Posts by ItsJustlittleoldme

55

Dubs showed up at Dallas press conference

by Jesika in

jw
friends

ok, well we had 7people total to support the silent lambs.

it was me,valis, my roommate, country girl, and 3others from oklahoma.. we had 2 reports show.

one was a talk radio station, and another was from a tv station---no camera though.. the reporter from channel 8 is wanting us to do a documentary type thing.

ItsJustlittleoldme

they might call 2 Elders <gasp>

Hey, I lost a perfectly good soda all over my computer screen when I read this... <still laughing>

Oh, and I think a box of stuffed goats for the elders would be great!!!!!!!

24

Is it 607 or 586 ?

by happy man in

jw
friends

>i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site..

now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone..

.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Ozzie said:

There's no reply yet. D'ya think I'll get one?

Please don't hold your breath on this one, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself :-)

24

Is it 607 or 586 ?

by happy man in

jw
friends

>i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site..

now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone..

.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Oh wow! Didn't even see that... hehehe.. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

24

Is it 607 or 586 ?

by happy man in

jw
friends

>i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site..

now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone..

.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Scholar said:

There is much controversy concerning the Fall of Jerusalem as to whether it is reckoned to be 586/587 or 607 BCE. There is evidence supporting both claims and it simply boils down to personal preference. The generally accepted dates of 586/587 is based upon a considerable amount of secular evidence but falls short in dealing with the problematic seventy years.

Uhh, the secular evidence I have seen does NOT in any way contradict the 70 years as you imply here.. Accepting all of the evidence from secular history (arrived at by the same scientific means, I might add) contradicts the WT's formula and interpretations in such a manner as to disprove the 1914/607 dates that WT claims.

So, unless you can show me your evidence of the 607 date, your above logic is wrong, and here is why:

The WT claims 1914 as the date Christ came back invisibly to rule in heaven. (I assume as a scholar in Religion that you are aware that origianlly the WT claimed that 1914 was the date for Armageddon)

This 1914 date is based on a formula the WT uses (basically the year of the fall of Jeresalem + 2,520 years), and is based on the fact that they believe in 607 Jeruselam fell.

Secular history points to the fall of Jeruselam in 586/7 (which would result in a date according to WT interpretation of scripture to be 1933/4)...

The simple fact of the matter is that there are NO dates in the bible, so the WT had to rely on secular evidence to come up with a date, and then using that date they calculated using their own formula they believe to be correct from their interpretation of scripture and prophecies to conclude that 607 was the fall of Jeresalem.

The evidence that they use as their 'start date' in their calculations is based on secular evidence that Babylon fell in 539.

The same scientific methods used to provide secular evidence that the WT accepts to show that Babylon fell in 539 is rejected when the methods also show that Jeresalam fell in 587.. In fact, there is more proof not available with the 539 date that is available with the 587/6 date that makes it the more solid of the two dates from a secular standpoint.

So, your statement is illogical and not based in sound reasoning.

The bible offers no dates whatsoever, so to say that the bible 'agrees' with secular history RE the 539 date is completely meaningless... The bible does not agree with that date, or any other date for that matter.. It's all relative from the bible's standpoint, as there is not one single absolute date found in all the scriptures of the bible!. However, if you accept the interpretation of the 70 years found in Jeremiah 25 and 29 the way the WT interprets then, then obvioulsy the above 2 dates cannot agree, for there is NOT 70 years between the two events.

So, therefor, the WT accepts one date, but rejects the other date.. The WT has chosen to accept the 539 date and reject the 587/6 date..

The WT's interpretation is therefor still valid, however, in doing so, they had to rely on secular evidence for a 'start' date, but then reject the secular evidence afterwards, even though the secular evidence is arrived at with the exact same scientific methods...

So, the dilemna the WT has created for itself is this:

Explain why secular methods are 'ok' for 539, but not 'ok' for 587/6.. This is very hard to do in light of whatever they say to prove 539 or disprove 587 can equally be applied to the other date, as the methods they are attacking are the same for both dates.

Of course, the bible as we agree has no dates in it, so the bible can no more agree or disagree with any absolute date as we have no starting point to prove or disprove those dates. So, then the only way we can conclude dates in the bible is have a secular starting point, and then use our interpretations of scripture to arrive at an end point...

In this case, the WT has interpreted Jeremiah 25 and 29 to mean literally 70 years between the fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem. That is what THEY have interpreted that to mean. THAT IS A HUMAN INTERPRETATION !!!!!!!

There is another way to interpret the bible which make more logical sense then the way the WT interprets that, and guess what, the more logical and straight forward interpretation also agrees with the secular evidence of BOTH dates, 539 and 587!!!!

