresents Lewontin's article by failing to point out that Lewontin's "admission" was merely a statement of what SOME 19th-century scientists believed, and that Lewontin himself rejects the view that organisms really are designed, but merely seem to be designed.

With all this in mind, read again part of Lewontin's article:

<< Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. >>

So, scholar JW pretendus, do you still think you can detect problems in WTS literature?

I have little doubt that you'll wrap all this into a little mental ball and bury it as deeply as you can.

Now, some might think that this is all a lot of unfair criticism of the Watch Tower's misrepresentations of Richard Lewontin's article in Scientific American. But here are some statements from Lewontin himself complaining about the selective quoting done by creationists of his SA article:

<< Partly through honest confusion, but also partly through a conscious attempt to confuse others, creationists have muddled the disputes about evolutionary theory with the accepted fact of evolution to claim that even scientists call evolution into question. By melding our knowledge of what has happened in evolution with our doubts about how this has happened into a single "theory of evolution," creationists hope to challenge evolution with evolutionists' own words. Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology, and the transparent subterfuge of passing off the Old Testament myth of creation as if it were creation "science" rather than the belief of a particular religion, has convinced most evolutionists that creationism is nothing but an ill-willed attempt to suppress truth in the interest of propping up a failing institution. But such a view badly oversimplifies the situation and misses the deep social and political roots of creationism. >> -- Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism, p. xxiv, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983.

Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35:

<< Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists. >>

It is one thing to cite and describe opposing viewpoints. It is something else again to repeatedly attribute those opposing views to an author or to a publication that merely describes them, especially when it is evident that the description is for the purpose of dismissing it.

On a final note, it is possible that the Creation book got Lewontin's statement wrong via poor scholarship rather than outright dishonesty. Apparently the author was too lazy to do his own research, or he might not have mangled the quotation so badly. Lewontin's statement was apparently lifted from paranormalist Francis Hitching's book The Neck of the Giraffe, page 84 (page 65 paperback). Hitching's quotation of Lewontin is identical to the Creation book's, but his book was published in 1982, whereas Creation was published in 1985. Hitching apparently in turn lifted this from the young-earth creationist publication Impact, No. 88, October, 1980, from the article "Creation, Selection, and Variation" by Gary E. Parker, a well-known creationist. On page 2 Parker wrote:

<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms "... appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>

See the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, pages 35-44 for more details.

Quote

 

:::: How many times do I have to explain this to you? Commentaries have much to say about Ezra, but not the specifics of my "thesis". My "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. The basic logic is so simple that it's unassailable. What is assailable are the various assumptions underlying the reliability of the statements in Ezra and Josephus, and Josephus' exact dating methods. If we assume that these statements are reliable, all that is left is to pin down Josephus' dating method for Cyrus' 2nd year. And using a technique much like Rodger Young used in dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, that date is pinned down to 537/536 BCE.  

::: You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals.

:: 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.

 

LOL! Your ridiculous claim is that I've consulted no commentaries because I haven't said anything about doing so? This is your usual ass-backwards reasoning.
I've told you many times now: I've consulted various commentaries about Ezra, etc., and they say nothing about the details of my "thesis" for the simple reason that my "thesis" is NEW MATERIAL. Indeed, if my "thesis" had specific support from specific scholars, it would not be "my thesis" and I most certainly would have posted that scholarly material long ago.
     

Quote

 

::: This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation.

:: 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.

 

LOL! Yet another bald assertion without evidence.

Once again, one summary of it is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/And I've posted details on this thread a number of times, with nothing but bald denials or handwaving from you.
     

Quote

 

::: Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ?

:: 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?

 

It doesn't matter; it works either way. But I've told you this many times. Do you need a two-by-four upside the head to shake the marbles loose?

Quote

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!!!

But irrelevant. Once again: The 1st year of the Return ended with Elul, 538 or 537. The 2nd year of the Return began with Tishri, 538 or 537. Got it so far? Since Tishri is the 7th month of the sacred year, and all mentions of month numbers in the OT, so far as anyone knows, refer to the sacred year, even if the year at issue is the secular year, the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return must be Iyyar of 537 or 536. Got that yet? So now we have to consider the overlap between Cyrus' 2nd year -- 2nd by various dating methods -- between that year and the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Got that? And a careful look at those figures shows that such an overlap occurs in 537, if Josephus counted by either Accession-year Nisan (Babylonian) dating, or Non-Accession-year Tishri (common Jewish) dating. Such an overlap occurs in 536 if Josephus counted by Accession-year Tishri dating. But the latter is unlikely, because according to various scholars it was rarely, if ever, used by the Jews, and there is no evidence that Josephus used it. Got it now?

You could actually understand all this if you were capable of diagramming the four years 539 through 536 and the relevant events within them. Obviously you're not capable, and so there is little point in your denial and puffery. You're demonstrably just blowing wind.

Quote

 

:::: Very good! Which shows that the Watch Tower Society engages in no scholarship. Not only is what the WTS publishes not peer reviewed, but virtually all scholars reject its main claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology

::: So what?

:: 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.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA! The stereotypically gross double standards on display!
     

Quote

 

::: It says something when the WTS  can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world

:: 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.

 

That and a penny will get you to Chicago.
But seriously, you've just illustrated perfectly that you're a Troll.
     

Quote

 

:::: Please, oh please, great Scholar! Please help me out and tell us where Thiele wrote about this. Oh, yeah. This is another John Aquila Brown situation, where you claim a source says something, but refuse to prove it.

::: You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder,

:: 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.

 

Nope. Just asking you to quit being a gross hypocrite and do the same work you demand of others.

Quote

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

But scholar JW pretendus has no problem being a blatant hypocrite.
     

Quote

 

::: if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree.

:: Normal manners do not necessarily apply to a gangrenous liar.

