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

[AlanF]

On 2/7/2018 at 9:47 PM, Nana Fofana said:

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-

By now you've no doubt confirmed that the quotes I gave are correct, and prove that the Watch Tower Society, in its 1985 book Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?, deliberately misrepresented the views of zoologist Richard Lewontin as he set them forth in the referenced 1978 Scientific American article.

What do you make of this quote mining by "Jehovah's representatives"? Do you think you can trust them to tell you the truth about evolution and creation? Or about science in general when it conflicts with Watch Tower Tradition?

Do keep in mind that this particular bit of quote mining is only the tip of the iceberg. I've documented more than 100 instances of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, invalid argumentation, and many other scholastic sins in the Creation book, with nearly 100 shown here: https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-disagreements-about-evolution.html

Given its demonstrated proclivity to misrepresent science and scientists, can you trust the Watch Tower Society to properly and fairly quote and represent scholarly sources with reference to the 1914 chronology? Or to argue fairly and validly with regard to such? Especially given its demonstrated practice of lying about all manner of biblical and historical material in connection with its 1914 Tradition?

We have an excellent example of both incompetence and scholarly dishonesty with "scholar JW" here. He claims great competence as a scholar, yet when challenged to detect a simple misquote in the Creation book, he failed -- even after being given stronger and stronger hints three times. He has failed to acknowledge similar misquotes in Watch Tower literature with respect to historical and biblical material regarding the 1914 chronology. He has demonstrably and deliberately lied about all manner of scholarly things. In these things he has emulated the Watch Tower Society quite well.

So, Nana Fofana and all you other JW defenders, will you continue to put faith in an organization that does not hesitate to lie to you?

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana said:

Quote

AlanF,  I just wanted you to know that I did write a long reply the next day, as promised, but it disappeared when I tried to submit it.  I was really tired then and it was late at night but I started over from scratch,  and maybe an hour or two later tried to post.  And that one too,  just vanished instead of posting.

You should have taken my advice and written your post in a simple text editor, and saved it to your hard drive. That's the only way to ensure you don't lose stuff in the face of unreliable forum software.

Quote

 

All I remember about them is that the second one quoted some of this article by Lewontin.-

Billions and Billions of Demons
 
. . .

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/

 

I don't see that this has anything to do with the fact that the Creation book deliberately misrepresented Lewontin.

Quote

I am sorry he is rude about Dawkins.  He's rude, and excessively dismissive IMO, about a lot  of people in this book review.  I'm wondering if that was either more appropriate in 1997, or maybe more acceptable [even if inaccurate] for some other reason.

Lewontin can be testy at times -- nothing to be concerned about. But he's right, that sometimes scientists go beyond what is justified.

So, what was your point in quoting Lewontin's book review of Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World?

AlanF

[AlanF]

587 Or 586? A Challenge for "scholar JW"

In an attempt to throw cold water on modern scholarship, "scholar JW" has often raised the question of why some scholars date Jerusalem's destruction to 586 BCE while others date it to 587 BCE. The standard answer has been, "because the Bible is our only direct source of information, and its statements are ambiguous."

Following the arguments of Edwin Thiele in various editions of The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, many scholars cite 586 for Jerusalem's destruction. Following various other arguments, other scholars cite 587. In a 2004 paper in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Rodger Young resolved the question completely, and in so doing, he cleared up several other fine points of the history of the time around Jerusalem's destruction.

Young's resolution turns out to be quite simple: a proper understanding of Ezekiel 40:1 comes down in favor of 587.

Here is a challenge for "scholar JW": figure out exactly what it is about Young's resolution that pinpoints 587.

