Posts by AlanF

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

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

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

AlanF

But scholar pretendus! I've shown time and again that Josephus proves that the Jews returned in 538, not 537! Why do you keep ignoring this?

And why do you steadfastly refuse to provide any proof whatsoever of your claim that the Jews returned in 537?

Whassamatta? Cat got your brain?

AlanF

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

AlanF

Scholar pretendus said to MuadDib (the moron can't even manage to spell the poster's name properly):

: My purpose in posting on this board is simply to defend WT chronology to the best of my academic or scholastic ability. I care nought if I convince others of these views and I am not concerned now others view my postings. All that concerns me are the facts and nothing but the facts and I am staunch advocate for truth and not the lies and deception promoted by apostates and their sympathizers.

This paragraph is extremely disturbing because it shows how severely a cult can damage the minds of its adherents and turn them into complete morons. The writing contains extreme contradictions, of which the writer is completely unaware, which shows that, by common definitions, he is a moron. Let's examine this in some detail.

The moron seems to think that he has a good deal of academic and scholastic ability, as evidenced by his touting of his claimed credentials as a "scholar" in many posts to this board. But this is a standard illusion of many morons -- that they're far more capable than the facts demonstrate.

The moron also seems to think that his defective abilities allow him to competently defend Watchtower teaching on ancient chronology. Well, I suppose that's true to a large measure, since it's just another moron defending the moronic teachings of a pile of morons claiming to speak for God. Iron sharpens iron, no? But when the claimed bits of iron are really clay, what do we end up with?

The moron is entirely unaware that his claim not to be concerned with how others view his postings is entirely contradicted by his desire to "defend WT chronology to the best of" his ability. His emotional appeal is nil. The only thing he could possibly have left is an appeal to the intellect, and so logically, his postings must appeal to that. And yet he is unconcerned if his appeals to the intellect strike home. What better proof can there be that this poster is truly a moron?

The moron also claims that he is only concerned with the facts, and is a staunch advocate for truth. Well of course, anyone whose mind has been thoroughly subverted by JW teaching defines truth in a trivial sense: Whatever the Watchtower Society prints this month in some of its publications. Of course, when convenient, the moron also denies the evidence of his eyes in a most astounding way: when Watchtower teaching contradicts his own ideas, he discards them, even while declaring adamantly that the WT teachings are the absolute truth.

This moron is entirely incapable of answering the simplest of questions or dealing with the most elementary of challenges concerning Watchtower teachings about their claimed "Bible chronology":

What biblical proof is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 537 B.C.? (Answer: none)

What biblical evidence is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 537 B.C.? (Answer: none, but there is speculation that it took about 1 1/2 years from the time Cyrus issued his decree freeing the Jews to the time they arrived back in Judah)

What secular proof is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 537 B.C.? (Answer: none)

What proof can one find in Watchtower publications that the Jews returned to Judah in 537 B.C.? (Answer: none)

What biblical proof is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 B.C.? (Answer: none)

What biblical evidence is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 B.C.? (Answer: none, but there is speculation that it took about 2-4 months from the time Cyrus issued his decree freeing the Jews to the time they arrived back in Judah)

What secular proof is there that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 B.C.? (Answer: Josephus states that the temple was begun to be rebuilt in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which spanned 537-536 B.C. (March/April 537 to February/March 536), and Ezra 1-3 states that the temple foundations were laid in the 2nd month (April/May) Iyaar of the year after which the Jews returned to Judah. If the Jews returned to Judah in Tishri (September/October) 537, then the temple was begun to be rebuilt in the 2nd month of 536 B.C., namely, Iyaar (April/May). But this was Cyrus 3rd year, which contradicts what Josephus stated, and so the Jews' return in 537 is impossible according to Josephus. But if the Jews returned in September/October of 538 B.C., then the following "2nd month" of the year after their return was April/May of 537, which Josephus confirms. So the only available secular evidence contradicts the Watchtower's claims, and the biblical evidence is moot.

So the only actual proof we have of the year of the Jews' return to Judah comes from Josephus, who confirms that they returned in 538 B.C. Scholar pretendus simply ignores this, even while claiming that others of Josephus' statements (i.e., about the 70 years), which are demonstrably false, ought to be accepted as gospel. Can a better example of moronic scholastic claims be found?

Scholar pretendus has shown his proclivity for moronic braindeadness in various other ways:

2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews were servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons until the Persians began to reign. Without any argument, the Persians began to reign over Babylon in 539 B.C. when Cyrus' armies conquered the city of Babylon and eliminated its empire. Yet this moron claims that the Persians actually did not begin to reign for another two years -- until 537 B.C. when the Jews -- an insignificant part of the Persian empire -- returned to Judah. How incredibly stupid!

