LongHairGal have you thought of directing them to the WT's web page where they list the current governing body members and point out to them that Anthony Morris III is not included in the list (or while showing them the web page, asking them why his name is not included in the list)?
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
773
Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body
by WingCommander inthis has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.
this is not a joke.
anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Clarification: In my prior post where I said "... after the exile took place ..." I meant it in the sense of "... after the completion of the removal of people into exile took place ...."
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Notice that the verse immediately prior to 2 Kings 25:22 (which mentions that some people were "left behind in the land of Judah"), namely verse 21, says "... Thus Judah went into exile from off the soil." (1970 and 1984 NWT). Thus, according to 2 Kings chapter 25, after the exile took place (after the destruction of Jerusalem) there were still Jews left in Judah until after the start of the "seventh month" when those remaining eventually fled to Egypt.
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
2 Kings 25:11 (1970 and 1984 NWT) although saying that all of the people who "were left behind in the city" of Jerusalem (see verses 9-11 for the identification of the city) were taken into exile, verse 12 (1970 and 1984 NWT) says the following. "And some of the lowly people of the land the chief of the bodyguard let remain as vinedressers and compulsory laborers." Furthermore, notice that according to 2 Kings 25:24 (1970 and 1984 NWT) Gedaliah told the Jewish people "Do not be afraid of [being] servants to the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you." By "land" he meant Judah. Notice also that they were told that their servitude to Babylon would be in "the land", and thus in Judah. As I stated (with documentation) in an earlier post in this topic thread, archaeological findings show that some people remained in Judah during the exile. The verses mentioned above also support my claim that when emperors conquer lands to expand their territory they want some of the native people to remain in their native lands and to work in their lands, while being subjects of the emperor.
According to 2 Kings 25:22-26, it wasn't until 11 Jews later murdered Gedaliah and also the Jews and "Chaldeans" who were with him at Mizpah, that all of the remaining Jews of the land of Judah fled to Egypt (those were not taken into exile by the Babylonians). According to the account, it would have been very different if thosee murders hadn't happened. According to the account, if those murders (done by Jews) hadn't happened, many Jews, including even the surviving "chiefs of the military forces" could have remained in Judah without fear of becoming killed, or being sent to Babylon, or becoming mistreated by the Babylonians ("Chaldeans").
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
According to the Bible after governor Gedaliah (a capable, good, and kind Jewish man, who disbelieved reports that a particular man intended to murder him) of Judah got murdered by a fellow Jew (the very one whom he was warned about), the remaining Jews in Judah then became very scared and thus fled to Egypt (though Jeremiah had urged Jews not to flee to Egypt. According to the Bible, previously some of the Jews who had fled from Judah to other countries, returned to Judah after Gedaliah had invited Jews to return and to grow crops, and had told me them they would be safe.
2 Kings 25:22 (1970 NWT) says the following. "As for the people left behind in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had left behind, he now appointed over them Gedaliah ...." By the way, that gives a positive biblical meaning to the phrase "left behind". This shows that according to the Bible, that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had wanted some Jewish people to remain in Judah, instead of being exiled to Babylon.
Read verses 23-24 and note what they say Gedaliah said to the Jewish people who had returned to Judah (while Gedaliah was still in power).
-
773
Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body
by WingCommander inthis has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.
this is not a joke.
anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Fisherman in the two congregations I attended I rarely heard of any announcement of an elder ceasing to be an elder, but when I did hear of such I did not assume the worst. I knew that people could loose interest in being a elder, or a ministerial servant, just as they could loose interest in being a regular pioneer.
