User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015b

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Watch Tower Society publications

Pity this didn't go your way. There are way too many such articles on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some people seem to reason that if content seems useful in any capacity that it therefore 'belongs on Wikipedia'. I had myself granted this article a degree of latitude for several years because of its potential usefulness (and because I am among the primary editors who have kept the page up to date), but it really does fail Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. However, the crowd hath spoken.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Your reason for removing the occurrences of the new {{Doctor Who episode list}} template was to "replace template causing table nesting issues in transclusion at main episode list". What is this nesting issue you speak of? I have already tested the template thoroughly, and no such issue has arisen. Picture proof would be best. Alex|The|Whovian 09:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you have not tested it thoroughly enough, and your arrogance is unbecoming.

[File:Screenshot_indicating_an_editor_has_broken_a_transcluded_template.png]

--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Most interesting... This definitely needs fixing. Getting the HTML page source from you would be most beneficial; what browser are you using? (Also, there is no such arrogance. I was not aware of this issue. (My own picture proof.) I'm knowing such an issue needs fixing - no need to be so rude.) Alex|The|Whovian

You were aware of the issue once I indicated the issue existed, and your limited testing in one browser obviously wasn't sufficient. What was rude was you assuming someone other than you couldn't possibly be right about it after checking nothing. I am using latest version of Firefox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask for browser or screenshot before dogmatically reverting??--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take a look at my sandbox to check if the issue has been resolved? And you assume that I only tested in one browser. I almost recall saying "I have already tested the template thoroughly"... Alex|The|Whovian 09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The fault only appears in the transclusion (at List of Doctor Who serials), so your sandbox page does not indicate the problem. It is self-evident that testing was not sufficient. It is also self-evident that you reverted before bothering to confirm that there was actually a problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue seems to be resolved after purging cache and reloading (which did not help before). Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for raising this issue. :) And my apologies for any abruptness via the discussion or through my edits. Alex|The|Whovian 09:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit to the module at 9:46(UTC) rectified the problem. Thanks, and apology accepted, and sorry that my reaction to your abruptness was correspondingly abrupt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

edits

part of what you removed, the "traces" "Elohim" matter, is definitely in the cited source pretty clearly. So you over-did it with the deletion on that. So I'm restoring at least that portion of it, which is referenced. The "elohim" and "traces", if checked carefully in that Jewish reference page, was without question in the source cited...so I don't know why you did that even with that sentence. Because even though a part of what you removed may have been superfluous, perhaps, agreed, the "elohim traces" statement was not. You over-deleted, there. (Also, seeing your recent edits, you've been following me around, which we talked about already, in violation of wiki:hound. What's up with that exactly? But I did correct the wording in the "Paradise" article, per your objection, so made it more NPOV and clear.) Anyway, I'm restoring that part of the statement in the paragraph, just that. It's clearly in that Jewish source. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

After coming across your entirely inappropriate edit at 607 BC, it seemed necessary to check some of your more recent edits for similar bias. It is not my fault that it was you who made an edit that is very obviously a fringe POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, ok, and you may have a point with that in a way, which is why I did not restore that after the removal. Although I did make clear in the edit that it was the view of only some minority groups, and not the majority view at all. The overwhelming secular and even church and majority view is the "587 BC" date, for Judah's destruction by Babylon, we all know. Based on some inscriptions found and interpreted etc. (Though even many secular historians have admitted that the word "circa" should be used a lot more liberally.) But even so, I agree that my addition was not really necessary in the article, since it's a view and position of maybe one or two religious groups, and the vast majority of both religious and secular authorities reject the 607 date for Jerusalem's destruction. But the other matter, with the Nontrinitarianism article, I agree that you had maybe a partial point with with one of the statements that was removed, but the "Elohim" and "traces of the trinity" being rejected by Judaism statement, as I said, was definitely in that cited source, hence why I restored only that portion of it. By the way, with the "Israelite Church" article, I only ended up modifying by adding "held by mainstream Christians". But kept the wording that you reverted to. Of "Trinity doctrine". Since it can be argued that "nontrinitarian" wikilink is not just about professed Christians, admittedly. So the "Trinity" doctrine article is probably better-suited in that context. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't actually limit the claim to "some minority groups", but also claimed it was supported by "some [unnamed] researchers"; you added that "it is believed by some" (that the temple was destroyed in 607 BCE) without any further qualification at all.[1] Based on "some inscriptions"? You really don't understand the subject. There are literally thousands of contemporary tablets that confirm the actual chronology. The claim that 'circa' should be used "more liberally" (an 'admission' by "many secular historians"??) is vague and misleading (and you almost certainly refer to a statement on page 187 of your precious Kingdom Come book). Where the Watch Tower Society has implied that a particular expert's use of circa somehow justifies their fringe view, the expert responded that "circa" definitely was not intended as 'liberally' as the Watch Tower Society claimed. The JW's Kingdom Come book claims:

Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

Reply from Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr:

I am dismayed at the use made of.... my chronological lists by the Watch Tower Society. I fear that some earnest folk will reach for any straw to support their already-arrived-at conclusions. This is most certainly a case of doing just that.... there was absolutely no intent to suggest that there was leeway of as much as twenty years for the dates relating to Babylonia and Judah.... the 587-6 date can be off by no more than one year, while the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire.

