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

[AlanF]

On "scholar JW's" dishonest scholarship

By now, anyone who has read the back and forth between "scholar JW" and myself and others, with understanding, can see that his main approach to debating is based on repeating false arguments and so forth that have been repeatedly debunked in this thread and on other forums years ago. He fails even the most basic tests of good scholarship by refusing to provide source references, demanding that others provide source references that have already been provided, out and out lying, ignoring arguments, misrepresenting debate opponents' arguments, misrepresenting source references including the Bible, arguing by straw men, red herrings, and misdirection, deliberately giving false arguments, and generally committing every scholarly sin known to man.

For example, in my post above, I counted the following numbers of "scholar JW's" scholarly sins in the post I replied to:

Lies:                 16
False arguments:         10
Misdirections/evasions:     9
Red herrings/straw men:     7
Ignoring arguments:         14

"Scholar JW" only managed literally a handful of true statements in his post that were true.

These scholarly sins would get any scholar-in-training thrown out of University. Perhaps that's why "scholar JW" flunked out of his Master's program. In online forums, they generally get the sinner labeled a troll, since that's the definition of an Internet troll -- someone who enjoys throwing out lies and deliberately provocative material just to sit back and enjoy the reaction.

Some trolls are just plain sociopaths. Others are quite insane, and might not even realize that they're trolling when they lie. It's hard to tell about them without a clinical diagnosis. But they're easy to recognize as trolls after reading a few of their posts, because they always pretend to be truthful and scholarly, but act the opposite. And of course, there are always the laughably naive readers who are taken in, in the same way that conspiracy theory promoters are often very good at trolling, when the troll's lies jibe with their prejudices.

It's quite obvious how "scholar JW" goes about replying to a post. He states clearly that he doesn't bother to edit them after the first draft. Rather than carefully reading and understanding what he's replying to, he skims it, looking for keywords that access a canned reply somewhere in his brain. Then he spews back the canned reply, without regard for how well it relates to his opponent's statements.

That's why, when "scholar JW" is challenged with material he's not seen before, he tends to fall on his face. He has no canned replies forthcoming, and so he must actually try to read material with comprehension.

For example, in my last few posts, I challenged "scholar JW" to see if he could "detect problems" in Watch Tower literature. He claimed he could, but my challenge demonstrated that, even after three attempts, with stronger and stronger hints from me, he was unable to detect them.

To see how badly "scholar JW" failed my challenge, use your browser to search for "lewontin" in the last few posts from him and me.

Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

By now, anyone who has read the back and forth between "scholar JW" and myself and others, with understanding, can see that his main approach to debating is based on repeating false arguments and so forth that have been repeatedly debunked in this thread and on other forums years ago. He fails even the most basic tests of good scholarship by refusing to provide source references, demanding that others provide source references that have already been provided, out and out lying, ignoring arguments, misrepresenting debate opponents' arguments, misrepresenting source references including the Bible, arguing by straw men, red herrings, and misdirection, deliberately giving false arguments, and generally committing every scholarly sin known to man

Looks like scholar JW has you rattled. I care nought for your appraisal of my scholarship because you have offered nothing but a lot of blustering and 'hot air'.

I will continue to respond to your efforts to discredit WT Chronology and whether or how you respond to my rebuttals is of little concern to me.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.

Bring it on.

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

scholar JW trollicus wrote:

We note the inflated self-importance:

Quote

Looks like scholar JW has you rattled.

No, just very amused.

Quote

I care nought for your appraisal of my scholarship because you have offered nothing but a lot of blustering and 'hot air'.

So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.

Quote

I will continue to respond to your efforts to discredit WT Chronology and whether or how you respond to my rebuttals is of little concern to me.

Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.
     

Quote

 

:: Given "scholar JW's" trollish behavior, from now on my replies to him will simply point out his scholarly sins without further comment, and focus only on his statements that have actual content.

Bring it on.

 

Been doing that for 15 years.

We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

No, just very amused.

I am glad that I amuse you.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.

How can I increase the sins per post?

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.

Does not matter for I  will always get their attention.

16 hours ago, AlanF said:

Been doing that for 15 years.

We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.

Been doing the same with you over the last 15 years. We both have a shared history. It is rather curious how you showed up on this forum after being sacked from  the JWD forum.

scholar JW emeritus

[Anna]

According to Gerard Gertoux:

“Chronology is the backbone of history” is usually taught in schools but in the same time the first fall of Babylon is currently fixed today (2016) either in 1595 BCE or in 1651, 1531, 1499 depending on historians! In Egyptology the situation is still worse because each Egyptologist has his own chronology (+/- 20 years)! Such a difference in timeline prevents one from reaching the historical truth. It is for this reason that from Herodotus, the “father of history” (in fact the father of scientific and chronological inquiry), Greek historians gradually established a system of scientific dating in order to write a universal history. Many astronomical phenomena (observed and described by Babylonian astrologers), which are well identified such as eclipses, enable anyone today (with at least an undergraduate level) to synchronize these ancient dating systems and anchor them on absolute dates. As incredible as it may seem this is still not done (among the hundreds of thousands of theses in history there is none which focuses on chronology, except the one of Isaac Newton in 1728 entitled: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended). The purpose of the present brochure is to give the chronologies of the main ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Hittite, Mitannian, Israelite, etc.) with their synchronisms as well as all absolute dating based on astronomical events (which have been precisely dated in a calendar) like eclipses, solar or lunar, and some Sothic risings".

