scholar pretendus, having, much like Noah, "awoke from his Jim Beam", and having gone on to imbibe another goodly quantity, mumbled:
: Speaking about apologies, When will Jonsson apologize for his historical blunder in connection with John Aquila Brown and the Proclaimer's book?
Oh please! We've been over that, and his statements were proved completely correct. The Society screwed up in its pronouncements, and Jonsson pointed them out.
: The Society does not support the whacky views of Velikovsky
Of course it does. That 1950 Awake! article I posted a link to proves it. And because the Society has never repudiated its support of Velikovsky, by the general principle that "old light stands until it is replaced by new light" the Society's support of Velikovsky is to be regarded as "new light" and as "spiritual food in due season provided by Jehovah's faithful and discreet slave". If this principle did not hold, then any Tom, Dick and Harry could decide for themselves what to believe. And we couldn't have that, now, could we?
: and if you have an issue about the matter then you should write to them.
I already know what the Society's reply would be: none.
: Jonsson did or does have an association with that whacky pseudo Catastrohist journal.
Nope. Writing an article that refutes Velikovsky's claims, and having it accepted by a journal, is no more having an association with said journal than writing an article supporting abortion and having it published in an anti-abortion journal is having an association with that journal. By definition, having an association implies having a friendly association, having views in common. Since Jonsson's articles were diametrically opposed to Velikovsky's views, it is a perversion of the truth to claim that he had an "association" with the Catastrophism journal. Thus, you lied.
: By the way when will you apologize over the matter of the Society misrepresenting Thiele
I've proved beyond dispute that the Society misrepresented Thiele. The fact that you're too morally stupid to admit it doesn't change that fact.
: and when are you going to apologize to me for stating that I have failed my Master's program?
Well, since this is the first time you've acknowledged that I've challenged you on this, there's nothing to apologize for, unless you can somehow prove that you really have completed the Master's program. Readers will note that scholar pretendus has not actually claimed to have completed his Master's degree.
: Now to your gibberish:
I repeat:
In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the sort of doublethink that occurs in people who resort to thought-stopping techniques such as where scholar pretendus deems studied responses "gibberish". Because of threats of punishment from the Watchtower organization, and the teaching that the Governing Body speaks for God, whenever clear errors in organizational teachings or policies are pointed out to Witnesses, they will either refuse to acknowledge them or deny their importance. They deny it even to themselves, to avoid an intolerable internal conflict between what they know deep down to be the truth and what they have been taught. The denial is automatic and almost unconscious, because they have been trained this way from their earliest experience with the Watchtower Society. In addition to doublethink, the process is strongly reminiscent of another kind of mental gymnastic George Orwell described:
A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.
. . . The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. [Part 2, Ch. IX; pp. 212-13 hardcover; pp. 174-5 paperback]
: Now what do we really have here for Zechariah's seventy years. One moment you say there are two definite periods and then you say there is one period but the other is fuzzy.
As usual, you've completely misrepresented what I said. I will not attempt to unravel your insane rantings.
: Your so called 'three definite periods of approximately seventy years' is rather ambiguous and meaningless but if that is your view then so be it.
Not at all. As I showed by quoting just one 19th century scholar who agrees with my views, F. C. Cook, these three periods are viewed by all good scholars as real and separate, and as having much meaning in context.
The only reason you term these three periods "meaningless" is that if you didn't, your entire worldview would collapse vis a vis Orwell.
: You accept, I reject it. End of story.
I think not.
: Your quotes from the Anchor Bible is well known to me but you omit to mention that as far as Lundbom is concerned the 'seventy years' should simply be understood as a round number.
How stupid can anyone be? The material I quoted from Lundbom included the rather clear statement by him that "The number 70 is stereotyped, thus no more than an approximation." Do you not understand that "an approximation" means "a round number"?
: This generally accepted view of the seventy years is a tacit admission of its exegetical difficulty and that the period can not be precisely identified as to time.
Well then, it's obvious by your own admission that all good scholars are against the Watchtower Society's dogmatic claims to the contrary.
: Therfore, according to scholars it cannot be a definite period whether numbered the one or the many.
