Posts by AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

scholar pretendus stupidus maximus wrote:

: You have certainly given me the coordinates for the modern city of Tyre which is the middle of the sandbar and that is most helpful but is this to be taken the eact site of the ancient city?

Of course not, you twit. The island city resided to the west of the sandbar coordinates and the mainland city to the east.

: If not then supply the precise coordinates for that ancient Phoenecian city of Tyre "never to be rebuilt".

The geographic coordinates of the approximate center of the part of modern Tyre located on the ruins of the ancient island city are 33.16.20 N by 35.11.40 E.

The geographic coordinates of the approximate center of the part of modern Tyre located on the ruins of the ancient mainland city are 33.16.18 N by 35.13.06 E.

: If you can do this then I can supply such enlightenment with a leading archaeological society indicating the source, Alan Feuerbacher that this is really the case.

You have your information. Now fulfill your commitment.

But again, we all know you'll do nothing of the kind, nor will you use the information I've supplied in any intelligent way.

: Because if your claim is valid that ancient Tyre is now rebuilt then it now must exist can can now be properly identified.

Of course. And if you'd get off your lazy ass and try excercising the brain that the Society has so severely damaged, you'd compare the coordinates I gave with the Google Earth satellite image that's so easy to get hold of, and with the overlaid map that Leolaia supplied in her post 7775 on page 23 of this thread.

: You say that the present island city as it stands today inhabited with numerous dwellings is in fact ancient Tyre

No. I say that it's a rebuilt Tyre. It's a rebuilt Tyre in the same sense that today's Jerusalem is a rebuilt Jerusalem, and that the Jerusalem of Jesus' day was a rebuilt Jerusalem, and that the Temple of Jesus' day was a rebuilt temple. Obviously, once a thing has been destroyed, it cannot be recreated (think about destroying the painting The Mona Lisa), but by all sensible notions things like cities and temples can be rebuilt. The fact that they can is shown by the Bible itself. But of course, we all know how strongly you disagree with the Bible.

: but id I went there there today and as I stand on that piece of land with an archaeologist at hand, could it then be said that now I am standing on ancient Tyre because it is now rebuilt?

Of course not, you twit. You'd be standing in the rebuilt, modern city of Tyre which had been rebuilt on the ancient site. Just as much as if you were standing in front of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem you'd be standing in a modern, rebuilt Jerusalem on the ancient site.

How you can manage to utter such complete foolishness is, well, diagnostic of the severe brain damage that the Watchtower cult can induce.

: Your account of matters does not square with what is presented in archaeological reports because it is common knowledge that the remnants of the ancient city are submerged.

Wrong. Leolaia has presented scholarly references proving that only part of the ancient site is submerged, and that today's Tyre is built on part of the ancient island city.

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

I'm still waiting for answers from you, thirdwitless, to a number of challenging questions crucial to the topic you brought up.

JW lurkers, take note.

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

scholar pretendus stupidus maximus wrote:

: Your tabulation of the months for the ist Year of Cyrus from Nisan 538 to Adar 537 is incorrect and does not agree with my tabulation.

LOL! Of course not. You've already stated that the year before 537 was 537, which shows you can't manage kindergarten arithmetic.

: Both our tabulations agree up to the seventh month Tishr, September/October which you show as a continuation of the 538 year.

That's because it IS a continuation of the year 538 in the Julian calendar, you twit. Let me attempt to educate you, although I'm certain that the attempt will fail. Readers will understand that I do this mainly for the benefit of the many JW lurkers reading this thread.

The Julian calendar is the calendar that almost all modern historians -- including those used as references by the Watchtower Society -- use for dating events prior to the year 1582 A.D., such as the fall of Babylon (cf. Insight, Vol. 1, "Julian and Gregorian Calendars", p. 392; All Scripture Is Inspired of God, pp. 281-2). Thus, Insight (Vol. 1, "Belshazzar", p. 284) uses the both the Julian and Gregorian calendars to date the fall of Babylon:

On the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar, or October 11, Julian calendar), Belshazzar celebrated a great feast . . . Belshazzar did not live out the night, being killed as the city fell during the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E.

Also see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 459, and All Scripture Is Inspired of God, p. 283. In its discussion of "Lunar Eclipses" Insight (Vol. 1, p. 455) uses the Julian calendar to date eclipses related to Jesus' birth date. Insight also uses the Julian calendar to date Jesus' death (Vol. 2, p. 268).

Bottom line: A year such a 538 B.C. by definition in both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, began on January 1, 538 and ended on December 31, 538.

Corrollary: Jewish years do not line up with the Julian calendar, either month by month, or on the first date of the New Year. Therefore, Jewish dates given in scholarly references in terms of Julian calendar dates necessarily do not line up with Julian years. The same goes for Babylonian dates.

