M.J., I'm glad to see how quickly you've caught on to the breathtaking dishonesty of this scholar pretendus. Note that he'll not comment intelligibly on my post here.
scholar pretendus wrote:
: Scholars of genuine reputre get the facts right
True, which is why you're a mere scholar pretendus. But it's not that you don't have the intelligence to get them right -- it's that you don't have the moral fiber to admit that you worship the Watchtower cult.
: and this is what Jonsson as a pseudo does not do for he cannot work how many lines of evidence there are whether it is 17 or 18.
We've been through this at least half a dozen times before. Jonsson counts two fragments of the same tablet as ONE line of evidence. That's because he's an honest scholar and understands the simple fact that breaking a piece of evidence into many pieces does not create many pieces of evidence. The fact is: you understand this, but your moral lack forces you to grasp at any straw you can dig up, no matter how stupid.
: His hypothesis is not scholarship but simply bashing the beliefs of a religious group of which he was a member and believed in its teachings including its chronology.
Since Jonsson simply collates and summarizes diverse scholarly writings about Neo-Babylonian chronology, such as can be found in works like The Cambridge Ancient History and Jack Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, your claim is obviously grossly dishonest. It is once again based solely on your moral stupidity and desire to remain in your cult. It's also grossly dishonest because you know very well that Jonsson began his studies of chronology when he was a Regular Pioneer in order to refute what a critic told him.
: Such lines of eviderce whatever their number do not destroy 607 but simply present alternative chronologies with their related interpretations.
Utter rubbish! Jerusalem cannot have been destroyed both in 607 and 587/6 B.C.
: The calcuable 607 well established by celebrated WT scholars has nothing to fear from the theories of men or apostates.
Just as all cult claims have nothing to fear from the facts.
: The date's calculation is faithful to the Bible and the secular evidence
It is faithful to neither. It contradicts biblical passages, ignores others, ignores all secular evidence, and has no secular evidence in its support. All of this is easily proved by your own posting history -- you have yet to present any such evidence, you do not comment substantively on any criticisms, and you don't even quote the Bible itself.
: and is proven by the fact that 1914 saw the fulfillment of the Gentile Times.
LOL! Everyone who carefully examines the facts of history comes to see how stupid a claim this is. You know it as well, since you've completely failed to come up with a shred of evidence to support this claim, and utterly failed to intelligibly critique the many refutations of it.
: The fact that the Jonsson hypothesis is fuzzy at the beginning of the seventy years is critical to his whole hypothesis because his 17/18 lines of evidence is based upon a singular interpretation of the seventy years namely that it was one of servitude alone.
This once again assumes that the figure of 70 years is of any real historical significance. The fact is that it is significant only to one insignificant group of people: modern day Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. No else cares, or needs to care.
But your claim is not even correct. If one assumes that the 70 years is an exact number, then from Babylon's fall in 539 B.C. back to 609 B.C. fills the bill perfectly. In 609 B.C. Babylon and its allies defeated the last remnants of the Assyrian empire and became the undisputed dominant power in the Middle East. One can even argue, using JW notions, that this was the date when the "head of gold" of Daniel's dream image became reality, and that Babylon became one of the prophetic World Powers.
: Fallacy and contradiction have no place in logic or reason and have no place in constructing a chronology
This is hysterically funny, coming from you. It goes to show, as if any further demonstration were needed, that your gross scholastic dishonesty does not stem from intellectual stupidity, but from a devotion to your cult leaders.
: and that is why 586/587 is impossible because these dates are unreasonable in ignoring the epochal event of a seventy year period of servitude-exile and desolation.
The usual grandstanding, and standing logic and reason on its head.
: Jereremiah 25:12 supports the interpretation forementioned because it factually refers to an already ended or fulfilled seventy years with the Return from Babylon with the judgement upon Babylon to be experienced along with all of the other nations.
Utter nonsense. The passage plainly states that the 70 years would end when the king of Babylon -- a king that, according to Jeremiah 27: 6,7 must be of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty -- was punished. That punishing inarguably occurred in 539 B.C.
Now let's see if you can manage to honestly answer a simple question:
What are the beginning and ending dates of the 2nd year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon?
M.J., if you're still reading by this point, you'll note that scholar pretendus will avoid this question.
AlanF
