Unscholar, you are amazingly and militantly stupid. Just look at the nonsense you wrote in defense of your idiotic mentors, the men who write for Watchtower Society:
: It is all smoke and mirrors with your exhaustive deconstruction of WT chronology.
There is no "smoke and mirror" problem with my straightforward presentation of failed Watchtower-predicted dates and wrong chronology. The "smoke and mirrors" are entirely on the Watchtower end and your end. Speaking as "God's prophets" they predicted a host of events that were to occur at various times, not one of which came to pass. That's all that needs to be said to prove unequivocally that Watchtower leaders are "false prophets" by their own definition and by the Bible's definition.
: With all being said you cannot provide an alternative biblical chronology.
Of course not, because as I've repeatedly told you, and the disagreement among good scholars proves, the Bible is internally inconsistent about the reigns of the Hebrew kings. What do you want me to do? Invent a consistent chronology out of thin air? If I did that, would you follow me instead of Watchtower leaders? I am not a Bible writer and I certainly have no intention of correcting 3000-year-old problems.
: So, the biblical data and the secular data is meaningless.
You certainly have a way of twisting the truth to make the Watchtower cult come out on top and advance your silly cultish apologetical agenda. What I said, and what I have proved via your own references, is that the Biblical information about the details of the reigns of the Hebrew kings is internally inconsistent. This is extremely significant because certain biblical passages declare that "all scripture is inspired of God", and so whatever "scripture" is, it must be infallible. Conversely, whatever is fallible -- including Bible books that are internally inconsistent -- cannot be "scripture". What I have consistently said, and various scholars have proved beyond all reasonable doubt, is that secular data is self-consistent (in the usual scientific sense that doesn't demand infallibility) and allows good scholars to construct a self-consistent chronology from about 670 B.C. forward. In reality, though, the solid biblical data that we have is completely consistent with secular chronology, and so your claims and those of the Watchtower Society that "the Bible conflicts with secular chronology" are simple lies based on your insistence that the discredited chronology of C. T. Russell and his mentors is still correct. If you people would face the facts, the inconsistencies that you want to pretend do not exist would not be a problem.
: But WT chronology has certainly tried
I once tried to fly by flapping my arms. I learned an important lesson.
: and has provided a consistent fallible bible chronolgy
I certainly agree that they've provided a "fallible bible chronolgy"!
: which has served as a framework for the fulfillment of prophecy.
How you can write such outright nonsense and not see it is absolutely amazing! I mean, here you admit that the Watchtower Society has always presented a "fallible bible chronolgy", and yet you cannot understand that the flaws inherent in such a fallible system inevitably result in a flawed "framework for the fulfillment of prophecy"!!!???? That flawed framework resulted in the complete failure of every observable thing that C. T. Russell predicted for 1914, the total failure of everything that Rutherford and his cohorts predicted for 1925 (including the collapse of the foundation of the "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" campaign), and the complete failure of everything that the Watchtower Society taught the JW community to believe about 1975 from 1966 forward.
The total failure of a single predicted observable event to be observed is absolute proof that there is no "fulfillment of prophecy" with respect to Watchtower leaders. If you think there are observable events in connection with these cult leaders, then I challenge you to present a case. Of course, both you and I know that you can't, and so you will never meet my challenge.
: Perhaps, you should tell Carl Jonsson these facts that he is wasting his time with any chronology because it is meaningless,
Carl is entirely familiar with the facts as I stated above and does not need my help.
: perhaps you should rewrite the Bible and omit those texts that contain any chronological data because such information is mythical.
If I had the power, I'd rewrite a lot more than just those few things in the Bible that are problematic. In fact, I'd rewrite it in such a way that it would be impossible for braindead cultists to misconstrue and use to further their own nefarious ends.
: Whatever your criticism of WT chronology amounts to,
Which by default you've admitted is entirely correct.
: you still cannot provide an alternative to the Lord's chronology
As I showed above, a flawed chronology cannot possibly be "the Lord's chronology". So, unscholar, you're leaning upon a broken reed and it will certainly pierce your hand. Why not lean on something more solid and avoid injury?
: so in the absence of any surety from you I will continue to defend our accurate and splendid chronology.
Ah, the usual defense of the cornered cultist: "If you can't provide an alternative cult, I'll stick with the one I have." Normally I'd mock you for this, but for now I'll be generous and allow that you just can't help it.
: Your inability or laziness in providing a chronology of the Divided Monarchy shows how puerile your comments on Wt chronology is .
No, my inability to provide a coherent chronology of the Divided Monarchy is, as I have repeatedly stated and proved, based on the simple fact that the only data we have -- the Bible as constructed by the Catholic and Protestant communities -- is internally inconsistent. Since a number of far better scholars than I -- in particular, the ones you yourself listed in an earlier post -- are unable to agree on the details, it would be pointless for me personally to delve into this question. And I have much more interesting things to pursue than a disproved myth.
Conversely, you cannot show how Watchtower chronology can resolve the discrepancies in the Biblical data. If you disagree, it would be extremely easy for you to disprove my claim: all you would have to do is show how the disagreements among the various scholars you listed can be resolved by reference to Watchtower chronology. Of course, since we're talking about a supposedly infallible document "breathed by God", you'd have to do this with each and every discrepancy. But we already know that you can't do this, and so my point is proved.
: Many scholars have worked on this subject and have met this challenge
Nonsense. The fact that they all disagree proves that they haven't resolved the discrepancies.
: but you cannot.
Of course!
: WT chronology has from the earliest times also faced up to and met this challenge
Not at all. All that Watchtower writers, from Charles and Maria Russell onward, have done is to take the biblical passages they liked and use them to support their ideas, and have just ignored the passages that they couldn't bring into line with the others.
: and continues similarly to this day
Precisely the problem!
: providing a workable,
Workable, but not correct, or consistent with every biblical passage.
: consistent chronology for both Israel and Judah.
I've already proved that your claim is a lie. Why do you keep repeating it?
: This is the real test of the chronologist.
Indeed it is, and by this test, both the Bible and its interpreters have failed.
: However, all you can do is criticize the faithful labours of honest and humble men who love God, his Son and his Word.
Really.
I certainly criticize the labors of Watchtower leaders, but it's provable that these men are not faithful to God, are not honest or humble, and therefore cannot "love God, his Son and his Word." The fact that they prostituted themselves to their own notion of "the eighth head of the seven-headed beast" of Revelation by joining themselves to the United Nations as an Associated Non Governmental Organization (NGO) beginning in 1992 is just one proof of this. If you need more proofs, I'll be happy to oblige.
: Frankly, your comments are despicable
Yeth, my commentth are dethpicable. The truth ith alwayth dethpicalbe to braindead cultists.
: and show that you are a fool because you do not even believe in the Christian message, the Bible, prophecy and chronology.
Oh? And you have observable evidence that, say, "Bible prophecy" has been fulfilled in the lifetimes of some now living? What, pray tell, is that observable evidence?
It's obvious that you can not and will not ever provide such evidence, and therefore it's obvious to all readers that your claims are unfounded nonsense -- nonsense patterned after what you've learned from your cult leaders in Brooklyn.
AlanF
