bohm:
oh my god do you know what this means? time travelling ghosts are copying rifs story on the internet!
I can't think of any other plausible explanation.
Posts by Jeffro
-
142Do you beleive in ghosts??
by quellycatface ini was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.
not sure.
i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .
-
-
Jeffro
-
142
Do you beleive in ghosts??
by quellycatface ini was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.
not sure.
i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .
-
-
Jeffro
dazed but not confused:
RIF- Are sharing The Smiling Man story as if it was your own experience?
Not only that, but it seems RIF has been 'quite busy' telling this 'personal story'.
There are 4 pages of Google results with exactly the same text.
RIF:
OMG, they made a movie about my ghost experience!?!
The original author of the story ('blue_tidal' on Reddit) already knew a short film had been made.
-
142
Do you beleive in ghosts??
by quellycatface ini was always told it was satan and his demons making people think they exist.
not sure.
i always thought the guy that excavated king tutenkahmun had a curse on him though.. .
-
-
Jeffro
Seraphim23:
Here is me on TV a few years ago telling my ghost story.
Seriously? That's your 'smoking gun' for the existence of 'ghosts'? A five-year-old kid imagined seeing a magician while there was a magic show on television? Some time later, the kid sees a picture of a 'chinese magician' and convinces himself that it's exactly the same as what he imagined. That is evidence that kids imagine stuff and that memories are plastic.
-
23
Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis
by scholar init has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for bible chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. rolf furuli a semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology.
it should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with jonsson's gentile times reconsidered.
to date i am unaware of any scholarly review of the jonsson hypothesis.
-
-
Jeffro
Thanks Fisherman for re-raising this old pseudo-scholar thread. I needed a good laugh. Even the contrasting names of the so-called 'hypotheses' is misleading. Supposedly Furuli represents the whole of Oslo, whereas Jonsson is made to appear that disproving 607 is merely 'his' view. What utter rubbish.
-
61
Thoughts on going back, am I the only one that feels this way?
by excaliber inhello everyone, i know you have heard this topic before and your probably thinking.
...not again lol.. but i was wondering if anyone has thought of going back for the same reasons as myself, i don't think its the truth but i searched and my conclusion is that other religions don't have the truth, they are all wrong in my opinion.
if there is no other religion to go too, why leave were i was born and raised.
-
-
Jeffro
excaliber:
How do I feel about watchtower lies? Well I think all religion is a lie, so what is the difference.
There's no reason at all why you should choose any of them.
-
93
Rolf Furuli's accusation about VAT 4956 being tampered with?
by possiblepineapple ini'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.
i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?
how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?
-
-
Jeffro
hamsterbait:
The Insight books easily prove the date of jerusalems fall, simply by referencing the Kings going back from Belshazzar.
They cannot provide the names of even one missing king.Side point...
This reminds me of Insight's 'explanation' for why there is no Egyptian record of the 'Exodus':
Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.
Sorry... whose name did they chisel out of the monumental reliefs?! Apparently a failed attempt to erase records of one individual is 'evidence' for there being absolutely no record of 215 years of Israelite presence in Egypt. That's the 'quality' of Watch Tower Society 'scholarship' we're dealing with for 'explaining' the 20-year gap in their chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period.
-
93
Rolf Furuli's accusation about VAT 4956 being tampered with?
by possiblepineapple ini'm sorry but can someone here explain what this is about.
i saw someone on here called scholar on here saying that it somehow destroyed both coj and hermann hunger but how?
how does rolf furuli know that it was tampered with?
-
-
Jeffro
There's no reason why scholars would 'tamper' with the tablet. There's simply no motive for 'changing' the original cuneiform on the tablet. When scholars translate such tablets, they note in their translations if they believe something is in error. And it would be incredibily difficult to make a convincing alteration in ancient cuneiform to a hard stone tablet. There certainly was no grand 'conspiracy' to 'change' the tablet just to make the Bible Students 'seem' wrong. Furuli is lucky that the people who translated the tablet in the early 20th century are already dead because otherwise he'd probably have a defamation suit on his hands.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
I would not sell the average person short because the Bible was not written for the intellectuals or the wise but rather for the average Joe who is also humble at heart.