— The Gentile Times Reconsidered, page 293

Reply from Campbell's co-author Dr. Freedman:

This is one of the best-known periods of the ancient world, and we can be very sure that the dates are correct to within a year or so, and many of the dates are accurate to the day and month. There is therefore absolutely no warrant for the comments or judgments made by the Watch Tower Society based on a statement about our uncertainty. What I had specifically in mind was the disagreement among scholars as to whether the fall of Jerusalem should be dated in 587 or 586. Eminent scholars disagree on this point, and unfortunately we do not have the Babylonian chronicle for this episode as we do for the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). But it is only a debate about one year at most (587 or 586), so it would have no bearing upon the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses who apparently want to rewrite the whole history of the time and change the dates rather dramatically. There is no warrant whatever for that.

— The Gentile Times Reconsidered, page 294

Your wording at Nontrinitarianism is not acceptable because it provides quotes ("traces of the trinity", "multipersonal godhead") that are simply not present in the source, nor is the statement about 'superlative majesty'. I have also restored the original wording about the 'Israelite Church' regarding the Trinity, as the context of the contrast is already with 'mainstream Christianity'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The point about "traces of the trinity" IS THERE in the source, just not worded in the precise way of "trinity" but "traces of DOCTRINE". Verbatim quoting is not only not necessary, it's actually not recommended by Wikipedia, as you know. But the statement is definitely sourced. Your personal bias towards is too obvious and too ridiculous now, with your second-guessing and disrespect. Continue and be reported for violation of stalking and hounding. It says "even found an allusion to the Trinity in the word 'Elohim,' and Luther saw distinct TRACES OF DOCTRINE in Gen. i. 1, 26; etc." Exact wording is not necessary. But "traces of doctrine" and "Elohim" ARE IN THE SOURCE. Now you're just edit-warring and direspecting, with your stalking and hounding and second-guessing. Cut it out or be reported. Enough, Jeffro. Seriously. The Jewish Encyclopedia says "traces of docgtrine" (referring to the "trinity" doctrine") in context of the word "Elohim" as alleged by past trinitarians, etc. Exact wording and verbatim quoting of source is not only not necessary, it's actually discouraged in many ways by Wikipedia. Summation of what's in source (as this clearly is) is what's recommended and urged. And this clearly is. Your personal bias towards me is too obvious. I don't appreciate it. I'll follow you around and second-guess everything you do, and see how you like it (you definitely won't, and I definitely will...sauce for the goose, if that's the case, cuz your edits I don't always agree with and I find sometimes off the mark too. So?). Seriously. Stop it. The statement is definitely there in the source, you're just not seeing it correctly. Not my fault. 00:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite your claim, exact wording is necessary when you are claiming to quote something with quotation marks. You need to learn the difference between a quote and a paraphrase. I have modified the statement accordingly. It is not 'stalking' to follow up on edits where there is clear evidence of POV editing. And as an atheist, stating that the Trinity is a Christian doctrine is clearly not merely 'my POV'. (But yes, it was "kinda cute" that you edited at exactly the same time.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your above 'threat' to 'follow me around' clearly has retributive intent rather than genuine concern for article content, and will be treated as such. Additionally, reporting me for alleged 'hounding' will result in scrutiny of your own edits by admins, at which point my concerns of bias will only be made more evident. Regarding your claim about 'hounding', WP:HOUND states, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", and that is precisely the manner and reason for which I have reviewed your edits in regard to your injection of theological bias across a range of related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true...quotation marks for sure should be verbatim, and if there was a slight mistake with that, the point is why not modify and correct it instead of totally deleting like you originally did. You later on retained it a paraphrase, correctly, but not initially. Yes, quotes with actual quotation marks logically need to be verbatim. So it should have more correctly read (if it was a quote with marks) "traces of the doctrine", which was understood to obviously be the "trinity" doctrine.

But the general statement was definitely found in that Jewish Encyclopedia source, regarding people like Luther etc. As far as "clear evidence of POV editing", no sorry, eye of beholder, and personal bias, and also assuming bad faith. That "weasel" thing you put on my talk page was a bit much. The problem is you have a point with the actual edit, but then diss or accuse the person, and assume such bad faith, when that's not necessarily valid. I never said in the 607 article that it was anything other than a view of a FEW, and never gave the impression that it was a big view of a sizeable portion of the scholarly or religious community. Nor did I imply it. No one's perfect in life, or in an endeavor, as human nature always brings filters and biases and prejudices and affinities into a situation. But it's a matter of keeping them in check, as best we can, and always taking correction and adjustment, especially in a place like Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral and unbiased (in wording and tone) and even with going by what's sourced from majority view. That was some thing I put a while ago, since it was something that's been brought up sometimes. And I tried to word as carefully and as NPOV as I could. (Got no credit for that of course, with the glass half empty view here.) But you notice not once did I revert you or restore that in this whole thing tonight. Because (despite what you and BlackCab have done sometimes) it's not necessarily from some nefarious motive...of wanting to "mislead" or "minimize", but just to modify, elaborate, make complete, and inform.