You are making me warm and fuzzy.

 

Only to be expected.
     

Quote

 

:: 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?

 

Some are. The ones who accept Willian Miller's prophetic speculations certainly are.

Quote

The only accepted scholarship favors 537 and not 538.

Nonsense. I disproved that with a handful of references in my above post. More to come.

Quote

 

::::: So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple.

:::: Bald assertion. Try an argument for once

::: Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment.

:: More meaningless verbiage.

Meaningless to you but not so for Ezra.

 

Were Ezra alive he would agree that your comment is meaningless gibberish.
     

Quote

 

:: I'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.

 

Really. So you admit that what you normally write in online forums is crap.

Quote

You would not know what constitutes a scholarly paper as you have never written one

Of course I have. They're all over online forums.

Quote

and yes it will be peer reviewed.

By who? AllenSmith?
     

Quote

 

::::: Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum

:::: Meaningless gobble-de-goop

::: You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning!

:: 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.

 

You'd obviously be hard put to produce intelligible English sentences even if you did.

Quote

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.

True, but you've never written such, and have no idea how to go about it. I mean, all you really know is Trolling.
     

Quote

 

::::: and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text.

:::: Do you disagree that the 1st year of the Return ended just before Tishri of either 538 or 537? No.

:::: Do you disagree that both modern scholars and the WTS agree that Cyrus' 1st regnal year ran from Nisan, 538 up to Nisan, 537 BCE? No.

:::: Your statement is more gobble-de-goop

::: I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts.

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

Try answering my questions to you.

 

Already done in spades. Do you really need help finding them?
All you've done here is spew another evasion.
     

Quote

 

::::: Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return.

:::: More bald assertion that ignores real argumentation.

::: Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding.

:: 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?

 

Yes. How many times do I have to tell you this?

Quote

Combining Ezra and Josephus can be tricky because they do  not share a common chronological datum which of itself negates 538.

Already explained in detail above. Of course, you're incapable of understanding such detail.
     

Quote

 

:::: As I have shown above and elsewhere, Ezra's chronological methods for dating kings' reigns are entirely irrelevant to the question of the date of the Return. In the relevant passages, Ezra gives no dates for kings, but refers every event to the year of the Return. He implicitly refers to this year when he states that by the 7th month (Tishri) the Jews were in their cities. He again refers to this year when he states that the Temple foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Jews' coming to Jerusalem. This is exactly the same as my above example of John's buying and house and car.

::: Nonsense.

:: What sentences above do you disagree with?

The first one.

 

Ah, something specific! But yet a another bald assertion. How many does that make in these two latest posts? Fifty?

Your disagreement will remain worthless bald assertion until you can come up with an actual argument.

:: Oh yeah -- none. You just disagree with the conclusion because it contradicts Mommy.

You proved my point.

Quote

 

::: Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return.

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

Not so.

 

Without specifics, it's indeed a generality, and meaningless. And another bald assertion.
     

Quote

 

::: You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return'

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

I ignore nothing. More substance is required from you.

 

You ignore everything you can't refute, and more to boot. You excuse your transparent dishonesty with meaningless bluff like this.
     

Quote

 

::: and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ?

:: 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.

 

More puffery and bald assertions! LOL! Yeah, you're just full of them.
     

Quote

 

:::: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

::: It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking.

:: Opinions based on no evidence remain speculation.

You have already admitted to some speculation.

 

At least, when I speculate, I don't pretend to my readers that I'm telling them established fact. Quite unlike you and Mommy Watch Tower.
     

Quote

 

::: Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538.

:: I 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.

 

You're again either Trolling or just plain stupid. I made it quite clear that those numbers represent the maximum amounts of time possible in each year -- not that they are the actual preparation time.
     

Quote

 

:::: I've already shown by extensive argument that each claim you've made about 538 or 537 applies almost equally well to the other. You have yet even to comment, other than by generalized bald assertions.

::: Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return.

:: Yet another meaningless generality.

Not to me.

 

Which means piss. Yet another evasion of argument.

Quote

 

:::: Not at all. Steinmann's objections apply equally well to 538 and 537, and he argues that the "substance of things" points to 533 BCE -- which does you no good at all.

::: No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty.

:: Yes. Do you need me to quote Steinmann at you?

 

No response from Super Troll.
     

Quote

 

::: At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper.

:: 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.

 

You'll reject it after not ignoring it, because it contradicts Mommy's claims.
     

Quote

 

:::: One extra month. Yowee, that's a lot more time. Here's why your argument is a straw man:

:::: According to modern scholars like Parker and Dubberstein, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October (Tishri) 539 BCE. Counting forward to Tishri, 538 BCE gives up to 11 lunar months for preparation and the return journey to Judah, since the Jews would almost certainly already have anticipated their release, based on Cyrus' known habit of releasing captives, and the prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Subtracting 4 months for the journey leaves 7 lunar months for preparation -- plenty of time. For a return in 537, we have an additional 13 months, including the extra month Ululu II, leaving 20 months for preparation. Now of course, 7 months or 20 months of preparation time for the Jews' Return is sufficient by any reasonable measure, and so your argument falls flat on its face.

::: The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree.

:: 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.

 

Bald assertions without evidence or actual argument.

Quote

 

::: There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense.

:: 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?

 

Admission? Not at all. As I said, I've been saying this all along. You're simply too dishonest, stupid and Trollish to have absorbed what I've said. Since we have no definite information about a lot of stuff, conclusions can hardly be definite -- if one is honest. Conclusions are reached on weight of evidence, where the evidence is clearly stated. But of course, the Watch Tower speculates every which way and pretends that its claims are based on definite evidence. So do you.

Quote

 

::: They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2.

:: 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.

 

Pure speculation, since Ezra says nothing about preparation or departure.