I have no doubt that "scholar JW" will ignore this challenge. He simply does not have the mental horsepower to understand Young's analysis sufficiently, any more than he was able to understand the much simpler problem of exactly how the Watch Tower Society misrepresented the words of Richard Lewontin in its 1985 Creation book.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

All that you are doing is trying to make your problem or that of current scholarship regarding the controversy about 586 or 587 BCE for the date for the Fall, my problem. It is no problem for me or for other WT scholars because we have carefully determined or fixed 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

Rodger Young in his paper 'WHEN DID JERUSALEM FALL? in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2004, pp.21-38 used Decision Tables to resolve the scholarly dispute over 586 or 587 BCE? Using this Methodology, Young concluded incorrectly that 587 was the correct date. In the Introduction to his study on p. 21 he reminds the reader that "all dates for that event must be derived from the scriptural record" but then continues that such must be tied to the last events not of the Biblical record as such but rather to the prior events described in the Babylonian archives which are the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE? and the initial capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachin in 597 BCE? Both dates for these events are also problematic. So already,Young begins his solution on a 'slippery slope' of at least two dates. Young should have adhered to that earlier rule "derived form the scriptural record" which is exactly what WT scholars have done and avoided his later nonsense.

In order to respond to your challenge, the focus of Young's argument or solution is described in the first paragraph on p.22 wherein he describes a 'methodology' based not on the data itself but on various presuppositions and interpretation of the data in association with principles of calendation described in the previous paragraph on p.21. Then he applies this methodology to Ezekiel 40:1which in a later paper, 2006 in the AUSS, vol.44, No.2, pp. 265-283 'EZEKIEL 40:1 AS A  CORRECTIVE FOR SEVEN WRONG IDEAS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION' discusses this text in some depth. (Scholar suspects that Young is a SDA)

For Young, this one verse is highly significant in resolving a number of OT chronological issues but is he correct and is his Methodology correct? I would argue that the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah is the true biblical corrective and not Ezek.40:1. He further argues in the use of Decision Analysis that all possible combinations or scenarios should be used and that argument can be well applied to the 607 BCE hypothesis and to others such as the 586 or 587 BCE hypothesis. Next, he describes the difference between a 'ladder' chart favoured by some chronologists and the 'horizontal' chart favoured by others introducing a new method of the use of 'simple formulas'. The crux of the his article is the date for the captivity of Jehoiakim which he gives the traditional date of 597 BCE which again is problematic because WT Chronology assigns the date 617 BCE and the date Nisan/Tishri 593 BCE. Further, in his pursuit of 587 BCE for the Fall much is made as to whether in Ezek. 40:1 the 'start or the beginning of the year' was counted from Nisan or Tishri but by means of his Table 1a, he decides on Tishri years. But this is ambiguous according to one scholar and that is why WT scholars have been neutral on this point for it is one of theology not of chronology.

I could write much more about this matter but Young's paper is informative and useful to those supporters of 607 BCE because it challenges our critics to reconsider their hypotheses and to reconsider other alternative viewpoints.

scholar JW emeritus

 

[AlanF]

44 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

All that you are doing is trying to make your problem or that of current scholarship regarding the controversy about 586 or 587 BCE for the date for the Fall, my problem. It is no problem for me or for other WT scholars because we have carefully determined or fixed 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

Rodger Young in his paper 'WHEN DID JERUSALEM FALL? in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2004, pp.21-38 used Decision Tables to resolve the scholarly dispute over 586 or 587 BCE? Using this Methodology, Young concluded incorrectly that 587 was the correct date. In the Introduction to his study on p. 21 he reminds the reader that "all dates for that event must be derived from the scriptural record" but then continues that such must be tied to the last events not of the Biblical record as such but rather to the prior events described in the Babylonian archives which are the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE? and the initial capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachin in 597 BCE? Both dates for these events are also problematic. So already,Young begins his solution on a 'slippery slope' of at least two dates. Young should have adhered to that earlier rule "derived form the scriptural record" which is exactly what WT scholars have done and avoided his later nonsense.

