Posts by AnnOMaly

10

Question about Ezekiel's chronology

by opusdei1972 in

i am writing an article in spanish about the failed prophecies of ezekiel .

however, i have found a problem when researching.

for instance, in chapter 26 ezekiel says that yahweh gave him the prophecy against tyre in the eleventh year.

AnnOMaly

opusdei1972, regarding Josephus' statement about Nebuchadnezzar besieging Tyre in his 7th year - this may prove useful:

H. Jacob Katzenstein's History of Tyre (1997 edition) on p. 328 says,

"Josephus's statement that 'it was in the seventh year of his reign that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre' (C.Ap. I, 159) has always puzzled scholars, and much ink has been spilled over the phrase 'in the seventh year of his reign'. A Latin version quoted by Niese may provide a clue to the real meaning of this sentence. Here we read: 'septimo siquidem anno regni sui (i.e. Ithobali!) Nabuchodonoser coepit ...'. We have, therefore, to read our text as follows: 'It was in the seventh year of his (=Ethobaal's) reign' - and now comes a completion: that is in the twentieth year of his (=Nebuchadnezzar's) reign - 'that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre'. We must, consequently, assume that in a very early stage a haplography caused the text to come down to us in its present form. Our assumption is also in agreement with the information regarding the beginning of the siege and with the total sum of the different reigns of the kings and judges given by Josephus, as we have already mentioned above. Thus the long siege started in the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. in 585 B.C.E. and came to an end ca. 572 B.C.E. (=Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-third year)."

A sidebar on Ezekiel's way of counting. The difficulties with marrying up Ezekiel's way of counting years with other biblical and secular dates is well-known. You have to figure out if he was counting inclusively (1,2,3) or not (0,1,2) and whether he was counting Nisan to Nisan or Tishri to Tishri. I recommend Rodger C. Young's 2004 article, 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?'- particularly the subheading on p. 25, 'III. The Chronology of Ezekiel.'

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Bart,

I'm not sure why you think the second year in which the temple foundation was laid was Darius I's rather than Cyrus'. Ezra does not indicate that this was Darius' Year 2. Ezra 3:8f. says work began on the foundation "in the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem" which links with Ezra 3:1, 6.

Jeffro has done a nice chart. http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/607-for-dummies/#exileend

Work on the temple then got interrupted and came to a halt for about 18 years until Darius' Year 2 when Haggai was commissioned to give the Jews a kick up the behind. Cf. Ezra 4:3-5, 24.

I think your discussion on Isa. 61 is too convoluted to be easily digested (let alone accepted) by your target audience IMHO.

13

VAT4956 Flip-Flop

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

major flip-flop on vat4956:.

in the 1970's it was demonized:.

*** g72 5/8 p. 28 when did babylon desolate jerusalem?

AnnOMaly

IloveTTATT, LOL yes, it's funny that the tablet was waved away as all wrong because it didn't agree with WTS chronology and then nearly 40 years later brought in as a corroborative witness to (allegedly) support the WTS chronology. Glad you pointed out this 180° about-turn.

(Thanks Phizzy, but I'm no expert - just an interested amateur.)

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

AnnOMaly

It looks like his mind is shut. It could well be that, to him, seeing as he is the older and wiser one, your father, he sees you as some arrogant, know-it-all upstart. That's why knowing when to back off or yield, allowing him to think he's teaching you and asking him pertinent, insightful questions may be the best approach with him.

Bizzarely he claimed that the worlds most famous athiest accepts the existence of god (he didn't say who) which is a bit weird.

That would be the late Antony Flew.

he then said that no one has ever been able to tell him what the evidence for evolution is and asked me to explain, in my own words. what the proof is that life started without intelligent design.

It sounds like he's making the common mistake of conflating evolution (the explanation of why life on earth is so diverse) with abiogenesis (where/how life originated). Click on this link.

should I bite?

Only if you really know your stuff and can simplify it sufficiently so that one or two key points stick. Perhaps explore how JWs accept microevolution which involves the same processes as macroevolution but in a far reduced timescale? Just an idea.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Bart,

The Darius mentioned in Haggai is Darius I (522-486 BCE). WTS and conventional chronologies coincide here.