I had quit being a regular pioneer due to burn out and due to never enjoying spending so much time and effort in field service, and because of desiring to pursue a better career. I had gone to college to get a great career and had completed college (and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration) three months after I had become a regular pioneer, but was only working part-time because of the hours requirement (90 hours per month or 1000 hours per year, of field service time, not to mention the time preparing for return visits and talking points to be used in the field) of regular pioneering. After being a pioneer after nearly 3 full years, for a month or two a number of people in my congregation said things to me indicating they thought I was still a pioneer. I thus felt compelled to tell them I had quit. An announcement during the meetings was never made to the congregation that I was no longer a pioneer. I wondered why it wasn't, since i thought such announcements did not necessarily mean the former pioneer had done something wrong. I had thought that such announcements were required to be made when a person ceased being a regular pioneer, for any reason (not just for doing something bad or for not meeting the requirements). I had wished that such an announcement had been made about me, so I wouldn't have to tell people week after week that I quit being a regular pioneer. When I told people that I quit being a regular pioneer they looked sad, but that puzzled me because I had never intended to be a regular pioneer for the rest of my life. But in hindsight, I guess if an announcement had been made, then many people would ask me why I am no longer a pioneer and I would have felt compelled to tell them that I had quit, so they would know I had not been removed as a pioneer and had not become disqualified to be a pioneer.
Multiple times during the years I was a ministerial servant I had thought of resigning as a ministerial servant. Multiple times I even considered resigning as a ministerial servant by me making an announcement from the platform of the kingdom hall (at a time when I was assigned by an elder to give announcements he had written down) that I was no longer a ministerial servant (and possibly also saying I had resigned). One reason I thought of doing such (in the congregation of which I was first a ministerial servant) was because an elder had announced to the congregation I had become a ministerial servant, even though prior to that I had not been informed I was chosen to be a ministerial servant or even asked if I wanted to be one. I had wished they had asked me first and I had resented that they hadn't. [In the second congregation I attended I was asked first and I accepted it, but multiple times I later thought of quitting being one in that congregation also. Eventually I did cease being one.] I had also thought that if in my first congregation if an elder would complain of me quitting that way with me making an announcement of such without the approval of the elders, then I would reply: "Well, I was appointed as a ministerial servant without my pre-approval and it was announced that I was a ministerial servant without me ever being informed that such would be announced, thus I thought I would quit without telling the elders of my intention and announce it without their approval". However I never did make such an announcement and never did quit being a ministerial servant at that first congregation, though obviously I ceased being one there after I moved to a second congregation.
Readers, regarding Raymond Franz becoming disfellowshipped and the circumstances of such, if I recall correctly from reading his autobiography, the process of him being investigated by the WT headquarters for possible disfellowshipping started soon after the following. In the congregation Franz was attending the elder body had decided to appoint Franz as an elder and had submitted their recommendation. The governing body of the WT strongly disliked that and thus sought some grounds to prevent such and to oust Franz from the WT's JW religion. The WT soon adopted a policy that if a JW eats a meal with a person who disassociated himself/herself from being a JW then the JW eating with such a person would be subject to disfellowshipping (if unrepentant of eating with the officially ex-JW).
As a side note, yesterday a JW woman (whose voice sounded like that of an elderly person), attending a kingdom hall of the territory of which my home is located in, called me to engage in witnessing (about the topic of "does God answer prayers"). I told her I am an inactive JW who wishes to remain inactive (and I mentioned the name of the congregation I last attended). I also told her "but I wish you a great day".
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
In post on page16 of this topic thread where I quoted a Wikipedia article which used as a source the article called "What Happened to Tyre?" by Bible Reading Archeology, I had thought the source (without me reading its full web page) was a scientific publication, but it now appears to be a religious publication (which makes use of scientific information). I noticed that it has some inconsistencies in what it said about Tyre, including where it says the following. "The first part of the city was on the mainland and the second part was on an island just under a kilometre from the shoreline. ... Tyre became very wealthy and the island portion of the city over time became heavily fortified. The city on the mainland was the secondary part of the city and principally served to supply the island with water and supplies. One might think of the mainland portion of the city as being the “suburbs” while the island was the home of the wealthy and those of noble birth."
The inconsistencies in the article by Bible Reading Archeology raises questions in my mind of the accuracy of the article. It prefer to have a source which is of a science journal for the claims of the article, including the following. "Other cuneiform tablets show that at some point Tyre was in the hands of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Finally, a cuneiform tablet at the British Museum shows that Nebuchadnezzar did indeed successfully engage the Egyptian forces." I wonder how accurate are the claims of those two quoted sentences.
