Posts by Larsinger58

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Larsinger58

I find it kind of humorous that Lars can debunk a great bunch of copied Babylonian texts because in copying they must therefore have been "revised" and yet he believes "Bible chronology" as accurate even though it has been copied and recopied and revised and edited and redacted and revised again and recompiled and copied etc. ad nauseum.

It would be really funny if it wasn't so pathetic and sad.

LOL

My position is not to apologize for the Bible. Yes the Bible was copied and it should meet the same standards as any other text considered to be reliable. So I put the Bible to the test just like I put the VAT4956 to the test.

But before we get to deciding if any ancient texts can be reliable, including the Bible, we can put on the academic hat of simply making COMPARISONS, which has been my preferred position. COMPARISONS. So, without saying the Bible is true or not, here's some of those comparisons:

1. JOSEPHUS: Josephus, a Jewish historian, reflecting traditional Jewish history, inserts 70 years from year 23 of Neb2, the last deportation, to the 1st of Cyrus. He considers this as direct fulfillment of the prophecy by Jeremiah. Thus:

ANT 11.1.1
"1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

Jopsephus is a lunatic and unreliable? Fine. That doesn't change that he has an "opinion" about when the 70 years occurred and how Jeremiah is fulfilled. He also claims those last deported in year 23 were deported specifically from Egypt.

2. CARL OLOF JONSSON: Jonsson believes the 70 years refers to 70 years of domination by Babylon over the nations, though slightly less than 70 years. He rounds off the 70 years as a general reference.

3. THE WTS: The WTS thinks the 70 years are a literal 70 years that occurs after the fall of Jerusalem. Currently they date the 70 years from year 18 when they date the fall of Jerusalem, claiming the land was desolated from the 7th month when the Jews ran down to Egypt after the assasination of Gedaliah. They specifically invent some Jews who must have scattered at the time of Gedeliah's murder who were part of the 23rd year deportation mentioned at Jeremiah 52:30. Of course, the Bible clearly notes that a remnant of those who "escaped the sword" would return to Judea (Jer. 44:14,28), apparently for a short time before deportation that same year. Deportations were customarily at the "turn of the year", that is, at the very end of the year at the beginning of Spring. Thus besides contradicting the Bible, they also twist the historical reference by Josephus from which they directly quote. They avoid the concept that the final deportation was out of Egypt, thus avoiding the idea that any Jews traveled through Judea after year 18. The Bible, further, agrees with Josephus that the last deportation in year 23 were of the remnant of Jews from Egypt.

4. THE BIBLE. The Bible, as noted above, claims the 70 years of "exile" were served by those who "escaped from the sword" which is a reference to the survivors among the remnant of Egypt. Here is that direct reference at 2 Chronicles 36:

20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

The above scripture is thus specific as to who served Babylon for 70 years, that is, those last deported out of Egypt who are called those who "escaped from the sword." Note Jeremiah 44:28

20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

Okay, those are the comparisons of those critical references.

OTHER NOTES:

VAT4956: It's a "copy" dated 200 years after the fact so can't be used to preempt anything. The presumption is that is is a revised document if it is copied. The WTS is correct to question the "historical" reference though the astronomy clearly comes from original observed texts. But another problem is the "double-dating" in the text. Lines 3 and 14 have "errors" for 568 BCE but match 511 BCE. That's a complication since if year 37 is dated to 537, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE, the strict chronology Biblical date for year 23 when the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455 BCE. Thus the VAT4956 is used by those dating 455 BCE as the 1st of Cyrus as direct secular evidence of the original timeline.

SK400: Same as above. The timed interval between two eclipses are noted in this text which points to 541 BCE rather than 523 BCE for "year 7" of some Babylonian or Persian king. When 541 BCE is applied to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, then year 37 falls in 511 BCE, making the SK400 a match to the presumed original chronology of Neb2. Thus the VAT4956, SK400 and the Bible are harmonized for dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and year 23 to 525 BCE. This reflects the "relative" chronology of 70 years between those two events. So essentially, the debate is over. The double dating confirm these documents represent fraudulent chronology on the one hand, but its secretive references could be used to challenge the Bible's timeline. Of course, that turns out well for those since both specifically date the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II to the same years.

Ptolemy's Canon: Simply reflect the confirmed revision of astronomical texts from the Seleucid Period so is entirely dismissible.

Decide whatever you want to. But not to recognize that the Persians revised the NB and Persian timeline at this point is simply incompetent, IMHO.

In the meantime, it is not necessary to use the Bible to date the NB Period since that can be done independently now using the SK400 and the VAT456, both designed to preserve the original timeline; likely inspired by Jehovah to be created by Jewish astronomers in Babylon. So there is a secular source supporting the Bible's 455 BCE chronology for the 1st of Cyrus. This would thus confirm the history by Josephus that the last deportation was 70 years prior to the 1st of Cyrus. The nice thing about all this is that you can follow Josephus and use the VAT4956 and the SK400 to confirm Josephus without even mentioning the Bible. Thus its a battle of interpretation of contradicting secular sources if you wish, after which, you can compare the Bible's timeline with the various conclucsions (as I've done above).

