if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
‘scholar’:
How can it be said that the NB Period is well attested with documentary evidence for every year when it fails to address the Jewish Exiles in Babylon for 70 years, fails to account for the 'Babylonian Gap' of the missing 20 years and the missing 7 years of Neb's vacancy from the throne.
It’s almost as though the JW (Adventist) interpretation is a load of nonsense that isn’t consistent with the well established facts. Go figure. 😂
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
peacefulpete:
You and Scholar have passionately argued alternate timelines that require a precision and certitude we just can't possibly have.
The NeoBabylonian period is one of the best attested periods in antiquity with documentary evidence for every year of the period. Whilst we do not have Babylonian records for the destruction of Jerusalem itself, the records in the Bible that are also found in Babylonian records (most notably the main deportation in early 597BCE) are completely consistent, and there is little reason to suppose that only the date of Jerusalem’s destruction would be uniquely unreliable (and the accession dating references interpolated at Jeremiah 52:28-30 also appears to be from Babylonian sources). To say we cannot be precise about events in that period is simply wrong. ‘scholar’ on the other hand just parrots Watch Tower Society drivel.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
I don’t require fallacious appeals to authority. You are never able to point out specific errors in my work anyway, just tedious complaints that it differs from JW nonsense (just like all the experts). That’s not to say there are definitely no errors but your skill in the subject is so poor that identifying any actual errors won’t be coming from you.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
‘scholar’:
So sad for you but that has not been my experience as an active Witness since 1958, baptised in 1964 and has pursued and attained University Degrees in Religious Studies both as an Undergraduate and Postgraduate. Further, I spent much time accessing and researching at the leading Theological seminary library in Sydney-Moore College researching questions from the field whilst pioneering. I have long battled issues on Chronology from SDA sources, dealt with prominent Hasidic Jewish scholars/academics and have collected and accessed all of the leading academic journals and read all of the major poztate scholarly literature. My conclusion from all of this is that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only True Religion having restored the teachings and practices of the Early Church. So there!
All that effort and still so wrong. Sad indeed. You must be really feeling the weight of that sunk cost fallacy.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
peacefulpete:
That's about what I said. I agree. So I guess any further comment would be moot.
Sure. But where other alternatives have been offered, I can show not merely that they disagree with what I have said, but also their own internal inconsistencies and irrationalities. And it’s not as though I have presented anything esoteric (as is almost universally the case with religious attempts). My research arrived at independently is consistent with expert sources for all the events in the NeoBabylonian period.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
peacefulpete:
IMO, and that is all it is, the point is mute.
I think you mean ‘moot’. Anyway, I’ve done better research than many others, and infinitely better than anything Watch Tower has ever come up with. I haven’t seen anything that seems plausibly better than what I’ve provided, and what I’ve provided is fully consistent with professional scholarship without any appeals to supernatural nonsense nor all of the tedious apologetics. But if you imagine there is something more convincing, feel free to share it. But since you don’t think it matters anyway, then I’m not really sure what your point is. What it boils down to is that if I am right, JWs are wrong, and if I am wrong about some aspects, JWs are still wrong.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
‘scholar’:
Now the biblical fact of the 70-year exile is troubling for Jeffro who is unable to reconcile the simple fact of the first deportation followed by the second deportation, ten years later would somehow be viewed as a composite Exile of 70 years duration with a precise beginning and end.
Firstly, you incorrectly attributed someone else’s comment to me. 🤦♂️ Secondly, neither the main deportation in 597BCE nor the deportation associated with Jerusalem’s destruction in 587BCE resulted in a 70 year exile.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
🤦♂️
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
‘Scholar’:
Alternatively, you can also consult WT publications to get a more accurate understanding of matters.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
watchtower has just lost its appeal in the norwegian courts over the withdrawal of the funding it receives from the government as an officially recognised religion.
the initial decision will now stand due to what the court termed 'exclusionary practices' which includes the witnesses barbaric practice of shunning minors, even by family members in their own homes.
the ministry of children and families have decided they are now no longer eligible for the state grant of 16 million norwegian kroner given to officially recognised religions.. the following is a statement has been issued, i have summarised if it isn't readable: .
Fisherman:
as a legitimate religion they do qualify for tax exempt status
Funny how they’re ‘just another religion’ when it affects their bank balance.