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
You are welcome. It is indeed a lot to parse through (or figuratively digest).
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
In my prior post I quoted Wikipedia as saying "... the capture of the rebellious Phoenician city of Tyre ...", but while my quote is accurate, I thought that Wikipedia is wrong in saying that. I had thought that though Babylon did besiege Tyre, that Babylon did not conquer it (other than its portion on the nearby continent), but that instead it wasn't conquered until Alexander the Great conquered it. I started having that view about the time I became an atheist (I wrote it down in the year before [or in the first year] I became an atheist and I used it that same year in part of a speech against the Bible being written by Jehovah). But I a moment ago I investigated the claim made by the Wikipedia article and I found evidence that Babylon did indeed conquer it (before Alexander later also conquered it). That evidence is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(586%E2%80%93573_BC) . It says the following.
'According to accounts by Saint Jerome in his Commentary on Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar II was unable to attack the city with conventional methods, such as using battering rams or siege engines, since Tyre was an island city, so he ordered his soldiers to gather rocks and build a causeway from the mainland to the walls of the island, similar to Alexander the Great's strategy in his siege 250 years later.[15][16] After 13 years of siege, the Tyrians negotiated a surrender with the Babylonians.[3] Nebuchadnezzar II was never able to take control of Tyre by military means, leaving the result of the siege as militarily inconclusive.[2][3][17] ...
The historicity of the siege was supported by a cuneiform tablet discovered in 1926 by German archeologist Eckhard Unger that discussed food provisions for "the king and his soldiers for their march against Tyre."[3][6] Other cuneiform tablets also confirm that Tyre came under the control of Nebuchadnezzar II at some point during his reign.[3] Josephus briefly mentions the siege in Antiquities of the Jews (Book X).[3]
... 3. ... "What Happened to Tyre?". Bible Reading Archeology. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 13 November 2020.' WOW!
During the past several days, what I have been reading in the WT's Insight and Aid books, and in some commentaries, and in web pages, in regards to historical and archaeological support of the Bible, stun me. That is because I am seeing historical and archaeological confirmation of the accuracy of some of the claims made in portions of some narratives (ones presented as history) of the Bible and in some prophetic books of the Bible. This is evidence of more parts of the Bible being true than I was aware of. Some of this evidence strengthens the claim of the Bible's OT prophecies as being under divine inspiration from Jehovah God and that its accounts of purported history really are historical accounts, but such is difficult for me to reconcile with evidence that Jehovah God (or anything supernatural) does not even exist. Such apparent conflicts are difficult for me to reconcile. Some examples are what the Insight book says regarding the archaeological evidence in support of the authenticity of the book called Daniel and of the book called Esther. [For some of the evidence regarding the book of Daniel see parts of The Case for a Sixth Century Dating of Daniel. Appendix 3 of Daniel: Faithful Discipleship in a Foreign Land and BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Book of Daniel by Robert I Bradshaw .] WOW!
Likewise, there was a time when I had ceased believing that Jesus Christ was a historical person, for I came to believe that the concept of him by the earliest Christians was only as a cosmic Christ instead of also of someone who had lived on Earth as a human. But in recent months I found evidence and persuasive argumentation which caused me to believe he probably (or at least possibly) did exist as a human who lived in the early first century CE.
Furthermore, I found evidence in the Bible that suggest that according to the Bible that Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin) the former king of Judah repented while in captivity in Babylon and that Jehovah thus removed the curse upon him and his offspring (the curse that none of his offspring would rule as king in Judah on "David's throne"). See 2 Kings 25: 27-30 implying divine providence intervening in behalf of Jehoiachin. If the Bible really does present such a view (and I now think it does) then it means one the arguments used by many atheists (when considering the genealogy listed at Matthew 1:1-16) that Jesus was disqualified (as a biological son of Joseph or as an adopted son of Joseph) to inherit the throne of David is an erroneous argument. WOW! Notice also that the text in 2 Kings says that Jehoiachin received food rations in Babylon. Archaeological evidence has confirmed that he existed, was in Babylon, and that he received such rations in Babylon, for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeconiah says the following.