Download the "brochure" here: https://www.academia.edu/26080694/Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Ancient_World_from_1533_BCE_to_140_CE

 

 

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendicus trollicus wrote:

Quote

 

:: No, just very amused.

I am glad that I amuse you.

 

You amuse LOTS people.
     

Quote

 

:: So says the SuperTroll with an average of 50 scholarly sins per post.

How can I increase the sins per post?

 

Keep doing what you're doing.

Quote

 

:: Except that now everyone knows you're SuperTroll, and your "rebuttals" are merely blowing wind.

Does not matter for I  will always get their attention.

 

Much like Bozo the Clown did.
     

Quote

 

:: Been doing that for 15 years.

:: We know how SuperTroll works: after defeat after defeat after defeat, he finally gets tired and goes away, then pops up like a boil.

Been doing the same with you over the last 15 years. We both have a shared history.

 

So says the Monty-Python-esque Black Knight. Armless, legless, lying on the ground, hollering "come back and fight!" That's why you amuse so many.

Quote

It is rather curious how you showed up on this forum after being sacked from  the JWD forum.

LOL! I was sacked for telling the truth: back then, Simon and other moderators were drinking heavily while doing their moderating chores, and annoying serious posters with their inebriated foolishness. It appears that they've learned some self-control since then.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Anna wrote:

Thank you for posting this interesting material!

Quote

 

According to Gerard Gertoux:

“Chronology is the backbone of history” is usually taught in schools but in the same time the first fall of Babylon is currently fixed today (2016) either in 1595 BCE or in 1651, 1531, 1499 depending on historians! In Egyptology the situation is still worse because each Egyptologist has his own chronology (+/- 20 years)! Such a difference in timeline prevents one from reaching the historical truth. It is for this reason that from Herodotus, the “father of history” (in fact the father of scientific and chronological inquiry), Greek historians gradually established a system of scientific dating in order to write a universal history.

 

Yes, and an abbreviated form of that history has come down to us in the form of the so-called Ptolemy's Canon.

Quote

Many astronomical phenomena (observed and described by Babylonian astrologers), which are well identified such as eclipses, enable anyone today (with at least an undergraduate level) to synchronize these ancient dating systems and anchor them on absolute dates.

Indeed. Many serious amateur students, like me and Ann O'Maly, have done that for parts of the Neo-Babylonian period. Modern astronomical software is amazingly accurate, and pretty much necessary for amateur work.

Quote

As incredible as it may seem this is still not done

Not true.

Quote

(among the hundreds of thousands of theses in history there is none which focuses on chronology, except the one of Isaac Newton in 1728 entitled: Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended).

Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but Newton is well known for his fanatical devotion to religious studies. Among the most brilliant scientists of all time, having invented classical physics and calculus, it's no surprise that he undertook such a tedious and difficult study. His dates for the Neo-Babylonian period are generally no more than 1-3 years different from the modern commonly accepted dates.

Quote

The purpose of the present brochure is to give the chronologies of the main ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Hittite, Mitannian, Israelite, etc.) with their synchronisms as well as all absolute dating based on astronomical events (which have been precisely dated in a calendar) like eclipses, solar or lunar, and some Sothic risings".

Having skimmed the dates for the Neo-Babylonian period, it's clear to me that Gertoux accepts modern chronology as set forth by the latest scholars.

I should point out that for Near-Eastern dates much earlier than about 600 BCE, accuracy to within one year is increasingly questionable. Not that dates are necessarily wrong, but some are not on as firm a footing as dates after about 600 BCE, such as Neo-Babylonian chronology. That's because, the further back you look, the less ancient documentation exists. But for many dates near and after 600 BCE, multiple independent sources pinpoint them.

AlanF

[Anna]

17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

it's clear to me that Gertoux accepts modern chronology as set forth by the latest scholars.

I don't think he just accepts it, he arrived at those conclusions himself through his studies of astronomy. He is quite an expert I would say.

https://www.academia.edu/6112370/Basic_astronomy_for_historians_to_get_a_chronology

 

 

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I don't think he just accepts it, he arrived at those conclusions himself through his studies of astronomy. He is quite an expert I would say.

https://www.academia.edu/6112370/Basic_astronomy_for_historians_to_get_a_chronology

Well if he really arrived at his conclusions independently, good for him! That would provide yet another confirmation that standard Neo-Babylonian chronology is on a firm footing.

Gertoux is not the only one to have arrived at such conclusions on his own. Carl Olof Jonsson did that more than 40 years ago.

AlanF

[AlanF]

52 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

Mining Lewontin at his best, actually saying something worthwhile.

You completely missed the point: the original Creation book MISQUOTED Lewontin by claiming that he said the opposite of what he did say. The revised Creation book fixed HALF of the misquote, and left the remaining HALF of the misquote intact.

