Posts by Jeffro

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

In Against Apion Book I, Josephus states:

Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom.

Here, Josephus incorrectly states that the siege against Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can be seen how this error is created when it is realised that his placement of the 13-year period puts the end of the siege in 586 BCE, which is the year that siege actually began. Additionally, there is no siege on Tyre mentioned in BM 21946 in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year (598 BCE), which is instead when it addresses the siege on Jerusalem. But more than that, Josephus' quote from Phonecian sources confirms that the siege against Tyre actually began in 586 BCE, during the reign of Ithobaal, who was not yet reigning in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year. Ithobal began his first regnal year in 591 BCE, and the "whole interval" from his accession in 592 BCE until Persian control of Tyre in late 539 BCE was indeed "fifty-four years besides three months".

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

'"genile times' is an ultimately meaningless term rooted in allegory and folklore."

"genile times"? That's not quite what I said. How do you get copy-and-paste wrong??

That may be true, but I was addressing how they are barking up the wrong tree on this oft argued and misconstrued issue.

Indeed. Thing is, the JW view of the 'gentile times' is definitely entirely wrong, independent of whatever other arbitrary 'alternatives' are postulated for the term.

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

The gentile times is based on when the promise to David got paused.

I would go a step further and say the 'gentile times' is an ultimately meaningless term rooted in allegory and folklore.

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

Larsinger, I'm not reading any of your stupid crap. I did not read any further than "Freemason".

Get professional help, you deeply disturbed person.

153

The antidote to the myth that JWs are declining

by slimboyfat in

one of the most persistent myths on this website is that jws are already in decline, the rot has set in, and the descent of the watchtower is inevitable from here on in.

unfortunately the facts do not bear this out.

jws are still increasing even in most developing countries, and they are still growing worldwide at a faster rate than the general population.

Jeffro

You are obviously right about the effectiveness of the preaching going downhill. In a way that makes the sustained activity all the more surprising.

No, it's not at all surprising. It means they're having a measure of success in third-world countries, as well as limited success in developed countries, in addition to their primary growth method - having children.

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

I'm not going to read Larsinger58's lengthy posts, as they generally consist of delusional drivel. However, if anyone (other than Larsinger58) has specific questions about 607 or about Lars' drivel, feel free to ask.

153

The antidote to the myth that JWs are declining

by slimboyfat in

one of the most persistent myths on this website is that jws are already in decline, the rot has set in, and the descent of the watchtower is inevitable from here on in.

unfortunately the facts do not bear this out.

jws are still increasing even in most developing countries, and they are still growing worldwide at a faster rate than the general population.

Jeffro

I think the pioneer requirements were reduced from 100 hours to 70 and auxiliary pioneer hours from 60 to 50 and some months 30. But the ratio of pioneers has gone up from 1 in 16 to 1 in 6. That's an increase out of proportion to the reduction in requirements.

There isn't really a basis for comparison there without knowing how many people were already meeting the new minimum, in addition to the affect of the internal PR associated with the change.

But for all their 'increased' preaching, the number of hours required to make a single recruit is getting worse (for them).

153

The antidote to the myth that JWs are declining

by slimboyfat in

one of the most persistent myths on this website is that jws are already in decline, the rot has set in, and the descent of the watchtower is inevitable from here on in.

unfortunately the facts do not bear this out.

jws are still increasing even in most developing countries, and they are still growing worldwide at a faster rate than the general population.

Jeffro

But the fact remains the number of hours/publisher is historically high, and the pioneers/publisher is the highest ever.

It's entirely unsurprising that the number of pioneers is higher, because the requirements were reduced. Same goes for 'Bible Studies', which for the last few years, can be counted by both parents when they 'study' with their own children.

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

Larsinger58:

But I know it must be a bit annoying to Jeffro that this has shown up as a discussion point here.

It is quite annoying that you have shown up at the discussion. I'm not sure why any other aspect should worry me though.

I have already covered all the points about the website in question at my article already linked in this thread, so it is unnecessary to reply to your rambling posts here.

Suffice it to say, you are wrong, and you're not the 'Messiah'. Get professional psychiatric treatment.

Larsinger58:

First of all, you are propagating COJ's opinion that the 70 years were years of servitude to Babylon.

Well that's just stupid. The basis for the '70 years' being "of servitude to Babylon" is from the Bible, not 'COJ's opinion'. Jeremiah 25:11 says: "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years". I knew this years before I had even heard of 'COJ'.

87

Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

by TJ Curioso in

i received the following explanation in favor of the date of 607 bce.

accepted comments on the points at issue.. .

conclusion.

Jeffro

mP:

Thanks, but perhaps some moron did get the dates the wrong way around in their mind and didnt actually bother to check. They matched the wrong number with the wrong event.

I agree that it is probably best not to underestimate their stupidity. But it seems more likely that their selection of the year initially stemmed from adding 70 onto incorrect early (19th century) secular/religious(?) sources dating of the return of the Jews from Babylon in 536BCE. That got them pointing to 606 BCE. Russell added 2520 (incorrectly) to 606BCE to arrive at 1914(CE). From then on, they got stuck with 1914, so once late Watch Tower leaders realised there was no year 0 , they just 'corrected' the starting year from 606 to 607 instead. 'Coincidentally', they decided at the same time that the Jews 'really' returned in 537 (which is also wrong).