Let's see if you can quote Ezra to support your claim.

Quote

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.

Resorting to inventing straw men again.
     

Quote

 

::: Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix?

:: 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.

 

We know that he existed, and very little more.
     

Quote

 

:::::: You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.

::::: Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE

:::: That's not an argument -- it's a bald assertion with the included fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

::: It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact.

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

It is you who raised it.

 

I raised a valid point, and you made a false statement about it. You're evading again.
     

Quote

 

:::: Sort of, but not clearly. What they usually do is speculate that Cyrus issued his Decree in late 538 or early 537, allowing several more months than six for the Return time. So once again, WTS arguments along these lines are also evidence for a Return in 538.

::: Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history.

:: Still 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.

 

Yet another evasion.

Quote

 

::: Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE.

:: LOL! Continuing to equate WTS speculation with hard fact.

 

Scholar pretendus evades again.
     

Quote

 

::::: but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra
 
:::: What facts? This is more meaningless generalized puffery
 
::: The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1.

:: 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.

 

A flat out lie. You can't even produce a time line for 539-536, much less argue validly why the data I've set forth are wrong, or the conclusions based on that data.
     

Quote

 

:::: By all means, set forth your "facts" and arguments, and let's see where they lead.

:::: Oh, but I almost forgot. You've already done that, and been thoroughly debunked

::: I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship.

:: 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.

 

Right. Just like with John Aquila Brown's TWO PAGES. LOL!

Quote

 

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

 

Of course I have. You yourself admitted that I did years ago, but claimed it was wrong. And one exists here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ . And of course, even after several go-rounds you were unable to show why it was wrong -- just your usual bald denials and the usual puffery.

Quote

 

and that my comprehension skills are rather lacking

 

You've proved that in a great many ways over 15 years.

Quote

because I do not share your view of the alleged misrepresentation of the SA article in the Creation book.

That's just one example. And I'll wager that you STILL won't get it, even after my extensive demonstration above.

AlanF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Trolling now? Or just stupid?

The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for"

It is you that is being stupid not Jeremiah. Jeremiah simply used preposition or construct that in English can mean 'at' for', 'to', 'of' 'against'. NWT with References, 1984, App.3B, p.1571.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".

Modern scholarship is one thing, Bible Scholarship is more important. The fact is that modern scholarship says no such thing for anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew would not find this to be a issue. Most modern translations render the 'le' as 'for' but the older traditional ones including the Versions do not. Either way, scholar on the grounds of exegesis has accommodated both renderings in proof of the fact that the seventy years are of Judah and not Babylon. Scholar has outsmarted you all and you do not like to be beaten.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.

What modern scholarship says on this matter is interesting but is also very misleading because there is no consensus on many matters pertaining to the seventy years so your claim here is nonsense. The seventy years was a full period of seventy years with zero months. Your claim of four exiles is rather bogus as well.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.

No because you do present any scholarship only making wild claims about what scholars say about these matters and I do not have to work hard at all because I am abreast of the scholarly literature.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

How long were the Jews AT Babylon?

How long was the desolation of Judah?

Seventy years for both questions to the very month.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.

Yes please.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.

Be that as it may, for the Bible account cannot have the 70 years ending at Babylon's Fall because the Jews remained captive to and in Babylon until their release under Cyrus'Decree. The Bible most certainly provides a starting point for the 70 years at the Fall of Jerusalem when the land became totally desolated. I thank you for the reference I will consult same for my research paper on 537 BCE.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.

You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.

No, the Fall of Babylon marked the closing phase or conclusion of the 70 years with its final end with the Return in 537 BCE There is a difference between a 'conclusion' and an 'end'. Got it?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2

Not mostly, but definitely.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.

Well, heed it!

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.

Read Daniel 9: 2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey!

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.

Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.

The Hebrew word chorbah does not describe the totality of the destruction but there are many texts in Jeremiah that do describe the totality of the destruction such as 'without an inhabitant'. Jerusalem only experienced one desolation and that was the time accompanied by servitude and exile from the fall lasting for 70 years. Plurality of devastations is simply idiomatic of emphasis or totality and not of number.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:

<< . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>

It seems that you do not like Daniel because he discredits your nonsense for Daniel received the angelic vision prior to the release of the captives, after Babylon's fall in Darius' first year.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.

This is simply your exegesis of matters for Jer. 25:11-12, 27; 2 Chron. 36:21 were only fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE with the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE. Dan. 5 deals with the events of Babylon's Fall whereas Dan.9 deals with later events with the Return and the coming of the Messiah. Dan. 9 by means of v2. connects the seventy years of Jeremiah with the exile's returning home to restore true worship.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.

Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:

Not really and scholar loves a trap.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.
YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGE

There is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nope. Just gobble-de-goop

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

.

 Not gobble-de-goop but history.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.

No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

ou know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.

Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.

So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.

'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:

AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.

Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone

AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."

So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".

You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.

No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this

The statement 'for Babylon' is a rendering in English and can be easily translated with a locative meaning 'at', therefore in view of this fact there is no text that assigns the 70 years to Babylon but only to Judah and Judah alone.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.

Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive

Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.

In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.

Trolling indeed

The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

've told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.

Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!

Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22

I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.

Now you are a professional scholar so let us see what you can do with your 538 novelty and harness such scholarship. It is simply your opinion and that of others regarding the 'Myth of the Empty land' and whether Biblical references to the 'desolated land' are hyperbole. Yet, you claim to take the Bible seriously, talk about' scripture-text mining'.

Debunking Alan F's Higher Criticism of the Bible

Done

scholar JW emeritus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

scholar JW emeritus flunkedouticus wrote more debunkable nonsense:

Before I begin debunking yet another of this guy's posts, I want to point out another of his deceptions. Some years ago "scholar JW" seems to have gotten an undergraduate degree in general religious studies. Then he enrolled in a Master's program, but flunked out. He simply couldn't cut the mustard as a scholar, and that's quite evident in his posts on all forums. As I've said many times, he's no more a scholar than he is an astronaut.

