Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 03-04-2005, 12:14 PM

Willow, willow, when will you give up? You have not put up so much as a single shred of evidence to support your chronology. All you have told us is that Rutherford made some sort of argument (no details), and Rutherford was a clever man, and that you agree with this clever man. When you do actually put forward an argument, you know, with things like evidence and hypotheses, I will be very happy to refute everything you say. Now obviously I can't refute you at this moment because you haven't actually made a single argument. There's a table waiting for you in ~E~ to fill up with your chronological synchronisation. I'm still waiting.

Joel

WILLOWTREE · 03-04-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Well, what I quoted from was the NET Bible, though I don't believe that the NIV is any different either. These Biblical scholars have had access to the Dead Sea scrolls as well, so I am confused as to how you can make statements saying that post Christian Jews doctored the MT. The Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. We have Genesis from before Jesus' time frame, and these dozens of Christian Biblical scholars have not changed these time frames. Why have they kept these numbers?

Again, without this book in hand, your references to Rutherford fall pretty flat with just simple fiat statements are made. Now I freely admit I am absolutely no expert on LXX or the MT. I have to rely on sources, and have to determine their reliability as sources on my own. So, you are asking me to consider one author without any detailed explanation. I, as a non-theist, am trusting the expertise of untold dozens of senior Christian Biblical Scholars that have helped provide the modern world access to what is considered the best translations in the world. What reasons can you provide that should suggest a different conclusion?

You originally asked the date of the Flood.

I gave it.

You then posted standard figures supporting a 27th century Flood date.

I now respond and say your figures are based on a corrupted MT chronology.

My Flood date is based on the correct LXX which had no bias in mind about Messianic advent.

BTW, EVERONE must rely on sources including perceived know-it-alls like Celsus.

WT

WILLOWTREE · 03-04-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Willow, willow, when will you give up? You have not put up so much as a single shred of evidence to support your chronology. All you have told us is that Rutherford made some sort of argument (no details), and Rutherford was a clever man, and that you agree with this clever man. When you do actually put forward an argument, you know, with things like evidence and hypotheses, I will be very happy to refute everything you say. Now obviously I can't refute you at this moment because you haven't actually made a single argument. There's a table waiting for you in ~E~ to fill up with your chronological synchronisation. I'm still waiting.

Joel

So are you saying that you disagree that the MT is error ridden pertaining to the issue at hand ?

Yes or No - please ?

WT

Ovazor · 03-04-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Predictible atheist insults = rage about evidence and inability to refute.
WT

Of course, as you show no evidence, it is a bit hard to evaluate or refute.

Celsus · 03-04-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

I now respond and say your figures are based on a corrupted MT chronology.

My Flood date is based on the correct LXX which had no bias in mind about Messianic advent.

Yes, yes, you've told us this already. Now, the numbers, please, Mr Willow. And be sure to match them up with Jubilees and the SP. And we mustn't forget the Nehemiah and Maccabean numbers, or the discrepancies in 4Q252. :rolling:

Quote:

BTW, EVERONE must rely on sources including perceived know-it-alls like Celsus.

Quite right, but not on authority. The numbers please, followed by the synchronisation. Cheers.

Joel

Celsus · 03-04-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

So are you saying that you disagree that the MT is error ridden pertaining to the issue at hand ?

Yes or No - please ?

No, I'm asking you to synchronise them. Don't forget your other contradictory claim that they were merely using two systems and that Rutherford had synchronised them. I've been asking for you to demonstrate this synchronisation for several days now Willow. Numbers, hypothesis, and synchronisation, please.
Joel

funinspace · 03-04-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

You originally asked the date of the Flood.

I gave it.

You then posted standard figures supporting a 27th century Flood date.

I now respond and say your figures are based on a corrupted MT chronology.

My Flood date is based on the correct LXX which had no bias in mind about Messianic advent.

BTW, EVERONE must rely on sources including perceived know-it-alls like Celsus.

