Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

AlanF

This should be entertaining for those of us who enjoy making scholar pretendus squirm. [removed]
Scholar pretendus, like his Mommy the Watchtower Society, often engages in the ad hominem to discredit opponents. Often these ad hominems, like their arguments generally, are extreme examples of grasping at the tiniest straws they think might help to discredit someone.
Sometimes these ad hominems backfire, such as when they criticize an opponent for holding a view that they themselves hold, but are too stupid to realize it, or to realize that they've contradicted themselves. Often they've told so many lies that they can't keep them straight, and they get all mixed up in trying to sort them out.
Here I'll show how scholar pretendus shoots down his Mommy.
In a post on this thread, dated "13-Apr-05 13:16", scholar pretendus had said to Alleymom:
: I am rather flattered that the prominent posters on this board consider me very dangerous because I vigorouslty defend Watchtower chronology.
I replied:
: Well don't flatter yourself too much. The eminent astronomer Carl Sagan wrote an entire book debunking the crazy but extremely popular notions of Immanuel Velikovsky (first book, Worlds In Collision, ca. 1950), who skeptic author Martin Gardener called "the very model of a crank".
: You're a crank, and even cranks can sell millions of books and get a huge following from the ignorant. That's how Russell and his followers got so far.
scholar pretendus replied:
: Yes Jonsson is in good company with Velikosky because Jonsson is a contributor to that whacky, pseudo-scientific Catastrophism journal.
I replied:
: Just what do you think Jonsson contributed to "that whacky, pseudo-scientific Catastrophism journal", scholar pretendus?
: Another thing, scholar pretendus: I take it you agree with me that Velikovsky was a crank, and even with Martin Gardener that he was "the very model of a crank".
Hearing nothing back from [removed], a couple of weeks later I said:
: What's the matter there, scholar pretendus? Afraid to answer my questions?
: Here they are again:
: Just what do you think Jonsson contributed to "that whacky, pseudo-scientific Catastrophism journal"?
: Do you agree that Velikovsky was a crank, and even with Martin Gardener that he was "the very model of a crank"?
: It's obvious that you're afraid to answer because you know that as soon as you do, I'm going to kick your sorry little ass once again.
Now that scholar pretendus has reappeared, only to have his ass kicked yet again by Leolaia, Narkissos and Alleymom, it's time to kick his ass about his remark implying that Carl Olof Jonsson is as whacky as Immanuel Velikovsky because Jonsson contributed to a journal that supports Velikovsky's whacky ideas.
Now, at first I was a bit surprised that a man as astute as Jonsson would contribute to such a journal. But a bit of investigation showed that Jonsson's contributions were actually debunkings of certain of the claims of Velikovskyism. So as usual, scholar pretendus has engaged in misrepresentation, proving once again his mental disease as a pathological liar.
The proof comes from an online index of articles in the (what I consider pseudo-scientific) journal Chronology and Catastrophism Review (see http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/index.php ). Because one has to pay a significant sum of money to get the complete articles, I didn't obtain them and will show only the titles, some abstracts, and some related comments about articles that Jonsson wrote or contributed to.
The two most important indexed articles are:
Carl Olof Jonsson: "Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar", SISR III: 4, pp. 93-7.
C. Jonsson's "The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology", Chronology and Catastrophism Review, Vol.IX (UK, 1987), 16.
"SIS" stands for the "Society for Interdisciplinary Studies" (cf. http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/resource.htm ) and "SISR" is their journal "SIS Review". The two journals are somehow related, but I don't care what the relationship is.
What were these articles about? One website commented ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/669255/posts ):
5.2 The Formation of ISIS.
By 1976, the SIS was firmly established as the first British forum for the further study of Velikovskian Catastrophism. By 1984, James and Rohl recognised that history revisionism would benefit from an increasing and specialist input from academics and researchers. Together they initiated the establishment of a separate Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, divorced from both Velikovsky and catastrophism. This was intended to provide an academic branch organisation under whose auspices funds could be raised to sponsor the necessary research studies, and premises acquired in which to house a revisionist's library. ISIS was founded in 1985, and went on between 1987 and 1995 to produce seven exceptionally well-produced Journals, entitled The Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, JACF. Volume 8, to the same high standard, was issued in late 1999. ISIS now has its own web site, www.nunki.net/isis/ where more information is available.
. . .
Carl Olof Jonsson contributed two very important papers to the chronology debate. One, in SISR:4 1979, related in part to Velikovsky's inappropriate use of archaeological evidence from the Palace of Esagila at Babylon to support his suggested altered order of Neo-Babylonian kings. The other, in C&CR IX, 1987, set out in detail the several independent lines of supporting evidence, including many thousands of business documents, underpinning the conventional Mesopotamian chronology back to around 930BC. Revisionists ignore this evidence at their peril.
The C&CR Index contains, among others, the following entry on the first article:
Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar [SIS C&C Review $ ]
. . . Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar From: SIS Review Vol III No 4 (Spring 1979) Home|Issue Contents Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar A Critique of the Revision of the Neo-Babylonian Succession Carl Olof Jonsson The author, an Advocate Member of the Society, lives in Aamaal, Sweden, and has pursued extensive studies of Mesopotamian history. Velikovsky's identification of the Hittite and Chaldaean empires in his reconstruction of the period of Ramesses II demands a fundamental re-ordering of the sequence of Neo-Babylonian rulers. This study of the question complements Peter James'discussion in SISR . . .