The WT is using trickery to make people believe that the 'bible' agrees with the 539 date but disagrees with the 587 date.. The bible cannot agree with it, because Jeremiah 25 and 29 are not clear cut (add 70 years to the fall of babylon and you get the fall of Jerusalem -- that is an interpretation made by men as to how to read Jeremiah and make a mathematical formula from the scriptures).. Those scriptures require interpretation to arrive at dates.. That's the formula the WT came up with... Secular evidence has shown that their formula is incorrect. More over, there is a much more straight forward way to interpret Jeremiah that is logical and does support the secular evidence..

Either way, however, you cannot in any way claim that the BIBLE either supports or rejects any secular chronology in this regard, as the bible doesn't have any absolute dates.. To suggest that 539 is biblically correct because you add 70 years, adjusting a year or two for the reignal years of the kings (as the WT interprets Jeremiah to mean) it to arrive at 607 which then corrosponds to adding 2,520 years (which the WT interprets) which points to 1914 (Which incidentally was the date the WT society predicted armageddon would occur, and was later changed to the year Christ started his rule) is ludacrious and circular logic.

You are using the 1914 date, and backtracking 2,520 years to arrive at 607 and then subtracting 70 to arrive at 537 (assention years of kings accounts for the 2 year discrepancy -- 539 plus 2 = 537). THat is a human formula, as that is NOT clearly stated as a formula in the bible!!!!! Therefor, you cannot claim that the BIBLE supports any of those dates!!! HUMANS are supporting those dates, because one of the 5 numbers is based on secular evidence.. The rest is based on a formula that the WT came up with..

Instead of being honest and stating that secular evidence does NOT support their formula, they are being dishonest and accepting only part of the secular evidence (which they need to arrive at any date whatsoever, since the bible has no dates), and rejecting other evidence which would disprove their formula. And, to further add insult to injury, they are then purporting their interpretation of scripture, and their formula as evidence that the one date they agree with is "supported from the bible"..

Circular logic at it's finest!!!!

Please show me the secular evidence that points to 607 as the date..

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:7:22

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:8:11

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 13:10:36

24

Is it 607 or 586 ?

by happy man in

jw
friends

>i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site..

now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone..

.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Scholar said:

happy man
There is much controversy concerning the Fall of Jerusalem as to whether it is reckoned to be 586/587 or 607 BCE. There is evidence supporting both claims and it simply boils down to personal preference. The generally accepted dates of 586/587 is based upon a considerable amount of secular evidence but falls short in dealing with the problematic seventy years. The 607 date nicely accommodates a 70 years of desolation/servitude for Judah and is ell reconciled to the prophetic Gentile Times.
This subject has generated a considerable amont of comment in the form of interpretation and opinon but there has been insufficient attention paid to the matter of exegesis. This is especially so in the vexed subject of the seventy years. My personal preference is for the 607 date as it fulfills all the necessary requirements for chronology and prophecy.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, Australia
in

Now this is very interesting... I would be most interested in your evidence that points to the 607 date... What evidence are you speaking of?

Since you have an MA in religion, would you mind answering me my questions to happy man:

Why would god need secular historians to arrive at a date to prove that Christ came back? If the 1914 date is based on secular history, then why dismiss the 'greater' secular evidence that disproves the 1914 date? (Unless, of course you can show me proof of the 607 date, in which case I stand corrected.. But I'm a person who requires evidence.. You, having an MA I'm sure agree, many people can claim anything, but the proof as they say is in the pudding.. So far, all I've heard was a claim, but I would like to see your evidence)...

And, also having an MA in religon, you I am sure understand and agree with me that the evidence must come from an outside source, it cannot be evidence that the Watchtower itself proclaims is proof of the 607 date, as that would be circular logic. I'm sure you understand the concept, which is why I look forward to your evidence, as I am sure it will be devoid of any circular logic, or self references to the Watchtower's stand.

Also, having an MA in religion (I assume you studied Christianity, and the bible), how would you interpret the scriptures about false prophets?

And If you do not mind induldging me, I will ask you a couple of hypothetical questions because you have an MA, and I would love to hear your take on these:

PREMISE:

Let's assume that a religion bases their claim of them being the exclusive"channel of communication" between god and us mortals on a date that doesn't appear in the bible (as no date appears in the bible), but they use part of secular evidence to confirm their belief in this date, yet deny other parts of secular evidence that would contradict that date if they accepted it.

Question:

If the secular evidnce that is being rejected is arrived at with the same scientific methods as the secular evidence that they accept, for what purpose would a religion do that?