In this post, I've restored the parts of the previous post that "scholar JW" deleted because he didn't want to reply to my arguments that debunked his claims. I'll point them out as we go along.

Note that even numbers of "::" preface my responses; odd numbers of ":::" preface "scholar JW's" responses.

Quote

 

::::::: Lexically, "le" can have either meaning, but not contextually or logically.

:::::: This is pure logic. A word cannot simultaneously have two completely different meanings.

:::::: But in the Orwellian world of the JWs, words mean whatever the Governing Body says at the moment

::::: A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator.

:::: 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?

:: Trolling now? Or just stupid?

:: The point is that the writer of Jeremiah was not so stupid or deceptive as to simultaneously mean both "at" and "for"

It is you that is being stupid not Jeremiah. Jeremiah simply used preposition or construct that in English can mean 'at' for', 'to', 'of' 'against'. NWT with References, 1984, App.3B, p.1571.

 

Yes, "le" CAN mean any of those words, IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT, but only one of them at a time. It can mean ONE AND ONLY ONE of them in a single context. Why? Because "at" does not mean "for" which does not mean "to" which does not mean "of" which does not mean "against". The basic meaning of "le" is "with respect to", and ONLY CONTEXT can determine what that means.
In Jer. 29:10 "le" means ONE AND ONLY ONE THING: "FOR", as proved by all modern scholarship, including -- why do I have to keep saying this? -- all modern Bible translations not based on the obsolete King James Version.
     

Quote

 

:: Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".

Modern scholarship is one thing, Bible Scholarship is more important.

 

We're talking about modern Bible scholarship, you moron. Yet another red herring.

Quote

The fact is that modern scholarship says no such thing for anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew would not find this to be a issue.

Of course it does, you despicable liar, as you admit right here:

Quote

 

Most modern translations render the 'le' as 'for'

 

Precisely!

Quote

but the older traditional ones including the Versions do not.

Exactly! And why is that? Because MODERN BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP has determined that the old KJV rendering is WRONG, and so are more modern renderings based on this obsolete KJV scholarship.

Quote

Either way, scholar on the grounds of exegesis

False. Scholar JW pretendus generally uses eisegesis, not exegesis, and demonstrably so (see above) in this case.

Quote

has accommodated both renderings

LOL! You mean "rationalized dishonestly".

Quote

in proof of the fact that the seventy years are of Judah and not Babylon.

Demonstrably false. I've quoted Bible scholars on this, the Bible, and other sources that prove you're wrong.

Quote

Scholar has outsmarted you all and you do not like to be beaten.

SuperTroll in action.


Here is SuperTroll ignoring an entire section demolishing one of his lies:

Quote

 

:::::: I should also point out that "scholar JW" has in the past argued strongly that "for" is the wrong meaning. But apparently the weight of scholarship has forced him to admit the facts. So now he's come up with a rationalization equivalent to "John is at/for the grocery store."

::::: No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'.

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

::: Nope, have always presented both views in the main,

:: What you said 13 years ago on the JWD forum proves you're a liar:

:: << Leolaia, Narkissos and Alan F

:: I am not the smartest fellow around and you characters in comparison to me are geniuses. However, let me warn you of this sobering fact that I am very stubborn, open minded and persistent as a dog with a bone. The matter of this Hebrew proposition in Jer 29:10 is of singular importance to me and has the potential of fatally destroying the Jonsson hypothesis.

:: My scholarship whatever its status and my gut instincts tells me that the NWT is brilliantly correct in this example. >> -- https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22

 


SuperTroll ignoring another demolishing of his lies:

Quote

 

:::::: The above is a thoroughly disconnected and incoherent defense of the claim that the Hebrew "le" means BOTH "at" and "for" in Jer. 29:10. . .

:::::: Of course, understanding Jer. 29:10 to mean 70 years FOR Babylon presents no problem -- except for WTS Tradition.  

::::: The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support.

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

:: Readers who are not simple-minded will note that "scholar JW" ignored my counter-example.

 


SuperTroll ignoring another debunking of his lies:

Quote

 

:::: 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'.

:: Here, let's try scholar JW pretendus' method of argument: FALSE!

:: Now let's try a valid method of argument: Your claim is false for reasons shown repeatedly in this thread -- which you've largely ignored -- and for reasons shown to you repeatedly for at least 15 years, such as in the above link.

 


SuperTroll ignoring still another debunking of his lies:

Quote

 

::: The matter is open to the opinion of the translator

:: Not when ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion. Once again: that's why all modern Bible translations, except those derived from the obsolete King James Version, have something like "for Babylon" not "at Babylon".

 


Finally we see SuperTroll actually attempting an answer:

Quote

 

::: and interpretation of the 70 years

:: Once again, ALL MODERN SCHOLARSHIP converges to the same conclusion: the 70 years were a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East -- NOT a period of desolation of Judah or of exile/captivity of "the Jews". You can't even decide on whether there were 70 years, 8 months of desolation and 70 years, 0 months of exile/captivity, or 70 years, zero months of desolation and 69 years, 4 months of exile/captivity. You simply pretend that this fatal problem doesn't exist. And you pretend that your so-called "exile of the Jews" comprised ONLY the exile of 587 BCE (which you falsely claim happened in 607 BCE), whereas the Bible clearly indicates FOUR exiles occuring in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE. Of course, all this has been proved above and in much material in books, articles and online forums for more than 40 years.   

What modern scholarship says on this matter is interesting

 

Not merely interesting, but correct by any measure of good scholarship. Watch Tower Tradition, on the other hand, has NO scholarly support.

