Schizm, Scholar and other WT defenders (page 5)

Jeffro

Perhaps you can clear up the mystery in the Jonsson hypothesis as to whether there are 18 lines of evidence or seventeen lines of evidence supposedly establishing Neo-Babylonian chronology.

When did this become my responsibility? I arrived at my own interpretation from the bible. Whether I am in agreement with the so-called "Jonsson hypothesis" (which is actually just a collation of readily available secular history) is irrelevant.

You still have not responded to quite a number of requests for valid refutations, as well as a complete king list, so I have no obligation to give you any information.

scholar

Jeffro

Your interpretation of chronology is derived from the Jonsson hypothesis and not from your own research, your own work is simply that of a chart but the assumptions and methodology behind this are derived from the apostate Jonsson.

A list of kings that you demand is impossible because the data for the Babylonians is incomplete and unreliable as I have repeatedly brought to your attention.

scholar JW

jgnat

See Dick and Jane. See Spot run.

Scholar says Spot jumped, not ran.

Dick says Spot ran.

Scholar says Dick is relying on Jane's hypothesis.

And everyone knows, Jane is a girls.

And as you know, girls can't be relied on, being so emotional and all.

Dick says, Jane just told you Spot ran, like I did. It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation. Besides, I found a polaroid the other day that documents the event. See, Spot ran.

Scholar says you foolish Dick. I already told you your observations were flawed and incomplete, whereas mine are perfect and complete as they are inspired by Jehovah above. Besides, you can't rely on that apostate chick Jane.

Dick says, nooooo, I am telling you, I saw Spot run.

Can you spot the logical flaws?

AuldSoul

jgnat,

I didn't notice anything in there about scholar's opinion being open to change if the organ grinder changed his opinion. That darned organ grinder, all the monkey's dance to his tune.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Jeffro

Your interpretation of chronology is derived from the Jonsson hypothesis and not from your own research, your own work is simply that of a chart but the assumptions and methodology behind this are derived from the apostate Jonsson.

You are simply wrong, because I was not even aware of the so-called "Jonsson hypothesis" when I began investigating this issue using the bible, the Society's publications, and the website of the British Museum.

A list of kings that you demand is impossible because the data for the Babylonians is incomplete and unreliable as I have repeatedly brought to your attention.

The Babylonian data has proven to be reliable because it is consistent with other sources. The only thing that makes it 'unreliable' to you is that it contradicts your interpretation. Even the appendix of the Society's "Kingdom Come" book provides nothing that disproves the extant Babylonian tablets. The best it could say to counter the evidence is that " even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period." That was written 25 years ago, and they're still waiting for any secular evidence to support their claims.

scholar

Jeffro

I do not believe that your opinions have not been influenced by the Jonsson hypothesis, it seems that you wish to blow your own trumpet in claiming that your false chronology is entirely of your own research. The fact of ther matter is that you have been influenced by apostates and higher critics.

Neo-Babylonian chronology is inconsistent with other sources particularly Josephus whose regnal data differs widely from other materials. There still remains Neb's missing seven years annd the twenty year gap problem which shown that such chronology is in deep trouble. The Appendix wisely counselled about ignoring interpretation of such so-called imposing secular evidence which no doubt will cause endless debates on the secular dating such as the 586/7 controversy.

scholar JW

AK - Jeff

The fact of ther matter is that you have been influenced by apostates and higher critics.

Not to throw stones in the pond here, Scholar. But you are clearly influenced by the Watchtower position on these matters. We are all influenced by others in all we accept, aren't we? No one is in a vacuum. I just find this whole implication silly and without merit.

I will admit to the obvious - I am absolutely influenced by apostates from the organization of Jehovah's witnesses. I am also influenced by Jonnson's work. How does it make his work wrong? You quote others that have influenced you.

Please don't attack me. I have no stake in this really, as I have already determined for myself that I cannot trust the Watchtower. They lied to me for 48 years. I do not believe them and I do not believe they have God's spirit or anything remotely close to 'truth'.

I am just that way around liars. On the other hand I have not had many apostates lie to me yet.

Jeff

nicolaou

Scholar

I had decided not to post publicly what I think about you. For a long time I've refrained from saying what I think but on reflection I've decided - sod that! You will likely twist my post to present it as another 'personal attack' upon you, it isn't.

You are a dangerous idiot. This is a place where thousands of damaged individuals come looking for answers. Faith is a serious thing, it isn't a game. Sincere Jehovah's Witnesses would only ever reach this site because they are having doubts and the last thing they need is to read the posts of someone who fraudulently presents himself as a 'scholar', who signs his posts as 'scholar JW' and to feel - mistakenly - that there is some learned professional brother batting for them. That perhaps their beliefs are valid after all and that the Society is to be trusted.

You are not a JW as your continued 'apostate' association proves. You are certainly not a scholar - by all means prove me wrong and post your qualifications. So what are you?

I would venture that you are just a sad and mischievous little troll who enjoys nothing more than stirring the theological pot. I'm not into censorship, I wouldn't advocate that you be shunned or that your posts be deleted or even go unread but I would encourage you to think about posting elsewhere - better yet, just give it up and get a life.

Nic'

Jeffro

I do not believe that your opinions have not been influenced by the Jonsson hypothesis, it seems that you wish to blow your own trumpet in claiming that your false chronology is entirely of your own research. The fact of ther matter is that you have been influenced by apostates and higher critics.

There you go again demonstrating your towering ignorance. Your supposed "fact" is nothing more than your own baseless opinion, grounded in your perverse need to dismiss anything that would suggest that others can prove the Society wrong simply by their own research. As I have explained to you, my chronology was formed based on the bible, JW publications, and information from the British Museum website. Since first studying the topic in depth and arriving at what I believe to be correct, I have learned of additional information, which has fitted into my interpretation without having to adjust my initial chronology. It matters little whether you think I based my research on Jonsson, and Jonsson's research is simply a collation of others' research anyway, so your accusation is doubly meaningless.

Neo-Babylonian chronology is inconsistent with other sources particularly Josephus whose regnal data differs widely from other materials. There still remains Neb's missing seven years annd the twenty year gap problem which shown that such chronology is in deep trouble. The Appendix wisely counselled about ignoring interpretation of such so-called imposing secular evidence which no doubt will cause endless debates on the secular dating such as the 586/7 controversy.

And yet my chronology is consistent with the overall picture of both the Neo-Babylonian chronology and Josephus, as clearly demonstrated by complete tabulation of the entire period which is interlaced with verification from both of these sources. You again raise the strawmen of the 'missing seven years' and the 'twenty year gap', the former being a myth created by you, the latter being a myth created by the Society. Neither of them concern me or the chronology I have determined, and both have been fully explained to you previously, for which you provided no rebuttal except ignorance. The badly written "Let Your Kingdom Come" appendix makes the statement that " undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period" - the same assumption that the Society accused Darwin of making regarding the fossil record. It is indeed very close-minded and cultish to advise ignoring evidence, and the Society's victims, such as yourself, who continue to accept and promote such advice are simply pawns.

Think

Absolutly, REPORT YOURSELF to the younger.. I mean Elder, he should be at least 97..

Schizm, Scholar and other WT defenders

Share this