As many posters have shown over the years, and particularly in posts during the past few days, this moronic scholar pretendus cannot even read simple Bible passages with basic understanding. Jeremiah 25:11 clearly states that the Jews and the many nations surrounding them would serve Babylon for 70 years. Yet this moron brazenly claims that the text he can read with his very own eyes does not say what his eyes tell him it says. Indeed, his cult-fucked brain translates the words into something else. What, I do not know. What I do know is that this moron has fully succumbed to Orwellian mind-fuck, where when another person holds up five fingers, but it is necessary for the fucked victim to claim he sees four, he really sees four. So it is with the victims of the JW organization: the Bible can clearly state something, but when the Watchtower Society says it ain't so, it ain't so.

I could multiply the examples of scholar pretendus' overwhelming moral stupidity, but most for most readers this is just repetition ad nauseum.

AlanF

65

so exhausted you can't rest

by Utopian Reformist in

i have been on the road now since late march.

i am in helsinki, finland and am very very very tired.

i am flying out again tomorrow to mexico city via london & atlanta, ga. i will be working in mexico city until the 27th of may.

AlanF

Oy vay, Mario! I thought my 5 week stint in CA was a bummer. At least I had evenings off.

If you're in the Denver vicinity, do try to make contact. We've had some interesting conversations in days gone by. Call me if you like, in Colorado. Evenings 970-206-1555. Days 970-225-7533.

AlanF

40

Please explain: Guilt for not having a submissive wife

by serendipity in

i read someone's post today where he indicated as a jw he had a guilty conscience because he didn't have a submissive wife.

i'm trying to wrap my brain around that.

was that a common thing?

AlanF

Among the JWs, it's kind of like having a dog you'd like to control, but can't quite manage it.

AlanF

129

607, 70 years, 1914

by crazies in

sorry for the long post!.

what the watchtower society says:.

24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

AlanF

Jeffro wrote:

: LOL. You might want to inform the 'Writing Committee'™ of their error in Isaiah's Prophecy then.

Scholar pretendus most certainly counts himself among those most pretentious of Inebriated Watchtower Scholars. I wonder how he'll get the attention of the most hammered of all -- those spiritual drunkards who control the Writing Committee in Brooklyn?

AlanF

20

Does God Work Through an Organization?

by Confession in

in other posts i've commented on how profoundly tom cabeen's essay, "does god work through an organization," affected me when i read it on september 15th, 2004. somehow realizing that the scriptures do not actually teach this helped me to see that the watchtower society was not what it claimed to be.

read it here if you like... http://www.brci.org/attachments/org.pdf.

that said, i intend to share this information (where i can) with those current jws who'll let me.

AlanF

The Society's teaching about "God's earthly organization" is nothing but a self-serving creation designed to fool JW drones into shutting their mouths about anything they might otherwise have objected to.

AlanF

26

What does the term 'Borg" mean?

by south african beef in

jw
friends

i can understand some of the shorthand terms used on this site but could anyone elighten me on the above?

also please list any terms that pertain to this site with their explanation so that i can understand everybody's threads a bit more easily.

thanks in advance for your help.

AlanF

As I recall, the term "borg" was first used on the old jesus-witnesses email forum back around 1995. It derived exclusively from the characters in Star Trek. Only later did it take on the nuance of "Brooklyn Organization". I never saw anyone derive it from "Bible Organization"; in fact, that's a bit offensive to ex-JWs.

AlanF

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:

: This paper

Well, with some pushing you managed to do what you should have done in the first place, you disgusting liar: provide the details of your reference.

: was either ignored or by its omission from Jonsson's 4th edition of his GTR on the grounds of research incompetence and overides his somewhat dogmatic interpretation of the seventy years.

By that standard, you've condemned the Watchtower Society.

: I do not agree with everything the article says

I dare say that his overall conclusions directly contradict those of Mommy. When I obtain this reference, I suspect you're going to have to eat your words, as usual.

: but many of Applegate's conclusions concur with that of the celebrated WT scholars and 'scholar' himself.

Like the ones you claimed above, that I debunked? Again, scholar pretendus, your "scholarship" is a joke.

You really have a knack for grasping at straws, as again shown here:

: A remarkable statement which disagrees with the Jonsson hypothesis is the fact that "In Zechariah, Jeremiah is not mentioned, although the book has signs of Jeremianic influence" on page 109 of Applegate's study. Jonsson in his 4th edn GTR, p.227 claims that "the seventy years mentioned in the text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah'.

Your quotation from Jonsson is in the context of his discussion of Zechariah 1:7-12. The complete paragraph states:

It seems clear, therefore, that the seventy years mentioned in this text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah, but simply to the time that had elapsed by 519 B.C.E. since the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 589-587 B.C.E.

