Your professor is absolutely right, Dedalus. Let's hope that those who want to engage in real discussion take his words to heart.
AlanF
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
IslandWoman
Alan,
I will tell you why I did not answer you post point by point.
On H2O the favorite thing to do was, as you and some other old H2O posters do, answer sentence by sentence, point by point. But you know what I have noticed? That method addresses points but not overall themes.
Your post to me was full of stretching, you stretch Alan. I do not address outright muppet-like stretching of what I said.
As for my last point to you, it is interesting that you chose that post to decide you no longer were going to address my points. I have watched you Alan for some time. When you have been caught in a significant mistake you either do not reply or you attack the poster.
You know, intelligence is fine but it does not always make for maturity.
IW
-
Satanus
In IW's statement of some time ago, she said that she respects no rules in her discussions.
Here are her words:
What you need to understand Friday, is that the Watchtower does not play fair and neither do I. Wake up Friday, when people shit on other people lessons are quickly learned. Never expect me to "play" fair because as I said, I do not play games. Ever!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/36957/2.ashx
SS
-
IslandWoman
Hi SS,
In IW's statement of some time ago, she said that she respects no rules in her discussions.
If you mean the made up rules of the prominant H2O posters around here, then damn well I don't. lol
Point by point shenanigans:
Poster A, "I think the earth is under siege, the environment is suffering and the politicians don't do a damn thing."
Old H2O poster response,
I think
You think? Prove it!
the earth
What do you mean by the earth? Are you sure you know what that means, you dipfuck?
under siege
You moron, the earth is a planet how can a planet be under siege? Are you talking aliens here or what, you idiot.
the environment
Look you brainless idiot, the "environment" encompasses a whole lot of things. Are you talking about the ocean, the atmosphere, the land, or the whole shabang. Be more specific, only trying to help you think!
is suffering
Do you know the definition of "suffering"? Define it you moron before you use it.
and the politicians don't do a damn thing.
And what have you done?
**************************************************************************
IW
-
IslandWoman
SS,
I play fair. I play fair with anyone who plays fair with me.
IW
-
AlanF
It's obvious that you have your ideas of how to discuss things, and I have mine, IW.
Nevertheless, I will not be playing with you anymore.
AlanF
-
IslandWoman
"Hi Alan,
: Weight of evidence is fine, but if all science was simply based on the weight of evidence of past theories than the earth would still be the center of the universe, the stars are still going around us aren't they?
This is a really bad example, IW. There never was any "weight of evidence", scientifically speaking, for the earth being the center of the universe. There never was any scientific evidence at all. The only reason people thought that was because of mythical notions handed down in hoary theological works like the Bible.
Sorry, you are wrong about that. The ancients observed the sky and saw sun, moon and stars crossing above them, this observation led to their assumption that the stars revolved around the earth. The Greek Astronomer Eudoxus, 408-355 B.C., thought the earth was at the center of a sphere within which the stars rotated.
Observation is still a well known and accepted tool of scientific discovery.
"Only reason" is patently wrong."
**********************************************************************
This post got stuck in your craw. Upchucking is the only way out sometimes, that's fine with me.
This is not about losing or winning a discussion it's about honesty. You lose.
IW
-
scholar
Alan F
A direct reading of the text at 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 does not support your interpretation nor that expressed in GTR, 3rd edn., pp. 220-24 because the Chronicler does not specify the date when the 'royalty of Persia began to reign'. It is an interpretation which I reject because the context indicates 'the first year of Cyrus' in 538-537 BCE as most commentators agree. The text does not link the seventy years with the servitude but with the desolation of the land as clearly stated. Jonsson makes numerous assertions in these pages but does not prove his case at all. The land had to enjoy its sabbath years of rest which amounts to 70 years and not 49 years as he alleges.
WHERE IN EARTH DOES JONSSON GET 49 YEARS FROM? NOWHERE IS THIS FOUND IN THE OT. Josephus confirms that the land lay desolate for seventy years unti Cyrus which was not 539.
In short, this text shows that 539 is impossible and that the land was the subject of the seventy years and that the Jews were simply captive under rulership at Babylon until Cyrus' decree.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
-
scholar
jws
I read your post with amusement. The subject of the seventy is far more complex than you know, if you think I am implying two seventy year periods then you are mistaken. And for your interest I have not lost the argument at all. There are two independent chronologies that I have to hand that refer to three seventy periods each having a different begiining and end and there at least four different interpretations aside form the Society's chronology that relate to the seventy years.
The Jonsson hypothesis of seventy years is about servitude or captivity at the expense of the specific and direct reading of texts in Daniel and Chronicles that the land lay desolate for seventy years. No amount of clumsy and speculative exgesis can prove the Society wrong. Their current and traditional understanding of the seventy years is brilliant and can only be teastament to divine revelation. The date of 607 and the Gentile Times ariising thus from is a powerful stimulant to the preaching of the gospel. If you want to believe in a complex, inventive and decptive chronology then that is your choice. I prefer to believe in a chronology that is faithful to scripture and has a simple and direct methodolgy.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
-
AlanF
Oh, IW, I could easily prove your claims wrong. But because you're only interested in winning an argument, anything I write would be useless because you'd reject it out of hand, just as you've done with the 95% of my earlier long post.
Play with JCanon and quit pestering me. He's more your style.
AlanF