LS

14

settling the issue of evolution once and for all - it's a fact, case closed...

by just n from bethel in

discussions on evolution and creation are now completely resolved.

no further information on this forum will ever be needed.

so we can all move on.

Larsinger58

So evolution is not believed as being realistic for the better informed.

That statement is pretty funny, too.

Yes. ABIOGENESIS, Baby! Ask any evolutionist about "abiogenesis" and he will admit he doesn't know how it all began, he just knows how it occurred after it all began. It's idiotic to think the two are not connected. But try talking to someone who can't connect the dots in the first place. The capacity just doesn't seem to be there for certain people.

In the meantime, of course, being the Christ and having had direct contact with Jehovah, I not only have direct evidence of the Creator but the Creator of the BIBLE! So "creation" explains the moon, it explains the solar system, it explains what SCIENCE shows us now in biology, that things produce after their own kind. In the meantime, you can't even create life in controlled conditions in a lab. So how is it that evolution proceeded so masterfully over the centuries through such a haphazard setting? Forget it! Evolution is not only not true is is IDIOTIC. It's STUPID.

But nevermind. Believe what you want. I'm glad that even if somehow I'm misinterpreting the Bible and that God used evolution to create all things we have now, evolution doesn't disprove God, of which I have direct proof for myself and for the JIOR, who also experience direct evidence of God through acts of holy spirit and, of course, the promised "sign of the son of man" which appears to them, which is miraculous. So there IS a spirit world, there IS a God, even if evolution turns out to be true. So whether "evolution" is true or not now has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not God exists.

So it is not "evolution" vs "creation" any more. At best it is whether God used evolutionary processes to bring about what we have today. Maybe he did. The only contradiction then is the chronology. Did God use billions of years to develop everything, or did he speed everything up and develop it in 6 creative days of 7000 years each?

Also, if evolution is really true, then that solves the "abiogenesis" issue for evolutionists. How did it all begin? The answer is God began it all. Simple. And obvious.

So we're both laughing. I'm laughing. You're laughing. Evolution is funny stuff!

LS

17

539 BC - How do they know that year is an "Absolute" date?

by Bungi Bill in

the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.

(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).

however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.

Larsinger58

- that, and the fact that they diligently recorded their astronomical observations. Further, their observations were always dated - using the regnal day, month and year of the current Babylonian King.

LOL!!!

Anyone actually familiar with ancient astronomical texs knows this statement is a complete inaccuracy. In fact, the concept of noting the year of the king in connection with an astronomical text is the first clue the text is a fake. That is, astronomy, generally, is not concerned with chronology. Only later when astronomy started to contradict revisions in the timeline did the concept of adding the date of the king occur.

Now for the NB Period during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, you have to realize they made nightly observations and placed those observations on small clay tablets, which they likely filed neatly in a tray for a certain year. They didn't bother noting the year of the king on each of those daily tablets. Later on, when they made a summary of astronomical events say over a month, they might have noted the year of the king, but that would be an exception. Only when astronomy became part of the agenda of resetting revised chronology do you find the year of the king associated with astronomy--as I said, a dead give away the purpose of the combination being to redate something.

So #1: Claiming how carefully they dated everything is a patently false concept.

REALITY CHECK: Now everything presented here avoids even what the WTS has to rebut key astronomical texts. That is, even COJ claims the VAT4956 is the "most important" text in these discussions. It dates year 37 of Neb2 to 568 BCE. But that is a "copy" of the astronomical information during the Seleucid Period, some 200+ years after the fact, and most specifically, after the revisions made by Xenophon to the Greek timeline. So even if the Babylonians did meticulously date each text, which they didn't, the key texts now being used for this dating don't come from that period! Where are the tens of thousands of astronomical texts from the NB Period compared to all the surviving business documents we have? The absence is startling.

In that regard, even the WTS has noted that it appears these original astronomical texts were destroyed purposely. That is, we know from the VAT4956 and others that these original texts did exist, but the originals don't exist now. So they were removed from Babylonian archives during the time of Berossus and "copied", i.e. meaning revised, and the new timeline king dates added on in an attempt to harmonize the ancient astronomy with the new timeline, thus creating a "dated" text. So it is fraudulent from the beginning.

Of note, the WTS though, as wrong as they are in many things, gets this observation correct. That is, while the astronomical observations clearly come from original texts, copied accurately to a new clay tablet, that doesn't mean the "historical" information is accurate. That is, that these observations were actually originally occurring in year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So any "copy" or post-dated text is completely dismissible as fraudulent.

My concern is that this "detail", which is critical, including the WTS dismissal of the key astronomical texts involved, is not mentioned. Instead, the astronomical support for the current timeline is presented as if this comes from contemporary and accurately recorded astronomical texts from that period. Now that might be quite convincing, but it simply is not a true representation of the astronomical evidence.

This is the problem witih COJ. He glosses over critical details, sweeping under the rug what he doesn't want to deal with and then after making many presumptions presents the evidence in that context and it makes it look like this is a slam-dunk dating reality, when it is not. Of course, of concern, is patentl false statements like the one of above to bolster the argument. Seems a bit desperate, therefore, to overqualify the evidence.

