Scholar pretendus has shot himself in the foot pretty badly in this thread, by castigating me for not being completely familiar with all the latest scholarly literature bearing on Neo-Babylonian chronology and the date of Jerusalem's destruction. He has been shown to be a gross hypocrite, because the same mocking he has done of me has been turned back on his own head by showing that he himself was pointed to certain critical material by none other than that arch-apostate, Carl Jonsson. So scholar pretendus has misrepresented the facts, and has once again been shown up to be a disgusting liar.
Scholar pretendus has also claimed several times in this thread to have found remarkable disproof of certain arguments of critics of Watchtower chronology, but in every case his claims have fizzled. Below, I give one good example.
I had posted a link given to me by Carl Jonsson to an article by one Rodger Young showing conclusively that Jerusalem was destroyed, not in 586, but in 587 B.C. Scholar pretendus commented (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/18.ashx 25-May-05 16:53 ):
You say that his material is conclusive but you are rather premature because it was only just a few months earlier that another study was published in the journal Biblica by Michael Avioz on the same subject of 'When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible'. The author of this study concludes that "It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah regarding the date of the First Temple's destruction cannot be resolved either by textual emendation or by chronological sol.utions'
From scholar pretendus' comments, one would conclude that Avioz' article contradicted Young's article (otherwise, why refer to it?) and concluded that it was not possible to harmonize the biblical evidence that has been interpreted as pointing both to 586 and 587 B.C. But that is not what the article said at all. Smelling something rotten in Oz, I replied (25-May-05 20:43):
Well then, given that you didn't give a reference to this article, you need to post a scan of it so that all readers may benefit. Then we can all analyze Avioz' arguments, compare them to Young's and anyone else's that come to mind, and come to some conclusions.
Naturally, scholar pretendus never even attempted to post a scan, or even a link to the Biblica article he seemed to put so much stock in. But Alleymom soon posted a link to the online article (25-May-05 21:56) along with the title and abstract:
Michael AVIOZ, "When Was the First Temple Destroyed, According to the Bible?" Biblica 84(2003) 562-565.
This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple's destruction: the tenth of Ab. This claim is based on the fact that the description of the destruction in Kings is in any case truncated, and is therefore likely that it contains the textual corruptions as opposed to Jeremiah.
Now, from the abstract it might be concluded that perhaps Avioz really did have something to say about the problem of in which year Jerusalem was destroyed, 586 or 587. Apparently realizing this, Alleymom quickly cleared this up (25-May-05 22:22):
Neil, the article is about whether the Temple was destroyed on the tenth day of the month or the seventh day of the month.
(25-May-05 22:53):
Avioz is interested in the question of which day the temple was destroyed on, not which year.
Scholar pretendus later claimed to have read the article, and taking him at his word, it's clear that he continued to deliberately misrepresent its contents. The next day he posted to me (26-May-05 17:37) the following ridiculously bloated boast:
So, you got caught out in not knowing about the article in the journal Biblica, this well demonstartes it is I that has to teach you and show you the way for in time I may convert from falsehood into truth. You did not know enough about this debate to be aware of a significant recent article in that journal Biblica and so the so-called braindead JW apologist had to put it first under your dribbling chin.
Clearly then, scholar pretendus failed to support his implied claim that Avioz' article contradicted Young's conclusions. This is typical of his referring to various source references that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. It is typical of the Watchtower Society as well, since its publications are filled with similar lies.
Anyway, I pointed out scholar pretendus' hypocrisy (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/20.ashx 26-May-05 23:19) and said, among other things:
The only reason you now have this article is that Carl Jonsson brought it up in a debate on the Channel-C discussion board ( http://www.channelc.org/cgi-bin/eboard30/index.cgi ) last October, in a thread titled "WT Chronology -- A Challenge?". You had claimed that the 586 B.C. date is the majority view among scholars. Carl challenged you on this, and in two posts on October 16th, he listed 34 scholars who preferred 587 over 586. You bluffed that, "Without research I can easily match that figure and will post such a list if readers are interested." Carl said that he would be interested to see such a list, but of course, your bluff was called and you never posted such a list. Furthermore, you argued against Young's conclusions even though you had never seen the article. So it's remarkable that now, seven months later, you claim that you obtained Young's article only "some weeks ago".
. . .
Now, having shown your own ignorance of Young's article back in October, and your having to be informed of it by none other than that most evil of wiley poztates, Carl Jonsson, your hypocrisy is seen to be nothing short of overwhelming.
Given that, let me turn your foolish words back upon you, from the point of view of your ignorance back in October (for other readers' benefit: I realize that some of scholar pretendus' words are gibberish, but I'm just going with his flow):
So, you got caught out in not knowing about the article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, this well demonstartes it is Carl that has to teach you and show you the way for in time Carl may convert from falsehood into truth. You did not know enough about this debate to be aware of a significant recent article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and so the so-called apostate had to put it first under your dribbling chin.
Now of course, anyone other than scholar pretendus would be acutely embarrassed by this exposure of his own hypocrisy and stupidity, but we all know that this complete moron will shake it off like water from a lotus leaf. Such is the power of the JW cult.
My last comment has proved to be true, since now, nearly two days after my saying this (and even more days since my pointing out his other hypocritical and shooting-himself-in-the-foot comments), he has not replied. It's obvious that scholar pretendus is too embarassed to reply, realizing how stupid and dishonest he's proved himself to be.
We ex-JWs are all too familiar with the fact that the Watchtower Society routinely misrepresents all manner of subjects to support or justify its doctrines and policies. Various writers have shown that the Society has grossly misrepresented scientists, historians, theologians and various other scholars on subjects like creation versus evolution, Bible history, the blood transfusion policy, the Trinity, and even its own history. Often the Society does not directly lie (for even Watchtower writers have a semblance of conscience about flat-out lies) but phrases its claims in a way that is difficult to show contains a direct lie, but is clearly designed to lead a reader to a wrong conclusion (scholar pretendus' comments on the Biblica article are a good example of this). Such dishonesty is well recognized in the legal arena.
A legal treatise called "Prosser and Keeton on Torts" (Robert F. Keeton et. al., Section 106, 5th ed. 1984) explains that the majority of courts hold that "misrepresentation" occurs when the following situations apply:
1) Ambiguous statements are made with the intent that the listener reach a false conclusion.
2) Literally true statements are made that create a false impression.
3) Words are said or acts committed which create a false impression by covering up the truth.
4) There is nondisclosure when "the parties stand in some confidential or fiduciary relation to each other, such as . . . old friends, . . . where special trust and confidence is reposed."
In dealing with nondisclosure, courts look at:
O The intelligence differential between the parties
O The relationship of the parties to each other
O How formally the information was acquired
O The nature of the fact not disclosed
O The importance of the fact not disclosed
O Whether the speaker hindered factual discovery
A look at scholar pretendus' arguments in this thread -- indeed, in virtually everything he posts -- reveals that he routinely misrepresents sources and issues by the methods 1 through 4 listed above.
One really must question the commitment of such people to their claimed Christianity, and devotion to the One they call The God of Truth. The very Bible that they claim for their authority and tout as a basis for their moral superiority over all other groups of people clearly states:
Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God?s case for him? Be careful that he doesn?t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn?t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)
How is it that these people can so hypocritically violate the standards of honesty they claim to hold so dear?
AlanF