Jonsson's website ( http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/newtpol.htm ) contains the following commments on the second article:
Correspondence with R. R. Newton
In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had prepared in which the so-called ?Ptolemy?s Canon? was compared with earlier cuneiform sources. This study briefly demostrated that all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from Nabonassar (747-734 BC) to Nabonidus (555-539 BC), were in complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later expanded and published in a British journal for interdisciplinarty studies, the British forum for the discussion of the catastrophe theories of Immanuel Velikovsky and others: Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14-23.)
Jonsson also contributed several other articles debunking some of Velikovsky's claims about ancient chronology:
The Annals of Sennacherib-Anstey was Mistaken, Carl Olof Jonsson The Harran Inscription of Nabonidus, Carl Olof Jonsson (Rejoinder to James J. Schlecker) by CARL OLOF JONSSON Answer to Jonsson.
The Harran Inscription of Nabonidus [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $ ]
... The Harran Inscription of Nabonidus From: Catastrophism and Ancient History X: 1 (Jan 1988) Home|Issue Contents The Harran Inscription of Nabonidus Carl Olof Jonsson
SIS Silver Jubilee Conference: Abstracts [SIS Internet Digest $ ]
... Chavasse, Michael Reade, Dale Murphie (c) More Radical Revisionists-The Shishak Equation redefined: Emmett Sweeney, Eric Aitchison, Jesse Lasken, Herbert Illig and Formenko (d) Significant Others: Phillip Clapham, Carl Olof Jonsson
Clearly, scholar pretendus failed to do his homework, and like his Mommy's greatest founding idiot J. F. Rutherford, has again made as ass out of himself.
But this isn't the best part. The best part is that good old Mommy Watchtower actually supports the whacky claims of Immanuel Velikovsky.
In the only reference to Velikovsky's writings that I can find in all of Watchtower literature, in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, the Society actually enthused about the 'scientific' support given to the Bible by Velikovsky in his very first book, Worlds in Collision. Note the bloated arrogance of tone:
It has long been a custom among those claiming superior intelligence to reject the account of the past as given in the Bible, to mock at what they do not understand, and to scorn those who are willing to accept inspired truth. When, therefore, an eminent scientist, historian and author like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky digs deep into the scientific fields of archaeology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, physics and psychology, and from these brings forth a great mass of evidence proving authenticity of the Bible account -- that in itself is big news! This is what Dr. Velikovsky has done in his recent book Worlds in Collision, a monumental work of scholarly research.
In this book the author sets forth the novel theory that millenniums ago a sky-roving comet the size of the earth was cast out from Jupiter's molten mass; that this comet almost collided with the earth and Mars on several occasions; that finally this wandering offspring of Jupiter found an orbit of its own around the sun and has since been known as the planet Venus. Throughout the book the attempt is made to prove that when this comet passed within the vicinity of the earth it caused the great catastrophes that befell this globe in times past. Out of the ancient folklore of Arabia, India, China, Tibet, North and South America, and Scandinavia, from accounts found on ancient Egyptian papyri and Babylonian tablets of clay, as well as the record contained in the Bible, links of circumstantial and direct evidence are connected together to make a binding chain for supporting the theory.
See the following links for complete scans of the Awake! article:
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/g_8_may_1950_p27_web.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/g_8_may_1950_p28_web.jpg
Obviously, the Society's author was too scientifically incompetent to realize the complete physical impossibility of Velikovsky's claims, or even the fact that they actually contradict the Bible's account. When I was a JW lad of about 15, I was an avid science fiction reader. I had found a book called When Worlds Collide in the school library's science fiction section, and it was a good 1950s-style SF romp. Then I found Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, thinking it could be another good SF yarn. Afer reading a few dozen pages I realized not only that it was serious, but that it contradicted physics and the Bible, and I quit reading it because it was also deadly boring.
Now, scholar pretendus might object that the Society no longer supports Velikovsky's claims. But we all know that unless "new light" is presented that contradicts "old light" taught by the Watchtower Society, the Society's teaching is that the "old light" remains "the truth", since all such "light" is presented as "spiritual food in due season" from "Jehovah's table" and through Jehovah's spirit-anointed, spirit-directed "faithful and discreet slave class".
Talk about shooting yourself in the ass!
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
Now you have leant something. Jonsson has contributed to the Catastrophism journal, articles on Chronology despite your cockiness about him not having an association with that whacky journal. Now your research is proving that my observation was correct. In fact, this is the only journal that has published a review of GTR.
Jonsson has not had his work published in serious, mainline journals or had his work peer reviewed in these journals. By the way, Kristen Jorgensen, Jonsson's linguist is not a female as you have previously stated but of the male gender. I thought you apostates knew each other better.
By the way seeing that you are full of information. Why have you not posted Jonsson's original letter to Jenni in full so that the exact nature of Jonsson's inquiry can be seen.
Your stupidly ridicule my academic qualifications, What proof do you have for your claims? You seem to have the same fascination of my qualifications as other apostates do with that of the greatest biblical scholar, Frederick William Franz.
scholar JW
Narkissos