Question:

If God did not directly reveal this date to the religion, and it is based on secular history isn't it possible that the date is incorrect?

* If the date was revealed by revelation from god, wouldn't then the religion have to be tested according to the bible to see if the religion is a false prophet?

* If the date was not revealed, but arrived at via secular methods,

* Isn't it possilbe the date is incorrect, in which case this religions claim to be the 'appointed' channel is also incorrect?

* Isn't it underhanded and dishonest to accept or reject secular evidence using the same methods.. Wouldn't you either have to accept or reject all evidence based on particular methods, for it would be inconsistant and unscientific and illogical to only accept part of the evidence and reject other evidence.

I would love to hear a person with an MA in religion's take on these questions..

Thank you in advance for giving me your educated response, and I look forward to seeing your evidence regarding the validity of the 607 date.

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 11:12:24

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 11:13:34

Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 5 September 2002 11:15:52

11

What Really Surprises Me Is............

by Sentinel in

jw
friends

.............that jehovah's witness aren't required to wear uniforms, adults and children.

i mean, it would certainly settle the issue of who's in and who's out, because whoever wasn't attending meetings couldn't pick up their next clean uniform.

also, they would be totally visible out in public and you would always be "safe", if you associated or spoke to one who was properly uniformed.

ItsJustlittleoldme

LOL..

Sadly, if the GB picks up on this thread, it probably will become an honest topic of discussion at the next meeting..

24

Is it 607 or 586 ?

by happy man in

jw
friends

>i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site..

now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone..

.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Hi Happy Man,

Quicky question for ya: Where did you get the dates that are in the bible? For, unless I am missing something, there are no dates in the bible, right?

So, that means that your organization from God had to rely on historical dates to come up with any dates at all, and therefor your 1914 date is also not of theological origin, but has been determined via secular methods.

With that knowledge, can you answer these two nagging questions for me:

A:) Why would god require his annointed to rely on secular historians as the only basis to be able to determine when Jesus returned?

B.) Why would your organization reject dates that disprove your timeline, while accepting other dates that do validate your time line, considering both these dates are arrived at with the same scientific methods, and in fact, the rejected date has more supporting evidence suggesting it is correct then the date that your society relies on.?

Thanks for helping me answer these questions,

7

1 Star Review of Crisis of Conscience

by Swan in

jw
friends

i have just finished reading crisis of conscience and thought it was great.

never before has the gb been exposed as a bunch of men turning their personal opinions into law for millions like this book has.

instead of being a group of men transformed by holy spirit into bible scholars devoutly pouring over the scriptures, they are just bumbling men, inferior to the great philosophers of humankind that they put down for their "empty teachings.

ItsJustlittleoldme

I personally like this little gem of rationalzation:

This book is well written with many insights into the ways in which a large organisation are run

Wow! We will turn off that one brain cell that is causing us dissonance in the back of our mind, and forget for a moment that we are NOT LIKE all other organizations, and should not be run as such, or even be allowed to be compared as such...

But then again, the brain cell blinked back on, and then the rest of the drivel came out :-)

12

Ethical question

by johnathanseagull in

jw
friends

hi all.......i've been around for a while, i love this site and the people therein, and appreciate the tremendous amount of work simon put's in (simon sorry couldn't make it sunday, but let me know about next time).

i don't post much but take a avid interest in peoples views etc.

after over 15 years of da'ing myself, i only reached these sites a few weeks ago, and since have engorged myself on the info about the org and their lying ways.

ItsJustlittleoldme

Let's hear what the Watchtower has to say about such a moral dilemna:

*** w74 1/15 35 Can You Be True to God, Yet Hide the Facts? ***

Can You Be True to God, Yet Hide the Facts?

WHAT results when a lie is let go unchallenged? Does not silence help the lie to pass as truth, to have freer sway to influence many, perhaps to their serious harm?

What happens when misconduct and immorality are allowed to go unexposed and uncondemned? Is this not like covering over an infection without any effort to cure it and keep it from spreading?

When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning?

7

WTS reaffirms Salvation only by Works

by ozziepost in

in the new special assembly day program, the wts once again affirms that "true christians" receive their salvation by their works.

the theme is "be rich in fine works" and starts with the circuit overseer discussing what it means to "exert themselves to acquire spiritual riches".

the bethel speaker's first talk is "fine works in this time of harvest" - encouraging the r&f to "share even more fully'.

ItsJustlittleoldme

How different it would be if the SAD program dwelt on the undeserved kindness of God!

Yeah, the'd be almost <gasp> Christian!!!