Once again, 'scholar' parrots Watch Tower Society drivel (though this particular piece of drivel is common to many religious groups). Members of religious sects such as 'scholar' do not seek to learn 'Bible truth' for themselves, but prefer to be spoonfed whatever their leaders provide. Whilst it's certainly true that tools exist that enable anyone with a reasonable education to consider the original text, the waffle about 'humility' is just religious rhetoric.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
With that said, the average person is not qualified to choose scientifically and or scholasticaly between both views. ALSO, since the Bible is written in a foreign language, the average person is not qualified to understand the Bible. Readng only a translator's interpretation, a version of what the writer meant.
The 'average' person can use tools such as an interlinear and a concordance to get a sense of the actual original meaning of the words used. That is the purpose of such publications. The reader is therefore not at all limited to only "a translator's interpretation". The claim that 'the average person is not qualified to understand the Bible' sounds like something straight out of Middle-Ages Catholocism.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
scholiar:
It is your own work for it is a 'cut and paste job' based on others. Therefore, it is consistent but it is plain dumb and wrong because it does not factor in the biblical 'seventy years'.
My chart very clearly and specifically indicates the biblical ‘seventy years’. No matter how much you ignore it, the Bible indicates quite clearly that the ‘seventy years’ was a period of all the nations serving Babylon, and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah chapter 27 is quite clear that serving Babylon did not mean exile.
However, in saying this I will admit that it is the 'prettiest' chart that I have seen.
Idiot.
All chronologies are manipulated and manufactured because the Bible does not contain a outline of chronology or a list so the chronologist has to interpret and harmonize the regnal data and other historical information and this where methodology is so important. In view of these circumstances, the KISS principle is most useful and this where WT chronology is superior.
We’ve already been over your distortion of the word manufactured. The Watch Tower Society’s chronology is not compatible with either secular history or the Bible. It is dishonestly manipulated in order to prop up JW’s superstitious numerological end-times beliefs.
Your listing of these manipulations is bogus:
I admit that my list of WT manipulations was incomplete. But the list makes the point well enough.
There is an interregnum prior to the official reign of Hoshea- 2Kings 15:30
You have no support from any secular source for the claim that Hoshea’s reign was ‘recognised’ at some later point in his reign by becoming a vassal. I have already shown that historians and various biblical commentaries agree that Hoshea’s reign began immediately after Pekah’s. But even the sources that suggest an interregnum say that Hoshea was immediately a vassal to Assyria and that his official reign in Israel began later. That is the exact opposite of what the Watch Tower Society claims.
Co-regencies were present during the Divided Monarchy
You seem to have forgotten which chronology you’re defending. Of course there were co-regencies. However, the Watch Tower Society claims that in most cases, there weren’t. Specifically, Insight (volume 1, page 462) claims: “Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency.” However, the Watch Tower Society does also include (only) one coregency for Israel, in addition to the spurious periods prior to Zechariah and Hoshea. Those spurious periods are also indicated in chronologies based on Ussher because the Watch Tower Society’s chronology was based on that Protestant chronology, and subsequently adapted to fit their own end-times agenda. Of course, their entire reason for the Watch Tower Society refusing to acknowledge various co-regencies is their “endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings” with their own numerological superstitions.
The chronologies of the ANE should be adjusted to harmonize with Bible chronology.
Aside from the fact that there’s no basis for that claim at all, ‘Bible chronology’ is already completely consistent with the historical records of contemporary nations, as I have already shown. For the period involved, Jewish writings in the Bible are no better or worse than the historical records of other nations. All of them presented historical narratives from the context of their own superstitions, attributing ‘victories’ to their deities and ‘defeats’ to ‘divine punishments’.
The chronoilogy of Uzziah's reign is compatible with other scholars.
If you are referring to the Watch Tower Society’s “chronoilogy”, then your assertion is based on no evidence at all. I’m not aware of any scholars that attribute the years 829-778BCE for Uzziah. Beyond that gaping error, general consensus among scholars is that Uzziah’s reign included periods of co-regency that are absent in the WT chronology. Additionally, 2 Kings 15:1 cannot be harmonised with the WT chronology either. Even Insight is forced to speculate wildly about this flaw (volume 2, page 1146): “As this would place the beginning of Uzziah’s rule approximately 12 years after the death of his father, this must refer to his ‘becoming king’ in a special sense. It may be that in the 27th year of King Jeroboam, the two-tribe Judean kingdom was freed from subjection to the northern kingdom, a subjection that perhaps began when Israelite King Jehoash defeated Uzziah’s father Amaziah. (2Ch 25:22-24) So it may be that Uzziah became king a second time in the sense of being free from the domination of Israelite King Jeroboam (II).” (bold formatting added)
WT chronology applies a consistent methodology.
