Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,940 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  41

  Jan 2014 WT study - more vomit

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  articles such at "100 years of kingdom rule" in which jehovah has 'in a sense' begun ruling as king, and jesus in a sense was made king.

  even though the kingdom hasn't actually come.

  it's not clear if the 1,000 year reign has began or not, if so only 900 years left of jesus rule?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Does the picture on page 12 remind anyone else of the Galactic Senate from Star Wars?
• 
  41

  Jan 2014 WT study - more vomit

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  articles such at "100 years of kingdom rule" in which jehovah has 'in a sense' begun ruling as king, and jesus in a sense was made king.

  even though the kingdom hasn't actually come.

  it's not clear if the 1,000 year reign has began or not, if so only 900 years left of jesus rule?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  I noticed the following in the 3rd article in the same issue of The Watchtower (my own comments in blue):

  In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians (um... no). The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.
  
  The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years.

  It seems they're saying that the new 'overlapping generations' generation can't be used beyond just the one 'overlap'. Apparently they're trying to rein in speculation about the new 'overlapping generation' allowing an extended period before 'the end'. They drum this point in further by suggesting that the overlapping generation (which is also the same 'generation') is also "advancing in years". ('Discerning' JWs should interpret this as "panic".)

  Of course, if they later decide they do want to extend the period further, this 'new light' will simply fade into obscurity.
• 
  47

  Question About 607BCE and How That Date Was Picked - Help JW Scholars

  by Comatose in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.

  she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.

  she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Phizzy:

  1) The Bible does not say that Judah would be desolate for 70 years. (?)

  The New World Translation translates Jeremiah 29:10 incorrectly, and interprets the reference to that verse at Daniel 9:2 in a similarly wrong manner. A parenthetical reference to paying off Sabbaths, which was a reference to Leviticus and not 'the word of Jeremiah', is incorrectly used in the NWT (and various other translations) at 2 Chronicles 36:21. The Bible never refers to 70 years of exile.

  2) The Bible does say, without time constraint, that the land would be desolate, this too is not an accurate prophecy, like so many Bible "prophecys". Archaeology shows that the land was never completely uninhabited. (?)

  It's hyperbole. The Bible also says Babylon would be uninhabited. Hundreds of thousands of people live in Babylon province.

  3) 587 for the fall of Jerusalem does not conflict with what the Bible actually says (?).

  Yes.
• 
  47

  Question About 607BCE and How That Date Was Picked - Help JW Scholars

  by Comatose in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.

  she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.

  she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Dutchdelight:

  This topic explains it well, although it's a lot of reading. http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.nl/2005/11/jerusalems-destruction-587-or-607.html

  Ho-hum.

  Everything in that article and a lot more dealt with here.
• 
  47

  Question About 607BCE and How That Date Was Picked - Help JW Scholars

  by Comatose in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.

  she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.

  she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  AnnOMaly:

  No, as was already explained, scholars associated the 606 BCE date with the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, NOT the fall of Jerusalem. The fall of Jerusalem was commonly placed at 588 or 587 BCE. Russell/Barbour disagreed and insisted the chronologists had made a fundamental error.

  Well, yeah. I was too busy thinking about where they got 606 from that I got a bit muddled about what it was actually applied to in the late 19th century. Duh. jwfacts' earlier error must have infected me, but I think I'm just going to blame it on having the TV on in the background. My brain has since returned to normal programming.
• 
  32

  Another Revised NWT Thread - subtly sowing seeds of doubt with chart

  by mindnumbed in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  pages 1744 thru 1746 feature a chart of the kings of the southern kingdom, ending with zedekiah in 607.. praise the new bible and all of the teaching aids .... draw attention to kings list and how convenient that is ... but, strangely, i decided to look up information in an encyclopedia about the different kings, and the dates are not the same ... so i checked a couple of sources and they are all different than the chart in the bible .... why would that be?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The reason for the 20-year gap during the Neo-Babylonian period is becaue of their beliefs about 607, but there is more going on with their alternative chronology for the kings of Judah and Israel, which has an increasing discrepancy the further back you go.

