@AnnOMaly:
Wow, it was that long ago? Man! Glad you had the article handy!
MeanMrMustard
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
382
The Gentile Times Reconsidered
by Spade indisproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.
carl o. jonsson).
along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.
-
-
-
382
The Gentile Times Reconsidered
by Spade indisproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.
carl o. jonsson).
along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@miseryloveselders:
It is! And its peer reviewed! A review of it was in an archeological journal about a year ago (I think...). It is a very good book.
Thanks,
MeanMrMustard
-
382
The Gentile Times Reconsidered
by Spade indisproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.
carl o. jonsson).
along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@miseryloveselders:
Quick question if anyone knows. Whatever happened to Carl Jonnson? He still alive?
He is. Although I don't know what he is up to, the last correspondence I got from him was after the new Jeremiah book came out (so fairly recently) - which, BTW admits 70 years of servitude for "nations" (plural). The writers must actually read Jeremiah lol... but they must not have realized they were helping COJ's argument.
MeanMrMustard
-
382
The Gentile Times Reconsidered
by Spade indisproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.
carl o. jonsson).
along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I noticed this post by Spade, and didn't see a response. Although I tend to agree with everyone else that this topic has been beaten to death, and it is absolutely baffling how the WTB&TS can continue to assert the 607 date with any sort of seriousness. Nevertheless, Spade happened to pull out the Rolf Furili card. Spade, are you aware that COJ has indeed responded to Rolf's work? I want to point any new JW lurkers to the appropriate material to fully refute Rolf.
Carl O. Jonsson claims one line of evidence is business records.
He does so rightly.
http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm Rolf Furuli - Chronology and Babylonian Exile The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D, the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539, and the Persian Empire ended in 331 B.C.E., after the five-year reign of Darius III. For the first time, this chronology has been challenged in a scholarly study. The tablets to which P&D refer have been studied afresh, and for the first time an attempt has been made to make a synthesis of all the tablets that contradict the traditional chronology and give a new interpretation to some of the old material. The book is based on a study of the data from several thousand cuneiform tablets, including dated contracts and other business documents, and astronomical tablets giving the positions of the heavenly bodies in relation the each other and to the Zodiac in particular years. A careful analysis of relevant texts in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Elephantine Papyri) has been performed as well, and 400 modern sources have been used. Some sources have been challenged, but no one has challenged the dated contracts and other business documents exhibited by Rolf Furuli.
When Rolf Furuili published his work, COJ had a response in short order. This is COJ's site link: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/epage.htm
Feel free to read the plethora of reviews of Rolf Furuli's work, including his work on the dated contracts/business documents.
Rolf suggests that he's found 90 "anomoulous tablets" - that is, 90 tablets that do not fit into the accepted chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era. Here is a snip from COJ's review: As mentioned earlier, Rolf Furuli has repeatedly claimed, both in this book (pp. 65, 86) and elsewhere, that there are about 90 “anomalous tablets” that contradict the traditional Neo-Babylonian chronology and therefore requires an extension of this chronology. On page 86 he states that these 90 tablets are “mentioned in chapter 3.” About a dozen of such claimed anomalous tablets have already been discussed above, nine of which were presented in Furuli’s Table 3.3 on page 59. Fresh collations by competent scholars showed that most of them did not have any “anomalous dates” at all. The longest table with such claimed “anomalous dates” however, is Table 3.4 on pages 60-62. It starts in the first two columns with 17 tablets, continuously dated in each of the months II, III, IV and V of the 2nd and last year of Evil-Merodach, the last of the tablets being dated to V/17/02 (month 5, day 17, year 2). These dates are then followed in the next two columns by 37 tablets, continuously dated in each of the months V, VI, VII, VIII and IX of the accession year of Neriglissar, the first tablet being dated to V/21/acc. or just four days after the last tablet from the reign of Evil-Merodach. This strongly indicates that the transition from Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar took place in the latter part of month V of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd year. However, Furuli also lists nine other tablets that do not seem to fit into this pattern. The first two are dated in the first and early second months of Neriglissar’s accession year, i.e., before the 17 tablets dated to months II-V of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd and last year, seemingly creating an overlap of about four months between the two reigns. Normally, the two early dates would be viewed as anomalous. But Furuli evidently presupposes that the two dates are correct and counts the 17 following tablets as anomalous!