THE REALITY: Even so, regardless of what the "copied"/revised astronomical texts say, the Bible has its own internal strict chronology and timeline which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. Period. Now the Bible might be incorrect on this point, but that is the Biblical timeline. The Bible also introduces a 70-year period from the 1st of Cyrus back to the last deportation. This is confirmed by Josephus. The WTS twists this to claim the 70 years of desolation and exile begin in year 18, the year they date the fall of Jerusalem. They base this on a clear assumption that the land was desolate after the Jews ran down to Egypt. But Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 clearly states that a remnant of those who ran down to Egypt would return to Judea. So not only does the 70 years begin with the last deportation in year 23, the land was not completely desolated until after year 23.

Here is a strategic deception of note by the WTS in this statement regarding the last deportation:

"Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7)."

In other words, they use Josephus to historically refer to a 23rd year campaign, wherein Josephus specifically mentiosn the deportation in year 23 from Egypt. The WTS can't afford to have even their sleepy sheeple to think that that last deportation came out of Egypt since that would lead to the logical presumption that these people went via the well known route via Jerusalem back to Babylon. So they clear use "mind control" power of suggestion to invent Jews outside of Judea and no where near Egypt to be deported in year 23, in direct contradiction to Josephus' statement as to where these last deportees came from, that is, the official remnant of those who had fled down to Egypt. This would include Jeremiah and Baruch, of course.

But also note why Carl Jonsson is dismissed as being biased here. How so? Because to introduce a 70-year interval back to year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II ending the 1st of Cyrus is a direct and complete contradiction to the NB timeline which is some 25-26 years shorter! That is, to keep it simple, the current NB timeline dates year 18 to 587 BCE. From 587 BCE to 537 BCE, the year of the return, is 50 years. Per Josephus, is 70 years begins in year 23, then you have a 76 to 75-year interval from year 18 down to the return.

18 + 5 = 23

70 + 5 = 75

75 - 50 = 25

So this is typical Freemasonry "handwaving"; that is, to deligently focus on a side point while ignoring totally the critical issue, which is that you have a secular discrepancy between the Bible and the Persian "copies" of NB records of some 25-26 years! The Bible and Josephus' NB Period is 25 years longer than the current popular dating. But, once you observe this, the next step is to qualify the NB records. When you start to do that, everything from the VAT4956, SK400, the Babylonian Chronicle, Cyrus Cylinder and Nabonidus Chronicle are all "copies" from the Persian Period. So it is clear the Persians revised the NB timeline, at some point removing 25-26 years from the Neo-Babylonian kings.

Some of this is in direct contradiction with the Bible, critically:

1. The Bible dates the rule of Nebuchadnezzar at 45 years rather than 43 years. That is, year 37 of the exile of Jehoiachin ends in the accession year of Evil-Merodach. The exile of Jehoichin corresponds with the rule of Zedekiah who was in his 11th year in year 19 of Nebucadhenzzar, an 8-year interval. 37 plus 8 is 45, not 43.

2. The Bible accords a 6-year rule to Darius the Mede before Cyrus begins to rule over Babylon. I'll spare you the details for now.

So is 539 BCE a true date in ancient history? Maybe? But is it challenged? Yes!

VAT4956 ICING ON THE CAKE: But there's one more thing. As I noted, when you use the Bible to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That means year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, per the Bible would fall in 511 BCE. Now is that in any way supported by any ancient evidence?

YES!

The VAT496! You see, in lines 3 and 14, you have two lunar references that match 511 BCE. That's the problem with the VAT4956. It was designed to preserve the original timeline in the form of a diary. The same with the SK400 which shows year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II falling in 541 BCE. So besides changing the dates on some of these astronomical texts, some, likely fearing the original chronology would be lost forever, used diaries to hide secret references to the original timeline where there was a close coincidence, as in the case of year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. So now you can independently use the VAT4956 to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE. Critical here is once you start dealing with reveisionism, you can't just move dates around to the best fit. You have to first date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE, alternatively, and work around that. This true date would thus challenge the Bible's timeline more than 539 BCE or 587 BCE. But turns out there is no challenge. That's because using the VAT4956 to date year 37 to 511 BCE means the original dating for year 23, the year of the last deportation, is 525 BCE, which means the 1st of Cyrus 70 years later must fall in 455 BCE.

So it is clear Jehovah must have had some Jewish astronomers create this text so we would have direct evidence of the original timeline, otherwise, there would only be the Bible to support the 455 BCE chronology.

Having noted that, all the original history has been recovered. The 26 missing years from the NB kings is easily replaced, and the extra 82 years of persian history (455 vs 537 BCE = 82) is easily dismissed using the Bible and other astronomical comparisons. Basically you remove 30 years each from Darius I and Artaxerxes II, and combine the 21-year rule of Xerxes with Artaxerxes, since they were the same king. That removes 81 years right off the bat. Easily done. Archaeology from Persepolis does not support the 36-year rule of Darius I, but instead shows he died early in his reign. Per the Bible (Ezra 6:14,15) he died in his 6th year.

IN SUMMARY: It is one thing to present conflicting and contradictory secular evidence, it is another thing to grossly misrpresent that evidence to fool those who don't know any better.

