scholar,
I realize it's probably not appropriate to give you too much attention in this thread, nor for me to interrupt when questions were addressed to Earnest. But I must say that you've really surprised me with your last response. I thought you would at least try to give the appearance of someone truly interested in the subject and might even offer something of interest to the discussion.
I am just appalled at your inability or unwillingness to apply logic and correct methods of argument. I would expect as much from the average dittohead JW, but you present yourself as more educated than the average JW. I honestly can't tell if you are purposely deceitful or if it's a lack of education; I can't imagine any other excuse. Still, I'm glad you're posting because your style will clearly help other JWs learn the truth about the weakness of 607.
My comments about Wiseman's ability in regard to his skill as a exegete stands.
No, they don't. Those comments were crushed and pulverized. I don't think anyone missed that fact, not even you yourself. Besides, this argument was already a diversion from the main point.
I am quite aware that a scholar of Wiseman's stature would because of his scholarshipt receive invitations to participate in many projects as you have pointed out.
Where have we seen that type of fallacious argument before? With some clever rewording you think to twist those positions Earnest says Dr. Wiseman held into mere "invitations to participate in many projects"? Amazing! Appalling!
But all of this does not make him an expert in every field of scholarship does it?
Wasn't aware that anyone claimed him to be an "expert in every field of scholarship"! Such a clever diversion. I doubt anyone will see through it.
This conference you have attended is a bit of a worry if in fact these scholars trivialize the date 607 which really differs from the Devil's dates of 587/586 by a mere 20 years.
This is up there with the most ironic statements I've ever read around here. If you are being fair then, of course, you might do well to consider the reverse: since 587/6 is only a mere 20 years away from "God's dates" (as the WTS once referred to them before most were changed) then you wouldn't want to trivialize the possibility that 587/6 is correct. Instead, of course, we see you go much further than just trivializing 587/6, but actually
demonizing them. That's pure scholarship, like we've never seen!
No wonder you never offer any specific ideas against 587/6.
What ,do they have some absolute chronology at hand because if they reallly are chronologists they should be more circumspect. What is turning this whole issue on its head is the matter of historiography for the late Judean period and this is now a subject of keen interest to scholars. This is another weak link in the Jonsson hypothesis name the lack of historiography in his discussion of the seventy years apart from a biased interpretation of the seventy years based on Jeremiah 29:10.
If the "70 years" were really the issue, you could just as well fight for Cyrus' decree in the 519-516 range rather than 539-536. Cyrus' dates are just as well (or poorly) attested as Babylonian dates, but you wouldn't think of toying with the Cyrus' dates (for obvious reasons related to 1914). So who is it that pretends to have some "absolute chronology at hand" and shows such a lack of circumspection? Who is it that pretends that the issue is somehow tied up with an imagined "Jonsson hypothesis?" Yet you want to have it both ways and gleefully revel in the fact that most scholarly works won't even mention this "Jonsson" you are so obsessed with. Well, that's the point exactly -- the WTS was wrong long before Jonsson ever pointed it out. All the other experts were already pointing it out unwittingly.
Really, I think someone is pulling your chain.
You would obviously accept any date the WTS claimed for the Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (fall of Jerusalem) as long as it was 2520 years prior to 1914, and you obviously wouldn't care what the evidence actually shows. Dismissing the majority evidence as the "Devil's dates" is most telling with respect to whether a religious organization is pulling your strings or whether you have any interest in history or scholarship. So who is pulling whose chains and who are the marionettes?
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
Hmmm. I like your signature. In all probability I think it will ultimately help more thinking JWs be set free from those chains. Ironically, you represent yourself as "scholarly" but have done an excellent job showing exactly how much JW scholarship is worth. Heartfelt Thanks, Gamaliel