I agreed that that addition was not really necessary, even if worded clearly and accurately. (And yes, I do understand the subject well, with the tablets and inscriptions, and you should know already that the WT goes mainly by internal Biblical chronology, as with "70 years servitude and desolation". So to the WT if going strictly by the Bible alone, in their view, the "587" date would put the chronology with Babylon and Jerusalem into chaos. With tortured ways to make the "70 years" fit somehow. As far as "mis-quoting" by the WT, the WT never said that the ones quoted in the KC book believe in the Biblical date of 607. No secular scholar really does. But the quotation was only made for a SPECIFIC POINT. Like with Campbell and "circa used more liberally". Many examples of dates that had to be changed. It's sometimes shaky. Everyone on opposing sides of things always whine when they're quoted (correctly for a specific context and purpose) by someone, who does not hold their view, and claim "mis-quote", just like Darwinists always do with Creationists who quote them NOT with "ellipsis" or anything, but in context for specific points. People don't like when their words are used against them, so they rail when it's done. Like Gould claiming "out of context" all the time, about stasis and jumps. And vice versa. Human nature. Whatever. The WT goes mainly by internal Scriptural chronology (or their interpretation and understanding of it), not secular authorities, as the ultimate authority. There was a time when the existence of the Hittites, Belshazzar, and Pontius Pilate were doubted and even denied by the same authorities. Because no outside documentation other than the Bible recorded their historicity. Archaeological discoveries later proved them wrong, and the Bible's record right. Proving their existence. Just examples. Side point, since you went into heavy detail on this above.) But again, as far as the Nontrinitarian "Jewish polemics" matter, the "traces of the trinity" may not have been the precise wording, and quotes would tend to warrant more precise wording, total removal was not necessary, but just a correction was more apropos, since the source did make the clear point of that with "elohim." Gabby Merger (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There were two elements to what I removed. One was incorrectly quoted and the other wasn't supported by the source at all. (And in this edit summary, you tried to suggest that it is somehow my fault that you added and then repeatedly restored the unsourced statement.)

Making claims about "some researchers" and "some groups" when you really just mean 'JWs' is exactly the kind of thing that WP:WEASEL is all about. '607' is not merely a view of 'only a few'; it is a fringe view, and it isn't endorsed by any of the "scholarly community", which you definitely tried to imply with your claim about "some researchers". The claim does not belong in a secular article (and not a theological topic) about the year in question at all because it is only a theological opinion of groups that have a vested interest in it.

If you want to get into the "internal Biblical chronology", I can show that it also does not support the claim about 607 BCE. It's not worth going into too much detail here. But in brief, the Bible never mentions 70 years of Jewish exile. In fact, it instead explicitly states that serving Babylon (something that all the nations were to do; Jeremiah 25:11) was the way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-18, particularly verses 11 & 17). It further states that attention would be given to the Jews' return only after 70 years had ended (Jeremiah 29:10; even the NWT indicates this order of events despite the novel use of "at" in that translation). The 70 years were a period during which all the nations (of the known world) were subject to Babylon; that period began in 609 BCE when Assyria was completely defeated by Babylon, and it ended when Babylon was called to account (Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-31), and that happened in 539 BCE.

You seem to think that Campbell and Freedman are not justified in complaining (or, apparently, 'whining') when they object to being quoted out of context. No. They are completely justified in pointing out that their work has been misused, and they quite clearly explained the manner in which Watch Tower did not use their statements "correctly for a specific context". Your allusions to arguments about evolution are flawed but irrelevant so I will waste no time on that. Similarly, your unsolicited claims about some unrelated things in the Bible being confirmed are not relevant, and are not evidence that other things in the Bible (or in the case of 70 years of Jewish exile, not in the Bible) are also true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I know all the arguments of the "the Bible does not support 607 either" desperate arguments, and they're all debunked. I know already about the "it's only 70 years of serving Babylon which all nations did" sloppy argument too. Debunked. No, for real. But not sure why you want to get into all that, as I clearly said "internal Bible chronology according to JW interpretation"...as being final authority, over secular authorities' chronological conclusions. But yes, apostates and anti-JWs have come up with pathetic ways to try to force-fit the "70 years" to mean something else "round number" (by some anti-JWs who contradict others) or that it somehow started some other way in some other time, meaning something else. OLD STUFF. I'm not in the mood to go at length here with you on this, for various reasons (one being that it's irrelevant to the point because I said 'they go by their interpretation of Bible chronology,' quite clearly, whether you and others believe it's a correct interpretation or not. The point is they go by what they believe to be the Bible's reckoning OBVIOUSLY over secular authorities. That's a fact, and that's the point.) But since I don't want to leave what you said on that un-addressed, I'll simply for now give these points. Not all the nations were conquered at the same time as Jerusalem. Egypt was conquered twenty-one years later. So in what way would “all these nations” serve Babylon for 70 years? Surely in Egypt’s case it is less? And wouldn't it be a different length of time for other nations? As for the "70 years began with Assyria's defeat in 609" argument... According to the Bible, it was only when Zedekiah was removed that the nations came under Babylon's yoke.