You want to discuss 539 BCE? Let's do it. But it is shark-infested waters. The true fall of Babylon occurred in 562 BC, followed by a 6-year rule of Darius the Mede from 561 to 455 BCE before Cyrus came to the throne. 539 BCE is the new date as a result of Persian revisionism. The WTS was unfortunate enough not to realize this was an incorrect date, though they are very good at coming up with their own dates for everything else, such as the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE or the 20th of Artaxerxes in 455 BCE rather than 445 BCE! If every other date is unreliable per the WTS, how on earth could they think 539 BCE wasn't revised as well?

Thanks for the propaganda!!! 539 BCE is a joke like 607 BCE!

Trust me.

LS

14

settling the issue of evolution once and for all - it's a fact, case closed...

by just n from bethel in

discussions on evolution and creation are now completely resolved.

no further information on this forum will ever be needed.

so we can all move on.

Larsinger58

LOL! "Evolution" will become a "fact" when you can demonstrate it in a Lab.

Just because evolution might seem logical to some doesn't mean it actually happened.

In the meantime, the primary argument remains against evolution is that of "abiogenesis"--they can't and excuse themselves from explaining how spontaneous inorganic amino acids formed the original living cell. That leap is too big outside of the context of a creator.

Once you seriously consider a creator then its a matter of whether that creator authored the Bible and whether or not we are correctly undersatnding it. But the basics are there. A wonderful earth and ecosystem with creatures clearly designed that way from the beginning, quite consistent with the Bible's story of God's creation.

So evolution is not believed as being realistic for the better informed.

The Bible says it is a "fool" who believes there is no god. But I think you have to consider the root of the word "fool" which doesn't mean one is simply stupid, but one is DECEIVED. Someone who is literally "fooled" by all that scientific mumbo-jumbo that sounds great in the context of all those fancy Latin words but don't add up when you consider that other things in science, like the moon and solar system, having nothing to do with evolution, beg the issue of creation.

Believe in evolution if you want to, fooled by the rhetoric, but it is far from being any "fact."

LS

13

the Bible's view of marriage

by just n from bethel in

.

Larsinger58

Interesting how you can emotionally look at something vs. legally.

For instance, brother-in-law marriage had to do with property, primarily. The inheritance passed down to children, albeit, primarily the male children. If a man married and had no children, then his brother would have intercourse with his sister-in-law so she could have children in her former husband's name and thus produce an heir. The "intent" was to preserve the family line of that brother, not to abuse the wife.

Same with a woman being raped. She would no longer be desireable as a wife and her life and livelihood would be ruined. So to assure she had security, the rapist had to marry the woman, thus taking care of her. So the "intent" of the law was so that the woman's future was not ruined by the rapist.

Further, Jehovah hated "divorce." Some men would tire of their wives then divorce them causing lots of pain for those women. Under the Christian law, therefore, divorce was only granted on grounds of fornication. Further, God recognized polygamy and the rights of secondary wives. That is one reason why the WTS is called the "man of lawlessness" in the Bible because it condemns marriage. 2 Timothy 3:4 is thus a prophecy about the WTS:

" 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth."

The WTS fulfills this because the Bible does not condemn polygamy and never has. Preferring monogamy certainly is suggested in the Bible but preferring singleness is also. But what is suggested for an improved spiritual life does not mean there is a law against those who choose otherwise, that is, to marry rather than be single. Even so, a principle is not a LAW. There is a "law" against divorce except on th grounds of fornication. That includes seconary wives who are recognized in the Bible. Thus when the WTS takes it upon itself to force African brothers to divorce their legal wives on grounds other than fornication, they actually cause them to break God's law against divorce. That's why they are called the "man of lawlessness." They fit the cliche of someone traveling to the ends of the earth to make one proselyte and then upon finding them, make them twice as subject to Gehenna than they were previously!

So while we're talking about cruel laws, look at the WTS and how much pain they cause women and their children when they force families of secondary wives to break up. And for what? God does not condemn polygamy.

Just in passing, the Bible clearly emphasizes that nothing you take into your mouth or body condemns you, but what comes out of the mouth does, that is, what is in the heart. Christians are under no dietary restriction. What a Christian takes into his body is up to him. Thus condemning intake of blood products or tobacco is non-Biblical. The WTS ignores the scripture that says if you're at the home of an unbeliever you are to eat everything without questioning your conscience. That seems to contradict another scripture that says to "abstain from blood." However, when you consider the context it is clear that was rule in the context of the state of the Christian congregation at that time which was primarily Jewish. The Jews had a weak conscience regarding eating blood and the weaker conscience of your brother is what determined whether you ate of the foods that were now free to be eaten. So that is the context of whether to eat or not eat. The rule was thus made so that everyone in the congregation was on the same page. But if you were at an unbeliever's home, say an unbelieving relative, then you could chow down on whatever you wanted to, including those blood sausages or anything sacrificed at the temple. That is also why it said you can buy anything at the meat market as well if you liked without question. That's because you were doing it privately and not in the congregation setting. That means a mature Christian understood there were no dietary restrictions except with respect to the weak conscience of another. So in the congregation setting, "abstain from blood." But outside the congregation setting, eat whatever your conscience allowed because nothing is condemned. Not blood. Not tobacco. Not anything.