WT

Well, I was hoping for more than just some numbers and an author reference. I was hoping for a dialog, and I thought I made that pretty clear... I asked more about your claims about Jewish plots against Christianity, when we have manuscripts from before Jesus' time (i.e. the Qumran find). It should also have no bias about Messianic advent since it predates it. I've asked you to provide more of the logic/rational Rutherford used.... Of course his work appears to pre-date most of the output from the Qumran. I wonder if these manuscripts would have affected whatever his arguments were/are?

You have a choice, like we all do. You can trade insults with some others or you can work towards a rational dialog. So, I'll take your next post for whatever it is. If it's lacking in content, I'll just call it a day and move on.

chapka · 03-04-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The figures in our KJV were taken from the error ridden MT.

The MT intentionally cooked the timespans to shorten the chronology in order to show the advent of Messiah could not of taken place because the 6th thousand year day had not arrived. Thus the corruption of pre-Exodus chronology by a succession of Jewish doctors through-out the post-christian eras reflects a motivation to falsify the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

The LXX contains the correct figures which records 1692 years between the Flood and the Exodus.

You're correct that the Septuagint shows more than 1,012 years between the Flood and the Exodus. However, it also shows more than 1,692 years. According to the Septuagint:

Flood to the birth of Arphaxad: 2 years
Birth of Arphaxad to birth of Abraham: 1,142 years
Birth of Abraham to enslavement of the Israelites: 290 years
Enslavement of the Israelites to the Exodus: 430 years

for a total of 1,864 years. You can find a number of LXX texts and translations here. If you're working with a different version of the LXX, please tell us where it differs from the Brenton edition these numbers come from.

Basically, I'm asking you to show your work. If this were complicated math, it would be reasonable for you to point to an authority who'd done the calculation. But this is addition. Did I screw up the addition? (It's possible.) If so, where?

Celsus · 03-04-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapka

Basically, I'm asking you to show your work.

Good luck.

Joel

WILLOWTREE · 03-04-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

If you're working with a different version of the LXX, please tell us where it differs from the Brenton edition these numbers come from.

Quote:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...79#post2227379

The figures in our KJV were taken from the error ridden MT.

The MT intentionally cooked the timespans to shorten the chronology in order to show the advent of Messiah could not of taken place because the 6th thousand year day had not arrived. Thus the corruption of pre-Exodus chronology by a succession of Jewish doctors through-out the post-christian eras reflects a motivation to falsify the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

The LXX contains the correct figures which records 1692 years between the Flood and the Exodus.

source: Rutherford, Book III, chapters 11,12 [1966] (correction from 1957)

WT

Edit: The LXX version above is the earlier Alexandrine and not the Sixtine text of it.

Willowtree: You seemed to have overlooked that in the message above I did specify which version of the LXX I used.

Quote:

Basically, I'm asking you to show your work.

In the link pasted above my claim is accompanied with source cite.

Until someone formally challenges something argued I have no idea what you are talking about.

F-Space has made similar overtures but I am also dealing with another person who is in a state of rant against me.

This person has evaded what I have posted previously and seeks to place me on the defensive. I don't mind defending but only that which I claimed. Celsus has deliberately overlooked what I actually claimed.

F-Space sought legitimate dialogue but the disruption and sabotage of Celsus has poisoned the dialogue from proceeding.

WT

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2005, 12:14 PM	#11
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Willow, willow, when will you give up? You have not put up so much as a single shred of evidence to support your chronology. All you have told us is that Rutherford made some sort of argument (no details), and Rutherford was a clever man, and that you agree with this clever man. When you do actually put forward an argument, you know, with things like evidence and hypotheses, I will be very happy to refute everything you say. Now obviously I can't refute you at this moment because you haven't actually made a single argument. There's a table waiting for you in ~E~ to fill up with your chronological synchronisation. I'm still waiting. Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.