Ann O'Maly

That's because this moron hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.

Just remember that lunar eclipses will show up in different months. Babylon used sun years. Juda used 2 calendars. The calendar for spiritual / holy events and the planting calendar.

ScholarJW has now, for at least 20 years in the time I've dealt with him on JW-related forums, proved himself to be a truly pathological liar, on the order of current U.S. President Donald Trump. Various commentators have observed that it's easy to tell when Trump is lying -- his mouth is moving. It's similar with ScholarJW. The bulk of what he posts on forums such as this is either a flat-out lie, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. He has actually misrepresented the Bible itself over these past 20 years. He often tries to make some dishonest claim, is proven to have lied, and then completely ignores that proof, thus compounding his lie because he has, by failing to admit it, doubled down on it.
So how does one tell when ScholarJW is lying? He's typing on his keyboard.
Below I present some examples of these failings, which are mostly deliberate.
Recently, in the thread "Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE", ScholarJW referred to a couple of academic papers presented by scholars Steven M. Bryan and Jeffrey Niles that considered the implications of "the 70 years" of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11, 29:10, etc.). He made some outrageous claims for these papers, which amounted to claiming that these secular scholars actually supported Watchtower chronology and the summaries of that chronology that ScholarJW usually makes. His claims are false, of course, because no normal scholars support Watchtower chronology. His basic claim can be read here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-149440 . Here is an excerpt:
<< Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article  by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26.
This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ  interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.
Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated. >>
This excerpt contains ScholarJW's basic lie about "servitude-desolation-exile": "these three principal elements ... are equated". But he is so intent on promoting this lie that in the same sentence he refutes his own claim of support: "... in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated".
ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.
Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.
Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.
When I read ScholarJW's obviously false claims, I replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-149446 😞
<< I have not read that article, but I have no doubt that, as with virtually all articles you've cited in support of your views, it will turn out actually to debunk those views. Would you like to clarify now, before I read the article and point out where you've mucked it up? >>
After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.
ScholarJW's reply was typically garbled and full of lies, without any real evidence of anything. He seems to think that merely denying a fact or an argument makes it disappear.
JW Insider soon called out ScholarJW's lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-151338 😞
<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>
In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.
Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.
The terms servitude, captivity, and desolation receive examination. Servitude refers to the period in which Judah and the surrounding nations would submit to the dominion of Babylon. This thesis proposes that the servitude lasted from 609 to 539 BC. Captivity resulted from the seventy-year period of Babylonian servitude, but the two must not be equated. Several captivities resulted in Babylon’s invasion of Judah and ended with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC. Desolation also resulted from the period of servitude, but must not be equated with it. This refers to the period of destruction that followed the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and lasted until the construction of the temple in 515 BC.
I agree that the period of servitude would be about from 609 to 539, although I wouldn't haggle over a couple years on either side. >>
And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.
Many more posts along these lines were made in that thread, but I want to move on to the meat of this post in the present thread "SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)".
It so happened that the dishonest 'research' of Norwegian JW apologist Rolf Furuli was discussed. After some discussion ScholarJW again falsely invoked support for his claims from scholars Bryan and Niles, and said this ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152102 😞
<< You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics. >>
Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means) that the 70 years are related to "three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics."
I had pointed out several times before that COJ (Carl Olof Jonsson) and many other scholars discussed these matters plenty of times during the past two millennia, but ScholarJW doubled down on his lie. I then stated ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152113 😞
<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?
And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology". >>
ScholarJW replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152118 😞
<< COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years. >>
To refute that lie I quoted COJ's first version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152132 😞
<<<< Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93:
<< . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >>
Read it and weep, Neil.
>>>>
Naturally, ScholarJW completely ignored COJ's exposition. Rather, he tried his usual trick of sidestepping by posing a completely irrelevant 'problem' ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 😞
<< Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:
Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars? >>
Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.
JW Insider perfectly described ScholarJW's sidestepping tactic ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 😞
<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>
And of course, ScholarJW quickly replied with yet another set of lies:
<< Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? 
Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! >>
Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.
And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.
Clearly then, ScholarJW thinks we are all so dumb as to not understand his dishonest tactics of sidestepping complete debunkings of his lies.
After the above debunkings, ScholarJW again doubled down on his lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152286 😞
<< The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:
1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young
2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. >>
Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.
Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.
Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.
ScholarJW consistently lies, misrepresents scholars and opponents, ignores scholars he disagrees with, refuses to quote sources, even the Bible itself, often gives no references to claimed sources or refuses to provide links or computer copies, sidesteps arguments and debunkings in every possible way, almost never admits error, almost never concedes a point, and generally commits about every sin possible in the world of scholars.
In short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.
Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

Only a problem for you (and Watchtower). The matter is settled in academia.
Haha, and there it is. OK, fine. In that case, methinks you should let go of the "heavy world of chronology" and stick to the more sedate world of the retired: golf, sudoku, or maybe enroll on a basket-weaving course. Hooroo.

When he sticks to that, yes, it's a great idea and works well. Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to that.
 