So getting back to the WTS, they take the traditions of men and make them the laws of God. Western culture tradition looks down on polygamy so JWs use that tradition to condemn polygamy, making it seem like a Biblical mandate. They distort the blood issue that way as well, and we know how much unnecessary pain and suffering the blood issue has caused. And forget about defending the WTS in that regard based on the complications of tainted blood because they also condemn autologous blood transfusions. Meaning, if you knew you were up for say a knee replacement that might require blood replacement, over several months you could have your own blood drawn and saved just in case. Thus no issue with contracting hepatitis or AIDS. No psychological issues of misuing the sacred life of another. Yet that is forbidden also. Transfuing your own blood back into yourself is against God's laws? No.

So, finally, getting back to marriage. God loves women and seeks to protect them. God hates divorce and protects secondary wives and their rights. Even the law requiring a rapist to marry his victim was in the interest of the woman and her rights, not the rights of the rapist. Ordinarily the rapist would rape the woman and cast her off to fend for herself. This way, he is forced to provide for her and she and her children are guaranteed part of his inheritance.

So I understand, in the modern world where romance and monogamy is the norm that having a rapist marry his victim seems an insult to injury, but really it was in the interest of the woman this law was made, not to demonstrate misogynic tendencies.

Now I wonder why the "intent" of the law under those circumstances in a male dominated culture would be misunderstood as misogynic?

NO GENDER INEQUALITY AFTER JUDGMENT DAY: God loves women. Women became the "weaker vessel" for a limited time to facility families and childbirth. But once Judgment Day is over, marriage will be abolished and the human condition will be that similar to the angels, which means all will be bisexual or androgynic. There will be no more male and female; everyone will be of the same sex and thus there will no longer be any gender bias toward males. Everyone will be equal. Women will no longer have to play the secondary role.

Bottom line is that women have been exploited from the very beginning, starting with Eve whom Satan exploited. Exploitation of women would continue until after Judgment Day, though some concessions are made by God to minimize this to the extreme.

For those who want to exaggerate matters and label Jehovah as misogynic and barbaric, be my guest. But all of us don't see it that way.

In the meantime, some of that fallout is because of Eve's role in the Eden fiasco. Even so, women are not excluded from the kingdom. They will have equal roles in the kingdom just like men, so Jehovah is not misogynic in my opinion. Women are equals where it truly matters.

In the meantime, they should reflect on some of their suffering as brought upon them by the first woman, Eve, rather than the first man Adam, or the Creator.

LS

22

I am disassociating! I need a template for the letter ASAP!!!

by scooterspank in

i'm done with this crap.

i have a wonderful life but the last few months have been hell.

i need the formality of a disassociation letter to my old cong.

Larsinger58

THINK TWICE.

I dissociated and later regretted it because I have so many relatives in the truth. I have generally decided it is best to move away and then be "inactive." That way, you don't run into the family issues. But still, it was nice to have a clean break and ultimately it is sweet not to have to deal with the witnesses at all. At one point, I felt I disfellowshipped them instead of the other way around.

I hope I'm not out of line to say that this is a critical decision not to be made in haste. There are pros and cons for this decision.

You say you have made up your mind. I totally relate to the need for a clean break.

Best wishes to you for whatever you do.

But I think the WTS requires the brothers to come by to talk to you for one final visit to officially get word from you that this is your decision and you understand that by dissociating yourself also means you will be considered disfellowshipped. They will try to talk you out of it, of course. But if you don't have a lot of relatives in the truth and at this point you're just sick to death of anything "Watchtower" like I am, it feels great to mentally be totally free with a clean break.

I've enjoyed being out. Seems like the air is cleaner to breathe when you are officially outYou know, you get the feeling that you are getting the filth washed off--you know, when you just want to take a clean shower and wash all the dirt off. So it truly does feel good to make that clean break, which is how I think you feel.

LS

54

Gentile Times Reconsidered - Download the Book

by VM44 in

commentary press has made the book "the gentile times reconsidered" available to download.. visit this page for the download location.. [link deleted by request of poster].

Larsinger58

20571pnt428571

Since you bothered to offer support for the 607 BCE dating for the fall of Jerusalem, allow me to give a summary overview of Jonsson vs. WTS. It is easy to get bogged down in the details.

1. The "70 weeks" prophecy issue: Even Carl Jonsson has admitted that Cyrus should have fulfilled by Cyrus if you go by strict Biblical interpretation (sorry, couldn't find my copy for the direct quote). He notes, of course, that the Bible does note that Cyrus was supposed to rebuild both the temple and the city. This is especially critical since you connect Cyrus with the messiah. Isaiah 44:28

" 28 the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’”

This is a critical reference because this is where the WTS and Jonsson agree but contradict the Bible. That is, that Cyrus did not fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. Thus, typical Freemasonry propaganda routine, one way to distract from the truth is to invent two opposing false ideas as if one or the other has to be correct, while ignoring any other conclusions. But having said that, if Cyrus were to fulfill rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple in connection with the prophecy about the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem" then you'd have to conclude as Martin Anstey does in his Romance of Bible Chronology (1913), that the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to c. 455 BCE to begin this prophecy. So one of the first things to consider here, is that the debate between the WTS and Jonsson, which centers on the fall of Jerusalem in either 607 BCE or 587 BCE, is that it is not the only two arguments out there. As noted, both ignore the chronology where Cyrus would fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy thus dating his 1st year in 455 BCE. So this is where I leave the discussion. Once you ignore the Bible's strict chronology here and have Cyrus fulfill this prophecy and you go with secular sources then it really doesn't matter any details about the events pros and cons--it will all be wrong.

