I would Google for dates more often, but my wife tends to object to online dating.
Ian
Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology
by AlanF 54 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Dansk
-
Norm
Well Alan F.
I am afraid that if you do continue this blustering and fail to immediately produce
proof of C. O. Jonsson's correct shoe size and mine also, I am afraid we all including "scholar"
can never trust anything you say or write again. I mean the illustrious WT scholars have know his shoe size
for years but modesty forbids them to publish it. As any JW in good standing they deem it improper to draw attention to themselves.
Norm -
jayhawk1
Alan, you are the man! I have to copy and repaste this part of what you said. I sums it up about how celebrated the celebrated watchtower scholars are.: Celebrated WT scholars have indeed presented clear evidence in support of 537
Give the references.
: and have also demonstrated competence in matters of calendation.
Yeah, right. They can get some things right, but they've gotten a lot of things wrong. Like forgetting that there was no "zero year" so that their original date of 606 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction had to be migrated to 607, and 536 had to be revised to 537.
Talk about shonky! Your claims are the epitome of shonky, Neil.
Here's a little more about how your "celebrated WT scholars" have been forced to change their dates over time:
The 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free said on pages 151-2:
It is well established that two years after the overthrow of Babylon in 538 B.C. by Darius the Mede and his nephew, Cyrus the Persian, the first year of Cyrus' exclusive rule began, which year was 536 B.C.
Following this chronology, the October 15, 1943 Watchtower said on page 309:
Two years later, in 536 B.C., Babylon's conqueror, King Cyrus, turned his attention to the matter of Jehovah's temple at Jerusalem and released the faithful remnant from Babylon, to return to Zion to rebuild the house of worship of the true and living God.
So here we have not only a bunch of completely wrong dates, but they're wrong even with respect to one another by present Watchtower standards! Here, in 536 B.C., Cyrus turned his attention to the temple in Jerusalem and, in that very year, the Jews returned to Jerusalem. This shows that even "celebrated WT scholars" agreed for half the Watchtower Society's history that the Jews returned to Judah in the very same year that Cyrus issued his edict allowing the return! And so, these older "celebrated WT scholars" obviously agree with the basics of the argument that I and Jeffro have been setting forth, namely, that the Jews returned to Judah in the same year that Cyrus issued his edit, 538 B.C.
Scholar Pretendus Thickus Stupidus Maximus, who are these celebrated watchtower scholars and why can't they keep the dates strait? And a zero year, where did these celebrated scholars get a zero year from? Of course they quickly had to "fix" that one.
-
jayhawk1
Scholar, since you still use the phrase "celebrated watchtower scholars" it got me to thinking. I established in another thread what "celebrated" means, but perhaps there is a synonym for celebrated that could be used to describe these phantom men who refuse to stand up and be identified.
Thesaurus.com says
Main Entry: celebrated Part of Speech: adjective Definition: famous Synonyms: acclaimed, big*, distinguished, eminent, famed, glorious, great, high powered, illustrious, immortal, important, large, laureate, lionized, notable, number one*, numero uno*, outstanding, popular, pre-eminent, prominent, renowned, revered, storied, well-known Antonyms: obscure, unexalted, unknown Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.Hmmm, they don't seem to be any of these. The do seem to resemble the antonyms though, so I'll look up anonymous and see if they fit that description better.
Main Entry: anonymous Part of Speech: adjective Definition: unknown Synonyms: bearding*, incog, incognito, innominate, nameless, pseudo, pseudonymous, secret, unacknowledged, unattested, unavowed, unclaimed, uncredited, undesignated, undisclosed, unidentified, unnamed, unsigned, unspecified Antonyms: identified, known, named, showcased, spotlighted Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.Hey look, that's a much better fit! But then I have to ask myself, are the Watchtower writers brilliant? Back to the thesaurus...
Main Entry: brilliant Part of Speech: adjective 2 Definition: famous Synonyms: celebrated , eminent, excellent, exceptional, glorious, illustrious, magnificent, outstanding, splendid, superb Antonyms: normal, typical, uncelebrated Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.No, brilliant doesn't seem to work all that well either, but just to make sure... let's look up... nameless.
Main Entry: nameless Part of Speech: adjective Definition: anonymous Synonyms: John Doe, X*, bearding, incog, incognito, inconspicuous, innominate, obscure, pseudonymous, unacknowledged, uncelebrated , undesignated, undistinguished, unfamed, unheard-of, unknown, unnamed, unnoted, unsung, untitled, whatchamacallit* Antonyms: famous, well-known Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.So nameless' definition (and they certainly are nameless at this point) is anonymous. One of the synonyms is UNCELEBRATED, not celebrated. Finally, the antonyms are famous and well-known.
