in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
I have complimented you and applauded you.
Yes, you have complimented my refutation of jwposter’s fringe Adventist lunar sabbath nonsense. And that is appreciated. But that refutation is quite independent of my refutation of the Watch Tower Society’s 1914 doctrine. Maybe you genuinely don’t understand how your comments came across. Sorry for upsetting you.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
Or is it impossible?
Why is it so difficult for you to say something like, “yes, I can see how it could have come across that way. Sorry if it seemed that way.” Why all this doubling down and evasion of what I actually said? It doesn’t actually matter, it’s just frustrating when people don’t engage with actual content.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
What Jeffro is trying to say is make sure you make it clear that your targeting jwposter with any criticism you have.
That’s not what I said. You do understand, I hope, that your view isn’t Watchtower’s view. Sad to say, your view is considerably more wrong than the JW view.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
I was criticizing the Watchtower, not you, for it changing it's doctrines. That makes claiming VAT 4965 in favor of their calculations useless. You were not doing that.
Fine, but when you said:
So all this arguing over Vat 4956 is useless. … But continue to waste your time.
In a thread between jwposter (a person who promotes an entirely separate fringe chronology) and myself (someone who usually refutes the JW doctrine), can you see how that comes across as saying my efforts are futile rather than directing that criticism at either Watchtower or jwposter?
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
KalebOutWest was saying they liked your work and agrees with you.
And he also said discussing a particular JW doctrine is a waste of time, then threw a tantrum when I pointed out that your view has nothing to do with the JW doctrine. I do welcome expert views, but I’m not so desperate for support that I’ll put up with that crap.
I'll be waiting.
Good for you. You’ll be waiting a while. KalebOutWest is better qualified to deal with that side of things anyway, and it’s not relevant to my position. I on the other hand am not bothering to wait for you to properly deal with the many problems with your views that have been raised in this thread.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
You are nothing to me.
Now you’re showing your true colours. It is you who is being emotional. I pointed out that you were in error, so you lash out. Why are you incapable of just admitting that you said something inconsistent? And no, I don’t mean mock humility with stuff like ‘ok, I know nothing, blah blah blah’.
I don't know your website.
I don’t expect my work to be well known, but I have linked to it several times in this thread. Sorry for assuming you were paying attention.
Just for context, your outburst was in response to these questions:
Can you explain how JWs changing their 1914 doctrine would affect jwposter’s unrelated Adventist lunar sabbath views? In the context of this thread where his view is unaffected by the JW doctrine but I have a website debunking the JW doctrine, can you not understand why it would seem you were also ridiculing my work (at least as to its usefulness independent of its quality)?
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
jwposter:
Obviously, this should be easy for you. Show me where you have evidence that the 24 courses of the Priests served for more than 2 times in a year. I'm referring to those Priests such as the Sadducees or the Pharisees.
Red herring. I have made no such assertion.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Can you explain how JWs changing their 1914 doctrine would affect jwposter’s unrelated Adventist lunar sabbath views? In the context of this thread where his view is unaffected by the JW doctrine but I have a website debunking the JW doctrine, can you not understand why it would seem you were also ridiculing my work (at least as to its usefulness independent of its quality)?
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
Good grief. 🤦♂️
Me and KalebOutWest for the most part have the same information on Lunar Sabbaths in antiquity. I don't see where Jeffro has shown any distinction from what I have wrote compared to what Kaleb has stated.
‘In antiquity’ is vague pandering here. But anyone paying the slightest attention knows that jwposter’s claim that the Jews observed a lunar sabbath in the second temple period was directly refuted by KalebOutWest.
I'm sorry to say this KalebOutWest but you caught in the hate beam exhibited by the soul of Jeffro. Hopefully, she continues to make amends to you.
Just a reflection of dealing with people like you. I haven’t bothered mentioning until now either, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed that jwposter has several times childishly tried to goad me with asinine ‘misgendering’, which has no relevance to anything.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
KalebOutWest:
Why are you like this, thinking I was writing something negative about you? I didn't even have you in mind in those words as they were directed at jwposter.
In that case I apologise. But you said that JWs abandoning 1914 makes arguing about VAT 4956 a waste of time. jwposter (whose position is that Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year was 512BCE) isn’t arguing for 1914 at all, so it didn’t seem you were only addressing jwposter, whose separate view is not at all affected by a change to JWs’ 1914 doctrine. It therefore seemed you were ridiculing any discussion about VAT 4956.
I thought you did a wonderful job.
But you couldn’t just say that in the same post as saying arguing about VAT 4956 is a waste of time?