'Records of Jeconiah's existence have been found in Iraq, such as the Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets. These tablets were excavated near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon and have been dated to c. 592 BCE. Written in cuneiform, they mention Jeconiah (Akkadian: 𒅀𒀪𒌑𒆠𒉡, Yaʾúkinu [ia-ʾ-ú-ki-nu]) and his five sons as recipients of food rations in Babylon.[4]
... During his excavation of Babylon in 1899–1917, Robert Koldewey discovered a royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate. It contained tablets dating to 595–570 BCE. The tablets were translated in the 1930s by the German Assyriologist, Ernst Weidner. Four of these tablets list rations of oil and barley given to various individuals—including the deposed King Jehoiachin—by Nebuchadnezzar from the royal storehouses, dated five years after Jehoiachin was taken captive. ' WOW!
See https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/the-problem-of-the-curse-on-jeconiah-in-relation-to-the-genealogy-of-jesus which presents a strong case that from both a biblical and rabbinical point of view the curse of Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin) was removed by God. That source says in part the following (quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia). "
Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).
–Louis Ginzberg, “Jehoiachin,” vol. 7 p. 84." WOW!
-
208
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco ini remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
-
-
Disillusioned JW
MeanMrMustard when I read in the Bible of 70 years of servitude of the nations to Babylon, I don't presume that means all the listed nations begin their 70 years of servitude in the same year. My impression is Babylon did not begin all of their invasions of the nations in the exact same year. Likewise Persia/Iran did not conquer all parts of Babylon in the same year and thus did not end in the exact same year the control of Babylon over various nations (at least to my knowledge). Thus, I don't presume that the servitude of all of the listed nations ended in the exact year. [However Jeremiah 25:12 gives the impression that the 70 years ends at the same time for the servitude of all of the listed nations to Babylon, and that Babylon's dominance (starting with king Nebuchadnezzar) last for exactly 70 years.]
I have very little interest (practically no interest) in the military battles Babylon had with various non-Jewish nations. But I do have some interest in the military battles and the timing of the degree of control that Babylon had with Jerusalem and Judah. The latter is case for me because the latter involves the Jews, and the Jews wrote the Hebrew Scriptures Bible (and much of the NT), and the Bible makes predictions of Yahweh's messianic kingdom upon "David's throne", and my life has been greatly influenced by the Bible. I thus focused my thoughts about Jeremiah chapter 25 upon Jerusalem and Judah.
Your (and another person's) emphasis (in posts from days ago) upon the word "servitude" (in regards to servitude of the nations) versus "desolation" influenced me to change my focus from the wording of "desolation" to the wording of "servitude". After I did that I noticed that certain verses in Jeremiah chapter 25 were primarily talking about servitude instead of desolation. I also read online that archaeology reveals that Judah was not totally desolate at any time during the Babylonian occupation of Judah (despite what Jeremiah 25:11, 18 says). [That makes sense since empires benefit by some people being allowed to remain in their native land, and thus work the land and pay taxes for the benefit of the empire. What emperor hungry of expansion of territory (and to rule people) would want much of his acquired lands to be without human subjects and to be desolate for decades? I don't think any would.]