No, it doesn’t. As one example, usually the Watch Tower Society interprets years of reign as what they actually are. But when (and only when) this causes very obvious problems with their chronology, they claim the ‘beginning’ of the reign ‘really’ refers to years as a vassal (even though it was common for Judean kings to pay tribute to foreign powers rather than the few instances WT chronology would suggest). And the Watch Tower Society’s baseless interpretation of ‘kingship’ at Daniel 2:1 (that 'all the nations' supposedly became subject to Nebuchadnezzar because he conquered Jerusalem) is even worse not only because it is not a consistent ‘methodology’, but because it is plainly ridiculous and has no basis in reality and plainly contradicts the order of events given by Babylonian chronicles and Josephus.
Some of the Kings were in fact vassals so this must be incorporated in the chronology if required by a regnal datum.
Judea was a minor kingdom, and like many minor kingdoms, it frequently paid tribute to other nations. But reigns were not counted from the period of paying tribute. The only time the beginning of a reign is the same as a period of vassalage is when a foreign king specifically put that king in power to replace the previous king, for example as was the case with Jehoiakim (late 609BCE) and Zedekiah (early 597BCE).
Your contrived 'one-year difference is irrelevant because our chronology for the period is purely suggestive not absolute.
I have analysed the Watch Tower Society chronology. The reason their dates are given as approximate (or ‘suggestive’) is it is in fact impossible to harmonise what they’ve claimed.
WT chronology for the period of Daniel is based on history and close attention to the regnal data.
The WT chronology regarding Daniel is an embarrassing sham. It is readily shown to be entirely wrong by comparison of BM 21946 and Josephus. Josephus provides an account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X. The context for the time period is provided in Chapter 6, under the heading: “How Nebuchadnezzar, when he had conquered the king of Egypt made an expedition against the Jews, and slew Jehoiakim, and made Jehoiachin his son king”. The section explains, “And when Neco understood the intention of the king of Babylon, and that this expedition was made against him, he did not despise his attempt, but made haste with a great band of men to Euphrates to defend himself from Nebuchadnezzar; and when they had joined battle, he was beaten, and lost many ten thousands [of his soldiers] in the battle.” This is in reference to the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho. Chapter 10 has the heading, “Concerning Daniel and what befell him at Babylon”; it states, “Now two years after the destruction of Egypt, king Nebuchadnezzar saw a wonderful dream,” and continues with the familiar account from Daniel Chapter 2. Two years after the Battle of Carchemish is 603 BCE, which is also the second year of Nebuchadnezzar by Daniel’s reckoning at Daniel 2:1. This cannot be reconciled with the JW chronology. Even more embarrassingly, in the Watch Tower chronology, Nebuchadnezzar learns (supposedly around 614BCE) that Daniel is “ten times better” than ‘all the wise men’ of Babylon, yet when he has his ‘dream’ (supposedly in 606BCE), he doesn’t know Daniel at all. Daniel chapter 1 actually indicates that during Daniel’s ‘three years of training’, he “had understanding in all sorts of visions and dreams”. The plain reading of Daniel chapters 1 and 2 disproves the Watch Tower Society’s jumbled events. Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar was already king (it was actually still his accession year) when Daniel went to Babylon (early 604BCE, as part of the tribute paid by Jehoiakim), and Daniel 2:1 states that the dream was in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, which was 603BCE.
WT chronology is faithful to the history and regnal data in the Bible adjusted with the Biblical corrective-seventy years.
‘WT chronology’ is not ‘faithful’ to anything but its own self-serving end-times agenda.
WT chronology adheres very closely to the entire book of Jeremiah.
I have already clearly shown that to be a lie. As usual, you make assertions but are unable to actually refer to the source material. The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14). None of those points are compatible with ‘WT chronology’.
Boy I hoped you would post more so that I could dispense with these as well.
Your empty assertions have all been shown to be wrong, with specific details.
We never claimed that Stern accepted WT chronology because that is not why he was quoted. What Stern said fundamentally agrees with our take on the state of Judah during the period of Babylonian domination.
There's that dishonest use of "we" again. You are just a pawn. You didn't quote Stern in The Watchtower at all. Stern specifically states that Judea was not uninhabited, and he makes no reference to the Watch Tower Society’s alleged ‘70 years of exile’ (which is never stated in the Bible).