Scholar pretendus wrote:
: The fact of the matter is that 607 is the only correct date for the Fall as it alone conforms to all of the biblical and secular data.
Your usual meaningless puffery. It is at once highly amusing and sad.
The fact is that 607 corresponds to no secular data whatsoever. Neither you nor the Society have ever offered any secular data in support of your ridiculous claims besides the 539 date, which is meaningless since everyone agrees on it.
Proof: I demand that you post your secular data to this board. You will, of course, offer no such data, just as you've always failed.
The most you'll offer is the undisputed secular date of 539 for the fall of Babylon, which is meaningless for the McFadzen Hypothesis because no one disagrees with this date.
What you might offer as well, is not secular data, but mere unsubstantiated Watchtower claims, such as that the Jews returned in 537 not 538 B.C., that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon spoken of by Jeremiah and Ezra were actually 70 years of desolation of Judah, and so forth. In short, you'll stupidly claim that Watchtower interpretations -- which no good scholar agrees with -- are equal to secular data. I can validly say this because it's precisely what you've always done.
The fact is that the Bible makes a number of ambiguous statements about the 70 years, such as in Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21. But it makes a number of completely unambiguous statements clearly defining or otherwise bearing on the 70 years, such as in Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 27:6, 7 and 2 Chronicles 36:20. But you and other Watchtower apologists stand logic on its head, claiming that the ambiguous statements are not and then attempting to find laughably dishonest ways to reinterpret or ignore the clear statements.
Why do you apologists do this? Because you have no choice, in order to remain Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing, while also deceiving yourselves that you're doing "God's work". The proof of this is trivial: If the Society changed its teaching about these things, you'd meekly go along. If you didn't, you'd be branded "apostates" and kicked out of the JW cult.
All objective observers of the Watchtower know very well that the McFadzen Hypothesis is dead in the water because it's based on deceit of the worst kind: that of self.
: The other dates are simply unworkable.
Any number of fine scholars have proved how very workable they are. For example: Jack Finegan writing in the latest edition of Handbook of Biblical Chronology, and Carl Jonsson writing in The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
: The date 539 is correct as it is well attested by scholarship wheras the derived dates proposed for the Fall are not.
This is among the most ridiculous statements you've ever made. It ignores the historical facts that the 539 date was originally derived from the absolutely secure dates of 597 B.C. for Jerusalem's 2nd surrender to Babylon, 568/7 B.C. for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and 605 B.C. for his accession date. Scholars back in the late 19th century published these dates and corrected the older chronologies, finding that Babylon fell in 539 rather than 538 or 536 B.C. as earlier authors thought. This was done simply by going forward from 605 by the extremely well attested number of years determined for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. During this historical scholarly process, it was found that 539 could also be confirmed by working backwards from data found by combining several texts, including the highly problematic Strassmeier tablet.
This is another good example of JW apologists turning history ass-backwards to suit their cultish agenda. Rather than dealing with the actual facts of history, they ignore the facts and make false claims that have no backing.
: Dates prior to 539 derived from the secular data alone are entirely suspect
Only according to the discredited McFadzen Hypothesis.
: so it is far wiser to accept the chronology based upon the research of celebrated WT scholars.
Like 1799, 1874, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 2000 and so forth? LOL!
: It is not inconsistent as you allege for WT scholars to accept 539 alone and from that date derive other dates.
Of course it is, for reasons explained above: Since 539 was first derived from pre-539 dates via solid secular data, to claim that that data is wrong is inconsistent with the facts. It is also self-inconsistent because, outside of Watchtower claims, there is no evidence whatsoever that post-539 data is any more or less valid than pre-539 data. Indeed, the only reason for such a claim is the self-serving special pleading needed to support the McFadzen Hypothesis.
: The date 539 is simply a pivotal date.
Not at all. According to virtually all good scholars, it's a derived date. It's derived from astronomically established "pivotal" dates such as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 568/7 B.C. Indeed, according to most Neo-Babylonian scholars, there are almost no dates better established (by multiple independent lines of evidence) than 597 and 605, as discussed above. From these, all others are derived.
: The date for the Return is also derived from secular and biblical evidence and is well established as 537 BCE
Utter nonsense. There is no secular evidence whatsoever pointing to 537 for that event. If you think there is, then point it out, along with your source references. But we know that you can't do it. Indeed, the only secular evidence I'm aware of pointing to any date for the return of the Jews is Josephus' statement that the temple was begun in Cyrus' 2nd year, which along with Ezra 3 indicates that it was begun in the spring of 537, which in turn shows that the Jews were already in Judah by late summer of 538.
: and from this date such scholars have determined 607 for the Fall.
The very "celebrated scholars" who originated the McFadzen Hypothesis! Zowie!
Just who are those "scholars"? Some might include one Christopher Bowen back in the 1860s, but other than his name, no one seems to know anything about him. Then there's the venerable Nelson Barbour, who came up with the notion of 606 and 1914. Then, of course, we have the inestimable Charles Taze Russell, who wasn't a historical scholar at all but simply adopted Barbour's chronology lock, stock and barrel and claimed that God had revealed it to him. Then we have the adulterous Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who claimed to be inspired, but made an ass out of himself with 1925 and various other things, ultimately dumping all of his predecessor's historical dates except for 1914. And finally we get to the brilliantly insane Freddie Franz, who in the decade beginning in 1943, attempted to patch up the obvious failings of his predecessors' chronologies and did things like move 606 to 607 B.C. With Freddie, Watchtower chronology was set in stone.