Now, it is up to you to decide what you believe, but know that some, like myself, agree with Anstey, that in order for the Bible to be true, the 1st of Cyrus must fall in 455 BCE. So this would be the first criticism of the WTS as a false prophet because they side with secular sources to date the 1st of Cyrus rather than the Bible. That is, they use 539 BCE as a "pivital date" for determining the Neo-Babylonian timeline. They thus get 537 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus, which Jonsson agrees with; except they then add 70 years to 537 BCE to get 607 BCE. Thus they do use the bible to establish a 70-year interval ending in the 1st of Cyrus, whereas Jonsson dismisses the Biblical references relating to the 70 years ending the 1st of Cyhrus in connection with the fall of Jerusalem. Of course, Josephus agrees with the WTS that the 70 years of "exile" end in the 1st of Cyrus, but he begins the 70 years exile when the people are "removed off their land" (Ant. 11.1.1), meaning beginning with the last deportation. Thus the literal 70 years spent for/at Babylon were specifically of the last deportees. Earlier deportees, such as Daniel in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, Ezekiel in year 7, Jehoiachin in year 8, and some in years 17 and 19, all spent more than 70 years in exile. Thus the specific 70 years is specific to the last deportation which coincides with the "desolation" of the land to pay back its sabbaths.

So for some, the debate between the WTS and Josson is a coordinated front, typical of Freemasons, that use two false teachings as contradicatory debate points from which onlookers must decide between when other concepts or beliefs that better fit the Bible is ignored. So as I said, some strict Biblicists get off at this point. The debate should begin here. Whether Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE or 537 BCE? In this case, both Jonsson and the WTS agree. But both are wrong.

From this point on, Jonsson simply sides with and amazing documents the secular data in place for dating the NB Period. The WTS, after accepting the secular date for the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, then tries to use Scripture to come up with it's own dates for the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE or even the 20th of Artaxerxes in 455 BCE, both contradicting the current secular data in place.

So again, if you want to truly follow the Bible and you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, then you require a different debate reference from Jonsson and the WTS. That's why Jonsson's book is just secular propaganda when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and why JWs would be considered as misinterpreting the "70 weeks" prophecy, a completely different discussion from the outset.

2. The VAT4956. This at one point was a key text for establishing the specific dating for the NB Period, dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568 BCE. However, since the text is admittedly a "copy" from the Seleucid Period, we automatically know it is fraudulent document representing revised dating. In tha case, the WTS backs of from making that direct claim of "fraud" but notes that by this time the "history" from the earlier period might have been distroted and that the VAT4956 thus cannot be used as a true reference of what the NB original timeline was. In this point they are absolutely correct. A post-dated "copy" 200 years after the fact cannot be considered to be reliable, let alone preemptive of what the Bible's chronology presents. So in the case of the VAT4956, the WTS wins that argument. Had the VAT4956 been a contemporary text and not a post-dated "copy" then the discussion would be different.

These are two major holes in the chronology discussion of WTS vs Jonsson vs the Bible, so detail discussions of propaganda on either side isn't really Biblically relevant.

3. Josephus' 70 years. Finally, one last nail in the coffin is the traditional view and interpretation of the 70 years of desolation/exile as provided by Josephus which the WTS and Jonsson both differ from. Here's that reference, at Antiquities 11.1.1.

ANT 11.1.1
1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

This is a paraphase of 2 Chronicles 36 wherein Josephus interprets the 70 years of "exile" being fulfilled by the last deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. In this case, Jonsson exploits the ambiguity in the Biblical reference regarding the 70 years relating to Babylon while ignoring this secular historical reference that clearly identifies both the 70 years and their fulfillment of Jeremiah. So Jonsson is dismissed as incompetent to biased at this point for not addressing this. As noted above, the WTS is criticized for not following Josephus specifically. That is, they quote Josephus in regards to this interpretation of a literal 70 years of desolation ending in the 1st of Cyrus, but they do not follow Josephus in beginning that period with the last deportation, year 23. Instead, to keep 1914 working, they begin those 70 years the year Jerusalem falls which they date to year 18.

As a result, you have two Freemasonry based groups aggressively discussing two false, non-Biblcal teachings, fostering the idea for onlookers that one or the other is true and you must choose, when in fact, neither is correct, Biblically or historically.