*** Insight Vol. 1, p. 583 Darius ***

It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis figures in the Bible record. The temple foundation was laid in 536 B.C.E., but rebuilding work came under ban in 522 B.C.E. and “continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius” (520 B.C.E.). (Ezr 4:4, 5, 24) During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction, and the work got under way again. (Ezr 5:1, 2; Hag 1:1, 14, 15; Zec 1:1)

*** Insight Vol. 1, p. 1019 Haggai, Book of ***

Date and Circumstances. The four messages recorded by Haggai were delivered at Jerusalem within about a four-month period in the second year of Persian King Darius Hystaspis (520 B.C.E.), the book apparently being completed in 520 B.C.E. (Hag 1:1; 2:1, 10, 20) Zechariah was prophesying for the same purpose during Haggai’s prophetic activity.—Ezr 5:1, 2; 6:14.

*** Insight Vol 2, p. 613 Persia, Persians ***

The temple work then lay idle “until the second year of the reign of Darius the king of Persia.”—Ezr 4:24.

Darius I (called Darius Hystaspis or Darius the Great) evidently engineered or instigated the slaying of the one occupying the Persian throne and gained the throne for himself. During his rule the temple work at Jerusalem was renewed with royal approval, and the temple was completed during his sixth year of rule (early in 515 B.C.E.). (Ezr 6:1-15)

Not sure where you're going with Isa. 61.

26

Father denies children inheritance unless they quit Jehovah's Witnesses

by Tiktaalik in

jw
friends

an article in the sydney morning herald:.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/father-denies-children-inheritance-unless-they-quit-jehovahs-witnesses-and-become-catholics-20140810-102egl.html#ixzz39yziuuvf.

"from beyond the grave, father-of-four patrick carroll continued a five-decade crusade to steer his children away from being active jehovah's witnesses and into catholicism.. mr carroll wrote into his will that his adult children were not to receive any inheritance unless they met two conditions: attend his funeral and become catholics within three months of his death.. mr carroll died in april 2012. his children attended the funeral but they did not become catholics and challenged the condition in the nsw supreme court in a bid to still receive their share of his estate.. but justice francois kunc last week ruled that mr carroll was entitled to place such conditions on his will.. the court heard that mr carroll's motivation was not so much about imposing his own beliefs but rather the fact he never approved of his children becoming jehovah's witness.. the court heard that mr carroll did not raise his children as catholics, neither he or they had attended church services when they were young and he did not enroll them in catholic schools.. but when he split from their mother lillian in 1959 she became a jehovah's witness and over the next decade the couple's four children, robyn, paulene, anthony and susan, were baptised as jehovah's witnesses.. mr carroll never approved of "their adherence to that faith", the court heard.. "[lillian's] conversion to that faith enraged mr carroll, who for the rest of his life continued to express his very strong objections to lillian's and the children's member of that faith," justice kunc said in his judgement.. the court was told that all four of his children remain active members of their congregation.. in his will, written in december 2011, four months before he died, mr carroll left more than a third of his estate to his four children "dependent upon them becoming baptised into the catholic church within a period of three months from the date of my death and such gifts are also subject to and dependent my children attending my funeral.".

AnnOMaly

It was an unreasonable demand to make - 'change your religion to the one I stipulate or else you get nothing.' I know somebody in my town whose father tried to pull a similar stunt (different faith), and there have been stories on this forum where adult children who left JWs were cut out of their parents' wills on that basis. It's mean to blackmail potential beneficiaries that way based on religious preference (or political or whatever) - I don't care who does it - and the JW children were right to challenge it. Shame the judge upheld the conditions in the will but maybe those were the constraints of the law.

48

Hubby's tempted to go back

by jgnat in

jw
friends

today he kept bumping in to (or rather dodging and weaving from) fellow witnesses.

he's talking about returning but can't figure out a way to do it without enduring a fair amount of humiliation.

i did not panic.

