607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[JW Insider]

10 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Not I!

If you meant that you don't want my posts to get shorter, then you are very generous and long-suffering with respect to one of my greatest weaknesses -- long-windedness.

Not sure what that meant, but I would be just as happy to stay over here, although I always have a tendency to think that every prior false or misleading statement should be addressed before addressing any new statements that might be false or misleading. --this includes addressing any of my own errors, of course--

unfortunately, there are already at least 100 statements made in this thread that were false or misleading, even if the person making the statements meant well, or thought they were defending truth. addressing just one point in the middle of all those issues, is almost like a tacit acceptance of the errors around it. But so many of the errors had nothing to do, really, with the topic of whether 607 is Biblically supported. That was the reason to make a fresh start.

[TrueTomHarley]

37 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

you are evidently privileged to be in the presence of a very rare level of competence.

Apparently I have seen it, as he has lured you into pounding the daylights out of your own machine and stranding yourself.

[scholar JW]

Ann

It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86  p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile  Times of Luke 21:24".

So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy.

The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias.

scholar JW

 

 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here

I already had that figured out, as might have others. But I don't think it's fair you state it.

[JW Insider]

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here

I already had that figured out, as might have others. But I don't think it's fair you state it.

you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...

On 12/13/2017 at 8:54 PM, scholar JW said:

The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.

 

[Anna]

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...

 

Sure. I didn't even see that comment. But the post you commented on was addressed to me. Of course I'm not saying you can't comment on posts addressed to other people,  but I was just wondering why you had to mention that, since we are supposed to be discussing topics and ideas rather than people and their motives and levels of competence. That's all. But sometimes I guess those things are inseparable.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

It is all very simple.

Indeed it is. You know what to do.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I already had that figured out, as might have others. But I don't think it's fair you state it.

It turns out that Top Cat O'Malihan is an expert on these things, too.

[Top Cat O'Malighan]

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It turns out that Top Cat O'Malihan is an expert on these things, too.

Stuff it, TrueTom. I'll come out when I'm good and ready to.

[scholar JW]

Ann

I have made clear my position so the ball is in your court.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

But the post you commented on was addressed to me. Of course I'm not saying you can't comment on posts addressed to other people

i hadn't ever thought of that as a problem to watch out for, but hopefully i will remember this to avoid future issues.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

but I was just wondering why you had to mention that, since we are supposed to be discussing topics and ideas rather than people and their motives and levels of competence. That's all.

i didn't have to mention it, you are right about that. my primary reason at the time, of course, was that it was the most direct way of clearing up the question from 'TrueTomHarley' about whether or not 'scholar JW' was 'Allen Smith' --based on Neil's own words. I knew that Neil had not denied Ann's references to him as Neil, but Neil's own statement to you was the only one I remembered where he directly made that statement himself.

However, I will also say that when a person makes their own competence or that of a specific person, or organisation, a part of the discussion, that the person has actually forced the issue of competence to be included into the discussion. this can happen when a person claims that a folder of theirs that includes a lot of correspondence with published authors should be trusted as supporting his point of view whether or not a questionable claim in it is ever actually presented. a person may imply that their own competence is sufficient to differentiate a good chronology from a dismissable one in that it is based on methodology that followed from their own ability to validate good methodology from no methodology.

or a person can even use the idea that a particular idea is to be dismissed because it is 'controversial' - with the implication that it is controversial among scholars - when all current scholars actually agree - save a person or single group who disagrees. we have seen this as the sole reason given to accept 539 as a pivotal year -- but not any other year in the neo-babylonian chronology. why? because it's 'controversial.' why is it controversial? Because someone who disagrees has been imputed with a status that allows their disagreement to redefine something non-controversial as controversial. obviously we wouldn't allow this for some other types of evidence. and we'd immediately recognise why it's a kind of logical fallacy. we would surely think it inappropriate to allow that 2-2=0 is controversial just because we know that someone has claimed that 2-2=1. not saying anyone or any group here is claiming 2-2=1, it's just a way to show how easily the logic of this type of thinking can become skewed.

Edited to add: Whoops, it looks like I had edited out a chunk of the original post to truetom so that some of what i just said above won't make as much sense. I think you are pointing out that i only focused on his claim of competence, and not so much on evidence that he self-identified. so now i see the problem more clearly. yes, this was unnecessary in the contekst [sic] of responding to tth. I still think it's important to the rest of the conversation, however.

[Anna]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Of course I'm not saying you can't comment on posts addressed to other people

i hadn't ever thought of that as a problem to watch out for, but hopefully i will remember this to avoid future issues.

Or ME I meant as well, lol. I just realized I made it sound like I was saying you can't comment on posts addressed to me. You should know me better than that 

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

most direct way of clearing up the question from 'TrueTomHarley' about whether or not 'scholar JW' was 'Allen Smith' --based on Neil's own words.

Well then, lets blame @TrueTomHarley. Why is he even asking these questions. I think I know why, apparently we are reaching the "lets be silly and post memes and ad hominuuuuums" stage in the discussion...

It's funny reading your posts with no capitalization on the I.  I don't know if I can take you seriously. It's like trying to listen to someone delivering a somber speech with spinach stuck between their teeth.