Quote

but is also very misleading because there is no consensus on many matters pertaining to the seventy years

So what? The exact disposition of the 70 years is unimportant when all historical dates of interest have been solidly established by secular and biblical studies, and by correspondences between them. The exact disposition of the 70 years is important only to Watch Tower Tradition.

Furthermore, the consensus of modern scholarship is that WTS Tradition is wrong about what the 70 years means, so if you want to invoke "consensus", you're hosed.

Quote

so your claim here is nonsense.

LOL!

Quote

The seventy years was a full period of seventy years with zero months.

Already disproved dozens of times. Repeating your lies does not make themm true.

Quote

Your claim of four exiles is rather bogus as well.

Nonsense. Jeremiah 52 explicitly lists THREE (597, 587, 582) -- which you claim you agree with.

Daniel 1 describes Nebuchadnezzar's besieging of Judah and taking Jehoiakim, in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year. He also took a tribute of temple utensils, and according to Berossus, took Jewish captives, which other considerations indicate were Daniel and other elites. Jeremiah 46:2 states that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Secular history dates the battle of Carchemish to Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, 605 BCE; therefore Jehoiakim's 4th year (by Non-Accession-year Tishri dating) equals his 3rd year by Accession-year Nisan (Babylonian) dating, which equals Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Therefore, exiles were taken in 605 (possibly early 604).

That's a total of FOUR exiles.

Quote

 

::: so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.

:: No, it gets YOU into trouble, because you have to work really hard to get around the 'dogmatism' of that great big world of scholars out there, whose writings I'm basically just parroting.

No because you do present any scholarship only making wild claims about what scholars say about these matters

 

Really. Quoting what they say is making wild claims. Yes indeed. SuperTroll at his finest.

Quote

and I do not have to work hard at all because I am abreast of the scholarly literature.

You're quite insane.

In the material below, SuperTroll demonstrates his incompetence in doing simple arithmetic.

Quote

 

::::: The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home

:::: 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?

:: You're again proving that you can't do simple arithmetic or even read with comprehension. So let's try again, but with a diagram that shows your above-stated sequence of events.

:: 1. Jews are at/in Babylon.
:: 2. 70 years end.
:: 3. Some unspecified time passes.
:: 4. Jews leave Babylon.
:: 5. About 4 months pass in travel.
:: 6. Jews reach Judah; 70 years plus unspecified time plus 4 months end.
:: 7. Jews are in Judah, so Judah is no longer desolate.

:: How long were the Jews AT Babylon?

:: How long was the desolation of Judah?

Seventy years for both questions to the very month.

 

LOL! Even with the help of a simple chart, SuperTroll gets it wrong.
Yes, indeed: 70 years plus 8 months equals exactly 70 years which equals 69 years plus 4 months. Wheee!
     
     

Quote

 

::::: The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon

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

::: The Bible says so

:: Scholar pretendus style bald assertion: No.

::: and I have argued accordingly.

:: And your arguments have been fully debunked many times, in this thread and elsewhere. Would you like me to point out exactly where? JW Insider already provided one link.

Yes please.

 

Provided on almost every page where someone intelligent replied to your lies. Too many to list.
A comprehensive list of appropriate debunking resources is provided here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
     

Quote

 

::::: and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years.

:::: 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

:: Nope -- that's a fake problem -- a problem that YOU and Mommy WTS invented.

:: Once again, the STANDARD view held by all competent modern scholars, is that the 70 years referred to a period NOT SPECIFIED EXACTLY in the Bible (meaning it might be an exact or round number) of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East. These scholars are unanimous that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE with Babylon's overthrow. Since the Bible gives no starting date, various scholars have proposed tentative starting dates such as 612, 609, 605, etc. -- all of which give APPROXIMATELY 70 years.   

Be that as it may, for the Bible account cannot have the 70 years ending at Babylon's Fall because the Jews remained captive to and in Babylon until their release under Cyrus'Decree.

 

Repeating your lies does not make them true.

Jeremiah clearly states that the Jewish exiles were to be captive not just to Babylon as a sort of nebulous entity, but to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons (Jer. 27), and 2 Chronicles clearly states that the exiles were captive to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons UNTIL the Persian empire began to rule. Therefore the captivity to "Babylon" -- to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons -- ended upon Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE. Daniel 5 is extremely clear about this.

The captivity of the Jews in Babylon to the Persian empire ended when, under Cyrus' edict, they returned to Judah. The FOUR captivities lasted no more than 68 years, but the Supremacy of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar and his sons lasted as much as 70 years. That's what Jeremiah clearly states was to be.

Quote

The Bible most certainly provides a starting point for the 70 years at the Fall of Jerusalem when the land became totally desolated.

False. The Bible NOWHERE makes such a provision. You can quote no Bible verse to that effect.

Quote

I thank you for the reference I will consult same for my research paper on 537 BCE.

You will find that it debunks many of your claims, but fully supports what I've said here and elsewhere on Neo-Babylonian chronology, and supports STANDARD secular views.
     

Quote

 

::: 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.

:: Incoherent gibberish. I'll try to decipher it and comment accordingly.

:: Almost all modern scholars, as JW critics have proved hundreds of times, put the fall of Babylon in October 539 BCE, and the actual Return somewhere between October 538 and October 537. You're well aware of this, as we've been discussing it at length in this thread.

:: You've also managed to contradict your own claims and those of the WTS. You stated that "the Fall of Babylon" "brought the 70 years to its conclusion", and that is exactly correct. But you went off into gibberish by adding the nonsensical "with the Return as the actual end" of the period. If the Fall of Babylon brought the 70 years to a CONCLUSION, then those 70 years ENDED a year or two before the Return. You can't have it both ways.   

