Posts by Jeffro

I agree with "whyamihere" that Michael Jackson is definitely not your 'average joe'. But that doesn't make him a child molester. In the case of at least some of the children who shared his bed, it was the children who had asked to sleep with him (as opposed to sleep with him). Whether a particular parent would feel comfortable letting their child do this or not, the parents of the children involved apparently did not.
More generally, 'gut feelings' can be an important factor in assessing situations, so long as they are only viewed as a factor and not some mystical all-knowing force that will safely guide us on a happy cloud of glee through the universe. That said, I have often found that I have chosen badly when I have not followed my viscera.

30

Analysis of a typical congregation

by DannyBloem in

jw
friends

analysis of a typical congregation.

group a. percentage: 10 % .

name: the holy ones.

Jeffro

You forgot the 10% of hypochondriacs at the KH

Was it only in Australia that the Kombucha Mushroom fad took hold of entire congregations en masse (was big in the early '90s here)?
(A fungus that grows on tea. You let the tea ferment with some magic fungus added, let the fungus grow for a few weeks, and drink the tea. Supposedly it cures everything from warts to brain tumors. Needless to say, I refused to try it.)

49

Here's to Evil Force....

by avishai in

jw
friends

one of the most ironically named posters i've ever seen.

kind, strong, intelligent, patient with those who are intolerant.

within the few short mo.

Jeffro

Where's MY salute? :( Just because I haven't done anything to deserve it. LOL
EvilForce, you rock! :)
Jeffro - of the "can't resist adding my two cents' worth" class

22

The EU and WTS prophecy

by dorayakii in

the european union does not exist on the american political landscape.

at a time when many foreign-policy experts are looking toward a multipolar world with the eu and china as two of the important poles, when foreign-policy issues are more important in the u.s. presidential election than at any time in recent memory, george w. bush has not even mentioned the eu in any speech given in 2004. not once.

(http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/18/news/edslaughter.html) .

Jeffro

Maybe all those nasty multi-national corporations can become the king of the north. Makes as much sense as anything else.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

You choose to ignore the stark reality that the seventy years is subject to much dispute amongst scholars

I have not ignored anything. Whether scholars dispute anything is not relevant to my interpretation as it is taken directly from the bible. The fact that my model co-incides with the findings of many scholars attests to its accuracy, and did not require any collusion or juggling of facts. To say that my model is wrong simply because scholars debate the issue, would also say that the Society's is also wrong.

and although your interpretation which coincides with the Jonsson hypothesis is claimed by you to be 'biblical', it simply an interpretation.

So is the 'Society hypothesis'

The date of 609 for the beginning of the seventy years is utterly crazy and stupid because the seventy years was commensurate with desolation and devastation of the land which only occurred when Jerusalem fell in 607.

"Utterly crazy and stupid"?? Not a very scholarly approach to debating a proposed thought.
Where does the bible say, without any possible alternative interpretation, that Jerusalem was completely desolate for 70 years?

To say that 70 plus 539 equals 609 is utterly meaningless and has nothing at all to do with the seventy years of desolation, exile and servitude from the fall in 607 to the return in 537.

"'And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation"

The period of vassalage is misunderstood by scholars and other critics and is based upon a false understanding of Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 which demonstrates that the history of this period is understood accurately.

I have provided the simple correct explanation of the supposed conflict, which simply lies in Daniel's use of the accession year system and therefore the years he states are one less. There is no significance in the bible given to Jehoiakim becoming a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar insofar as the beginning of any period.

The chronology produced by WT scholars is in full accord with the biblical facts

Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-31

and the historical and secular evidence as it elevates the Bible over the perverse theories of poxataes and critics.

poxataes? Anyway... the 'Society hypothesis' does not agree with the dating of any "historical and secular evidence" prior to and including the first year of Evil-Merodach.

If your methodology is so sound then how is then that these same scholars which do not support WT views are unable to agree on a consistent system of dating.

Many scholars choose not to base their dating on the bible as I have done, and arrive at different dates for some events. Also some secular authorities driven by pride may arrive at different dates simply to have something published.

You cannot blame the biblical data because you have already produced a personal chronology in close agreement with ours regarding the Divided Monarchy

It's not about 'blame'. My data for the divided kingdom is based solely on the bible, and fits secular chronology very well. I am not responsible for whether or not secular authorities choose to use the bible as their source, and I do not have to defend their choices.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

I will pre-empt raising the issue of the sabbaths in 2 Chronicles with the following:
The original texts from which the Bible is translated do not contain punctuation, which must be added by translators according to the context. Bearing this in mind, a rendering of verses 20 to 22 that is consistent with Jeremiah’s prophecy, might be: “Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, (and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign, to fulfil Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah), until the land had paid off its Sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept Sabbath. To fulfil seventy years, in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished...” This rendering properly and logically relates both the 70 years, and their end (‘until the royalty of Persia began to reign’), to Jeremiah’s initial prophecy mentioning the 70 years, and relegates the paying off of the Sabbaths to a period of unspecified duration starting from Jerusalem’s destruction in 587BC.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

you believe that your presentation of the seventy years from 609 to 539 is a definite period but that is not the way that I see the matter because according to the Jonsson hypothesis there is a certain fuzziness about whether the seventy years should begin at 605 or 609.

Your perception of the so-called 'Jonsson hypothesis' is irrelevant. I determined the 70-year period based on Babylon's fall in 539BC. It is the simple addition of the number 70 to the number 539 that gives me the year 609. I arrived at that result before I even knew that scholars agreed that the Assyrian world power ended in that year. My authority for that date is the bible.

Further the seventy yeras have nothing at all to do with Babylon

Contrast Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-30, 2 Chronicles 36:20.

they at most can only begin from the year in which a Judean king became a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer.

The Society's explanation of the timing of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar is incorrect and is improperly used to explain an alleged discrepancy between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 (Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy, page 18). The supposed discrepancy is actually an issue of Daniel using the accession year system and Jeremiah not, and both verses refer to the same point in Jehoiakim's rule; neither refers to vassalage and the event was about 605BC in Nebuchadnezzar's first year. (Note that Daniel does not say which year of Nebuchadnezzar as he considered it to be Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.) The bible does not specify a point at which Jehoiakim became a 'servant' of Nebuchadnezzar, only stating that it was "in his days".

why not select a date prior to 609 and go back to Nabopolassar's period.

Because 539 plus 70 equals 609.

WT scholars's interpretation of the seventy years is the only possible view that harmonizes the events of secular and biblical history and prophecy.

Several problems with the 'Society hypothesis' have been identified by myself and others on this thread.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

your tabulation and ours outranks the others by a long shot despite the fact that your methodology is similar to that of those six scholars

My methodology for all of the data for the Divided kingdom (but not the Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian kings) is taken directly, and only, from the bible rather than relying on secular dates for those rulers. For that reason, the total numbers of years is similar to the Society. It should be noted that there are some elements in the bible record that do cause confusion, such as the entries I have listed in red in my model, so it is to be expected that scholars would also find confusing elements from other sources that may seem to conflict with other data.

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Jeffro

And if the matter is so definite that it should be so readily apparent then why is it that many other scholars do not agree with you as to when the seventy years.

That is funny. You support the 'Society hypothesis', which is backed by no scholars, and then state that my model is wrong because it is not supported by all scholars. Your logic here is extremely flawed. My model is based on the bible. As you would agree, it is therefore not important that there is agreement from secular dating. The fact that my model harmonizes with dates of any scholars at all without even trying to, make it superior to the 'Society hypothesis'.