You seem to have the same fascination of my qualifications as other apostates do with that of the greatest biblical scholar, Frederick William Franz.

Is scholar FWF redivivus ?
Alleymom

By the way, I will be studying the Jenni's article on Jeremiah 3:17 even if I have to arrange for a English translation to be made because I believe it is seminal to this discussion. Apostates have not bothered to pursue this matter carefully simply arriving at Jenni's statement and citations in his research. That is not scholarship. If you are going to cite Jenni then use Jenni.

Neil ---
I can't remember whether I have already mentioned this, but I placed an interlibrary loan request for Dr. Jenni's article on Jeremiah 3:17.
But, as my husband asked when I told him about this, do you really think Dr. Jenni's earlier article is going to contradict what he told you and Leolaia in his email? It seems very clear that he cited his earlier article as providing additional support for his position.
If you are going to cite Jenni then use Jenni.

And if you are going to cite Jack Lundbom, then use Jack Lundbom.
You culled a few lines from volume 2 of Lundbom's commentary on Jeremiah in the Anchor Bible series (and those lines actually confirm what people here have been telling you about the Hebrew text), but you ignored Lundbom's statements on pages 20, 249, and 353 (even though what you quoted came from page 353).
Page 20 -- For thus said Yahweh: When Babylon has completed seventy years before me, I will attend to you and confirm upon you my good word to bring you back to this place. Page 249 -- The 70 years here [Jer. 25:11] and in 29 10 refer not to the length of Judah's exile or to "Jerusalem's desolations" but to Babylon's tenure as a world power. Page 353 --- When Babylon has completed seventy years before me. I.e., when Babylon has served Yahweh as a world power for 70 years. The specified period, which is a round number an no more, refers neither to Judah's exile in Babylon not to Jerusalem's uninhabitation, both of which were considerably shorter.