Gabby Merger (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As expected, you've responded with idiotic ad hominem about supposed "anti-JWs" and "apostates", even though you know full well that there is no secular support for the JW dogma (which they inherited from the Adventist origins). And the suggestion that 'all' 'anti-JWs' should necessarily also agree with each other is equally idiotic.

I have removed your lengthy copy-and-paste from http://jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/70yearsofservitude.html, but I am familiar with the poor argumentation of that website.

This is not the venue for a lengthy debate on the subject, which is why I only provided brief details. However, here are some of the problems with the material you plagiarised:

• the article claims that it is "secular chronology" that motivates 'some' to say that serving Babylon refers to "servitude", ignoring the fact that it is actually the Bible (Jeremiah 25:11) that says "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years".
• the section mismatches the calamity with serving Babylon, even though the Bible is quite clear that serving Babylon is a definite period of 70 years, whereas the calamity happens to different nations at different times (Jeremiah 25:32).
• it emptily claims that 607 to 537 is exactly 70 years, however, this is circular reasoning, since JWs dogmatically assert that the Jews returned in 537 because it is 70 years after 607 even though comparison of Ezra and Josephus indicates 538 as the correct year. (Plus as you've already ignored, Jeremiah 25:11-12, Jeremiah 27:8-18 and Jeremiah 29:10 quite clearly indicate that the 70 years was a period of all the nations serving Babylon and not a period of Jewish exile, which was a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.

I'm not going to provide a lengthy rebuttal of the rest of the drivel here because Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Rest assured, the poorly written article has been debunked in its entirety.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(Partially restored addendum during edit conflict restored below. Sigh.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

But since I don't want to leave what you said on that un-addressed, I'll simply for now give these points. Not all the nations were conquered at the same time as Jerusalem. Egypt was conquered twenty-one years later. So in what way would “all these nations” serve Babylon for 70 years? Surely in Egypt’s case it is less? And wouldn't it be a different length of time for other nations? As for the "70 years began with Assyria's defeat in 609" argument...According to the Bible, the nations came under the “yoke” of serving the King of Babylon after Zedekiah was removed by Nebuchadnezzar. To claim the servitude began in 609 BCE (secular chronology) with the defeat of Assyria, simply contradicts the Bible. It really began in 607 BCE, the same year as the destruction of Jerusalem, and ended 70 years later in 537 BCE when God's people returned home. The prophecies for a 70 year servitude were made years after 609 BCE in their own chronology. The nations only received the “yoke” of serving the King of Babylon after Jerusalem was destroyed.The nations were to serve Nebuchadnezzar, and not his father. The nations began their servitude in 607 BCE and ended in 537 BCE. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that not all of the nations were conquered at the same time simply demonstrates that the calamity is not the same period as serving Babylon. (Although there is no evidence that Egypt was 'conquered' at all; actually, after Amasis II took the throne from Hophra [aka Apries], Hophra made an alliance with Babylon to try to take back Egypt for him, and he failed.)

Your claim about the 'yoke' only starting when Zedekiah was removed by Nebuchadnezzar is also quite wrong. Actually, Jeremiah 28:13 indicates that they would come under a heavier yoke than the one they were already under. Jeremiah 27:1-8 indicates that they were already under the 'yoke' at the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, and then Jeremiah 27:12 says they were also under the yoke during the reign of Zedekiah. The cognitive dissonance you demonstrate in parroting dogma even in the face of scriptures that directly contradict it is astounding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" at all the point about "70 years all nations serving" argument, as I addressed it thoroughly in the copy-paste that you removed. Read above my modified trimmed comment. You don't agree with the arguments, for various reasons. (By the way, the words "anti-JW" and "apostates" were NOT meant as "ad homs" but simply factual actual things that many of them are by their own admission. Meant as a neutral objective actual thing, not necessarily as an insult per se. Seriously.) It was already explained what "serve all nations" would have to logically and Biblically mean and refer to, and how it started after Jerusalem's destruction, not before. But it's going around in circles at this point. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if you didn't 'mean' your ad hominems (or the weaselish follow-up about what 'they' 'admit'). I did have a giggle about the backpedalling claim that such terms are used as an "neutral objective actual thing" though (because... yeah... those types of labels are used 'neutrally' all the time) and "not necessarily as an insult" (well not necessarily... but probably maybe they were). The fact remains that it is very poor argumentation, especially when it's misdirected, since the non-JW view does not originate with either 'anti-JWs' or 'apostates'.