Scholar, prove me wrong. Please, I dare you to prove me wrong.
-
Mistah MOJO
You're right, of course, and hopefull the JWs lurking here will have a seed planted deep in their subconscious. Thanks.
MM -
AlanF
Here is a summary of the the positive evidence for the 537 date, that has not been thoroughly refuted, given by scholar pretendus brainus friedus:
"I read it on the Internet."
"The Watchtower Society says so."
"Carl Olof Jonsson isn't dogmatically against it."
That's it.
On the other hand, this guy has yet to offer a single fact to refute the 538 date.
The same can be said for the few other Watchtower defenders who have attempted to tackle this problem. Thirdwitness, for example, simply ignores the problem completely.
AlanF
-
Black Sheep
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.
Hi Alan,
I'm sure the crucial piece of information for many Dubbies would be so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years years. I am surprised that scholar hasn't called Josephus unreliable because of his fifty year statement.
Is there some good reason that scholar and 3Witless haven't pulled that one?
-
Gordy
celebrated WT scholars
Any organisation who is worthy of respect would have no qualms about saying who its "celebrated scholars" are.
If in schools, colleges and universities teachers were just to say " celebrated scholars say this or that on a subject" what would we think.
If watching a news report they said "a celebrated politician today said ..." would we be happy with that!
So until I know who these "celebrated WT scholars" are, their names and qualifications etc, to speak on the subject. Then I must take what is said by them with a pinch of salt. For all I know whoever wrote the WT article on what ever subject, could be the guy who sweeps the printing room floor.
Incidently if the way the Watchtowers attuitude of condemning further edcuation (college, universities) continues, then soon there will be no "celebrated WT scholars" around.
The facts that you say are incontrovertible are such only to you and like-minded apostates and are viewed somewhat differently by scholars.
Are these scholars who view differently the "celebrated WT scholars" again.
Thats because we are FREE to think for ourselves and go and research and check what Alan f and Jeffro say is true or not. We are not imprisoned by the dictates of the WT. Who have over the years convinced its weak-minded members that only they are right.
If a scientist proposes a theory, he has to prove that theory is correct. He also has to let other scientists test that theory.
If "celebrated WT scholars" put their theories forward then they should be open to prove them showing the means by which they arrived at their view. Also to let others test and check them out.
But no! Scholar lives in this little world were he will just accept whatever the "celebrated WT scholars" say and how dare anyone actually argue against them.
Alan f said
At this point I think that all readers, including all JW lurkers, can see how incredibly stupid, evasive and downright dishonest JW defenders can be.
How true this is!
I have seen how "Scholar" (a misnomer is ever there was) has dodged, prevaricated, procrastinated his way out of giving answers.
SCHOLAR you do a great service in showing how as Alan F says in showing how bad JW defenders are and what lengths of lies and deceit they go to. Each time I read what you write, makes more convinced that I did the right thing leaving the JW's.
Do you not realise the effect you must have on JW's who come to this forum and see the way you behave. They must despair.
Doubts they may have had are reinforced by you. How? Just think the weakness of your replies to Alan f and Jeffro. The extent that Alan and Jeffro go to in replying to you. The work and research they put in to refute your arguments. The JW who lurks here reads them and begins to think for themselves about WT teaching.
SCHOLAR you are contributing to helping others to leave the WT every year.
You have stumbled your brothers!! What does your precious WT say about those who do that?
That you will held accountable by Jehovah for doing so.
So you will be joining us "apostates" at Armageddon then.
-
AlanF
Black Sheep said:
: I'm sure the crucial piece of information for many Dubbies would be so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years years. I am surprised that scholar hasn't called Josephus unreliable because of his fifty year statement.
: Is there some good reason that scholar and 3Witless haven't pulled that one?
Of course. Josephus also made several incorrect statements along the lines that the Jews were captive and the temple was destroyed for 70 years. That these are unreliable is shown by the fact that in several of the instances, he also made historical claims that even JW apologists have to agree are wrong. We've attempted to discuss this with this moron 'scholar' a number of times, and he simply refuses to comment. Why? Because if he argues that Josephus was wrong on this (and of course, his statement about the date of the laying of the 2nd temple's foundations in 537 B.C.), then he can hardly argue that Josephus was right about other things. That kills off a number of Watchtower arguments.
AlanF
-
VM44
btt