455 BCE 1st of CYRUS OVERVIEW: Basically, in a nutshell, once you seriously consider dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, you are confronted with an 82-year discrepancy during the Perisan Period, which is what Martin Anstey points out in his "Romance of Bible Chronology." He didn't have the resources we now have to explore the weaknesses of the Persian Period, but a critical study will immediately reveal how to eliminate these extra 82 years. The years were added to accommodate the Persian propaganda that Xerxes had died and his "son", Artaxerxes had now taken over. But, in fact, Xerxes faked his death and used his second throne name, Artaxerxes, to claim he was his own son. This was cold wartime propganda out of Persia to manipulate Greek politics. Over time, the records in Persia, Babylon and Egypt were revised to reflect a longer Persian Period needed for the extra rule of Xerxes and for Darius I to die a generation later so he could be the grandfather to Xerxes vs his father. So the secular and Biblical research is in place now to remove these extra 82 years, something neither Jonsson nor the WTS really want to get into. But there's no choice--the correct fulfillment of the "70 weeks" prophecy requires it, and neither will dismiss the idea that Cyrus should have fulfilled this prophecy.

So ultimately, focussing on Jonsson vs Furuli or Jonsson versus the WTS isn't relevant to strict Biblical chronology and is just a distraction. In the meantime, Martin Anstey and Josephus are more in line with the Bible's strict chronology and timeline which dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and the 70 years beginning with the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.

Now, Jonsson, I don't believe, is concerned about the "7 times" prophecy which dates the 2nd coming, cirtical to why JWs want to date 607 BCE to the fall of Jersusalem. In fact, Jonsson dismisses the "day for a year" theory as applied to the "7 times" which completely ruins his credibility as an unbiased researcher. At any rate, the "7 times" prophecy in the context of dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE gives you the 2nd coming in either 1914 or 1992. 1992 is significant because of the "1335 days"prophecy that dates the second coming 45 years after the "end" of the 1290 days, that is, the end of the gentile times which ended in 1947 and thus dates the second coming in 1992. I'm not promoting that doctrine only showing you how the 455 BCE chronology links to that.

That is, if 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, then 70 years earlier falls in 525 BCE, dating the 23rd of Nebucadnezzar. That means the fall of Jerusalem in year 19 would fall in 529 BCE. Applying the "7 times" prophecy of 2520 years to the 2nd coming gives you 1992 rather than 1914 based on 607 BCE. But, of course, when you end Jewish exile and thus the 1290 days in 1947, you also get 1992 as the year of the second coming to fulfill the 1335 days.

So 1947, 1992, 29 CE, 455 BCE, etc. are all coordinated for the serious Bible student.

Thus, at the end of the day, Jonsson and the WTS fulfill the same Satanic design, which is distracting from Biblical truth and so the details of their discussion are irrelevant to anything truly Biblical.

The mistake Jonsson makes is trusting secular chronology over that of the Bible. The mistake the WTS makes is playing both sides of the fence, using one date from secular history and then distorted Biblical references to establish all other dates; they should have dismissed ALL the secular dates for this period and started from scratch using strict Biblical chronology.

In the meantime, the nature of Jonsson's writing is similar to that of the WTS, suggesting they are both Freemasonry literate. Thus both Jonsson and the WTS are jokes as far as Biblical history goes, and both dishonest and with their own agenda.

So don't be deceived. Just because two groups are in a heated debate doesn't mean either one of them are correct, and in the context of Freemasonry, it's possible the debate is just a planned distraction from any meaningful Biblical history or interpretation.

Even so, "Gentile Times Reconsidered" is a critical and necessary book for any Bible chronology library. It has a lot of valuable general information that you can't find anywhere else.

LS

54

Gentile Times Reconsidered - Download the Book

by VM44 in

commentary press has made the book "the gentile times reconsidered" available to download.. visit this page for the download location.. [link deleted by request of poster].

Larsinger58

QUENDY: I wonder if the Governing Body is aware of this latest development with respect to Carl Olof Jonson's book. If they are, will they continue their campaign of silence and hope that will keep any Witnesses from learning about the book? Or will the Society feel compelled to publicly denounce both the book and its author in some future study issue of The Watchtower? It will be interesting to see what the future will bring.

I haven't actively kept up with COJ lately, especially since he refuses to debate with me and Beacon is a mirror version of the WTS when it comes to opposing those who don't agree with them, but the "latest" I think have been the detailed debates involving Jonsson and Assyriologist Hermann Hunger vs. Rolf Furuli. Furuli is an academic apologist for the WTS chronology and Hunger (who published the translation of the famous VAT4956) and Jonsson take him on. So I believe the WTS is quite aware of the latest debates.

As far as those few witnesses who can actually follow the high-level academic discussions, I don't think they will be readily influenced by Jonsson if they follow it with any of the WTS publications in hand. For instance, the critical case of the "70 years" of desolation/servitude is supported historically by Josephus who also introduces a literal 70-year interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the 1st of Cyrus, though not precisely as the WTS does; Josephus dates those 70 years from the last deportation, year 23 rather than year 18 (fall of Jerusalem) as the WTS does. But Jonsson does not adequately address this in his work which is a critical downfall of a cornerstone of his book. His book is excellent but like most propaganda, focusses on their strong points while avoiding some of the critical issues that a witness would have to deal with, such as 2 Chronicles 36:23 which is a scripture that mentions the 70 years of the land paying back its sabbaths, interpreted by Jewish traditional history as being a literal 70 years from the last deportation. So what can you do? Jonsson spends lots of quality time bolstering his own interpretation of the timeline but doesn't address the stronger arguments on the other side that witnesses have to deal with. So it is an important work, but not as comprehensive as I would hope to completely defeat JW WTS propaganda, some of which is valid.