His idea is to make the reader believe that cuneiform writing is open to interpretation - except when it conforms to his conclusions. If it doesn't conform to his conclusions, he changes the reading/meaning of the logograms. 

When he sticks to that, yes, it's a great idea and works well. Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to that.
 
His idea is to make the reader believe that cuneiform writing is open to interpretation - except when it conforms to his conclusions. If it doesn't conform to his conclusions, he changes the reading/meaning of the logograms. 

@Ann O'Maly Thanks for joining and thanks for the correction.
I should not have said: "The site that Ann O'maly refers to is vat4956.com, and the translation information is excellent there, too."
The specific lines I checked out appeared to be exactly as I recalled them from other sources. But I just started looking at that site yesterday for the first time, and although I had not read any of their translations carefully yet,  I love that they break down each and every line the way they do. They put a picture of the line, a transliteration, and the official Neugebauer-Weidner/Hunger translation.
After just now reading your statement, I picked another line at random. Front - Line 17. I agree it looks unfinished and rushed, but I still love the method of showing information for each line one at a time and displaying literal meanings.
www.vat4956.com/thetablet.php?frontline17
  Transliteration for 588 & 568 BC:
[xxx] x 15 DINGIR KI DINGIR IGI 7. 30 ┌NA AN. MI sin ša2 DIB┐ [...]  
Translation for 568 BC that also fits the year 588 BC- by P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner (1915) edited by Hermann Hunger (1988)
The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7°30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by [...]
---------------
Looking further down the page, I liked these charted out lines, and I assumed there would be more clarity here. I see that some symbols were given no translation, and some were given the possible meanings that would only work in other contexts.

You test it then, Neil. Ever since Furuli's books came out 13 years or so ago, I've wanted you to compare the astronomical data for yourself. You have always refused or made silly excuses so you stay on the same loop-de-loop of non-arguments.
 
It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up. 

Are you suggesting that the Org acted on its own with 1925 and 1975, not following Jehovah's instructions?

So if someone claims to have had a message revealed by the Lord himself, and yet the message turns out to be faulty, we can conclude either ...
- the Lord gave faulty information,
or
- the person didn't accurately convey the Lord's message,
or
-the person didn't receive the Lord's message.

That's a sweeping statement. How do you know that they didn't leave because they loved Jehovah and Jesus more than an organization they felt had led them down a false path?

Can you give me an instance from the Bible where a true prophet got Jehovah's message wrong?

Having been in contact with the IICSA they requested information about a situation that I made them aware of.  So I have forwarded the information with my contact details, which it seems they will forward to the Police. 
@Anna had made a comment on another topic about what would we do if we knew the person or persons in question. Here is my answer. I did what should be done. Children need to be protected as much as we are able. Nobody should be hiding paedophiles and nobody should be walking away from their responsibility to report anything suspicious that could result in harm to a child or adult.  Here is the letter that I answered. (highlighting mine)
Our reference: IICSA-xxxxxx 
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Thank you for contacting the Inquiry via email on 13 August 2020 and bringing to our attention your concerns about the abuse of a young child.  
We would still strongly encourage you to contact your local police force directly, or the NSPCC helpline on 0808 800 5000 if you believe that there is an ongoing current risk to any child or vulnerable person www.nspcc.org.uk
As you may be aware, the Inquiry has a legal duty to pass on any allegations of child abuse to Operation Hydrant, which is a national policing team set up to coordinate the police response to non-recent child sexual abuse. Because of our legal duty, we need to pass some of the information you provided to Operation Hydrant. 
We can send information to Operation Hydrant anonymously, however, we would like to ask for your consent to pass your name and contact details to the police along with the allegations. This would allow the police to make contact with you if they deemed it necessary to gain further information about the allegations. 
If you do consent to us including your name and contact details, please respond to this email by 21 August 2020 and advise what your preferred method of contact would be (e.g. phone, email etc). Please be aware that we cannot guarantee which police force (if any) will make contact with you or they will use your preferred contact method. 
The attached leaflet “Passing Information To The Police” explains consent and how the police may use your information in more detail. 
Support
You mention in your email that you are looking for Jehovah's Witnesses UK Sexual Abuse Helpline, unfortunately we are not aware of any such helpline.
Whilst there are no support organisations that are directly attached to the Inquiry, we are able to signpost people to trusted ones that provide specialist therapeutic support and information to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. While the Inquiry cannot endorse individual organisations, it recognises that those organisations are recognised for the services they offer. 
If you feel that you might benefit from some support you may be interested in some organisations who provide specialist advice and therapeutic support specifically for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse at this link.  Although some of these organisations may currently be offering reduced services due to the COVID-19 crisis, the vast majority of them are still offering therapeutic support and advice. It may also be beneficial to talk to your GP so that they can signpost you to some appropriate local support. 
Truth Project
Please do remember that there is a part of the Inquiry which enables victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to share their experiences with us - you can find more information at the Truth Project website. 
Finally we would like to make sure that you are aware of an investigation that the Inquiry is carrying out into current child protection policies, practices and procedures in religious institutions that have a significant presence in England and Wales.  This investigation includes the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  You can find out more about this investigation on our website and you can find details of the public hearings relating to this investigation here. 
Thank you again for contacting us. If you have any questions regarding the work of the Truth Project, or the Inquiry in general, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely

