Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Gedanken

  Alan,

  "celebrated WT scholars" puts me in mind of Samuel Johnson whom I misquote:

  A WT scholar is like a dog walking around on its hind legs; it's not that it's done well that's cause for celebration, it's that it's done at all.

  As for your "what if" question re: 607. Essentially the Society has already done that with its redefinition of a generation. Why change the dates 607/1914 when you can, instead, eliminate their significance altogether? What does it matter when the kingdom was set up if the "generation" can last forever? Incredibly the Society has stripped 1914 of all meaning by (i) declaring that the kingdom was set up then but invisibly (here Carl Sagan had it right!) and (ii) that this date marked the start of a time period which would see the end of the world, but which period could go on indefintely. However, this second sleight of hand by the Society overestimates the thinking capacity of the dubs who still remain.

  It's hugely entertaining to watch dubs such as scholar mentalmasturbaticus trying to defend dates that mean nothing at all for current WT eschatology.
• 

  ellderwho

  Its interesting the way Scho--liar has evaded the most simplistic way to refute the so-called "apostate" chronology. Post a workable kings list. Also amusing is how AlanF has disembowled Scho--liar on every front of the argument without any refutation.
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus said:

  : If it took you 15 hours to research and present your latest nonsense it will me a mere couple of hours to write up and refute your nonsense on 538 BCE for the Return, your misuse of Josephus and your dishonest exegesis of Jeremiah 25:12.

  Sure, typing paraphrases designed to misrepresent the content of source references -- your stock in trade -- takes relatively little time or thought.

  Typing up a careful commentary that accounts for each and every word in what you're responding to takes much time and thought.

  But JWs are extremely good at the religious "thought byte".

  : By the way I am still looking for those four lines of evidence making a total of 18 lines of evidence which is supposesd to be an advancement from the third edition of the Jonsson hypothesis presented currently in the fourth edition?

  Jonsson provides 17 lines of evidence (cf. GTR4, p. 189). Surely you can read at a level sufficient to do this research.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Interesting points, Gedanken.

  Of course, for the largely oblvious JW community to understand this, they'd have to read it in The Watchtower. After all, isn't that God's Word?

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  You need to go back to school and learn your arithmetic. Jonsson claims to present 18 lines of evidence but on page 189 he only refers to seventeen different evidences. However, on the opposite page, p.188, he cites Another four astronomical tablets (8-11) which are henceforth briefly discussed. The inclusive 8-11 is not three but in fact four altogether so Jonsson has made an error and so have you but then the whole 18 lines of evidence appears to be somewhat contrived.

  scholar JW
• 

  ackack

  Funny, my copy of the book on page 189 says seventeen lines, not eighteen.

  Not that I see the point in quibbling how lines of evidence there are, I think a refutation of them would be far more useful.

  ackack
• 

  stevenyc

  A side point:

  My knowledge in this area is quite limited, so I've decided to some research. So, I've just ordered my copy of Gentile Times Reconsidered from Amazon. Any other recommendations?

  Scholar, I'd like to get a full understanding from both sides of the argument, so if you could supply some references for me it would be appreciated.

  Thanks in advance.

  Normal programming schedule should now resume...

  steve
• 

  Jeffro

  You need to go back to school and learn your arithmetic. Jonsson claims to present 18 lines of evidence but on page 189 he only refers to seventeen different evidences. However, on the opposite page, p.188, he cites Another four astronomical tablets (8-11) which are henceforth briefly discussed. The inclusive 8-11 is not three but in fact four altogether so Jonsson has made an error and so have you but then the whole 18 lines of evidence appears to be somewhat contrived.

  That's it? That's 'scholar's' point-by-point rebuttal of AlanF's post? Whilst it can be fun to quibble over redundant copy-editing errors, he as completely ignored the facts and responded to nothing.
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus said:

  : You need to go back to school and learn your arithmetic.

  I abase myself, Oh great scholar pretendus!

  : Jonsson claims to present 18 lines of evidence but on page 189 he only refers to seventeen different evidences. However, on the opposite page, p.188, he cites Another four astronomical tablets (8-11) which are henceforth briefly discussed. The inclusive 8-11 is not three but in fact four altogether so Jonsson has made an error and so have you

  Zowie! You sure told me!

  : but then the whole 18 lines of evidence appears to be somewhat contrived.

  LOL! Riiiiiight! Only those celebrated WT scholars can present evidence that isn't contrived.

  You're such a twit, Neil. Only a morally stupid and completely dishonest person can dismiss such a massive amount of scholarly evidence -- evidence that Jonsson has simply found in published or near-to-be-published scholarly literature and brought together in one book. You have the gall to claim that the entire community of scholars of the ancient middle east, for the last couple of centuries, is completely out to lunch while those moronic WT "scholars" are the only ones who have it right. Even after these morons change the doctrine of JWs like someone with OCD changes his underwear! With every post, Neil, you show the world what terrible damage the JW cult can do to someone's mind.

  AlanF
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  AlanF,

  For the life of me I can no longer bring myself to read scholar predictus’s rambling dodges. About the only thing his “scholarship” is good for is having some general idea of current Watchtower opinions, since this is what his “scholarship” worships; hence predictably in lockstep without exception, or question.

  I agree with Gedanken, the real value of scholar predictus is the entertainment of peering into the privacy of a mind busy in a Bethel washroom gawking at the latest Watchtower whilst he spanks the monkey (of his mind of course)!

  Marvin Shilmer