In order to respond to your challenge, the focus of Young's argument or solution is described in the first paragraph on p.22 wherein he describes a 'methodology' based not on the data itself but on various presuppositions and interpretation of the data in association with principles of calendation described in the previous paragraph on p.21. Then he applies this methodology to Ezekiel 40:1which in a later paper, 2006 in the AUSS, vol.44, No.2, pp. 265-283 'EZEKIEL 40:1 AS A  CORRECTIVE FOR SEVEN WRONG IDEAS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION' discusses this text in some depth. (Scholar suspects that Young is a SDA)

For Young, this one verse is highly significant in resolving a number of OT chronological issues but is he correct and is his Methodology correct? I would argue that the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah is the true biblical corrective and not Ezek.40:1. He further argues in the use of Decision Analysis that all possible combinations or scenarios should be used and that argument can be well applied to the 607 BCE hypothesis and to others such as the 586 or 587 BCE hypothesis. Next, he describes the difference between a 'ladder' chart favoured by some chronologists and the 'horizontal' chart favoured by others introducing a new method of the use of 'simple formulas'. The crux of the his article is the date for the captivity of Jehoiakim which he gives the traditional date of 597 BCE which again is problematic because WT Chronology assigns the date 617 BCE and the date Nisan/Tishri 593 BCE. Further, in his pursuit of 587 BCE for the Fall much is made as to whether in Ezek. 40:1 the 'start or the beginning of the year' was counted from Nisan or Tishri but by means of his Table 1a, he decides on Tishri years. But this is ambiguous according to one scholar and that is why WT scholars have been neutral on this point for it is one of theology not of chronology.

I could write much more about this matter but Young's paper is informative and useful to those supporters of 607 BCE because it challenges our critics to reconsider their hypotheses and to reconsider other alternative viewpoints.

scholar JW emeritus

 

As I said, you're in no way up to my challenges.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

You  are all smoke and mirrors for you have not understood Young's articles by posing some nonsense challenge which proves your childish behaviour. When I try to respond you run away with your tail between your legs. Good riddance!!!

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

You  are all smoke and mirrors for you have not understood Young's articles by posing some nonsense challenge which proves your childish behaviour. When I try to respond you run away with your tail between your legs. Good riddance!!!

scholar JW emeritus

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Your response is barely even Pidgin English. Pigeon English, maybe.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F You would not know the difference between the two just as you don understand Lewontin's quotation used properly in the Creation book. Outsmarted once again!!!!! scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

38 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F You would not know the difference between the two just as you don understand Lewontin's quotation used properly in the Creation book. Outsmarted once again!!!!! scholar JW emeritus

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

More Pigeon English.

No, I "don unnastan nuttin!"

The fact that the Creation book misrepresented Lewontin is proved by the revised edition having to it, and by Lewontin himself complaining about the exact same misrepresentation by young-earth creationist Gary Parker.

Dispela nambawan pikinini setan na bagarap olgeta!

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

Nutting of da sort. Lewontin made a simple admission and this was simply picked and quoted by the WT writer for the Creation book. Lewontin should not have made that statement if he did not wish that statement to be quoted. It is too late when the horse has bolted or was he caught with his pants down?

scholar JW emeritus

[AlanF]

29 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Alan F

Nutting of da sort. Lewontin made a simple admission and this was simply picked and quoted by the WT writer for the Creation book. Lewontin should not have made that statement if he did not wish that statement to be quoted. It is too late when the horse has bolted or was he caught with his pants down?

scholar JW emeritus

Sorry, Einstein, but you can't salvage truth from a pack of lies. You continue to repeat the Watch Tower's lies. This is easy to demonstrate with a handful of questions -- which you have refused to answer:

First, what was Lewontin's "simple admission"?

You will not be able to truthfully and simply answer this.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

Lewontin simply stated that "Organisms...have morphologies, physiologies and behaviours 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 marvellous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer". Well stated and correctly used in the marvellous and very scientific 'Creation' book.

scholar JW emeritus