No, the Fall of Babylon marked the closing phase or conclusion of the 70 years with its final end with the Return in 537 BCE There is a difference between a 'conclusion' and an 'end'. Got it?

 

You're just winging it now and making up bullpucky as you go. You've made up an artificial distinction between 'conclusion' and 'end' and applied the terms to your own hypotheses -- all without any evidence whatsoever. Not even support from Mommy Watch Tower, and no support from real scholars. But the Bible uses the same word "male'" in the relevant cases for the end of the 70 years (Jer. 25:12; 29:10), which is variously translated as "completed", "fulfilled", "accomplished", etc.
You're dead wrong on this, and too pigheaded to admit it.
     

Quote

 

::::: The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired.

:::: 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.

:: Mostly yes, but not in 9:1,2

Not mostly, but definitely.

 

Above we find SuperTroll evading the main point again, which was his claim of "not in 9:1,2". Anyone want to defend this pathological liar?

Quote

 

::: He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events.

:: True, but irrelevant. The point is what he meant in Dan. 9:1,2.

Well, heed it!

 

SuperTroll evades a major point yet again.
I've already explained many times what Daniel meant. You continue to ignore it, and substitute bald assertions for reasoned, evidence-based argument.
     

Quote

 

::: He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment,

:: Nonsense. Daniel NOWHERE says anything about the 70 years' "near fulfillment". That is pure speculation on your part, and that of the WTS.

Read Daniel 9:2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey!

 

SuperTroll shoots himself in the foot every time he wants to cite the Bible. So here we go:

Original NWT:


<< I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. >>

Analytical Key to the Old Testament, John Joseph Owens, Vol. 4, p 739. For each verse in the Old Testament, word by word, this gives the Hebrew, an English translation, and a reference to the Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:

<< I Daniel perceived in the books the number of years which according to the word of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years >>

Nope, not a word about "near fulfillment". The Bible itself proves that you've lied again.

Quote

 

::: the desolations

:: The NWT correctly uses "devastations" here, not "desolations". The Hebrew chorbah implies a range of severity of damage, not necessariy complete destruction. You've been informed of this many times, and you know very well that the Bible speaks of various cities that were "devastated" but not "desolated" -- devoid of inhabitants. A recent hurricane devastated Puerto Rico but did not desolate it.

:: Furthermore, Daniel spoke of devastations, plural, and that is what is recorded in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles -- Jerusalem experienced SEVERAL rounds of devastatation. Each time that it was violated by being sacked or having captives taken or finally destroyed, it was "devastated" in the sense of chorbah.

The Hebrew word chorbah does not describe the totality of the destruction

 

Wow! Another rare admission of fact!

Quote

but there are many texts in Jeremiah that do describe the totality of the destruction such as 'without an inhabitant'.

Which we've already established is hyperbole for "damaged badly with lots of captives taken".

Quote

Jerusalem only experienced one desolation

It was never completely desolated, as virtually all modern scholars attest, and as my quotation showed.

Quote

and that was the time accompanied by servitude and exile from the fall lasting for 70 years.

Continuing to be stubbornly wrong. Exiles occurred FOUR times: 605/4, 597, 587, 582. Each was called a "devastation".

Quote

Plurality of devastations is simply idiomatic of emphasis or totality and not of number.

More bald assertion. Any scholarly evidence for this? I can post scholarly evidence against your assertion.
     

Quote

 

::: of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon.

:: That's part of Daniel's ambiguity. All that he wrote in vss. 1-2 amounts to this: Jeremiah wrote about 70 years in connection with the desolations of Jerusalem. This is so obvious that John Bergsma wrote, in the above quotation:

:: << . . . it requires no specialized historical knowledge -- only a familiarity with the Jewish scriptural tradition -- to conclude that Daniel experiences the vision of Dan 9 AFTER the defeat of Babylon and shortly before the edict of Cyrus that would fulfill the Jeremianic prophecy. >>

It seems that you do not like Daniel because he discredits your nonsense

 

Wrong. As shown above, Daniel discredits YOUR nonsense.

Quote

for Daniel received the angelic vision prior to the release of the captives, after Babylon's fall in Darius' first year.

So what? The angelic vision has NOTHING to do with the sequence of events we're talking about: whether Daniel's looking into Jeremiah's words occurred before or after Babylon's fall. The sequence described in my above reference is simple:

1. Babylon falls.
2. Daniel looks into Jeremiah.
3. Angelic vision.
4. Cyrus' edict.

You claim that 1. and 2. should be swapped. But you've given NO evidence, just a bald assertion. And 3. and 4. have nothing to do with the order of 1. and 2.

Quote

 

::: 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.

:: A completely misleading summary. In chapter 5 Daniel describes the end of Babylon, alright, but he explicitly states that the Kingdom of Babylon was being handed over to the Persians, and that Belshazzar was killed. Thus ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Babylonian Empire, fulfilling Jer. 25:11-12 and 27, and perfectly fitting the description of 2 Chron. 36:21: the Babylonian Empire ended when the line of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" ended and the Persian Empire took over. Thus, the end of the 70 years is clearly described in Daniel 5, and resolves the ambiguity of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 nowhere says that the 70 years ended when Jerusalem later became inhabited.

This is simply your exegesis of matters

 

Nonsense. It is the exegesis of almost all modern biblical scholars.

Quote

for Jer. 25:11-12, 27; 2 Chron. 36:21 were only fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE

Wrong. They CLEARLY state that the 70 years ended with the calling to account, or conquering, of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty by the Persians.

Quote

with the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE.

What you've done is execute eisegesis based on WTS Tradition.

Quote

Dan. 5 deals with the events of Babylon's Fall

Yowee! Another true statement!

Quote

whereas Dan. 9 deals with later events with the Return

For which claim you've given ZERO evidence -- only bald assertion.