Jodie Yarborough
Head of Correspondence & Engagement Team
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse 

@Ann O'Maly Thank you Ann. What you have written makes good sense.  It was me that criticised Tom about making it known about James' family, but Tom rightly enough put me straight that James had previously mentioned it himself. And it is true that some of us, well me anyway, was thinking that James might have taken his own life.  I only use this forum, so I wouldn't have seen any information elsewhere. 
So it was good news ,bad news, really.  James is not dead, but James is in a 'spot of bother'. 
Thank you again.
 

Yup.
OK. I learned about it on another very public forum, was shocked, came here to see what people were saying about it (y'all must have heard, surely? but no), found this thread with JTR's last post and Tom's comments about JTR's estrangement from his family ("He made it all public previously," said Tom in answer to some criticism about publicizing this private matter) and Witness's link to JTR's discussion about his being disfellowshipped and reinstated a while back and, as people were already openly talking about JTR's personal life and were wondering about where he'd abruptly disappeared to (all pretty intriguing), I decided to share a link which would shed some light on what had happened to him, thereby making his post a little less mysterious. I thought you guys would like to know, even if it was unpleasant news. At least we know he's not dead.
So there it is, and here we are.

Yup.
OK. I learned about it on another very public forum, was shocked, came here to see what people were saying about it (y'all must have heard, surely? but no), found this thread with JTR's last post and Tom's comments about JTR's estrangement from his family ("He made it all public previously," said Tom in answer to some criticism about publicizing this private matter) and Witness's link to JTR's discussion about his being disfellowshipped and reinstated a while back and, as people were already openly talking about JTR's personal life and were wondering about where he'd abruptly disappeared to (all pretty intriguing), I decided to share a link which would shed some light on what had happened to him, thereby making his post a little less mysterious. I thought you guys would like to know, even if it was unpleasant news. At least we know he's not dead.
So there it is, and here we are.

Dear Thinking, in this few days you participated with 10 posts/comments about same event. And now you concluded how you are in some sort of regret for opening "that link" and involved yourself in "this fiasco". Why do you think how speaking about such issue is your or our "fiasco"? Do you feel need for repentance because you involved yourself into this? Do you need to confess your "sin" about this to your elders in congregation? And to tell them how you are in virtual "inappropriate association with weak brothers and former members" ?
The exchange of experiences and opinions that take place here can be helpful in acquiring the skill of discerning truth, falsehood, and that between this two.

It seems to me you like to shoot the messenger.
Guilty or innocent, do you not think it shameful to be arrested for sexual offenses?
1. Do you not know this site at all?
2. The information I posted was true and already public.
I didn't post his mugshot and allegations. I posted an embedded link to the inmate page that only signed-in members of the forum could access. 
Now look who's speculating.
And yet you are and have been participating.
Edit to add: I was referring to JTR's cryptic message and sudden absence. I think you may have read too quickly, @Thinking.

Sorry for butting in, but I think she meant JTR's family too. I am sure JTR getting arrested has had a negative impact on them (his wife etc.), regardless whether he is guilty or innocent.
edit: Ok, I just saw she explained it...

I disagree - as do child abuse prevention agencies.
Also see this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/202008/language-matters-child-pornography-no-longer
Now to JTR. We do not know the exact nature of the material or the circumstances leading to his (alleged) possession or viewing of it, and I'm not going to speculate. I will be most interested in the outcome of his future trial, whichever way it goes. I'm sure other members here feel the same. As he was a frequent poster here, that outcome should, imo, be shared on this forum just as his arrest was. There's nothing shameful about posting publicly available, factual information on a person we interacted with and which could help explain his cryptic message and sudden absence, @Thinking. The shame is in being arrested for that crime.
I just hope his family and the (alleged) victims are coping OK because this whole saga must be turning their worlds upside-down. Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

How so?
Not at all.
Um ... what?
 
Are you assuming his family is breezing through this unaffected? That this situation will only impact their lives if he is convicted? What planet are you living on, Tom?

I disagree - as do child abuse prevention agencies.
Also see this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/202008/language-matters-child-pornography-no-longer
Now to JTR. We do not know the exact nature of the material or the circumstances leading to his (alleged) possession or viewing of it, and I'm not going to speculate. I will be most interested in the outcome of his future trial, whichever way it goes. I'm sure other members here feel the same. As he was a frequent poster here, that outcome should, imo, be shared on this forum just as his arrest was. There's nothing shameful about posting publicly available, factual information on a person we interacted with and which could help explain his cryptic message and sudden absence, @Thinking. The shame is in being arrested for that crime.
I just hope his family and the (alleged) victims are coping OK because this whole saga must be turning their worlds upside-down. Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

I believe Ann O'Maly's viewpoint is of general value, and it does not target particular, this one, case.