That would be like asking: "What number in the following list is out of order - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8?" Normally, someone would say the "9" is out of order, but using Rolf's logic, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 are out of order... Its a sneaky trick to claim that he's found more anomalous tablets than he really has. COJ goes through the rest of the tablets one at a time and shows how translation errors, scribal errors, or logic errors cause Rolf to arrive at incorrect conclusions. The 20 missing years can't be found in the business documents.
A person can go round and round analyzing archeology for details that conflict with 607 B.C.E. for the date of Jerusalem's destruction but enough evidence has been presented to solidify the timetables. It's also beneficial to step back and look at the big picture to understand where we are in the stream of time.
There is no such evidence for 607 BC as the date for the fall of Jerusalem. Period. None. Not from history, and not even from the Bible.
MeanMrMustard
-
11
Watchtowers Email on Blood
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtowers email on blood.
most witnesses are shocked to learn that under watchtowers blood doctrine jehovahs witnesses can accept a component that is more than 50% of the volume of whole blood.
i just uploaded a new blog article showcasing this piece of information.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Interesting... the email shows a valid email address @ jw.org.... namely [email protected]
I wonder if they have their virus definitions up to date........ hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... breaking out the root kit.....
-
14
Watchtower Bethel Application from 1982
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower bethel application from 1982 .
questions asked tell their own story.
today i posted onto my blog the first post-1980 update of the bethel application.
-
-
-
97
I sued the local congregation
by chukky 594 inseveral years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.
she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.
the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I don't think the local congregation would pay anything out of pocket - they probably have an insurance policy (and I bet the WTS requires they hold one) that protects against incurring any out-of-pocket expenses. After all, whos to say that a non-witness visitor doesn't accidentally slip on the driveway outside and crack his/her head open? Witnesses aren't allow to sue other witnesses, but in this situation, its entirely possible to get sued, and the WTS is usually pretty good about covering all their bases financially. You may have received some money, but I don't think it was the money of the local congregation or the WTS. I'm not saying it wasn't worth it, though. If this accident cost a lot of money, then it was good you were able to recover at least some of your costs. That's what insurance is for, after all.
MeanMrMustard
-
32
New World Translation into other languages; anyone knows of any critics?
by dgp inperhaps this is the wrong place to post such a question, but, is anyone aware of any criticism of the new world translation as rendered into other languages, say, spanish, portuguese, french?.
if you open a non-english version of the nwt, you find that they very clearly say you're holding a translation from english into whatever the target language is, only "checking against the hebrew and greek originals".
this is to say, there is a pecking order that begins with the translation from the original languages into english, and then another, from english into all others.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@dgp:
I wonder why it is that there is a need to "translate" the New Testament (OK, the Greek Scriptures) into Greek, since it was written in Greek.
I believe it is because Biblical Greek (the Koine/common Greek of the Biblical age) is significantly different than modern Greek. Same with Hebrew. The modern Hebrew language is significantly different than Biblical Hebrew.
MeanMrMustard
-
62
Heeeers Johnny ! ...Johnny The mystery Bethelite returns and answers many questions. .
by koolaid-man inclick link to original thread..... then click page 34 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/204106/1/active-bethelite-calls-into-six-screens-conference-call-and-exposes-the-evils-of-the-watchtower.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
LOL... listen @ 5:11, JTB is giving out an email address and someone else on the call starts playing a loud recording/chant/song: "Smoke weed everyday." LOL... I found that kinda entertaining...
MeanMrMustard
-
62
Heeeers Johnny ! ...Johnny The mystery Bethelite returns and answers many questions. .
by koolaid-man inclick link to original thread..... then click page 34 http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/204106/1/active-bethelite-calls-into-six-screens-conference-call-and-exposes-the-evils-of-the-watchtower.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Again, he mentions some technical details .... but I have major problems with what he said...