AnnOMaly

He has considered if asked if the enquirer might hold his hand for a couple months until he gets back in to his groove. That might drive away the Witnesses faster than anything.

Or it may backfire and somebody will 'disciple' him until he's back and committed again. Bad idea!

What exactly does he feel guilty about?

Is it that his KH friends miss him and the only time they would see him and catch up is at the meetings - he feels bad that they miss him? (I.e. he's hurting his friends.)*

Is it that meetings are communal worship and he feels he's missing out or shortchanging God by not going? (I.e. he's hurting God.)

Is it just a vague, 'superstitious' feeling that stems from having Heb. 10:24, 25 drilled into him for so long? (I.e. he's hurting the Org.)

Or a mix of all three?

If he identifies what, exactly, is triggering his guilt, you can both work on neutralizing it.

-----

* That's a pull with me. Recently two very nice JWs from our Hall dropped by after their FS. We get on with them, have some laughs, but they said they missed us and please come back - 'you know it's the Truth' etc. It was hard to keep our lips buttoned. While we were pleased to see them, naturally we do not want to have to sit through nearly 2 hours of irritation twice a week so that we can see each other. Nevertheless, the emotional tugs, the faint stirrings of guilt, did try to surface.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

AnnOMaly

Bart,

Not 'disproved' per se, but serious doubt can be cast on the Org's skewed interpretation of certain scriptures. wizzstick has already mentioned a good one - Jer. 25:12.

Jer. 29:10 is another. How could Jehovah say the exiles would be there 'at' Babylon when a) the exiles He was addressing were taken 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed (so these exiles would, in fact, have been 'at' Babylon 80 years, not 70), and b) Jerusalem may never have been destroyed and further exiles taken if Zedekiah and the people had obeyed Jehovah's instructions (Jer. 27:11,12,17)? Why start the '70 years clock' at an indeterminate time in those exiles' future - a future that was not set? Why mislead those exiles by saying they would only be there 70 years when God really meant 80?

If the 70 years 'desolation, without an inhabitant' period could only start to be counted after Gedaliah's murder in the 7th month of '607,' why did Jehovah tell Ezekiel to prophesy to the 'inhabitants of these ruins' in the 10th month (Ezek. 33:21-29)?

Also, going back to Jer. 29, the Bible says the 70 years would be fulfilled, then the exiles would pray, then Jehovah would bring them back home. Daniel (ch. 9) discerned the 70 years were up and then entreated God for His forgiveness, to turn away His reproach and bless Jerusalem and its sanctuary. If the 70 years finished once the Jews were back home (thereby evidence of God's forgiveness and blessing), why then entreat Him for his forgiveness and blessing?

Just having 539 BCE as the end point of Babylon's 70 years, of the exiles' servitude to Babylon, of Babylon's king being called to account, will screw up the WTS's 607-based timeline.

9

Interesting site in the UK for lurkers

by *lost* in

site is housechurchesuk.weebly.com/jehovahswitness-cult-or-christian.html.

make of it what you will.

AnnOMaly

*Snort*

Illuminati? Chem trails? Yeah sure, a reliable source of information.

Haig's Law and the Time Cube Law are both well represented here!

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

AnnOMaly

Suggestion for future discussions with your dad. Ask questions. Get your dad to explain himself. Questions can be less threatening. And keep a sense of humor.

E.g. something like this:

"How can it be that JWs believe in creation but they deny they are creationists?"

"Ah creationists believe God created everything in 6 24-hour days and JWs don't believe that."

"But you're describing Young Earth creationists. Are you aware other types of creationists exist? Can't JWs be classified as Old Earth creationists?"

"No. JWs are not creationists."

"I don't understand. The dictionary and encyclopedia definitions say creationism means [blah, blah]. JW beliefs fall within that description, don't they?"

"The dictionaries and encyclopedias have it wrong."

"ROFL! Really? What do you think the proper definition should be?"

[Allow response.]

"LOL. Maybe you should write in and correct them, dad. You're a hoot. Hey, let's meet up for lunch."