by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jeffro
Reply to post 780
I will be replying also to your last few posts as well as the long-winded nonsense by Alan F. The only points you have made are desperate attempt to shore up a dead chronology that is withot scriptural support as I have long argued.
You continue to ignore the plain reading of the texts which is common to apostates and ignore that evidence that does not sit comfortably with your special theory and the Jonsson hypothesis.
scholar JW
I will be replying also to your last few posts as well as the long-winded nonsense by Alan F.
Um... okay... thanks for the warning? Not sure why you bothered saying this at all.
The only points you have made are desperate attempt to shore up a dead chronology that is withot scriptural support as I have long argued.
All of your bombastic arrogance and denial will never make your view correct. I and others have provided points that completely disprove the Society's interpretation. You claim that such points are without support, they have been shown to be consistent with both the bible, so as usualy you make an unreferenced and undemonstrable generic statement.
You continue to ignore the plain reading of the texts which is common to apostates and ignore that evidence that does not sit comfortably with your special theory and the Jonsson hypothesis.
Which texts? Which evidence? You cannot show how my interpretation ignores any single passage of the bible. All you can show, at best, is how my interpretation differs to yours, and that is due to your misapplication of various words in the original text, and your ignoring of the initial context of the original 70 years despite what is explicitly stated by Jeremiah. And of course your motivation for doing so is to try to uphold your failed end-times prophecy.
I don't care about a list of dead kings anymore...I'm still waiting for that list of celebrated WT scholars.
Undercover,
Do you "really" think that celebrated list of WTS scholars is going to stand up and take credit for all that baloney they have been writing for all these years? LOL, I wouldn't hold my breath. I know you said that tongue in cheek, I just couldnt resist saying it anyway.
Tor
No workable kings list from Scholar and the tower is still a glaring problem.
toreador said:
: how long did it take you to compose the above post. It was very interesting reading.
Probably about 15 hours, including reading for research. I was ill over the weekend and had some time on my hands.
Actually, I had always wanted to type up all of the relevant quotations of Josephus but I never got around to it. This gave me an excuse.
AuldSoul said:
:: I'll prove this easily: If the Society published a Watchtower article admitting that 607 was wrong and 587 was right, would you change your mind or not?
: I asked my mother this question. It clearly hurt her head.
Of course. I've asked a number of JWs about this over the years. Almost all did everything in their power to evade answering.
: THIS is the key, when the Society changes its viewpoint, suddenly what was wrong becomes right and what was right becomes wrong. What was good becomes bad and what was bad becomes good.
Your application of Isaiah 5:20-23 is dead nuts on.
These people would literally kill their children if the Watchtower Society instructed them to, in the right way.
Jeffro:
I know that we've all spent time dealing with scholar pretendus' nonsense, and obviously nothing sinks into his skull. Nevertheless, he serves a useful purpose on this board -- proving how braindead a committed cult member can be.
: The problem is that, like you say, 'scholar' will just continue to ignore the facts as he has always done, and he will just parrot the same meaningless 'blanket' responses that he always does.
Of course. I could write much of his response to my post merely by referring back to his various evasions in any number of posts and pasting them in. The most entertaining, and sad, thing he does is to paraphrase various scriptures and secular references, because he knows perfectly well that actually quoting them honestly immediately disproves his claims. It will be mildly entertaining to see this at work once again.
What I'm particularly curious about is how he's going to handle the huge conundrum I've presented with respect to Josephus. Obviously Josephus was confused about a lot of historical things, and in pointing this out I've only shown what many scholars have already said. The Watchtower has put much stock in Josephus' mention of 70 years of captivity and so forth, yet deliberately failed to point out Josephus' quotation of Berossus, which doesn't simply contradict his earlier statements, but shows why they were wrong. And of course, if scholar pretendus decides to try to contradict Josephus' clear statement that the temple was begun in the 2nd year of Cyrus, which in view of Ezra 3 directly disproves Watchtower chronology, then he must logically drop his arguments about Josephus' use of "70 years" in several statements. But this guy will surely be true to form and ignore everything he can't disprove, and continue using inconsistent data. JW defenders are extremely consistent in such dishonest scholarship.
AlanF
Alan,
Thanks for your fine work firmly establishing 538 as the year of the Jews' return. I've printed it out for future reference.
Mike
Alan F
If it took you 15 hours to research and present your latest nonsense it will me a mere couple of hours to write up and refute your nonsense on 538 BCE for the Return, your misuse of Josephus and your dishonest exegesis of Jeremiah 25:12.
By the way I am still looking for those four lines of evidence making a total of 18 lines of evidence which is supposesd to be an advancement from the third edition of the Jonsson hypothesis presented currently in the fourth edition?
scholar JW
If it took you 15 hours to research and present your latest nonsense it will me a mere couple of hours to write up and refute your nonsense on 538 BCE for the Return, your misuse of Josephus and your dishonest exegesis of Jeremiah 25:12.
You seem to think that 'refute' means simply saying "no, that's wrong". We want detail, 'scholar'. We want accuracy. We want specifics.
By the way I am still looking for those four lines of evidence making a total of 18 lines of evidence which is supposesd to be an advancement from the third edition of the Jonsson hypothesis presented currently in the fourth edition?
We are still waiting for your detailed Neo-Babylonian chronology, your accurate take on the Divided Monarchy, your actual specific refutations to the many points that have been raised against the many holes in your chronology instead of just empty blanket-like statements. No-one owes you a thing until you provide what you have promised.
Al