As result I began seeing that the idea of Jerusalem and Judah being in servitude for 70 years (or very close to that number of years) is consistent with both the Bible and history and science (archaeology) and approximately with the date of 606 BCE, and that stunned me and greatly impressed me. After that, when I read Jamieson's commentary which gave the interpretation of Jerusalem's servitude having begun in 606 BC I thought its reasoning made a great deal of sense, and displayed no "tortured logic" in that matter. It also got around the issue of the fact that Jerusalem's destruction happened in the year 587 BCE (plus of minus one year) and revealed that the WT's reasoning about he the year 607 BCE (originally the year 606 BC) had some degree of logic and suitability to it. Regarding the idea of the Bible having prophesied that Judah would be desolate (instead of in servitude) for specifically 70 years, I don't recall any verses saying such, however I have not looked to see if there are any say such verses. In the past I might have read such verses, but I don't remember having read such. I do remember that the WT says that the Bible says that Jerusalem and Judah would be (and/or was) desolate for specifically 70 years, but I am not certain that view of the WT is correct. I am not 'defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude.' I am not defining "desolation" as meaning "servitude"; to me they have very different meanings. I am not equating 70 years of servitude with seventy years of desolation. Likewise I don't see the Jamieson commmentary (which I quoted from) referring to the 70 years as soft desolation or any other desolation. That which I quoted from in it, in regards to the seventy years, is stated by the commentary as referring to the years of servitude and of captivity. I don't see it as saying the desolation as having lasted 70 years. It specifically says "Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem ...."
I notice you said "Why start it at the first Exile of Judah when Neb had been marching around making vassals of other nations round about for years prior? Why reduce 'nations' to 'nation'?" But, I don't see the logic of that if by the first exile you mean the one which some commentaries say began in 606 BC (instead of in 587 BCE +- 1 year), since the Jamieson commentary which says the first deportation (claimed to be in 606 BC) began in the first year year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign. The defeat of Pharaoh Necho II in a battle was in 605 BC (according to various sources I read, including commentaries and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II ). The plain sense of Jeremiah 25:29 says the calamity begins (starts) first with Jehovah's city (namely Jerusalem) and Judah and proceeds to gentile nations. Jeremiah 25:17-19 lists Jerusalem and Judah first and it lists "Pharaoh the king of Egypt" second. That sequence agrees with the historical record. I thus am not reducing " 'nations' to 'nation' ".
Though Assyria was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon before the year 606 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet king at that time. Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Assyria while Nebuchadnezzar's father was king of Babylon (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II ). I am convinced that the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 25 pertaining to conquests by "Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon" (see verse 9) starts after Nebuchadnezzar II (historically known as Nebuchadnezzar the Great) became king. Note that Jeremiah 25:9 (1984 NWT) says "... to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon ..." As a result, the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar II upon Assyria is excluded from the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 25, since Nebuchadnezzar II was not yet the king of Babylon! [Perhaps the "prophet" Jeremiah learned of Nebuchadnezzar II's defeat of Assyria and from that knowledge then deduced by naturalistic means (instead of by a divine revelation from Yahweh) that Nebuchadnezzar II would become king and subdue Jerusalem, Judah, and Egypt and various other gentile kingdoms around Judah.] Also, note that the lists of kings/kingdoms mentioned Jeremiah 25:17-26 does not specifically name Assyria!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II says the following.
'Despite his successful military career during his father's reign, the first third or so of Nebuchadnezzar's reign saw little to no major military achievements, and notably a disastrous failure in an attempted invasion of Egypt. These years of lacklustre military performance saw some of Babylon's vassals, particularly in the Levant, beginning to doubt Babylon's power, viewing the Neo-Babylonian Empire as a "paper tiger" rather than a power truly on the level of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The situation grew so severe that people in Babylonia itself began disobeying the king, some going as far as to revolt against Nebuchadnezzar's rule.
After this disappointing early period as king, Nebuchadnezzar's luck turned. In the 580s BC, Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a successful string of military actions in the Levant against the vassal states in rebellion there, likely with the ultimate intent of curbing Egyptian influence in the region. In 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Kingdom of Judah, and its capital, Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem led to the Babylonian captivity as the city's population, and people from the surrounding lands, were deported to Babylonia. The Jews thereafter referred to Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest enemy they had faced until that point, as a "destroyer of nations". The biblical Book of Jeremiah paints Nebuchadnezzar as a cruel enemy, but also as God's appointed ruler of the world and a divine instrument to punish disobedience. Through the destruction of Jerusalem, the capture of the rebellious Phoenician city of Tyre, and other campaigns in the Levant, Nebuchadnezzar completed the Neo-Babylonian Empire's transformation into the new great power of the ancient Near East."