Posts by wizzstick

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

wizzstick

Two other points:

But I'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible

I strongly suggest you read The Gentile Times Reconsidered. It goes into depth and, frankly, it may be a nice idea to keep the research simple as possible, but it's only by going in depth you realise that Neo-Babylonian chronology is clearly established by physical evidence from that time period. Cuneiform tablets, the House of Egibi records and so on. You just can't argue with a picture painted by 10,000s of pieces of evidence.

Is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?

The seond point to grasp is that you need to go back to the beginning of this whole idea of when the Appointed Times of the nations begins (which is the whole reason we are skulking about 100s of years BCE).

Re-read Luke 21: 20-24:

20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·de′a begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

Everything in Luke 21: 20-24 is written in future tense (see in bold above). So Jesus, talking in 33CE, was talking of future events. There is nothing to suggest that the last part re Jerusalem had actually started hundreds of years before. If so Jesus would have said, "and Jerusalem is being trampled on by the nations...", or "and Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations...".

It's just an (old) interpretation of scripture that doesn't bare up to scrutiny, particularly given the future tense the whole passage was written in.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

wizzstick

The first period of seventy years spanned from 606 BC until 537 BC

But that is wrong as it contradicts the Bible. As AnnoMaly points out, you have Jeremiah 25:12 where it says:

“‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·de′ans a desolate wasteland for all time.

When did Cyrus overpower Nabonidus?

539BCE.

So how can the king of Babylon (Nabonidus) be called to account when the 70 years are fulfilled, given that by 537 he had been overpowered for some 2 years. The 70 years have to finish in 539 to fulfill Jeremiah 25:12.

Jer 25:12 is the big Biblical hole in the WT argument.

48

The Apostasy Within

by Ultimate Axiom in

in the latest watchtower (july 15, 2014, page 14, paragraph 10) it says; today, jehovahs people are not often confronted with apostasy within the congregation.

still, when exposed to unscriptural teachings, regardless of the source, we must decisively reject them.. so, not often, but occasionally jws are exposed to apostasy within the congregation, and they are instructed to decisively reject it.

as we all know, the vast majority of the apostasy they are exposed to comes from the governing body.. i am meeting up soon with an old friend from the 1970s who i havent seen for decades, who is still an active jw, and who would really like to hear what i think about things.

wizzstick

607 is the one I would discuss.

Highlight the physical evidence and how it shows clearly thr reign of kings, and how there is no missing 20 years.

Kill that and so much collapses.

6

WT article covering 587 and the missing 20 years?

by UnConfused in

published in the last two or three years,please and thank you..

wizzstick

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

65

Same sex marriage legalised in the UK at midnight tonight!!!

by DuvanMuvan in

title pretty much explains it all.

lots of people are getting married at midnight tonight.. what do you guys think?

maybe if anyone gets called on by a jw this weekend you can ask them what they think about it.. im just glad because it shows that religion doesn't define our conscience, that basic human decency can prevail over time and hopefully, these types of gradual but big changes will be present in the wts too in the future .

wizzstick

This can't be right.

I can distinctly remember a brother on the platform years ago saying "We know the end is close brothers, because homosexuals wan't to get married and God would never allow the sacred arrangement of marriage to be polluted like that."

Don't tell me they got something else wrong?!

19

Preparing for my next visit from my Elderette - Who (or what) is the Faithful & Discreet Slave, and why do JW's worship and follow a slave?

by Faithful Witness in

she is coming tomorrow afternoon, and i do plan to have a coherent mind and much better concentration this time.

i was suffering from hypoglycemia last time she made a surprise visit, and i was foggy and literally could not comprehend a simple sentence i was reading.

our plans are to discuss the topic of the fds.

wizzstick

A simple point is that in Matthew 24:36-51 are a series of parables.

Not, parable, parable, parable, prophecy, hypothetical situation...

So ask her:

1) Where is the evidence that Jesus intended this the be a prophecy?

2) What about the second faithful slave?

SECOND? Yes...the parables continue in Matthew 25. Read from 14-30.

14 “For it is just like a man about to travel abroad who summoned his slaves and entrusted his belongings to them. 15 He gave five talents * to one, two to another, and one to still another, to each according to his own ability, and he went abroad. 16 Immediately the one who received the five talents went and did business with them and gained five more. 17 Likewise, the one who received the two gained two more. 18 But the slave who received just one went off and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. *

19 “After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. + 20 So the one who had received the five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ + 21 His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. + Enter into the joy of your master.’ + 22 Next the one who had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me; see, I gained two talents more.’ + 23 His master said to him: ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

24 “Finally the slave who had received the one talent came forward and said: ‘Master, I knew you to be a demanding man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. + 25 So I grew afraid and went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 In reply his master said to him: ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? 27 Well, then, you should have deposited my money * with the bankers, and on my coming I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘Therefore, take the talent away from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. + 29 For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. + 30 And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be.’

So who is represented by the slave that received 5 talents, and who is represented by the slave that received 2 talents?

What? Can't she answer that?

Another great point is from the Watchtower 1981 Mar 1 pp.24-26. You can show her that from the WT CD-ROM. That's not apostate surely?

"Witnesses of Jehovah understand that the "slave" is comprised of all anointed Christians as a group on earth at any given time during the 19 centuries since Pentecost. Accordingly, the "domestics" are these followers of Christ as individuals.

Some readers may feel that this is a rather sectarian view of matters. Or they may object to the idea that the "slave" and the "domestics" represent the same class, one as a composite body and the other as individuals. The objectors may argue that not all of Christ's anointed disciples have a share in preparing the spiritual food, so that perhaps the "slave" pictures only the leading ones, and the "domestics" those they serve in the congregation.

There is no point in trying to force an interpretation of the parable. Self-deception is of no benefit and is spiritually damaging. Therefore, we must look to the Scriptures for an understanding. In doing this, what do we find?
[ ... ]
Thus we see a clear Scriptural basis for saying that all anointed followers of Christ Jesus make up God's "servant," with Jesus as its Master."

So in 1981, the idea that the leading ones alone (The Governing Body are surely the leading ones) are the FDS, was an idea of objectors? So how can it now be correct that the objectors had it right all along.

That and other good background points are in: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/faithful-discreet-slave.php

4

The "Great Crowd" at Rev 19:1,6 are said by JWs to be "angels"

by booker-t in

i don't usually do it anymore (debating with a jw) but my co-worker is a "devout" jws and she just always want to talk about the bible with me.

i try to avoid her because i just realize it is a "waste" of time trying to show the jws anything negative about the wt society.

i believe everybody has a right to belong to whichever religion or faith he or she wishes, but talking to a jws about their beliefs just goes in circles.

wizzstick

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989233

Do those of the “great crowd” referred to at Revelation 7:9, 10 also go to heaven?

The “great crowd in heaven” referred to at Revelation 19:1, 6 is not the same as the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9 . The ones in heaven are not described as being “out of all nations” or as ascribing their salvation to the Lamb; they are angels. The expression “great crowd” is used in a variety of contexts in the Bible.— Mark 5:24; 6:34; 12:37 .

Couple of points on this:

1) Nowhere does it suggest that these are angels, instead when there is an angel it is clearly listed as such.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/66/19#h=128:0-128:197

So not much help when trying to adamantly state that the "great crowd" are angels.

2) The “great crowd” references in the NWT of Mark 5:24; 6:34; 12:37 never actually mention the word "great" instead each reference uses the word "large". Not much use then when arguing that the expression "great crowd" is used elsewhere!

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/41/5#dcv_5_24

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/41/6#dcv_6_34

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/E/2013/41/12#dcv_12_37

Dimebars!