![](http://content.invisioncic.com/r266724/monthly_2019_11/AlanOldMan.jpg.2c22a15604c1a41f79d8c22e66916c5e.jpg)
AlanF
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Reputation Activity
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
No, just irreverent.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Ah, well then! COJ certainly had a hand in writing "The Even-Tide" and is partly responsible for its content. And your memory from about 3 years ago is definitely more certain than what's written in COJ's books.
Tell us, please: what exactly is an ideology made about 3 years ago? LOL!
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions.
I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in:
(1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year).
(2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE.
(3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE.
Having trouble counting to three?
Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603:
Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.
So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE.
Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible:
No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below.
Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false:
p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >>
pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . .
Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >>
COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative:
p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >>
COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute.
So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4?
You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
He does. Can't you read?
Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.
Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Well, "k*mquat" is a cussword in Symbiolese, dontcha know.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.
Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28:
<<<<
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.
On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:
<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>
Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.
On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:
<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>
<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>
COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.
On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:
<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>
And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.
Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
>>>>
Still clueless.
The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs.
Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.
Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
LOL! Totally clueless, as always.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from AllenSmith in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
You certainly won't get much of an education from the Watch Tower. But you'll get "thought control" in spades.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Yet another post without substantive content, with claims unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Nana Fofana wrote:
Not that you haven't been given access in this thread to a great of such historical evidence.
Note what Franz wrote; he came to understand that:
<< . . . the Society’s date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon was contradicted by all known historical evidence. >>
All reputable scholars by the 1970s agreed, based on all manner of historical writings, cuneiform texts, stone stele, etc. that the date for Jerusalem's destruction was 587/586 BCE, with the uncertainty of one year due to seemingly inconsistent statements in the Bible itself.
What adjustments are you talking about?
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from AllenSmith in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
Now, after several requests, you finally manage to quote from Franz's book. Of course, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that this is from the 4th edition of 2004. It duplicates material from page 140 of the 1st edition of 1983.
So according to your own quoted material, Franz first saw the earliest version of Jonsson's research in 1977 -- 27 years before the material you quoted, 3 years before Franz left Bethel, and six years before Jonsson published his 1st edition of GTR in 1983.
The above in no way supports your claim that Franz made any sort of errors about chronology, nor that Jonsson made any sort of errors at all, in any version of his research or books.
Duh. That's because the original research was not a book, nor was it anything beyond a first draft of a book, and not meant for general publication. Furthermore, Jonsson was constantly doing research and learning new things. By the time he published his first version in 1983, he had added a great deal to his original research. So by that time, all of the material in his 1977 draft was incorporated into the 1983 book, and a lot more besides.
You showed no such thing.
Spluttering excuses. Jonsson explicitly and at length described all three main instances of exile (605/604, 597, 587/586 (and another in 582/581) ) in all four editions of GTR.
I've never heard of material pregnant to a goal.
I possess all editions of GTR and of CoC. Obviously you don't. By your own definition, you're not a GOOD researcher or scholar.
I love it. Said by among the most clueless of JW defenders I've ever encountered.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory.
You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory.
In other words, you're still lying.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Malum Intellectus in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Ah, well then! COJ certainly had a hand in writing "The Even-Tide" and is partly responsible for its content. And your memory from about 3 years ago is definitely more certain than what's written in COJ's books.
Tell us, please: what exactly is an ideology made about 3 years ago? LOL!
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
AllenSmith wrote:
You have made no arguments to support your claims. You have made unsupported bald assertions.
I already showed you in the post at the top of page 32 of this thread: In GTR4 COJ clearly states that captives were taken by Babylon in:
(1) Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE (he also comments that captives might have been taken in the next year).
(2) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, 597 BCE.
(3) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 587/586 BCE.
Having trouble counting to three?
Next you quote the part of GTR4 where COJ describes the taking of captives some time in 605 to 603:
Dated by COJ to 605 BCE shortly before Nebuchadnezzar's accession to Babylon's throne.
So in the above, COJ describes the invasion by Babylon sometime early in Jehoiakim's reign, likely in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year 605/604 BCE, or in the year after, 604/603 BCE.