Quote

and the coming of the Messiah. Dan. 9 by means of v2. connects the seventy years of Jeremiah with the exile's returning home to restore true worship.

Wrong. I debunked this claim above.
     

Quote

 

::::: In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had  almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE.

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

::: This statement is meaningless.

:: Far from it, since I carefully explained exactly what is contradictory about your exposition.

:: Here we find scholar JW pretendus in a trap of his own making:

Not really and scholar loves a trap.

 

Which SuperTroll has blindly fallen into.
     

Quote

 

:::::: Which is it, Neil? 70 years ending AT Babylon or 70 years ending AT Judah?

SuperTroll still can't answer this.

:::::: Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were four exiles mentioned in the Bible: the exile of Daniel and his companions (605/4), of Jehoiachin and most of the Jews (597), of Zedekiah and most of the remaining Jews (587) and finally of more Jews in 582. The WTS and "scholar" ignore all but the one in 587 (which they claim for 607).  

::::: The 70 years ended at Judah.

:::: 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?

:: What you've made clear is that you're arguing that 70 years plus 8 months is the same length of time as exactly 70 years. If that's not the action of a troll, I don't know what is.

:: YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER MY CHALLENGE

There is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge?

 

SuperTroll is at it again. If the Jews were AT Babylon for 70 years, then they were AWAY FROM Judah for 70 years plus 8 months of two-way travel time.

Is that really so hard to understand?
Do you really want to double down on claiming that 8 months equals ZERO TIME?
     

Quote

 

::::: There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall.

:::: More gobble-de-goop.

::: No just the political reality which you choose to ignore.

:: Nope. Just gobble-de-goop

Not gobble-de-goop but history.

 

It's your language that's gobble-de-goop, you moron. Your sentence makes NO SENSE.
     

Quote

 

:: The dates are irrelevant to the narrative. The point of my quoting those passages was that they prove your claim that "the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim" was wrong. And of course, you haven't the grace to admit your wrong claim.

No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land.

 

SuperTroll evades again! The point was your false claim that the 587 (607) exile was the largest. Not a major claim but it proves that you're incapable of admitting error.
     
 

Quote

 

:: You know I don't. I'm arguing here about what the Bible actually says, not about whether it represents reality.

:: Your question is another ad hominem and red herring.

So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good.

 

Nope. SuperTroll strikes again.
     

Quote

 

:: Here you're continuing to engage in a blatant attempt at verbal sleight of hand -- yet another gross lie. The point here is not what "le" means in Jer. 29:10, but that you FALSELY CLAIMED that other uses of "le" in Jer. 29 support your claim. I showed that these other uses DO NOT support your claim.

:: You are nothing but a pathological, lying troll.

'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at.

 

SuperTroll continues his red herring.
     

Quote

 

:::::: Yes, along with all the other nations round about, beginning between 609 and 605 BCE.

::::: Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE.

:::: 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.

:: You have explicitly claimed that "these nations" referred to "the Jews". Note our exchange from a few days ago:

:: AlanF: No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.

:: Scholar JW: Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone

:: AlanF: Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."

:: So here we have your direct statement that "these nations will serve for 70 years" means "Judah and Judah alone will serve for 70 years".

:: You lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.

No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold.

 

SuperTroll lies again with another bald assertion.

Quote

 

:::::: And of course, even by WTS chronology, Jews served for 80, 70 and 65 years.

::::: Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah.

:::: 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.

:: Yet again, scholar JW pretendus ignores my point, but this time adds a meaningless red herring.

 

SuperTroll ignores another pointing out of his fallacy.

Quote

 

::::: Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy.

:::: Tyre did NOT serve Babylon for 70 years in the sense you would like to claim. Rather, it served directly for only a subset of 70 years, as the Isaiah book admitted, and it served in the general sense that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East for 70 years, as Jer. 29:10 states.

:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

 

And SuperTroll ignored it a 2nd time.

Quote

 

:::::: Wrong. It was supreme from the time it conquered Assyria in 609 until its fall in 539. Daniel 5 clearly states that Babylon was no more as an empire after 539 BCE. Of course, you don't accept the Bible.

::::: The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign.

:::: Not really. Both Babylon and Egypt vied for power in the region, but Babylon was dominant in most of it from 609 onward. When Babylon decisively defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Babylon was most definitely the dominant power. Thus, whether the "70 years" was approximate or exact is immaterial; Babylon was dominant for 66 to 70 years -- close enough for government work.  

:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

Quote

 

:::::: You're contradicting yourself

::::: No. Read more carefully what I have written.

:::: I did; you're contradicting yourself. Do I really need to write out each of your contradictory statements and explain why they're contradictory?

::Scholar JW pretendus ignored my argument.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

Quote

 

:::::: So what? No ancient documents pinpoint the date

::::: Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years.

:::: So what? The Bible says nothing specifically about it; therefore it must not be important for Bible history.

:::: Of course, this has been pointed out to you dozens of times already.

:: Scholar JW pretendus ignored this, too.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

Quote

 

::::: But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE.

:::: Still begging the question.

:: And again scholar JW pretendus ignored my comment.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

Quote

 

:::::: What is exaggerated? Oh, you don't actually have anything to say.

::::: Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious.

:::: Except that, since you have no idea what you're talking about, but are merely spewing red herrings and straw men, you have no idea what you meant, since you can't even state it.

:: Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

Quote

 

:::::: Yes, it does. But of course, all those passages contradict WTS claims

::::: No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years.

:::: Wrong. As I keep pointing out, when you claim nonsense like "these nations" means "the Jews and only the Jews", you have no legs to stand on.

:: Scholar JW pretendus again ignores my refutation.

 

SuperTroll ignores another one.

This must be some kind of a record -- SuperTroll ignores 8 arguments in a row.

Quote

 

:::::: They're wrong. Only of IN Babylon. You can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon

::::: Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking.

