Posts by cynicus

13

Friends

by Vivamus in

jw
friends

i try to avoid them, situations where i end up hurting/disapointing/pissing off, one person, in favor of pleasing another.

none the less, it happens to me on occasion.

"do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway.

cynicus

Your mum is definitely worth it! And never apologise: your enemies won't believe you, your (real) friends don't need it.

(c)

18

Whatever happened to the Dirtclod.com issue?

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

has the wts called off their legal dogs?

cynicus

Is it just me or is dirtclod.com down once more... The domain is still listed as registered albeit by proxy, yet my DNS (and others) claim the domain is unknown right now. Jourles?

(c)

11

Going to Amsterdam!!

by In_between_days in

jw
friends

my husband and myself have decided to go to amsterdam for 10 days in december for the new year.

is anyone on this board from amsterdam, or anywhere in the denmark area?

i need some suggestions on some cool places to go.

cynicus

... but hey, how many of you non - Australians know what the capital of Australia is?

That'd be Wellington...

(c)

11

Going to Amsterdam!!

by In_between_days in

jw
friends

my husband and myself have decided to go to amsterdam for 10 days in december for the new year.

is anyone on this board from amsterdam, or anywhere in the denmark area?

i need some suggestions on some cool places to go.

cynicus

PS to Cynicus. You said: Just give me a shout. However, you may want to lookup both "Amsterdam" and "Denmark" on a map of Europe before you actually go.
Always a good ides...LOL.... But maybe she is saying that she is going to visit both places and wants to find friends in both countries?

It's a common misunderstanding that Amsterdam is the capital of Denmark in large parts of North-America and apparently down under as well. If you really want to visit both Amsterdam and Copenhagen (the rest of Denmark is utterly uninteresting, like the rest of Holland) you still need the Danish 'funny' money though, provided you're interested in buying anything from them Danes.

(c)

11

Going to Amsterdam!!

by In_between_days in

jw
friends

my husband and myself have decided to go to amsterdam for 10 days in december for the new year.

is anyone on this board from amsterdam, or anywhere in the denmark area?

i need some suggestions on some cool places to go.

cynicus

Just give me a shout. However, you may want to lookup both "Amsterdam" and "Denmark" on a map of Europe before you actually go.

(c)

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

cynicus

Hi Alleymom,

The WBTS has backpeddled on their "dates" and most definetely on their absoluteness. Oooh, they still hold on to 539, that's for sure, but what used to be an "absolute date" in 1969 was changed into "pivotal date" in 1988, yet still "astronomically confirmed", but in the latest editions of their Chronology article (in the Dutch version of Aid to bible understanding [1992] which is similar to the article in Insight [1988]) that last qualification was dropped too. They have discredited and rejected most not to say all archeological and tablet evidence, including the Nabunaid-chronicle [see Awake! 8/15/68 for a different former view], VAT4956, various steles and inscriptions, etc. as not trustworthy, especially when it can be used as supporting 586/587. COJ has at least achieved that change within WBTS chronology, allthough it probably wasn't the one he hoped would happen. The only thing the WBTS still seem to rely on for 539 is SK400. But exactly how they use it is not disclosed, wheras methods to date archeological artefacts, such as astronomical confirmation, works of secular historians, other tablets, etc. are discredited and rejected, as if they didn't use these themselves in dating SK400. It's a dishonest bunch of pseudo-historians and their defenders are possibly worse.

(c)

147

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

cynicus

It must be the sound of these damned crickets that inhibits us from hearing Scholar's reply...

(c)

147

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

cynicus

You have two problems with your KISS chronology.

I'd say that you, Neil, have two problems with Marjorie's approach. Most people don't have any problem with it at all, so please don't shift the burden of evidence.

Firstly where does the 70 years configure in your data?

It doesn't. Great huh? So we don't need to discuss which 70 years, when they started or whatever. Since she's counting backwards from a WBTS-approved 'pivotal datum' using WTBS-approved regnal lengths it doesn't really matter. Can't you understand that? Or do you indeed believe there was a neo-Babylonian king left out of her counting method, or that one of the regnal lengths isn't correct after all? Please enlighten us with details.

Secondly, what date marked the Fall of Ferusalem, 586 OR 587?

July 18th, 586 B.C. If you need further explanation I refer you to Jack Finegan's excellent Handbook of Biblical Chronology, revised edition, 1999, paragraph 443, page 259; in an earlier post you've acknowledged that you personally own all of Finegans work so you shouldn't even have to go to the library. If you nevertheless prefer a date in 587 B.C. that's fine too, and we can discuss Jer. 52 as much as you want. Yet 607 remains off the scale in all cases.

(c)

7