Posts by Earnest

89

Myth of 1914

by peacefulpete in

the wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.

millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.

take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.

Earnest

TD : The Proclaimers book says the change was made in 1944 for some strange reason.

The Proclaimers book says (pp. 632, 633) :

Later on, during the years from 1935 through 1944, a review of the overall framework of Bible chronology revealed that a poor translation of Acts 13:19,20 in the King James Version, along with certain other factors, had thrown off the chronology by over a century. [Footnote] This later led to the idea - sometimes stated as a possibility, sometimes more firmly - that since the seventh millennium of human history would begin in 1975, events associated with the beginning of Christ's Millennial Reign might start to take place then.
[Footnote] See "The Truth Shall Make You Free," [1943,] chapter XI; "The Kingdom Is at Hand," [1944,] pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Blble chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.

The significance of 1944 was the footnote on p.171 of The Kingdom is at Hand :

IMPORTANT: In the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", published in 1943, the chronology on pages 150,151 concerning the kings of Jerusalem, from Solomon's successor to Zedekiah, is based on the book of 2 Chronicles, chapters 12 to 36. This appears to show the reigns of those kings as successive, end to end. Actually, however, this was not so, as is plainly shown in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, which books give us a countercheck on the successors of Solomon by a comparison of these kings of Judah with the neighbor kings of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. The chronological TABLE OF CONTEMPORARY KINGS AND PROPHETS AND RELATED EVENTS, on the next four pages, shows how the books of 1 and 2 Kings give a more accurate check on the reigns of the kings of Judah than does 2 Chronicles.
Measured by 2 Chronicles, the period of kings from Saul to Zedekiah was 513 years . Measured by the more precise and detailed books of Kings, the period was actually 511 years, or 2 years less . This fact affects the chronology as a whole and pulls man's creation 2 years closer to A .D. 1 and gives it the date 4026 B.C., not 4028 B.C.
The following chronology shows the date of Jerusalem's destruction as in the year 607 before Christ. This recognizes the fact that the ancient reckoning of the vulgar year began in the fall. In other words, the vulgar year 606 B.C. really began in the fall of 607 B.C. As stated on page 239 (para. 1) of "The Truth Shall Make You Free": ''Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile 'seven times' began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end. From the fall of 607 B.C. to the fall of B.C. 1 is exactly 606 years. . . Hence from the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1914 is 1,914 years."

89

Myth of 1914

by peacefulpete in

the wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.

millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.

take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.

Earnest

peacefulpete : Can anyone show the argument for adding 30 years to 1844 and then the 40 years to 1874? I recall it being a typology eisegesis on 30 years of Jesus, 40 years in the wilderness.

A diagram in The Time is at Hand (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II), p.247 alludes to these parallels.

25

Jehovah's Witnesses and Apostates

by tfjw in

jehovah's witnesses basically define the term "apostate" as someone who was once a member of the "organization" (a jehovah's witness) but no longer follows the teachings, rules, regulations and practices.

the society gives their official definition in the following manner: "apostasy is abandoning or deserting the worship and service of god, actually a rebellion against jehovah god.

some apostates profess to know and serve god but reject teachings or requirements set out in his word.

Earnest

Vanderhoven7, the link didn't work but the book can also be downloaded here.

49

Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 in

so i grew up as a witness but i’m no longer active, i have some family that still practices very seriously.

but i don’t want to ask them my question.

but what does the bible and teaching’s of jw’s say about early hominids?

Earnest

truth_b_known, interesting video although I don't quite understand why he thinks homo naledi must have caused the soot in the cave. Could it not have been later? I await with interest the dating of the soot and a peer-reviewed article on the find.

You can see Lee Berger's announcement of this find here and read other articles about it here and here.

2

Those who have a religion in decline in England and Wales !

by Phizzy in

https://www.thenewselephant.co.uk/oh-shit-theyre-finally.... "oh shit, they're finally seeing through our bollocks!

" say church leaders after england and wales revealed to be minority christian countries.

good !.

Earnest

The current news is that "Paranoid racist halfwits devastated as Census reveals only 6.5 percent of British are Muslim".

146

Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW in

a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

Earnest

The photo of abandoned EV cars was taken just outside of Hangzhou, China. The cause was that the company (Microcity) went bankrupt due to a failed business model, not EV battery replacement costs. It was reported on here by fact-checking Observers in July 2021.

146

Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW in

a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

Earnest

Which one do you think is photoshopped?

6

Something that bothers me personally

by Blotty in

(i apologise if this is the wrong section for this - its the one i think suits best)this may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, which i will list as questions in the near future)i recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - i find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. they wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.

i.e on the divine name, i listed scholars such as george howard - i got the answer "try a real scholar"or another example i cited beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "he doesn't teach greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)once again i apologise if this is wasting anyone's time.

Earnest

Blotty, you may find an earlier thread Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 1) and Prof. Jason Beduhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 2) addresses the prejudice to which you refer.

7

It appears Paul utilized Wisdom of Solomon

by peacefulpete in

romans 1:18-31.

18 the wrath of god is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about god is plain to them, because god has made it plain to them.

20 for since the creation of the world god’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.. 21 for although they knew god, they neither glorified him as god nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Earnest

It may have been that Paul utilised the Wisdom of Solomon. Or it could be that both Paul and the author(s) of the Wisdom of Solomon utilised the Hebrew scriptures esp. Isaiah. It's interesting but I don't know that it tells us anything we don't already know. We already know that the book of Enoch is cited by Jude, but that didn't make the book of Enoch canonical or that Jude was any less inspired. The fact is that a lot of what is in the Bible can also be found elsewhere, which is not surprising considering the milieu in which it arose.

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

Earnest

In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1974, pp.480, 481, Bruce Metzger explains why "congregation of God" is probably the original reading.

... it is undeniable that theou [of God] is the more difficult reading. The following clause speaks of the church "which he obtained dia tou haimatos tou idiou [with the blood of his own]." If this is taken in its usual sense ("with his own blood"), a copyist might well raise the question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change theou [of God] to kuriou [of Lord]. If, however, kuriou were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase [which would lead the copyist to change it].
Instead of the usual reading of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [with his own blood], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean "with the blood of his Own." (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou [son] may have dropped out after tou idiou [(his) own], though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios [(his) Own] is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that "his Own" (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to "the Beloved" (ho agapetos); compare Ro 8.32, where Paul refers to God "who did not spare tou idiou huiou [his own son]" in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22.16, where the Septuagint has tou agapetou huiou [the beloved son].
Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that tou idiou [(his) own] is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [his own son], the Committee judged that the reading theou [of God] was more likely to have been altered to kuriou [of Lord] than vice versa.