by hillary_step 80 Replies latest jw friends
In correlating some info I saw on ChannelC, is scholar Neil?
Is this your bio Neil?
"Neil has done Macquarie Uni course on lead paint management in 1997 - he works by himself, and does small jobs only. He is a member of Master Painters of Australia (MPA)."
Is the MPA designation the one you sign after your name?
Notice the duplicity:
scholar blathers:
: You are a clown,
He starts his argument with an ad hominem which is a typical dub trick.
Next, scholar blathers:
: In point of fact I know nothing about Faulstich because to date I have not read his research but one day I will buy his book. I only mentioned his name because Jonsson in his review of Furuli had referred to an earlier review of Faulstich. Yet because I mentioned his name you immediately make all kind of stupid comparisons. In point of fact you dummie I only mentioned Faulstich because Jonsson has the hide to review the work of others yet has not got the courage to have his book reviewed.
So. Let's figure this out. Scholar by it's own admission "knows NOTHING" about Faulstich, but "one day" will buy his book. In that day or in the day he reads it, he will know SOMETHING about the book that he now knows NOTHING about. So far so good? Yet, by it's own admission, scholar admits to making "mention" of this book it knows "nothing about" and then accuses his detractor of making "all kind (sic) of stupid comparisons." Reasonable people have to ask, dear "scholar" how would you know what are "stupid comparisons" if you didn't even know a damn thing about the book which was the reference point for those "stupid comparisons?"
: Why do not you along with other members of of the Editorial committee encourage Jonsson to have the book peer reviewed? I have an opinion as to why this has not happened and it is because Jonsson does not want his interpretation of the seventy years challenged or criticized.
That is a riot! Jonsson is an accountant never claimed to be a Biblical scholar. Rolfie boy on the otherhand, claims to be a "scholar" since he flaunts his various degrees and academic life. Jonsson audits people's books, and Furulli SHOUTS his Bible-related academic credentials from the highest tree.
Oh, by the way: where is there a "peer review" of Furulli's book? Where and when did Furulli request one? Please provide evidence for THAT, you nitwit hypocrite?
One thing about dubs: they can be counted on to be hypcrites and liars when their precious superstitions and false teachings are seriously challenged.
That makes them a cult.
Lovers of truth, on the otherhand REJOICE when their false notions are demolished. That means they can leave them behind and begins the search for truth anew.
Haters of truth act just like our friend scholar. They will lie to their dying day to preserve their lie. They HATE truth. Truth will never be their friend. Truth threatens them and instead of embracing it, they will do every thing in their power to deny it and escape it. Pathetic souls they are.
I am so grateful to our Creator that I left that crap over three decades ago.
Farkel
scholar,
: So what. I do not claim to have read every book published on chronology, Or have you? One thing is certain my postings on this board always get your attention..
Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for all that attention. All FOOLS get our attention, fool.
Farkel
scholar,
You are a well-spring of gems. Here's your latest:
Earlier and up this thread you accused Jonsson of not having his GTR book "peer reviewed." I pointed out that he is an accountant and doesn't claim to be any certified scholar on this issue. Therefore, he cannot be "peer reviewed" due to his lack of academic credentials on this same issue. Yet, you now state that his evidence is "taken ENTIRELY" and absolutely from "peer-reviewed scholarly material available to everyone who bothers to look for it." (Your words.)
His evidence is peer reviewed and ENTIRELY from from scholarly evidence and yet you think HIS arguments which are based ENTIRELY on that same evidence needs peer review?
Scholar: you are so stupid (or clueless, or just a bald-faced liar, or even a troll) that I cannot even think of an epithet to call you. And I'm fearless and NEVER without an appropiate epithet.
Farkel
Readers will note the following amazing exchange:
Non-scholar: In point of fact I know nothing about Faulstich
AlanF: Precisely my point. Nor do you know anything about anything significant about "Bible chronology"... You continually make a fool of yourself and your religion by shooting off your mouth about things you're totally ignorant of.
Non-scholar: So what.
Here we have his specific and unabashed admission that non-scholar doesn't know his ass from his elbow with respect to "Bible chronology -- and worse, the moron doesn't even care!
Pretty diagnostic of Jehovah's Witnesses generally, I'd say.
Non-scholar continues:
: I do not claim to have read every book published on chronology, Or have you?
I never said I did. But I don't shoot off my mouth about things I know I know nothing about. You do.
: One thing is certain my postings on this board always get your attention..
Only sometimes. But don't count yourself as privileged. I usually take whacks at any JW-defenders that stumble upon this board, and often at other nincompoops. And I usually do this with people who are useful in making my point that certain cults and cultish ways of believing damage peoples' brains.
AlanF
scholar,
: Why after all these years his work has not been peer reviewed?
According to Furuli himself, he has spent the last "several decades" researching this subject. He has a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and is currently working on his Phd.
Carl Jonsson balances people's books and does their taxes and has claimed no more academic training than that.
Therefore, please present ANYTHING that smacks of a "peer-review" of ANYTHING that Rolfie boy has written that was so reviewed by his peers.
Well?
Farkel
Farkel, you have a pm.
AlanF
Farkel
Nothing new here boy. Jonsson is simply an accountant. He is not a scholar and has no academic qualifications in the field that he claims to be an expert. He simply has produced a rehash of the work of previous SDA scholars and his hypothesis despite many so called referees has not been peer reviewed. Furulu is a professional scholar and he has informed me that he has submitted his work for review.
scholar
Non-scholar said:
: Jonsson is simply an accountant. He is not a scholar and has no academic qualifications in the field that he claims to be an expert.
Fred Franz was simply a Bethel errand boy. He was not a scholar and had no academic qualifications in the field in which he and others claimed he was an expert. He simply produced a rehash of the work of various lexicographers of Christendom and so his New World Translation is nothing more than a mishmosh of varying opinions, and has not survived many peer reviews.
: He simply has produced a rehash of the work of previous SDA scholars
Why do you continue these lies? Jonsson's work is a compendium of that of virtually all of the best scholars of the last 150 years -- not just SDAs.
: and his hypothesis despite many so called referees has not been peer reviewed.
For the 100th time, it doesn't need to be since the basic sources have already been peer reviewed.
: Furulu is a professional scholar
Getting paid to produce bullshit doesn't change the nature of the bullshit.
: and he has informed me that he has submitted his work for review.
Which will be duly rejected by all reviewers. What will you do then? Will you inform this board of these rejections? Of course, not, any more than Furuli will.
AlanF
Scholar,
He ( Jonsson ) is not a scholar and has no academic qualifications in the field that he claims to be an expert.
The 'scholars' who pereptuated this whole chronological issue, that is your cronies in Brooklyn, are in a similar situation. They claim to be the only Biblical 'scholars' on earth who actually really understand the Bible - how about that for a claim. Perhaps you might present their academic qualifications to this Board, or once again be exposed as a blinkered hypocrite.
The WTS would never dare present *any* of their 'scholarly' material for peer review as they are well aware of its inadequacy in this field.
For example, Carl Jonssons, Gentile Tinmes Revisited has review comments from two experts in the particular field with which he is dealing with. Donals Wiseman, Professor of Assyriology at the University of London described it in part as, 'A most valuable work....I have already drawn the attention of a number of correspondents to it". Luigi Cagni, Professor of Assyriology at the University Of Naples, says 'An original and throughly serious study...Jonsson demonstrates with irrefutable arguments...etc...etc".
Now, perhaps we might see the peer review, or comments from experts in the field for the WTS scholars, sizzling best seller, 'Babylon The Great Has Fallen'.
Anxiously in wait.
HS