Marjorie
AlanF

scholar pretendus said:
: Now you have leant something.
I suppose I might have learnt something, but you have yet to learn to spell.
: Jonsson has contributed to the Catastrophism journal,
Yes, to debunk its main premise.
Making such a contribution does not mean support of the premise, nor does it mean association with such a journal -- as you have lyingly implied.
This is quite in contrast to the Watchtower Society's overt support of Velikovsky -- which you have deliberate ignored.
[removed] You mock Jonsson for debunking Velikovsky while ignoring Mommy's support of the same.
: articles on Chronology despite your cockiness about him not having an association with that whacky journal.
I never mentioned anything of the sort. This, as is true of most of your [removed] claims, is nothing more than a product of your fertile imagination.
: Now your research is proving that my observation was correct.
Nope. I've already shown above that everything you've claimed is false.
: In fact, this is the only journal that has published a review of GTR.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the material presented in GTR.
[removed] The Watchtower Society specifically published an article supporting Velikovsky. Yet you fail to acknowledge this simple fact, and worse, fail to recognize that by publishing such a supportive article, the Society explicitly supported the very "whacky" bullpucky that you (falsely) take Jonsson to task for supporting.
: Jonsson has not had his work published in serious, mainline journals or had his work peer reviewed in these journals.
As has been shown ad nauseum, this is a red herring. Jonsson's work is a summary of worldwide scholarly opinion. As such, it needs no further review. Asking for review is like asking that the popular works of Ernst Mayr be subject to review before publication -- they reflect the scholarly views of all recognized scholars in the world and therefore need no review.
: By the way, Kristen Jorgensen, Jonsson's linguist is not a female as you have previously stated but of the male gender.
Well I guess I'll have to do a bit of intensive research on this critical matter.
: I thought you apostates knew each other better.
Aside from Jonsson's writings, I have no knowledge of this person.
But the fact that you class someone who has never been a JW as an apostate, merely because he/she disagrees with your views, is extremely telling.
: By the way seeing that you are full of information. Why have you not posted Jonsson's original letter to Jenni in full so that the exact nature of Jonsson's inquiry can be seen.
I have no access to Jonsson's personal files. If you want to see his files, ask him yourself.
How stupid and straw-grasping can a person be?
: Your
Correction: "You"
: stupidly ridicule my academic qualifications, What proof do you have for your claims?
[removed - as NO ONE needs to justify or reveal personal details when the do not wish to]
: You seem to have the same fascination of my qualifications as other apostates do with that of the greatest biblical scholar, Frederick William Franz.
Riiiight. Franz was bright enough to be almost entirely self-taught. Had he not stupidly fallen in with Rutherford, and had he gone on with his studies, he would have done brilliantly. But because he fell in with Rutherford and allowed his mind to be subverted, all his brilliance was for naught. The difference between Franz and you is that Franz could argue competently enough to convince even bright people of nonsense, and Franz never flunked out of a course (although he never completed a full course of study in a regular college). The sameness is that you both argue falsely.
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
Jonsson's GTR is hardly a summary of world wide opinion when in connection with the subject of the seventy years there is very little opinion or discussion. Scholars cannot agree as to its nature and chronology and a date for the Fall of Jerusalem. The Jonsson hypothesis simply admits to fuzziness in connection to the seventy years and cannot be treated as serious scholarship. The only reviews of the Jonsson hypothesis are those published in a whacky pseudo-scientific journal which is the only suitable place for the Jonsson hypothesis.
It seems that Jonsson has conspired with Jenni or caused Jenni to promote a biased opinion against Jehovah's Witnesses in regard to the translation of Jeremiah 29:10 and that is why the original letter is partailly sourced. This is shoddy and deceitful scholarship when vital facts are concealed from the public. I have repeated asked those wiley poztates to be have the courage and decency to provide that original letter so I will continue to ask as I am not sure who the original author is. Is it Jonsson or a person loving in Germany?
scholar JW
Narkissos

Scholars cannot agree as to its nature and chronology and a date for the Fall of Jerusalem. The Jonsson hypothesis simply admits to fuzziness in connection to the seventy years and cannot be treated as serious scholarship.

