Posts by Jeffro

174

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

Jeffro

1. Was Jerusalem destroyed in 586 or 587 BCE?

You’re still banging that drum? 🥱 It was 587 BCE.

https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/2022/11/17/586-or-587

2. Why have you and Ptolemy omitted any reference to the missing 7 years of Neb's regnal vacancy?

There are no missing 7 years. The contemporary records confirm a known continuous reign. But since you’re so intent on wanting to know specific years, specify the actual range of 7 years you’re referring to.

Says who? You are no expert or authority on ancient Babylonian astronomy.

🤣 Just because you don’t understand solstices, it doesn’t mean other people don’t. ‘scholar’ is wilfully ignorant, but for honest readers: VAT 4956 (line 16 on the front) indicates the summer solstice on the 9th day of the 3rd month. During the Neo-Babylonian period, the Julian date of the summer solstice must fall within the range of 27–30 June. For 568 BCE, the 9th day of the 3rd month corresponds to 29 June, exactly as expected. However, because the Watch Tower Society claims that Nisanu of 588 BCE began on 3 May, this would require that the summer solstice occurred on 9 July, which is impossible.

Now, since ‘scholar’ is so concerned about credentials and expertise, what are the identities of the “researchers” who the Watch Tower Society says analysed the lunar eclipse observations in VAT 4956?

174

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

Jeffro

K, bye. Glad you could drop by.

Also, there’s no reasonable basis for the belief that Jesus ‘died for our sins’.

174

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

Jeffro

If you’re concerned about egg prices, you’re in the wrong thread.

174

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

Jeffro

'scholar':

Babylon's time as a World Power ended with its overthrow in 539 BCE by the Medo-Persian Empire. However, the 70 years of Jewish Exile and servitude to Babylon did not end until 537 BCE when Cyrus released the Jewish captives.

In the poor addled mind of 'scholar' (and other JW cronies), the Jews arrived in Judea, marking the end of 70 years. But the problem (actually one of a great number of problems), is that directly contradicts Jeremiah 29:10. They make a big deal about their faulty translation saying "at Babylon" in the first half of the verse, but quietly ignore the second part of the same verse. In the JW interpretation, the Jews arrive in Judea, and then attention is given to their return. Once they're already there. It's as dumb as it sounds.

174

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

Jeffro

Poor old 'scholar' is still at it. 🤣

Anyway... notice these contradictory claims in the abysmal attempt to defend their 607 BCE nonsense in October/November 2011...

The Watchtower, 1 October 2011, page 29:

why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information—the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy.

But in the second article in the series, they admit that modern historians instead actually rely on contemporary business records that establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

The Watchtower, 1 November 2011, page 22:

However, most scholars date the destruction of Jerusalem at 587 B.C.E. This allows for only a 50-year exile. Why do they conclude that? They base their calculations on ancient cuneiform documents that provide details about Nebuchadnezzar II and his successors.1 Many of these documents were written by men who lived during or close to the time of Jerusalem’s destruction.

Worst of all, the November article scored an own-goal by requiring that the solstice of 588 BCE occurred on a date that is physically impossible. 🤦‍♂️ Luckily for the Watch Tower Society, most JWs lack the critical skills required to identify the problem.

For a review of the 2011 attempt, see
https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/watchtowers-2011-attempt/.

11

King of the North / South predictions

by Gorb in

jw
friends

during my jw.org lifetime since 1970 (2008 we faded out of it all) i read and heared a lot of the king of the north and the south.. but about an aliance between the two kings, that was not a jw.org scenario, wasn't it?.

g..

Jeffro

Good grief.

King of the north - Seleucid Dynasty

King of the south - Ptolemaic Dynasty

That is all.

(I realise Gorb doesn't directly push the kings of the north/south as a personal belief but more of an observation of the JW views, but I anticipate this thread still attracting the crazies.)

32

The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.

rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.

while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️ This whole fatuous narrative about an ambiguous king suddenly appearing in verse 36 is nothing but a lie. The kings are frequently (mostly) referred to as just ‘he’ or ‘him’ throughout the entire chapter, and it’s clear throughout (from verse 5 after the brief consideration of the division of Alexander’s kingdom) that it’s referring to the ‘kings of the north (Seleucids) and south (Ptolemys)’. Everything beyond that (including the traditional Christian re-interpretation roping in Augustus and Tiberius) is a fantasy.

32

The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.

rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.

while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.

Jeffro

No. It is superstition, it is an adaptation of an interpretation employed by earlier Adventists, and it is yet another attempt to portray the stories in Daniel as relevant for 'our day'.

It arises from a careful reading of the text, recognizing patterns from previous verses, and understanding the complex nature of prophetic conflict.

It arises from desperately wanting it to be a 'prophecy' relevant to 'our day' rather than a description of past events in the apocalyptic genre.

32

The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.

rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.

while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.

Jeffro

raymond frantz:

First of all, there is an ambiguity in the use of the pronoun, … This unclear pronoun ("him") suggests a distinct third party, separate from the king of the South and the king of the North.

First of all, this isn’t really a new take on interpreting the ‘kings’ at all. This is recycling Adventist interpretations of Daniel from the 19th and early 20th century (including, but not limited to or originating with, Charles Taze Russell), which portrayed Napoleon as a ‘third king’.

The ‘ambiguity’ isn’t particularly ambiguous when the whole context indicates two ‘kings’ interacting with each other:

At the time of the end, the King of the South will engage with [the king of the North] in a pushing, and against [the king of the South], the King of the North will storm with chariots and horsemen…

It is neither new nor surprising that someone is attempting to reinvigorate the tedious superstitions about the passage, as usual seeking to apply it to ‘our day’.

32

The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.

rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.

while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

Take note, יַמִּ֖ים jammim “seas” (plural). What does it mean? Isaiah explains the symbolic use of “sea:”

It’s really funny how you get to arbitrarily decide what’s taken literally. 🤦‍♂️ When it’s shown directly that the tents were literally between the great sea and the holy mountain, suddenly we need to jump into symbolism from Isaiah. 🤣 May Elohim (plural) forgive you.