You are indeed going in circles now. Even on the biblical front, I've provided actual scriptures, whereas you've just parroted dogma. If you are not able to respond concisely and without repeating yourself, I will probably delete further responses to this thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's like I said...it's a question of when does the "nations serving Babylon" begin? Before or after Jerusalem's destruction? Jeremiah 25 indicates that the starting point for "all nations to serve Babylon" would be with the destruction of Jerusalem. That's stated already. Jeremiah 25:28: “Jehovah of armies has said: “You [all the nations] will drink without fail. For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should you yourselves in any way go free of punishment? You will not go free of punishment, for there is a sword that I am calling against all the inhabitants of the earth,” declares Jehovah of armies.” So from this it can be assessed that God is “starting off” in bringing the calamity upon the city “upon which my name is called”. Jerusalem must be destroyed first. Then, “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Round and round and round you go. As already stated, the calamity affects different nations at different times, and is quite obviously not the same as the period of nations serving Babylon, since the period of serving is 70 years and has a definite end point when Babylon is 'called to account' (539 BCE, as quite definitely indicated by Daniel 5:26-31). Despite your bold claim, Jeremiah 25 says absolutely nothing about nations serving Babylon starting with the destruction of Jerusalem. It just doesn't. On the other hand, despite your claim to the contrary, I have shown that Jeremiah does refer to the Jews being under a 'yoke' prior to the fall of Jerusalem, all the way back to the reign of Jehoiakim. I have also shown that the Bible says that serving Babylon doesn't mean exile—exile was explicitly a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon. Additionally, I have shown from the Bible that attention would be given to the Jews' return only after the 70 years had already ended. I have already provided the specific scriptural references. I'm forced to wonder whether you even bother to read them. You should probably just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you're even aware that in early versions of Jeremiah (as indicated by comparison with the Septuagint), the modern 'chapter 25' of Jeremiah was actually the first 13 verses of what is now called chapter 25 immediately followed by what is now Jeremiah 49:34-39 (a proclamation against Elam), then 46:1. The original 'chapter 26' was what is now Jeremiah 46:2-28 (about Egypt), the old 27-28 are now 50-51 (about Babylon), the old 29 is now 47 (about the Philistines). The original 'chapter 30' is now Jeremiah 49:1-33, but in four blocks that are out of sequence (49:7-22 about Edom, 49:1-6 about the Ammonites, 49:28-33 about Kedar & Hazor, 49:23-27 about Damascus). The old 31 is now 48 (about Moab), and then came the rest of what is now chapter 25, which was then chapter 32. (In addition, the following verses in the modern version didn't exist at all: 46:26, 51:45-48, 49:6, 48:45-47.) So in the original structure, reference to all the nations serving Babylon was placed significantly prior to the calamity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I see that you've added stuff to your last comment from last night. I just saw it now. I'll go over it a bit more when I have a chance. When I can assess better as I'm a little busy now. I'll just say for now that of course the nations have the effect on them at different times, like I mentioned with Egypt, and that's why the "nations serving Babylon 70 years" was in a sense symbolic, but the question (which of course you and most others disavow) of was it when Jerusalem herself suffered the major calamity, as to when those 70 years actually commenced. Anyway, I see that you have access to lots, as I knew from the past. And I see that you do try to keep things balanced in JW related articles etc. Are you a former Witness? Gabby Merger (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim that "nations serving Babylon 70 years" was "in a sense symbolic" isn't based on anything except a desire to not take it for what it actually says, despite even the fact that elsewhere Jeremiah explicitly states that serving Babylon (recognising Babylon's dominance, such as by paying tribute) was the way to avoid exile (which happened after Jehoiakim and Zedekiah refused to pay tribute). The claim that "Jerusalem herself suffered the major calamity" is itself biased from the perspective of the Jews; in the broader context, Judea was a fairly insignificant kingdom. The Babylonian empire had a significant impact on the entire region, and they did not consider Jerusalem's destruction to be the pinnacle of their success; it was just another one of the minor kingdoms in 'the Hatti region'. The Assyrian empire was wiped off the map by Babylon in 609 BCE (629 JW) more than a decade before most of the Jews were exiled in early 597 BCE (617 JW) and more than two decades before Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BCE (607 JW), and Babylon was at war with Egypt from 609 BCE onwards, so the claim that the calamity suffered by Jerusalem was actually (that is, other than from the Jews' perspective) either the greatest or the first is simply wrong. And just to be clear, the Bible does not claim that the calamity is the same period as the 70 years. Jeremiah's suggestion that 'the calamity' began with Jerusalem (as rendered in the NWT) is only accurate from the perspective of someone who didn't know or didn't care about what had already happened to Assyria. More seriously, the NWT's rendering of Jeremiah 25:29 attempts to use Strongs H2490 adverbially as if the calamity must happen to Jerusalem first (which would really be Strongs H7223). Based on a more accurate rendering of the original text, other translations indicate at Jeremiah 25:29 that the calamity on Jerusalem was already beginning.

Additionally, as you ignored earlier, Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 5:26-31 clearly indicate that the 70 years during which all the nations were to serve Babylon ended with the judgement of Babylon, not return from exile. Further, Jeremiah 29:10 clearly indicates that attention would be given to the Jews' return after Babylon's 70 years had been fulfilled—even with the NWT's red herring of at in this verse, it is entirely dishonest to claim that 'when 70 years are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you and bring you back' really means '70 years will end when you arrive in Jerusalem'. Also, 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 says that the "70 years", that is, the "word spoken by Jeremiah" was fulfilled when "the kingdom of Persia began to reign" (noting that paying off Sabbaths is a parenthetical reference to Leviticus 26:34 and isn't found anywhere in the "word spoken by Jeremiah"; also Leviticus 25:8 indicates a period of 49 years, which is also the length of time from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE until the return of the Jews in 538 BCE).