So that you know what this means in simple terms, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus, Cyrus' first regnal year ran from Nisan of 538 through Adar of 537 B.C. (cf. Insight, Vol. 1, p. 568). More specifically, Cyrus' first year began on Nisan 1 (March 24, Julian calendar) of 538, and ended on the last day of Adar (March 11, Julian calendar) of 537 B.C. (cf. Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, p. 29)

In view of the above facts, your next comments are unbelievably stupid, and complete gibberish:

: However, this is incorrect because the year runs not from January to December as per our modern calendation but from Nisan- April May through to Adar- February/March. This means that at Tishri in the 538-537 cycle as the first year of Cyrus, as the seventh month was the beginning of 537 which continued as such until the following Adar which introduced the second year of Cyrus from Nisan 536 to Adar 535.

: Your error is that of calendation in that tou mistakenly are substituting the calenders, the old with the new, the Babylonian with the Gregorian. The correct procedure is to follow the Babylonian/ Jewish Calender converting the months into our calender.

So that you can follow the above discussion and apply it in concrete terms, I'm giving you a revised tabulation of the years relevant to our discussion. Note that, compared to my earlier tabulations, I've made a slight correction, and added Julian months that correspond (cf. New World Translation, 1984 edition, Appendix 8B, p. 1587) to the Jewish months.

Again I challenge you to find fault with the tabulation. If you find fault, then post your own tabulation, along with source references justifying it. Of course, all readers already know that you'll never do this.

539___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 7____Babylon falls

539___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 8

539___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 9

539/8_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 10

538___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 11

538___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 12

538___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1____Cyrus issues his famous decree

538___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

538___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

538___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

538___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

538___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6

538___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7

538___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

538___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

538/7_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

537___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

537___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

537___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

537___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2

537___Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

537___Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

537___Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

537___Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

537___Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7

537___Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

537___Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

537/6_Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

536___Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

536___Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

536___Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

536___Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

thirdwitness, can you explain to our JW lurkers why you disagree with "the faithful and discreet slave's" explanation of the 70 years of Tyre's being forgotten?

Can you explain why Exodus' statement that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created in six days is false?

You wiley old apostate, you!

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

scholar pretendus, you are far and away the stupidest person I have ever come across on the Internet. You're led literally by the hand through the simplest of arithmetic, and you can't understand it.

Let's try this again, this time with a little more data in the table. I'll simply list the dates, along with the two events that the Watchtower Society agrees with. Let's see if you can manage to decipher this massively complicated list, and then you tell me if you agree with it:

539___Heshvan___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 8____Babylon falls

539___Chislev___Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 9

539/8_Tebeth____Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 10

538___Shebat____Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 11

538___Adar______Cyrus' 0th Year, Month 12

538___Nisan_____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1____Cyrus issues his famous decree

538___Iyyar_____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2

538___Sivan_____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3

538___Tammuz____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4

538___Ab________Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5

538___Elul______Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6

538___Tishri____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7

538___Heshvan___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8

538___Chislev___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9

538/7_Tebeth____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10

537___Shebat____Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11

537___Adar______Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12

537___Nisan_____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1

537___Iyyar_____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2

537___Sivan_____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3

537___Tammuz____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4

537___Ab________Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5

537___Elul______Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6

537___Tishri____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7

537___Heshvan___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8

537___Chislev___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9

537/6_Tebeth____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10

536___Shebat____Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11

536___Adar______Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12

536___Nisan_____Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1

536___Iyyar_____Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

You're quite right, AuldSoul. Thirdwitless is grossly disingenuous to castigate anyone for saying that certain of Ezekiel's prophecies were figurative, when the Watchtower Society itself interprets the "70 years Tyre will be forgotten" as figurative. And of course, both you and I have pointed out to thirdwitless that his own interpretation of those 70 years is precisely that "harboring of private ideas" that the Society defines as apostasy.

So what do you say, now, thirdwitless? Why do you harbor your private ideas about Tyre's 70 years, contravening what Jehovah's "faithful and discreet slave" has published as "true Christian doctrine"? Do you actually presume to stand up against "Jehovah's organization" and tell Jehovah, "you are wrong!"?

JW lurkers, take note -- thirdwitless will again fail to address the fact that he has, according to the Watchtower Society, committed apostasy against "Jehovah's organization".

AlanF

13

The most critical question about the JW and pedophilia?

by Check_Your_Premises in

when looking at the jw pedophilia problem it is important to make the distinction between "theocratic" and secular authorities.

as we all know, the jw consider only their authority to be legitimate and secular authorities as a necessary evil to be "rendered unto".. here is my summary of the pedophilia problem in the organization:.

1. a person accused of pedophilia by a child cannot be found guilty within the org without another witness.. .

AlanF

An excellent summary!

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

JW lurkers -- note how thirdwitless continues to avoid answering simple but necessary questions related to the topic he introduced, and continues to misrepresent the arguments of his opponents.

: Of course we know that parts of the bible is figurative.

Yes, and how do we know exactly which parts must be viewed as figurative? Whichever parts contradict known facts.

: You do not have to discuss Tyre for that to be acknowledged. For you to say this is symbolic therefore this must also be symbolic is a strawman argument.

Neither I nor any other posters have made that argument, so your statement is a strawman.