In the footnote to this paragraph, Jonsson cites two scholars in support of his statement:

This is also the conclusion of many modern commentators. J.A. Thompson, for example, says: "In Zech. 1:12 it seems to denote the interval between the destruction of the temple in 587 B.C. and its rebuilding in 520-515 B.C." (The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1980, p. 514.) Dr. Carroll Stuhlmueller observes that, "if we tabulate from the beginning of Babylon's plans for the first siege of Jerusalem (590/589); 2 Kgs. 24:10) to the time of this vision (520), the seventy years show up in a remarkably accurate way!" -- Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope. A Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988), p. 64.

So Jonsson cited two scholars who directly stated that the 70 years mentioned by Zechariah in 7:1-12 were most likely not related to Jeremiah's 70 years. On the other hand, all that the scholar you cited stated was that "the book has signs of Jeremianic influence". Without context, there is no way to tell just what "influence" Applegate was referring to. In the same way, without citing context, I can confidently state that "the Watchtower Society states that evolution is true" and then falsely conclude that the Society actually teaches this.

Your complete lack of scholarship is also evident in your ridiculous argument that a quotation from a single scholar proves that opposite conclusions from a majority of other scholars trumps them.

: With this false conclusion along with others it is easily discerned how Jonsson and his cronies have got the seventy years so wrong.

LOL! All of your conclusions in this thread have been completely debunked, or are on their way to the trash heap.

AlanF

290

607

by Zico in

jw
friends

can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

thanks again for your answers.

zico

AlanF

scholar pretendus said to AuldSoul:

: I answered your five questions on my own behalf

Actually you merely made numbered replies. Those replies contained no answers, but merely your usual subterfuges and lies.

: but evidently you are still not satisfied which of course comes as no surprise.

Lies should satisfy no one who has integrity to facts.

: There are scholars who do not ;support the Jonsson nonsense that Jeremiah 25:12 applies only to the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE,

Who? You have yet to support this claim that you've lately been making. If you think that your stupid argument about a mysterious 1997 paper supports this, see below.

: but I have long argued against this perverted interpretation

For no reason other than the Watchtower organization logically collapses if it's true.

: maintaining the opinion

Good choice of words!

: that the prophecy of judgement againt Babylon would only be fulfilled after the seventy years ended which was not 539 but 537 BCE and this judgement was not the demise of Babylon but its desolation.

You have yet to set forth an iota of proof that 537 is the correct date. You've merely set forth you personal opinion, and that of the Society, about it.

Your statement that "this judgement was not the demise of Babylon but its desolation" is ridiculous on its face, and a perfect example of special pleading. The demise of Babylon -- which you correctly distinguish from its later desolation -- occurred when the Babylonian empire ended in 539 B.C. Jer. 25:12 explicitly mentions the king of Babylon's "punishment" or "calling to account", and there can hardly be a better example of such punishment than the demise of the empire headed by the kings of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. To claim that such demise was not the punishment mentioned by Jeremiah, but that a desolation occurring at least 800 years later, after the 4th century A.D., is pure special pleading.

: An article dealing on the subject of the seventy years examining all of the principal texts was published in 1997

Like Mommy, you've failed to provide source references. Like Mommy, you're afraid that critics will examine your sources.

: and is the most recent and exhaustive study on the subject unbeknown to the laziness and incompetence of Jonsson and his 'phantom' editors.

If you ever provide a source reference, I have no doubt that you're going to eat your words.

I also have no doubt that your words also show "the laziness and incompetence" of "celebrated WT scholars", since they will not have referenced your source anywhere.

: On page 92 the scholar stated "In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years"

This is perfectly consistent with a punishment in 539, where the death of Belshazzar and the dethroning of Nabonidus, along with the overthrow of Babylon itself, mark the end of the 70 years of Babylonian domination over the Middle East. So your reference is meaningless as to proving your claims.

: followed by the observation on page 96 " 25:12 prophesies that Babylon will be punished and desolated after seventy years".

Ditto. The statement allows that such punishment and desolation can take place anytime after Babylon's demise as ruler of the Middle East.

: Nowhere in this study is an application of 539 BCE in reference to Jeremiah 25:12

And I'm sure that there is no mention of 537, either. Otherwise you'd be crowing loudly about trouncing "apostate higher criticism". This again illustrates your dishonesty and double standards.

: so the interpretation of matters as presented by the celebrated ones and yours truly has at last been vindicated.

LOL! Not at all. And if you actually manage to set out a source reference for this article, it will be carefully examined by the various amateur scholars on this board, and again I have no doubt that it will contain information that blows away your claims. My statement is based on long experience with your dishonest "scholarship" and quoting practices.

: This ground-breaking article was cited in a recent bibliography on Jeremiah in a recenly published reference work on the Old Testament, 2005.

This being in the public arena, you should have no qualms about posting full source references. But I won't hold my breath.

AlanF