Next, you quote not COJ's book, but irrelevantly, the Bible:
No problem here. 2 Kings 24 is consistent with Jeremiah 35, and COJ is consistent with both.
Really. Are you referring to COJ's 2nd edition of GTR (1986)? If so, why don't you quote from it? Well of course, we all know why you don't quote from it: doing so would destroy your false claims, as I show below.
Here are excerpts from GTR2 (1986) that prove your claims are false:
p. 56: << Nabopolassar's . . . twenty-first year [was] 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/603. >>
pp. 94-95: << Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter. . . Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the areas in vassalage to Egypt, beginning with Hamath in Syria. . . In the month of Sebat of his accession-year (February 604) Nebuchadnezzar went back to the Hatti territory, which now was under Babylonian control. He could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, and in his first regnal year (still in 604 B.C.E.) he led another campaign to Hatti to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hatti area (Judah and surrounding nations) became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at Carchemish. . .
Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in his accession year, but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1-6. Daniel, in recording the event, states that it occurred "in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," although the siege and deportation apparently followed the battle of Carchemish "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2) >>
COJ then goes on to explain the difference in dating methods used by the writers of Jeremiah and Daniel to resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel's mention of the 3rd year and Jeremiah's mention of the 4th year of Jehoiakim. Continuing with COJ's narrative:
p. 96: << Daniel 1:2 states that at this time Jehoiakim was given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar -- which indicates that he was made a vassal to the king of Babylon. >>
COJ later mentions the captivities that occurred in 597 and 587/586 BCE, which apparently you don't dispute.
So, AllenSmith, just where does COJ make contradictory claims between GTR2 and GTR4?
You still have not given a source reference to where you think Franz said anything about specifics of COJ's chronological exposition. I already asked you for this.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
He does. Can't you read?
Gobble-de-goop. Even the Watch Tower agrees with COJ's dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to 538/537 BCE.
Once again, the Watch Tower's claims about "the Gentile times" have nothing to do with chronology per se -- they are disproved by many other expositions on biblical passages.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
You refused to quote anything written by COJ, ultimately admitting your claims were based ONLY on your faulty memory.
You STILL refuse to quote anything written by Franz, almost certainly because you're relying on your faulty memory.
In other words, you're still lying.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Here we are, stuck in the middle with you!
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
No, just irreverent.
AlanF
-
AlanF reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
... and *koff* ... as you correctly pointed out ....
One man's gorilla ... is another mans guerrilla.
-
AlanF reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Â
First of all, I am not aware, nor have I EVER been aware that Allen Smith had a .... "condition". What is he .... a one legged tap dancing midget with dandruff? (????).Â
I ridicule him for his screwball ideas and goofy Snowflake perspective on the Universe.
However, if you tell me what your ..."condition" is ... perhaps I can make a special effort to make fun of it.
Think of it as having your dandruff scratched.
And as I have stated at least eight times ... I never claimed to be a JW, merely a Barbarian interested in justice, and equity for all, and COMPLETE freedom of speech, as long as there is no "biologically based vulgarity". Â
I think the phrase "low down scum sucking pig" where appropriate, is quite acceptable ... IF (and ONLY IF) I have been attacked first ... or it's an idea or philosophy that I feel that tongue needs to be stuck to a sub-zero metal pole.
I try NOT to waste my time attacking people.
They are ephemeral, and biodegradable.
IDEAS ARE FOREVER.
If it was up to me, AllenSmith(n), I would never have censured or restricted ANYTHING you have ever said ... as with the mountains of insults and arrogant condensation , occasionally you come up with a gem of an idea.
Or several.
Never fear insulting me, that I will take offense. Give it your best shot. If you wish, hire professional insulters.
I like to think I CANNOT be insulted ... so I never take offense.
One mans vicious insult is another man's belly laugh.
-
AlanF got a reaction from The Librarian in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from JWdeceiver in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.
AlanF
-
AlanF got a reaction from Ann O'Maly in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
Quite right. Which means that people who are demonstrably incapable of posting anything besides ad hominems ought to keep their mouths shut.
AlanF