I have relatives who are JWs, but their attempts to convince me of their beliefs have been unsuccessful. I have an intellectual interest in their convoluted eschatology though. It is interesting that JWs are often preoccupied (referring more broadly than just you) with the notion of whether someone familiar with their beliefs but unconvinced by them might be a 'former member', as if that would have any bearing on anything other than ad hominem. (Awake!, 22 June 2000, page 6: "Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label [such as 'apostate' or 'worldly'] instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.")--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding what was stated a while back, about supposed deliberate "mis-quotes" by the WT of Campbell, with the word "circa" etc...the old canard used by all biased types (in whatever sector or situation) of "misrepresentation" and "out of context" etc, I would agree (somewhat) that it was a misrepresentation IF in the ORIGINAL SOURCE of Campbell, that being the work "The Bible and the Ancient Near East", he said "by circa I mean only 1 or 2 years. Not as much as 20 or so". But here's the problem and flaw with both your gripe and Campbell's. (Sighs...and double facepalm) HE DIDN'T SAY "1 OR 2 YEARS" IN THAT SOURCE THAT THE WATCHTOWER QUOTED!!!! Campbell said that in a subsequent writing, (The Gentile Times Reconsidered), to only clarify (and whine about) what he meant in the original source quote. But was the WT quote in the KC book, of Campbell, of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered"? Uh, no, it wasn't.

And (unless I missed something somewhere) the "1 or 2 years" regarding what was meant by "circa" was not in the original initial reference that the Watchtower quoted. Again, you (and Campbell the whiner, as all anti-JWs invariably always are, about "quotes", where it becomes childish and laughable after a while, as if the WT or anybody is required to quote the whole book, or as if it's not known that the ones quoted DISAGREE with the WT overall, etc) would have a stronger case if the book The Bible and the Ancient Near East, that was quoted in the Appendix of the Kingdom Come book, said clearly "and by 'circa' I mean 1 or 2 years". That's not clearly there though in THAT work, now is it? So you can't retroactively, from a subsequent whiny article or work by Campbell, where he clarifies what he referred to by saying "circa" (as only only solely meaning a year or two and not 20 or so), accuse and charge "deliberate mis-quote" or "misrepresentation". Only biased mouth-foaming rabid dishonest unfair unreasonable anti-JWs would do that. I mean, look at what you wrote above: "They are completely justified in pointing out that their work has been misused, and they quite clearly explained the manner in which Watch Tower did not use their statements "correctly for a specific context"." FAIL. They are NOT "completely justified" in it at all, since (as I stated) Campbell did NOT say "1 or 2 years" (as far as I know) in the INITIAL work that the Watchtower quoted from. How is that "completely" justified in the whining and belly-aching? They "clearly explained", as you said, but in a SUBSEQUENT writing, of how "circa" should be understood (by Campbell), but NOT in the initial work that was quoted from!!! So this "completely justified" is itself UN-justified on your part. Again, frankly speaking, your bias will not allow you to agree with my point here, because you want the WT to be some dishonest diabolical unreasonable thing, cuz such an over-blown whiny view fits your agendas better. (Who are we kidding here? HUMAN NATURE.) You kinda made that clear. You'll deny that of course, and claim you're just being objective and honest. (No one in life totally is every moment though.) Again, to be fair, to re-iterate, you (and Campbell) would have a much stronger argument, plea, and case if the "1 or 2 years" explanation was in the original work that was referenced in the Appendix. It wasn't. So it can't be claimed that the WT deliberately mis-represented.

If Campbell had said "by circa, I do not mean 20 or 30 years, but only maybe 1, 2, or 3" in The Bible and the Ancient Near East book, and meanwhile the WT quoted the "circa" leaving that out, then I'd be on YOUR side now of "the WT mis-quoted and mis-represented", at least to a large degree. But Campbell only made that clear (as far as I know) in the subsequent work. Which the WT did not quote in the Appendix, because it didn't exist yet.

When quoting Neo-Darwinists, by Creationists etc, similar issues come up. (I can maybe get more into that another time.) But the point is that even they made admissions and statements, and things and words come out. But they still said what they said, in context clearly, with no ellipsis. (If they say things later on to clarify or maybe negate the attempted point made in a quote, then that's something else. But that can't be used to make a retro-active charge and accusation of malice or deliberate lying or misrepresentation etc.) I'm using that as an example of course. Because people are so pathetic (on all sides) that they always claim "mis-quote" with EVERYTHING, if the people doing the quoting are those they don't like or don't agree with. Sorry for the long comment, but I was busy, and this was kind of over-due. I never fully addressed the charge of "misquoted Campbell" unfair accusation and old canard. Alleged "mis-quotes" or "misrepresentations" when the original source never said "one or two years". He made clear LATER ON what he meant, and that's fine. He (to my knowledge) didn't say it clearly though in the original work, and if he did, then the WT would be guilty of some degree of misrepresentation. Regards.............. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a rant. Despite all of the above, the fact remains that Campbell's view did not at all support what was implied by the Watch Tower Society, and nothing that he wrote even prior remotely suggested that he agreed with any variance of as much as 20 years.