What I have argued (WHY DO YOU MAKE ME REPEAT MYSELF SO MANY TIMES?) is this: Any biblical statement that contradicts known fact must either be viewed as figurative, or as a disconfirmation of the Bible.

But you know all this. That's why you continue introducing red herrings and strawman arguments -- to avoid dealing with this fact.

Why do you not want to deal with this fact? Because you know that as soon as you do, you'll no longer be able to pretend having the "high ground" of "I stick to the Bible!", because you'll have no choice but to admit that parts of Ezekiel contradict known fact and therefore must be interpreted as figurative or symbolic by Bible believers.

: You could use that argument for anything written in the Bible. Talk about a red herring. But you have absolutely no basis for concluding that the 40 year desolation of Egypt was figurative. Not Biblical anyway. You base it merely on the fact that Egypt did not record such a 40 year desolation.

Yet another misrepresentation. As Leolaia, I and others have pointed out, that Egypt experienced no 40-year desolation is shown by a variety of evidence:

Regular Egyptian history records no such desolation.

Egyptian records of the lengths of lives of the Apis bulls form a continuous chronological record for the entire 26th Dynasty and show no period of desolation.

Herodotus and Josephus report on a variety of Egyptian activities during the period.

Egyptian population was probably between 3 and 5 million at that time, and if Egypt were desolated through 548 B.C., as you claim, it is impossible for that many people to become established less than one year later so that Egypt could form a viable military alliance with Babylon against Persia.

You've completely failed to discuss any of these facts.

: Ezekiel 29-32 is unambiguous and does not mince any words. Egypt was desolated by Neb for 40 years without inhabitant. To deny this is to deny God's word. To deny this is putting secular evidence over the Bible's word. Plane and simple.

Nope. To deny this is to deny that Ezekiel's words had a literal fulfillment but allows for a figurative fulfillment. I've given you several possibilities for a figurative fulfillment. So have other posters. JW lurkers will again note how you completely ignore this. Your claim is just a continuance of your strawman arguments.

: And I am glad to see that many more are coming clean admitting that their claim is the Bible is unreliable. That is what the honest person will do who wants to stick to 587.

Yet another lie, and total misrepresentation of the facts. The two authors I cited who believe that Ezekiel's 40-year prophecy had a figurative fulfillment were committed Christians, and would highly resent your smearing tactics. The same is true for the entire world of non-JW scholars who accept the Bible as God's Word and also reject the Watchtower's 607 date.

You are a deliberate deceiver!

: The 40 year desolation of Egypt which no one can overcome without sidestepping the scriptures

Just as the Watchtower Society sidesteps the Scriptures by interpreting Exodus' statement that God created everything in the heavens and the earth in six days as figurative. Yes, you certainly have a good point.

: only scratches the surface as to the proof of 607 from the Bible. The link provided at the start of this thread shows 'legions' of evidence.

The evidence given in this link is of the same dungy quality as everything you've posted in this thread -- a pack of misrepresentations, half-truths and flat-out lies.

: Lets make it clear what you and other posters have said through this long thread. The 'legions' of problems that you have shown us in 'spades' can be summed up in one sentence.

: Interpretation by secular historians of the evidence shows no 40 year desolation of Egypt at the hands of Neb therefore what Jehovah prophecied thru Ezekiel cannot be true.

I've shown above why your summary is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said. You continue to show yourself a liar.

AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

thirdwitless wrote:

:: Were the heavens and the earth created in six days, as Exodus states? : As if this has anything to do with 607. It has everything to do with it, as I've taken pains to explain. Now answer the question. : Did the Israelites wander in the wilderness for 40 years? Likely a few thousand of them wandered around for awhile. : You attempting to sidestep the question of the 40 year desolation of Egypt is apparent because you have no answer for it. On the contrary. I've answered it in spades. So have other posters. The JW lurkers who are observing this thread know it, and so do you. AlanF

601

For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled in

just got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.

i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

AlanF

thirdwitless wrote:

: I suggest if you want to talk about what it meant when it said Tyre would never be rebuilt and whether Jerusalem has been rebuilt in the same sense then start a new thread. It has nothing to do with 607.

It has everything to do with it, as I've discussed in my immediately preceding post. Your claim is a red herring.

The fact that you refuse to give answers to simple questions such as "was Jerusalem ever rebuilt" proves your intellectual dishonesty. You know very well that giving an honest answer blows away your claims about the rebuilding of Tyre.

Big Tex made an excellent point with regard to your refusal to answer these relevant questions: Jehovah's Witnesses who are lurking and reading this thread are getting an excellent witness against Watchtower claims.

: And I am really not interested in discussing questions like was Jerusalem rebuilt? I told you to choose whatever interpretation you like with Tyre, it has nothing to do with 607 unless your claim is that the Bible is false.

: Is that your claim?

I've answered you several times now: Not for purposes of this thread. Rather, the purpose of my questions is to prove that many biblical statements must be taken as figurative or symbol to retain any veracity. The alternative is to reject the Bible altogether. While some posters explicitly do this, I certainly am not doing it in this thread. AlanF