: The methods hereby employed simply involve methodology which varies from one chronologist to another. Different methodolgies will yield different chronololgies.
This is an entirely meaningless sentiment. By certain "methodologies", astrology can be claimed a valid science. So what?
The point is that some methodologies are invalid. Methodologies that ignore facts because of preconceived desires are obviously invalid. The McFadzen Hypothesis, along with the methodologies it is based on, i.e., those of the cerebrally deficient "Watchtower scholars" mentioned above, are a case in point.
: The data from Josephus does not confirm 538 for the Return as he gives a different result for this event.
This is gibberish. What "different result" are you talking about?
The fact is -- and you've now confirmed it -- that you cannot refute the fact that Josephus' statement about the temple being started in Cyrus' 2nd regnal year requires that the Jews returned in 538, as described above.
Do you actually believe your own gibberish, or are you just grandstanding for an imaginary JW audience?
: The fact of the matter is that the Return occurred in 537 BCE.
The fact is that neither you nor the Society have ever given the slightest bit of actual data in support of this date. The Society makes a simple claim, without any supporting data at all, and rightly expects that the JW community will swallow it. This is what they've done going back to Russell's time.
Come on there, scholar pretendus! Surely you can manage to find some data to back up the McFadzen Hypothesis! Or are you going to stay in the privy for months on end?
: The Jonsson hypothesis is very silent about this matter
Nonsense. Jonsson clearly explains why 538 is much more likely. Look it up in the index. Are you lying here, or just being stupid?
: and if the Society' s date was in total error then Jonsson would have made a big deal out of it. His silence on this matter is deafening.
Do I really have to type in Jonsson's discussion for you?
: Your hypothesis on this matter is simply stupid and infantile and provides nothing to prove 538 for the Fall.
The usual fallback of the braindead.
: The biblical data is not ambiguous as you allege.
We've been over this a million times, scholar pretendus. Burying your head in the muck doesn't make the facts go away.
: You cowardly hide behind a misinterpretation of certain texts
Really. You claimed to be able to refute in a mere couple of hours my 15 hours of typing up a post in which I set forth in detail much of this material. The fact that you must resort to such a silly response shows that you have no response aside from infantile claims. The fact that in your post here you set forth no supporting data whatsoever further proves it.
: in order to avoid a simple methodology which puts the biblical record before the secular.
In reality, the McFadzen Hypothesis relies on a simple-minded methodology that merely claims to put the biblical before the secular, but actually puts Watchtower doctrine ahead of both. This is again proved by the simple fact that JWs such as yourself would go along with the Society if it changed its doctrine, just as you've gone along with dozens of other major doctrinal changes over the years.
: Celebrated WT scholars have to use the same biblical data
Once again, they demonstrably ignore a good deal of biblical data, and misrepresent the rest. A case in point: 2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews served the king of Babylon until the royalty of Persia began to reign. That royalty began to reign in 539 B.C., and therefore, according to the Bible itself, the Jews were no longer servants to the king of Babylon after 539 B.C. This blows away any attempt to claim that the statements in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 apply to Persian kings. Watchtower literature completely ignores this devastating fact. So do you.
: and they are able to arrive at a definite date of 607 BCE which you and Jonsson cannot do along with most of scholarship.
You again unjustifiably assume that the exact year of Jerusalem's destruction is of any importance in the real world.
: There is no problematic biblical data
"We've always been at war with Oceania!"
Translation: "I close my eyes to all problems."
: because our scholars use an event- based methodology whereas most other scholars use a regnal-based methodology in order to construct a chronololgy for the OT. So, it is not the biblical data that is the problem but your choice of methodology.
This is actually a good description of the drastically dishonest "scholarly methods" used by Watchtower writers. An "event-based" methodology necessarily relies heavily on interpreting the significance of events that are not clearly set out in the Bible. But this relies entirely on the validity of the interpretation.
For example, Jeremiah 25:11, 12 does not clearly spell out the dates that were to apply to the 70 years of servitude. Therefore, doctrinaire interpreters like you and Rolf Furuli can come up with all sorts of whacked out claims about what the words actually mean. But when a regnal-based method is used, such as relying on the clear statement in 2 Chronicles 36:20, that the Jews' servitude ended when the reign of the Persians began, there is only one reasonable view, namely, that the servitude ended in 539 B.C. No interpretation is necessary because the statement is completely unambiguous.
: Such methodology which is simple and immediate avoids many of the problems involve in interpreting the biblical and calendrical data.
Once again, the "methods" of the McFadzen Hypothesis and its Mommy's "avoid problems" not by dealing with and solving them, but by ignoring them. For example, as I said above, the Society completely ignores the problem of 2 Chronicles 36:20, and so do you.
: Ours works, yours fails.
Only to arrive at the uniquely insignificant date of 607. In all else, "yours" fails.
Like I predicted, Neil, you've failed to deal with anything in my 15-hour post.
AlanF