  Please see here for more information about how and why the JW chronology is manipulated to suit their beliefs.

  konceptual99:

  Just bumping in case anyone has a chance to comment on why there are numerous sites on the net that refer to a date of 997BCE for Rehaboam's ascension?

  The reason is similar to that of JWs (see link above), relating to biblical literalism overriding overlapping reigns.
• 
  31

  Since most JW's HATE giving talks and doing meeting parts, why does the Watchtower Society still require it?

  by yadda yadda 2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i loathed giving talks and doing meeting parts.

  i dreaded all assignments.

  i was intelligent enough and always did a good job, but all my jw life (born in to mid-30's) i enjoyed giving talks about as much as a visit to the dentist.. i am sure that 90% of all jw's similarly dislike it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Since most JW's HATE giving talks and doing meeting parts, why does the Watchtower Society still require it?

  I think you may have answered your own question.

  It's about control. Things that are enforced (i.e. obligations) such as joining the 'Ministry School' are touted as 'privileges', and whilst not officially 'mandatory', there is significant social pressure placed on individual members by the rest of the group to conform.
• 
  47

  Question About 607BCE and How That Date Was Picked - Help JW Scholars

  by Comatose in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.

  she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.

  she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  wizzstick:

  Am I right in thinking that JW's get the 2,520 years in two ways?
  A) As above, 7 (years) x 360 (days) equals 2,520 (then day for a year)
  B) 3.5 times of 1,260 days doubled to 7 times of 2,520 days (then day for a year)
  Or is one way the old way of working it out and the other the new way?

  Both (B first, then A.)

  They say that '1260 days' as '3.5 times' in Revelation determines how long a 'time' is in Daniel (even though the word translated 'times' in Daniel can refer to various time periods and not just 'years', and it isn't the same word as that used in Revelation), to arrive at 360. Then they multiply 7 by that result to arrive at 2520.

  They don't apply the supposed 'day for a year' 'rule' for the 2 other instances of 'times' used in this manner at Daniel 7:25 and 12:7, or the reference at Revelation 11:3, all of which they claim refer to a literal period from December 1914 until mid-1918.
• 
  47

  Question About 607BCE and How That Date Was Picked - Help JW Scholars

  by Comatose in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i've been sharing some a little at a time with my sister.

  she is married and very scared of actually learning too much.

  she doesn't want to ruin her marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  jwfacts:

  Hi Legacy, there has been a lot of research into this, and no university or encyclopedia says 607. They almost universally agree that the year was 536/7.

  What encyclopedias have you been reading?! (Yes, it was almost certainly just a typo. )

  Most sources say either 587 or 586, and that doubt is largely based on ambiguity within the Bible (though careful analysis of the Bible confirms 587). Because the Babylonian calendar (which the Jews adopted) started in Nisan (March/April) and ended partway into the following year, that single year can be validly expressed as 587/6, so using "587/6" is not always an expression of doubt about one of those two years.

  Jerusalem definitely fell during 587. This can be determined exactly by comparing Jewish ('biblical') and Babylonian sources.

  C.T. Russell got 606 from other sources prevalent at the time. Many dates had been suggested in the 19th century for the fall of Jerusalem, but 606 was the most common by Russell's time. JWs didn't change it to 607 until the 1940s.

  See also Jehovahs Witnesses and 1914. I've also been working on 607 and the new NWT.
• 
  47

  just when you think you've made friends with a "normal" person

  by Hortensia in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  rode over to the farmer's market with a couple of neighbors, nice women, seem sensible.

  the driver stopped in the middle of a block and stared at the coca-cola truck that was parked there.

  she said, "do you see the round tower?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Is the entrance to the Torchwood Institute a 'gypsy tower'?