How interesting. As the only room for "fuzziness" is 587 or 586 (due to contradictions in the Bible texts) is the standard of "serious scholarship" making blind assertions in the face of conflicting evidence?
It seems that Jonsson has conspired with Jenni or caused Jenni to promote a biased opinion against Jehovah's Witnesses in regard to the translation of Jeremiah 29:10.
Why don't you ask Dr. Jenni? I would love to see the integral copy of your inquiry and subsequent answer.
Oh, and btw:
Is it Jonsson or a person loving in Germany?
Too bad Dr. Freud is not around to give you his scholarly opinion.
scholar

Alleymom
Let me assure you that I am very much familiar with Lundbom's comments on the seventy years passages as I have the complete three volume set at hand. No doubt that you would have noticed how Lundbom's interpretation of the seventy years differs from your view and that of the Jonsson hypothesis. He proposes various dates for the period but endorses the 'popular' view that the period refers to the sovereignty of Babylon. Lundbom's research is the latest on Jeremaniac scholarship and well demonstrates the confusion amongst scholars over the seventy years.
I cited Jenni because his comments support the brilliant NWT's rendering of the Qal infinitive construct as 'the fulfilling' or in German' der Erfullung' which is far superior to Jenni's translation which perhaps angered Jenni and wrote a somewhat biased opinion. If scholars cannot get the infinitive right then how can they get a little preposition correct?
In passing, my learned friend the Right Honourable Rodney Leslie Shearman VDM, highly respected Elder and Hebrew scholar who was tutored in Hebrew by the late Atara Hasofer Ph.D has examined critically all the linguistic material on these posts, the Lexica and the Grammar. Jenni is quite wrong in excluding the fact that le can have a locative sense in Jeremiah 29:10. The lexicon has examples of such use even though these are very rare. Further, Atara Hasofer was the wife of the former Dean of Mathematics at the University of New South Wales and is prominent member of the orthodox Hasidic Jewish community in Sydney and Melbourne. This couple highly regarded the teachings, publications and integrity of Jehovah's Witnesses and respected the NWT. Professor Michael Hasofer has Doctorates in Science and Engineering and has published articles defending a literal interpretation of the Bible and scientific papers refuting the evolution nonsense on the basis of statistics.
In summary. le has a wide sematic range which includes 'at' as a justifiable meaning, Jenni has proposes a linguistic theory which is not expressed in any traditional Hebrew grammar and the Lexicon provides examples that refute Jenni's claims. The scripural texts dealing with the seventy years all agree in unison that the seventy yeras belong not to Bablon or for Babylon but pertain to Jerusalem, the land and the exiles. The seventy years combined with a temporal infinitive ended at a place, Babylon. The NWT once again shines like a brilliant diamond amidst a plethora of dusty and tired translations.
scholar JW
hillary_step

Scholar,
Do you wish to buy any books by Immanuel Velikovsky? I have a number of copies all in first editions and very much sought after these days. They will look rather attractive housed next to gems of a similarly eccentric genre, "Thy Will Be Done On Earth", "Babylon The Great Has Fallen" and the ever stimulating 'Life Everlasting In The Freedom Of The Sons Of God".
The Velikovsky's will cost you around $70.00 each, the others five cents each. Buy all three, you can have them for four cents each.
HS
hillary_step

Scholar,
In passing, my learned friend the Right Honourable Rodney Leslie Shearman VDM, highly respected Elder and Hebrew scholar who was tutored in Hebrew by the late Atara Hasofer Ph.D has examined critically all the linguistic material on these posts, the Lexica and the Grammar. Jenni is quite wrong in excluding the fact that le can have a locative sense in Jeremiah 29:10. The lexicon has examples of such use even though these are very rare. Further, Atara Hasofer was the wife of the former Dean of Mathematics at the University of New South Wales and is prominent member of the orthodox Hasidic Jewish community in Sydney and Melbourne. This couple highly regarded the teachings, publications and integrity of Jehovah's Witnesses and respected the NWT. Professor Michael Hasofer has Doctorates in Science and Engineering and has published articles defending a literal interpretation of the Bible and scientific papers refuting the evolution nonsense on the basis of statistics.
Are you suggesting that Shearman agrees with your stance? I presume that he does agree given your inclusion above, but the paragraph reads ambiguously.
Please clarify this point for the readers.
HS

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

Share this