Posts by Jeffro

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Jeffro

The Chuckler said:

PS - Congratulations - this is the first post I have ever seen from Scholar, without a spelling mistake. Did you get someone from the Writing Dept to check it for you first?

Yes, he didn't have any spelling errors... but:

What is precisely your point? All that you have done is post the comments of critics on the scholarship of the NWT. Celebrated WT scholars boldly attest to the genius of the NWT Committee in producing the the most brilliant translation of the Bible ever made. The comments made by spiteful scholars clearly demonstrate their jealousy over the fact that the Lord raised up humble men to translate the Bible in accurate, modern speech in order people of many tongues could access its wondrous truths.

I guess we'll work on grammar a bit later on.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Your theory that the period of temple obscurity ran from 587 to 537 is an interesting one but raises a few technical problems.

You still have not provided an answer to the "technical problem" of where the fifty years of the temple's obscurity fit into the Society's odd little interpretation.

Firstly, nowhere in the Bible is the this fact mentioned of fifty years in connection with the temple.

The 70 years Zechariah spoke of indicates fifty years from 587 to 537 with the additional twenty years to end the period when the final rebuilding of the temple was commissioned.

Secondly, scholars do not agree that 587 is the starting point as the majority view 586 as the date.

That more than one scholar agrees on 587 gives it a stronger standing than the Society's model, which is supported by no-one in the professional community whatsoever. Rather than dogmatically suggest dates where there is insufficient evidence, real scholars have some margin of variance for this event, but within definite parameters. However, dates that are definitely known, such as the siege in 597, prove that the Society's model is invalid.

Thirdly, are you agreeing with celebrated WT scholars that 537 was the date for the Return of the Jews under Cyrus' decree?

Dates assigned by the salivating WT scholars are not to be relied on and are inconsequential to me. However, the Jews did return some time around there. The precise year is not important to the point being discussed, as the fifty years may simply be a round figure. Plus, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

3

A JW's Sincerity "on trial"

by Oroborus21 in

jw
friends

i happened to come across this interesting case.. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023597p.pdf.

for all you lay folk, the gist is this.

this woman who is eritrean but whose husband is ethiopian faces deportation and may end up back in eritrea.

Jeffro

the original hearing officer said that she couldn't answer some basic questions about the "founder of JWs" and about other religious dates and so determined that she was not a JW and denied her the asylum.

What's the problem here? Sounds like a typical Witness to me.

12

Take the insanity test!!!!

by Legolas in

jw
friends

http://www.richstevens.com/insane.htm

Jeffro

Do people actually laugh at that 'crazy frog' rubbish? It is possibly THE most annoying sound I have ever heard, plus they wrecked Axel F (Theme from 'Beverley Hills Cop') by oversampling that stupid noise.

I guess it makes for a good test of insanity though.

58

Did Noahs Ark drift about aimlessly in the Great Flood?

by EliJah in

no where does it mention that noah traveled around the world in his big boat.

in fact, is says that the ark was floating "high above the earth".

also, what does matthew mean about "just like in the days of noah?

Jeffro

The Society has published several times (w 1/7/74, w 15/7/68, g 8/2/91, g 22/7/85, g 8/10/83, g 8/5/76, g 8/6/75, gm, ce), that they believe that animals quick-frozen with undigested food in their stomachs (that normal people would attribute to an ice age) died in Noah's flood (eg " The logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood.")

If that is the case, the water would also freeze, and with the temperatures for snap-freezing the animlas, it is also unlikely that the Ark would provide sufficient insulation to keep the occupants from freezing to death.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Josephus says in Against Apion that the city lay desolate during the interval of seventy years until the days of Cyrus the Persian not fifty years.

Josephus refers to both 'seventy years' and 'fifty years' in Against Apion. He says that Jerusalem was desolate during the seventy years, and he says that the temple was in a state of obscurity for fifty years. This is consistent with the exile occuring during Babylon's 70 years as world power, and it is consistent with 50 years from 587 to 537 for which the temple was desolated. So I will ask again, for which fifty years do you suggest, according to the Society's interpretations, that the temple was in a state of obscurity during the seventy years .

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

Perhaps they are blinded by the Devil or they have not read Josephus or perhaps it betrays some anti-Semitism. Whatever the case I do not care for Josephus plainly states that the seventy years is as I described and provides secular evidence for 607.

They're "blinded by the Devil"? Good grief!

Josephus based his information for this period on the writings of Berossus. The Society doesn't place much credence in the writings of Berossus even though he concurs with Daniel that captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's first (accession) year. The Society makes a number of references to Berossus getting his information from that nasty Seleucid Period (snicker), as if that makes the information unreliable. (They say it is too far removed from the actual events). But you are saying that Josephus, basing his information on the same 'unreliable' source, even further removed from the original events, provides evidence for the Society's interpretations.

All of Josephus' references to the seventy years can be reconciled with the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587. Additionally, he is in agreement that captives were first taken about 70 years prior to their return from Babylon (in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year).

According to Jeremiah 52:29, there were only 832 exiles taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year anyway (though 2 Kings 24:14 indicates about 10,000+ were taken) According to Jeremiah 52:28, 3023 Jews were taken 11 years prior, and if Jeremiah is consistent, then this may reflect a much larger number also. You would have us believe that when this group of Jews arrived at Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, they met up with the other 3023 (or more) exiles from Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and said "Hey chaps, we've decided not to bother counting the eleven years you've been here" - very unlikely, even if they could speak English. (Not to mention the captives that were taken as booty in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year earlier still.) Further, if there were more exiles taken than Jeremiah bothered to mention, then his omission also provides no basis for your previous allegation that captives were not taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

It is plain from nearly all of Josephus'; refererences to the seventy years it is singularly used to descrfibe a period of exile, servitude and desolation in accordance with the Bible and the interpretation of celebrfated WT scholars from 607 to 537. Josephus does indeed provide overwhelming secular evidence for our sacred biblical chronology.

Scholar, if this wishful thinking was true, don't you think that at least one person in the professional community would agree with the Society's outlandish interpretations? The Society with its rediculous end-time agenda (and maybe a couple of other similar minor religious groups) are the only ones that endorse the erroneous 607 dogma.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Scholar said:

Josephus is a more trusted source as he is mainly interested in preserving a history of his nation so his objective coin cides with Bible Students today who have a similar interest in the history of Israel.

In that case, please indicate which 50 years Josephus indicated for which the temple was desolated in Against Apion?

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

The problem remains despite your efforts to ignore the facts. The seven years of interruption to Neb's kingship are omitted by the secular materials for whatever reason so these documents are not authentic history, It is far wiser to follow the lead of celebrated WT scholars and their interpretation of the faithful God's Word.

Your logic is completely in reverse. Most normal people would come up with an interpretation and test it against facts. But you prefer to say that the facts are wrong because they don't fit your interpretation. If you are really a 'scholar', who accredited you? Dr Seuss?