I can only laugh at idiotic nonsense such as "Only biased mouth-foaming rabid dishonest unfair unreasonable anti-JWs". Campbell explicitly stated that the Watch Tower Society misrepresented him, and there is no reason to suggest he had any interest whatsoever in the eschatological beliefs of a minor Christian denomination. Campbell knew what Campbell meant by his own statements, and Campbell said that the Watch Tower Society's use of his original material was a misrepresentation. Your 'refutation' about misquoting is irrelevant misdirection. I never suggested that Campbell was misquoted, but the selective quoting of his statements was indeed misrepresentation. There is no reason why anyone with any knowledge of the secular view would even assume that Campbell might have meant a variance of 20 years.

Keep up the personal attacks. See what happens.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that Campbell, at least on a number of levels (let's get real here), is an anti-JW to some degree, and is against (anti) their beliefs, positions, and teachings, and practices. (And if the Bible means what it says, though you of course disagree at least in this application most likely largely, the world as a whole is against narrow-road Christians, at least to one degree or another), so no need to "laugh". Campbell himself can crow that it was a "misrepresentation" all he wants, but that doesn't make it really necessarily true, fair, or accurate, in the charge. He only clarified what he meant later on, and not in the initial source quoted.

You say that in the original work he gave "no hint" that it could be as much as 20 years, and that may be true, but he gave no clear indication that it never could either. And (again) the purpose of that specific quote was what? What was written in the KC book? "Evidently realizing such facts," What "facts"? What was stated just before the quote was made? The stuff with the inscriptions and how those pagan record keepers were not always honest or careful, records being incomplete, and that modern scholars misinterpret data etc etc. And Campbell DID concede THAT point. Campbell never clearly indicated only "1 or 2 years" possibly being off. How could it be known for sure that "circa" could not maybe also mean 5 or 10? Because you say that other secular historians on this particular matter always have it as around 586-587, and nothing more than maybe a year or two off? That that's already understood? Maybe so. But the argument misses the contextual point of the quote, in that KC appendix. It was a general thing, of again: "kings and priests deliberately exaggerating or omitting important details", "incomplete information or things not yet discovered" and "modern scholars simply wrongly reading or interpreting the data" etc etc. Also, why would Campbell make a big point about "the word circa should be used more liberally" if it was only one meager year off?!? That doesn't seem enough to warrant the words "use a lot more liberally the term 'circa'". He's not even making much sense then, in a way. Because "circa" would mean very little if it's just one measly year off, and not (at least possibly) maybe a bit more. Then, it can be argued, that "circa" should NOT necessarily be used "more liberally" if we're only talking about one year. Hardly enough to make a big fuss about then, if that's the case. But even so, one or two years is not zero, admittedly. But there's nothing to suggest in his book theoretically 4, 7, or 10 may be out of the question or totally ruled out, in context of "kings and priests falsifying" and "incomplete information" and "modern scholars misinterpreting" etc. (Human nature is remarkable...) But ok, if Campbell clarified and made it plain he meant 1 (or maybe 2) years later on, then that's after the fact. (But again, why not maybe 5 or 7? If not 20, ok, why not possibly 5-10, if "circa should be used MORE liberally?" A debatable issue I guess, in that regard.) It wasn't made clear in the original source necessarily. So how was it some malicious deliberate "misrepresentation" necessarily if the WT didn't necessarily know that Campbell only solely meant "1 or 2 years" by his use of the words "circa should be used more liberally" in that Babylon matter? Campbell is totally unbiased in your mind???? There's a "laugh". You'd like to believe that silliness, that Campbell himself, because he had not, before that, necessarily written anti-JW or anti-RC articles or anti-Baptist books or articles or whatever, on "eschatology" etc, had no problems with some professed Christian groups on things maybe, that therefore he is completely objective, and won't gripe or unfairly whine about something like this, and wrongly say "misrepresentation" as if he clearly said or indicated necessarily in the original work "1 or 2 years is meant by 'circa'" which he never did that in that particular work. You'd like to believe that he's not being at least a little unfair in a way, and that he's completely unbiased and "completely" justified in his complaint because it suits your anti-JW mind-set better, Jeffro. And you do have one. You've basically admitted this in many ways.

