607
by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlanF
In the post "Re: Re: 607 04-May-06 04:33" scholar pretendus said to AuldSoul:I have also promised to deal with issues raised by Alan F and I have to give this some attention also in due course. But the answers will come in due course.
Right. In due course. Of course, "in due course" has now come to about a week and a half. And all readers know very well that scholar pretendus' claim here is his usual attempt at subterfuge -- to claim to be about to deal with a challenge, then to ignore it for some time, and finally after sufficient time has elapsed that he has largely forgot what he said, to claim that he has fully answered all challenges.
You lying hound, scholar pretendus. When are you going to become honest so as to honor "the God of Truth" that you claim to worship?
My immediate response to your lies was:
:: . . . the answers will come in due course.
: Riiiiiiight.
: Just like your claimed answer to my "15 hour post" many months ago has come in due course.
: LOL! You're the biggest joke on this board!
To date, you've proved me right.
Oh, and by the way, one of the references you earlier declined to provide until prompted by Leolaia, should be arriving at my door within a couple of weeks. The other has already arrived and is devastating to your claimed scholarship. Indeed, it demonstrates how completely devoid of honesty you are, and how thoroughly incompetent you are as a researcher.
AlanF
-
AlanF
Scholar pretendus said to Lady Liberty:
: I think if you are going to make a case out of your alleged misuse of a quote fro Harper's Bible Dictionary then you provide a photocopy of the relevant page and then we can proceed from there.
Done, you moron:
Look at the following for proof of authenticity:
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/harpers_BD_p1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/harpers_BD_p2.jpgLook at this for proof of the Society's (more specifically, Fred Franz's) gross dishonesty:
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/harpers_BD_p306.jpg
AlanF
-
Leolaia
pseudoscholar.....I appreciate the fact that you may have overlooked my earlier post, so let me again query the following:
Jeremiah 25:11: "These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
pseudoscholar: "The texts nowhere state or indicate that the nations had to serve Babylon for seventy years."
Care to comment?
-
AlanF
Leolaia said:
: Care to comment?
Comment on self-evident nonsense? You gotta be kidding, girl!
AlanF
-
helppls
"Certainly, celebrated WT scholars could have chosen another methodology based upon the regnal years of Nebuchadenezzer with his destroying Jerusalem in his 18 th year but such a method invalidates the seventy years so such a method simply fails".---Scholar
"Please explain why it invalidates the 70 years? Just count FORWARD 70 years from 587 and the return from exile will be in 517, according to "Celebrated WT scholars'" version of the 70 years. Why not go with 517 for the return from exile? Please explain why not?"---MJ
========== Scholar---I'm sorry about my dig about your "intellectual deficiency", in a previous post in this same thread. Obviously that's not true. Please blame it on my frustration. Your stubborn refusal to see any line of reasoning other than that promoted by WTS reminded me of my husband's reactions...and that made me very, very sad, and frustrated. I love my husband so much....he is normally a very kind and compassionate person, until (WT) religion comes into the picture. Then he becomes intolerant, uncompromising, stubborn and tunnel-visioned (if there's such a word!). That's why he avoids talking about religion to me. Sometimes I even see a glimpse of ruthlessness, something really foreign in his personality otherwise. But I don't know you...I didn't have the right to say what I did. I'm sorry. For all I know, you could be just as great as my husband deep inside, past the layers of defenses fostered by your religion in you. In fact, it would be awesome if --like you, my husband could be persuaded to come to this site, and just read and learn. I would be most happy if that ever happens...my husband can be very open-minded when he wants to be. I realize that I may be banging my head against a brick wall here, but would you please address MJ's question above? Why can't we say that Jerusalem fell in 587 (just like historical/astronomical data indicate), and that the Jews returned from exile in 517 (70 years later)? What exactly in the bible would make 517 an unacceptable date for the Jews' return? Obviously, I am not as bible savvy as most of you here, are. This is a simple question. If you would, could you please give me a simple and direct answer which my inexperienced mind can make sense of ? Thank you Scholar....
-
scholar
Jeffro
Response to post 909
1. I have not ignored the context of Jeremiah at all because the simple fact is that the Jews remained in Babylon after 539 until their release by the Decree of Cyrus which was after 539 BCE.
2. Indeed it was certainly foretold by Daniel that Bazbylon would fall to the Medo Persians and tyhis event happened in 539 paving the way for the end of the Jewish exile in 537 BCE.
3. The Jews could not have returned home in in 538 as this does not allow for the return home journey unless you beliueve in supersonic air travel by QANTAS in the 6th century BCE.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Alan F
Response to post 4425
I have not forgotten about you and will attend to your nonsense regarding 538 shortly and your misuse of Josephus. I am well pleased that you have Applegate's article which of course you owe a debt of gratitude to scholar and will look forward to other piece of scholarship that you are excited about. Scholar says 'bring it on'!
scholar JW
-
scholar
KW13
Not so, Jeremiah's calling to account in 25:12 does not apply to the Fall or demise of Babylon in 539 BCE according to the apostate Jonsson hypothesis. Scholars interpret the 'calling to account.as occurring after the fulfillment of seventy years when Babylon would be punished and desolated which of course did not occur with her Fall in 539 BCE.
Babylon in its entirety and an oppressor and subjugator of God's people would be brought to account by means of her perpetual desolation as foretold by Jeremiah in 25:12.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Lady Liberty
You disagree so what! I disagree with your interpretation of matters. If another scholar had inserted by means of parenthesis a chronolgy agreeable to you then you would have no complaint. It is only the case that because WT scholars have inserted their chronology by means of parenthesis into Grayson's reference work, you now cry foul. Special pleading indeed. I think you should take a cold shower and please scan the relevant page from Harper's reference work.
scholar JW