Lewontin did NOT say that he accepts or endorses the idea of a Supreme Designer -- he said that that was the view of most 19th century scientists. He clearly stated his own view: EVOLUTION produces effects that LOOK AS IF a Supreme Designer were at work.

In line with that, Lewontin also explain that what has been called the APPEARANCE of Design is just that -- an appearance, but an appearance that is false, because it is produced by evolution by natural selection. The revised Creation book continues falsely to give the impression that Lewontin accepts that the mere appearance of Design IS Design.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: You completely missed the point: the original Creation book MISQUOTED Lewontin by claiming that he said the opposite of what he did say. The revised Creation book fixed HALF of the misquote, and left the remaining HALF of the misquote intact.

:: Lewontin did NOT say that he accepts or endorses the idea of a Supreme Designer -- he said that that was the view of most 19th century scientists. He clearly stated his own view: EVOLUTION produces effects that LOOK AS IF a Supreme Designer were at work.

:: In line with that, Lewontin also explain that what has been called the APPEARANCE of Design is just that -- an appearance, but an appearance that is false, because it is produced by evolution by natural selection. The revised Creation book continues falsely to give the impression that Lewontin accepts that the mere appearance of Design IS Design.

I can't get a copied quote  from the "Creation" book on my WT cd-rom to paste- here, or anywhere else on or offline.

 

It's easy, if you do it properly. First, get yourself a decent Text Editor like NotePad+ (it's free). Then get the WT CDROM on your screen. Copy-Paste (Ctrl-C Ctrl-V) your text from the WT CDROM into your Text Editor. Edit as needed. Finally, Copy from NotePad+ (Ctrl-C) and Paste it into the Reply Box for this forum.

But you can read the CD ROMs, right? And I assume you have the hardcopy books, or can get them? If so, get hold of one published in 2003 or earlier, and compare it with one published in 2004 or later.

I'd offer to send you a photocopy of each, but you'd most likely claim that I altered them.

In the meantime, here are the texts taken from the 2003 and 2015 WT CDROMs:

2003:
<<
Chapter 11

The Amazing Design of Living Things

WHEN anthropologists dig in the earth and find a triangular piece of sharp flint, they conclude that it must have been designed by someone to be the tip of an arrow. Such things designed for a purpose, scientists agree, could not be products of chance.

2 When it comes to living things, however, the same logic is often abandoned. A designer is not considered necessary. But the simplest single-celled organism, or just the DNA of its genetic code, is far more complex than a shaped piece of flint. Yet evolutionists insist that these had no designer but were shaped by a series of chance events.

3 However, Darwin recognized the need for some designing force and gave natural selection the job. “Natural selection,” he said, “is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.”1 That view, however, is now losing favor.

4 Stephen Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say that substantial change “may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”2 Gordon Taylor agrees: “Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained.”3 Geologist David Raup says: “A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance.”4 But is “pure chance” a designer? Is it capable of producing the complexities that are the fabric of life?

5 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.
>>

2015:
<<
Chapter 11

The Amazing Design of Living Things

WHEN anthropologists dig in the earth and find a triangular piece of sharp flint, they conclude that it must have been designed by someone to be the tip of an arrow. Such things designed for a purpose, scientists agree, could not be products of chance.

2 When it comes to living things, however, the same logic is often abandoned. A designer is not considered necessary. But the simplest single-celled organism, or just the DNA of its genetic code, is far more complex than a shaped piece of flint. Yet evolutionists insist that these had no designer but were shaped by a series of chance events.

3 However, Darwin recognized the need for some designing force and gave natural selection the job. “Natural selection,” he said, “is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.”1 That view, however, is now losing favor.

4 Stephen Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say that substantial change “may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”2 Gordon Taylor agrees: “Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained.”3 Geologist David Raup says: “A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance.”4 But is “pure chance” a designer? Is it capable of producing the complexities that are the fabric of life?

5 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.
>>

Quote

I think your quote of it in your article on the Corior website is misleading.

Prove it by citing the originals, and point out where anything I said is misleading. Do it word by word, and sentence by sentence.

Quote

I know that elsewhere, you claim WT changed it in a later edition and you supplied a new quote.

I posted the quotations in an above post to "scholar JW".

Quote

I'm not saying that doesn't match what's on the cd-rom [haven't seen it in awhile] but I think it's misleading too because the context , from where you 'mined' it in the "Creation" book, clarifies the meaning into something quite different than what you complain of.

No it doesn't. If you disagree, then by all means let's see you prove it.

AlanF

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

^Thank you for all this.  ^

And,  btw, I will admit   -provisionally speaking, you understand-    that  your quotes do appear to match the cd-rom,  and do not appear to have been altered in any obvious manner -that I've been able to detect so far- that is. 

And, sorry for delay.  

-Will reply tomorrow-

 

Always ready to help. That's been my method for a couple of decades.

The quotations had better match the CDROMs, since I copied them from those. And I checked them against the hard copy books. I'd suggest looking on jw.org/ but it appears that the Creation book is out of print.

AlanF