Everyone has some bias. But I also said, more than once, that your edits themselves (and those of Blackcab) are generally UNbiased and good. I'm referring to your commentaries on talk pages or edit comments and overall attitude. We all have bias and affinities in life. The most unbiased person on earth IS STILL BIASED. To some extent. Excuse the blunt words...but sauce for the goose as I've seen your bluntness big time on these matters, and even insults and bad-faith accusations (even if some are justified at times towards some people) even if I have agreed with most of your edits on theology-related articles, not necessarily your comments. And Blackcab, though his edits are overall good I'd say, frankly speaking is a joke and hypocrite and-a half regarding civility and tone and "personal attacks". He conveniently leaves out in his link that, before I made the remarks to him, he FIRST called me ""absolutely deranged" in his edit comment, simply because I commented on his talk page. (Also, Blackcab, in his link, left out the fact that I myself actually immediately removed that comment myself, and thought better of it, as I myself knew it was a bit too strong. I deleted the comment just about a minute or two after I wrote it. His rude insulting comments, however, to me and others, always remain though. And he's gotten in trouble for it in the past.) But of course you don't call him out on his rude garbage. (And who's not "biased"?) We all do it, if that's the case. Just some more than others. He's even blunter than you many times. Even if, again, I've generally agreed with most of his edits, which I have. Side-point. (As far as "personal attacks", I was merely stating a fact that rabid anti-JWs will see "misrepresentation" in ANY quote made by the WT, whether it be articles regarding 4-8 year college degrees and how expensive they are or no guarantee to get a good job, or secular historians about "607" on specific narrow points for the quotes, or anything. You can't deny that you're anti-JW when you made it clear and admitted that you are. The adjectives I used I did NOT direct actually clearly towards you necessarily, but in general. So please don't threaten "see what happens". Especially when you say insulting and uncivil things quite a bit, with your constant assuming of bad faith and rude disrespectful remarks. Calling a long-ish comment with a dismissive word "rant" and calling someone a "weasel" and putting snarky (though cute) weasel pictures on someone's talk page, etc, are not exactly nice things. But I don't wanna be thin-skinned with that sort of thing, as it's whatever ultimately.

We can all improve on kindness, gentleness, tactfulness, civility, and coolness. No one's perfect every second every syllable. We know this. The edits on Wikipedia articles are the important thing, and collaboration, and civil discourse on THOSE things, with sources, wording, and NPOV, and inclusion or exclusion, etc. But rude or blunt remarks are made from all sides here, if that's the case, on comments (at times, not all the time.) Again, it becomes a matter of can dish out but can't take it and that is another lovely human nature trait. And so is minimizing what one does, and claims "I was never uncivil". Sighs... Again, though, sorry for the windy long comment here (even longer than my other one last night...bear with me though, thanks.) I'm just being blunt...and making the point that the WT did NOT technically "misrepresent" Campbell, as it was never hinted that "circa" could not mean 5 or 15 years etc. And it was made for the point that was just prior stated of "incomplete records" "priests and kings falsifying" and "modern historians misinterpreting" etc (yes I'm repeating a little here, but for emphasis, sorry.)) But, again, sir, you can't get around the fact that the original source (sighs) never made clear that "circa" to Campbell, in the context of Babylon and Israel, only solely exclusively meant "1 or 2 years". If he did there, that would be a bit different in many ways. I would be agreeing with you (and with Campbell) that it was a "misrepresentation" if it was made plain and known that he referred to a couple of years only. If the WT had quoted Campbell's words "circa should be used more liberally" where in the very same page "off by 1 or 2 years" was there, that's a different matter, I would say, but those words simply were not there (at all, on ANY page) in the book "The Bible and the Ancient Near East".

My apologies for this very long-winded comment, but I promise you that if and when I comment again, my next response won't be nearly this long or repetitive. I'm just thoroughly covering all bases.

But also, again, this needs to be remembered, please...the quote in the WT book was made for a specific point of "evidently realizing such facts," of admitted "incomplete records" "misinterpreted data by modern scholars" and "kings and priests purposely falsifying things at times" etc etc. That was in the KC appendix right before the quote was made...and made the point that even secular historians (such as Campbell) acknowledge those hard facts. He never made it clear at all that "1 or 2 years" was all that could be meant. And not maybe 5, 10, 15, etc. And that's relevant...though you (and Campbell) don't want to think so or accept that crucial pertinent fact. You and he would have a waaaayyyy better case for the charge of "misrepresentation" if "1 or 2 years" was clearly stated in the original quoted source. If you're honest, you'd have to at least admit that much. That the notion of "misrep" would be more solid. But this happens (as I said) on all sides, in various issues, because human nature loves to think everything is either an "out of context quote" or "misrepresentation", when quotes are made by people they don't like or don't agree with, even when technically they aren't mis-reps or mis-quotes, because the quotes were made for specific points, in context, no ellipses, even if the quoted authors didn't agree with the overall premise or belief of the quoter. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you continue with these tiresome lengthy posts of just repeating yourself over and over, I'm just going to delete it. In all your eagerness to make false claims about me and about Campbell, you seem to have lost sight of the fact that Campbell was only mentioned because you attempted to cite his comments—as misrepresented in a JW publication—as a 'source' for your claim that "some researchers" support the fringe view that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. Despite any alleged 'ambiguity' in the dating offered by Campbell in the cherry-picked quote used by Watch Tower, Campbell never supported the 607 date, and your use of the source was flat out wrong. (I haven't gone into more detail here about your continued personal attacks, but suffice to say, you're on thin ice.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I expend more effort than you deserve on dealing with your repetitive diatribes. I'm certainly not going to waste my time policing squabbles between you and other editors. Your claim that I 'called you a weasel' is also false, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the term weasel words.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"? Come on, I think [this] might outrank what you copped from this person, but maybe she's just warming up. BlackCab (TALK) 08:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring mainly to the inappropriate accusations of bias, but yes, it appears Gabby Merger has a broader 'repertoire'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA

Please note [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_Accusation] Roller958 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous report is preserved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#SPA Accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)