::: 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

:: So here we have scholar JW pretendus confirming my statement that you can find no WTS teaching that the 70 years were FOR Babylon, but of course, he refuses to admit he lied about this

The statement 'for Babylon' is a rendering in English and can be easily translated with a locative meaning 'at',

 

Self-evident nonsense.

Quote

therefore in view of this fact there is no text that assigns the 70 years to Babylon but only to Judah and Judah alone.

Nonsense based on nonsense is still nonsense.
And of course, SuperTroll refuses to admit that he lied about WTS teaching, so his triply nonsensical claim is another red herring.
     

Quote

 

::: 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.

:: Which is complete nonsense. As I have argued above, you cannot have it both ways. If the 70 years were completed AT Babylon, they were ALREADY COMPLETE when the Jews returned home some time later.

:: Again, only a dyed-in-the wool troll could think that such nonsense would convince anyone. Such nonsense has only one purpose: to confuse the naive

Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.

 

Which again ignores the simple fact that you can't spend 70 years AT Babylon and AWAY FROM Judah when the two-way travel time is 8 months.
SuperTroll is definitely insane.
     

Quote

 

:::: 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.

:: So you still claim that 70 + 8 months = 70 = 69 + 4 months.

:: In other words, exactly 70 years AT Babylon is exactly 70 years AWAY FROM Babylon.

:: Trolling indeed

The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction.

 

LOL! Yes, 8 months of two-way travel time is imaginary. Absolutely bonkers, this one!

Quote

 

:::::: Which period? 70 years + 8 months; 70 years; or 69 year + 4 months?

::::: The period was a full 70 years with zero months.

:::: Yep, you're stupid beyond belief.

::: Yep! So sayeth the fool.

:: Yep, 70 years + 8 months = 70 years = 69 years + 4 months

 

Anyone! Anyone? Is SuperTroll stupid or insane?
     

Quote

 

::::::: Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon'

:::::: Yes there is, for reasons described above, and at much greater length in other sources

::::: Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word.

:::: 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.

:: I've told you dozens of times: ALL of them are based on the obsolete King James Version. And the NWT follows the KJV, not especially because of the KJV's obsolete tradition, but because of its committment to its own Tradition that has been in place since Russell's earliest days.

Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use.

 

LOL! So your argument boils down to the standard refrain of JWs everywhere: It's true because Mommy Watch Tower says so.
     

Quote

 

::::::: It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus.

:::::: Such arguments would be wrong, since as you're well aware, a variety of ancient documents point clearly to 70 years of Babylonian domination, and 50 years of the Jewish Temple being desolated.

::::: The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years  of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus.

:::: 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.

:: I've never seen such gross hypocrisy. You refuse to do a little searching in this thread, and perhaps in other online forums, for a subject I've clearly described, yet demand that I search through a pile of books including Thiele's three, looking for a reference you allude to but refuse to specify!

:: Well I'll help you out anyway. Try these for starters:
    https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/90425/jer-29-10-dr-ernst-jenni-replies-leolaia-scholar?page=3#1522815
    https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87714/daniels-prophecy-605-bce-624-bce?page=22
 
I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does.

 

LOL! Yet another SuperTroll evasion. The point is not about "the debate and Jenni's opinion". It is that you demand of others what you are not willing to do yourself.


You, Mr. SuperTroll, are the epitome of hypocrisy.
     

Quote

 

:::::: The Bible itself indicates that Judah was sparsely populated, not desolated. So does archaeology. The Bible often states things with hyperbole, so you have to account for that.

::::: The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years.

:::: 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.

:: Hardly. What I do is marshall ALL the information, and see what bits of it are consistent. Then I make conclusions, exactly as professional scholars do. And of course, I take account of the arguments and evidence given by such scholars before coming even to a tentative conclusion. As you're well aware, modern scholarship is well aware of all the issues, and has concluded that "the myth of the empty land" is indeed a myth, as the quotation below indicates. Therefore, the Bible's references to "complete desolation" must be hyperbole; otherwise me must declare that the Bible is wrong.

:: << ftn. [11] This is now strongly refuted by the commonly used term "the myth of the empty land" (see also [[H. M. Barstad, "After the 'Myth of the Empty Land': Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-Babylonian Judah," in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 3-20]]. . . >> -- From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period, Sara Japhet, Eisenbrauns, 2006, p. 358.

:: This is nothing new for Watch Tower views. Jesus said you must hate your family to be his disciple. Did he mean literally hate? Or hate in a relative way? If the latter, then his words were hyperbole.

:: We have a similar situation with the creation story in Genesis. A literal reading indicates that the universe is some six thousand years old, yet the Watch Tower argues that that figure, derived from its own version of biblical chronology, is not to be taken literally -- it's hyperbole.

 

Supertroll again ignores my argument, instead posting another series of red herrings:

Quote

Now you are a professional scholar so let us see what you can do with your 538 novelty and harness such scholarship.

As an amateur, I've posted in amateur forums like this one my entire writing 'career'. That's not likely to change. Nor is my basic "thesis": there is more evidence in favor of a Return in 538 than in 537 BCE.

Quote

It is simply your opinion and that of others regarding the 'Myth of the Empty land' and whether Biblical references to the 'desolated land' are hyperbole.

So you and Mommy Watch Tower are far more knowledgeable than the world of modern scholars. You morons, who took nearly 70 years to realize there is no "zero year". LOL!

Quote

Yet, you claim to take the Bible seriously,

I do in many instances, especially when use of it makes it so simple to debunk entire sections of Watch Tower doctrine.

Quote

 

talk about' scripture-text mining'.

 

Quoting is not mining. MIS-quoting is mining -- as you've now learned with respect to the Creation book.

AlanF

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • R. Gray

      R. Gray 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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