Furuli, of course, debatably is so far out there, I'd venture to say the WTS wonders if he is doing more harm than good. The WTS like tight control over its mind-control propaganda and Furuli clearly is a desperate academic reaching for any straws he can to dismiss Jonsson and the secular references available, which he fails miserably to do.

Google "Furuli Jonsson" to see what the latest is.

LS

54

Gentile Times Reconsidered - Download the Book

by VM44 in

commentary press has made the book "the gentile times reconsidered" available to download.. visit this page for the download location.. [link deleted by request of poster].

Larsinger58

@Witness My Fury:

I agree. I like having digital copies, but having that physical book to read in a chair under a nice lamp, with a great cup of coffee ... well, there is someting to be said for that.

MeanMrMustard

Interesting. I so relate to this. Each medium has it's own uniqueness. Watching a DVD at home is convenient but not the same as experiencing going out to the movies to see and experience a movie in a darkened room with a lot of other strangers. So reading a book under a lamp sounds like a different "experience" than just getting the information online.

Or, in the case of the incredible searching advantages of the digital WT Library, you don't get the graphics and illustrations you get with the actual publication. So there are pros and cons for each new invention but sometimes the old stuff (reading a real book) retains its own special charm.

Getting an e-mail isn't the same as getting a handwritten letter in the mail. Nor does a phone call replace a visit in person.

LS

99

How Would you Interpret the Sign of the Last Days?

by Mr. Falcon in

harold camping.

2012. wtbs doomsday prophecy.

maze's ramblings.

Larsinger58

d said: War and famine have always occured it is nothing new.

Yes, and the Bible says that clearly. But what would be different would be a world war followed by the other signs, including a great tribulation specifically involving the Jews, which was the Holocaust. A world war, thus begins the "last generation." If we presume from Ps. 90:10 that a generation is a reference to a normal lifetime and thus would be no more than 80 years, then all the signs, including the final second coming event, which was the final event, should occur between 1914-1994.

Notice the things that are the beginning of the pangs of distress:

Matthew 24:

4 " And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU ; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 Y OU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. "

7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress."

As is noted, wars and reports of wars was not to alarm us, but when you hear about a world war, that is nation vs nation and kingdom vs kingdom, then that begins a time of distress. Now I'm sure someone will claim there was a technical world war before "World War I," but the title itself makes the point.

This is the only basis for including 1914 as part of Bible prophecy, because it was the year of a world war. 1914 is not the end of "7 times," or 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem because Jerusalem did not fall in 607 BCE, but in 529 BCE. It is also clearly not the end of the gentile times. The Jews were still in exile and without a homeland in 1914. Their official end of exile and the date they could claim to have their own country again was on November 30, 1947. That is the true end of the gentile times or the "appointed times of the nations." It was this "end of the system of things" of gentile rule over their homeland that the Jews were talking about when they said the "end of the system of things." So the prophecy about the "good news" being preached worldwide has to be fulfilled by 1947. So the question is, from the early times when the Bible students was just one small study group that grew into a major religion, sect or cult, was it international by 1947? The answer, of course, is yes. More specifically, earlier that very year, then president of the WTS, N.H. Knorr embarked on a worldwide speaking tour. So the "good news" was literally preached aroud the globe early in 1947, and then the "end" came.

That's why Harold Camping's prediction regarding May 21, 2011 has to still be taken seriously as inspired by holy spirit because it is clear even with the witnesses that every detail is often not revealed in connection with fulfillment. But it gets the job done.

I think of it as having to climb a mountain and being our own worst enemy as far as focus and endurance. So if you had to climb a steep, steep hill, and your aged a bit you might tire out and decide its not worth it, say for a medal to be the first 80-year old to climb to the top of this hill in a certain amount of time. You might start out, then give out. But if along with that trophy they were going to give away $25, you still might give out and not think it was worth it when the going go rough. But what if the prize was $$ two million!! What if you had bills or family members in distress that could use some of that money? In that case, you would not give up. You would dig deep and find within yourselves, as we all do, that extra strength we did not know we had.

I don't want to put too fine of a point on it, but looking forward to a rapture up to heaven is a strong motivation vs simply needing to announce to the world that "judgment day" had begun invisibly. :> There needed to be a motivated worldwide announcement of coming judgment and that's what occurred. No "rapture" though, but that was always known in advance that that aspect of this date would not be fulfilled. But we can't say the day of "judgment" has not begun; that is, the symbolic day the door to Noah's ark was closed by Jehovah, seven days before the actual destruction. This is clearly understood by Camping who understanding there is no more opportunity for salvaton, has decided to just play Christian music on his stations without the preaching. In my understanding of how Jehovah's plan unfolds, that is just about right.

LS