That conclusion does not follow from your premise. A definite period spoken of in some text might be unknown to interpreters as to its start and end dates for any number of reasons. In the case of the Bible, the start date of the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah is nowhere specified in the Bible. But the end date is clearly specified by the texts of Jer. 25:11, 12; 27:6; 29:10 and 2 Chron. 36:20. Since we will all agree that the Bible is the definer of the 70 years of Jeremiah, it and it alone can be the source of definitive information on the period. And taking the Bible at face value, it's clear that -- no matter the start date -- the end of Jeremiah's 70 years was in 539 B.C., which perfectly fits the statements in the above-mentioned bible passages.
: Cook was not a poztate nor a member of that evil slave class
I'm glad you figured that out. Did you learn that in your don't-dribble-on-your-chin class?
: and like all commentaries are of much merit for all Bible Students. However, he expresses a view of the seventy yeras which differs to ours .
Duh.
You state this, which is obvious to the point of absurdity, but entirely miss the point of my posting of Cook's view: Cook agrees with all other scholars that Zechariah spoke of two different periods that are themselves different from the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah. You claimed that such a view was merely the product of "pozates" dumbly parroting the views of Carl Jonsson. By quoting a pre-Russell scholar who supports the views of modern scholars, I've shown that your stupid ad hominem is just that -- a stupid, thoroughly straw-grasping attempt to dismiss the views of many fine scholars as mere followings of Carl Jonsson. But you're far too morally stupid to admit this. Note once again -- you're not intellectually too stupid to grasp these things -- you're too MORALLY STUPID to admit the truth when you see it.
: The seventy years of Zechariah must be identical to those of Jeremiah because Daniel had already discerned that those seventy years had nearly ended
No, the text of Daniel clearly shows that Daniel saw that the 70 years had already ended. That realization prompted him to action.
And of course, your claim of "must" is just that -- a claim without justification.
: and that the seventy years of Zechariah were attributable to Jeremiah because of the context of chapters 1 and 7
This near-gibberish has already been thoroughly refuted.
: In regard to Young's thesis it simply confirms what I long said about chronology on this board that it is about methodology and interpretation,
Which means nothing whatsoever, outside of the devil in the details -- details which you steadfastly ignore. Even a relatively new poster, EvilForce, has got you pegged on this.
: a fact which only now are poztates forced to accept.
This is among the most stupid things you've ever said, given its absurd mendaciousness. It is only exceeded by your next claim:
: Scholar is now vindicated.
Your silly words remind me of Dr. Seuss's book, Horton Hears A Who.
: So you think that Young's article will convert the entire community to accept 587.
Given its factual and objective nature, yes. But given the glacially slow pace of change in the scholarly religious community, it could take decades.
: I wonder what Young would think of that absurd assumption,
I'm sure that Young would be flattered.
: such stupidiy demonstrates your total ignorance of the debate.
Such a baldfaced claim demonstrates your total ignorance of the world of biblical scholarship.
: Somehow I do not believe that your guru Carl Jonsson would believe this.
Well, why not write him and ask him?
: So, you got caught out in not knowing about the article in the journal Biblica,
I've already shown that you got caught out in a far more significant way, by lying by omission and thinking you'd not be found out. But the way that your lies are being exposed day by day, and often via sources unexpected by me, suggests that perhaps the God I don't believe in is against you and your demonic cult.
; this well demonstartes it is I that has to teach you and show you the way for in time I may convert from falsehood into truth. You did not know enough about this debate to be aware of a significant recent article in that journal Biblica and so the so-called braindead JW apologist had to put it first under your dribbling chin.
LOL! See my previous post.
: Alan, you and I have two things in common: We both share a concern for darn pesky resolutions and we both acknowledge the utter brilliance and genius of that greatesT of all scholars, the late Frederick William Franz.
I will admit to the 1st thing in common. As for the 2nd, old Freddie was brilliant but completely insane. I would no more call him a genius than I would call other brilliant but insane people geniuses, such as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon -- you name them. Their brilliance was extremely narrow, and was more of the quality of an idiot savant like the proverbial Rainman, or whatever is the best term for evil geniuses like Hitler.
AlanF
