Posts by MeanMrMustard

72

Prediction of Watchtower in a Few Years

by Foolednomore in

jw
friends

kingdom halls will be the thing of the past.. conventions (mini assembly halls will still be going on) but will charge for attending and parking and always a donation.

elders will play a much smaller role since csa.

cart preaching will replace door to door.

MeanMrMustard

I feel the org will be more accepting of tight pants going forward.

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this 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!

Turns out Anthony was a vocal fan of The Last Jedi, even going so far as saying it was the best out of all Star Wars movies. He was going to tell the bethel family all about it, and how great it was to see a movie that subverted so many expectations. When Tony showed up to a GB meeting wearing a Rian Johnson fan T-shirt, they did what they had to do.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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..

MeanMrMustard

@DisillutionedJW:

The first two paragraphs seem like we are in agreement. Let me try to pick out the places of disagreement.

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) ...

From this, I see you are OK with the idea of the seventy years being a round number. Ok, fine. It's definitely not a perapective JWs are fine with. But if you are OK with this, then you can agree that the seventy years of servitude ends in 539 (v12), but begins in 607.

... 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.

Note: the comment about "tortured logic" wasn't directed specifically at you or Jamieson. Rather, the authority of commentaries in general.

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 ...."

And here is where we differ. The commentary says the 70 years is defined as "the years of servitude and captivity." Then it proceeds to call it "Jeremiah's years of captivity" - applying it to the the time when the first exile/captivity took place. So, it really sounds like Jamieson is saying (and you are agreeing) the 70 years pertains strictly to Judah's captivity, except he's willing to acknowledge that there were three separate waves of exile.

But Jeremiah says 70 years of servitude of nations, specifically all the nations round about (v9). So why limit this to one nation? What are you reading there that let's your eyes see 'nations' and yet reduce it to one 'nation'?

Then there's this again:

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.

"See, I am beginning to bring disaster..." is not the same as saying Babylon will "start with" Jerusalem.

Seventy years of servitude, vassalage, to Babylon of many nations. One of which was Judah, but the rule of Babylon is the 70 years.

Hence 29:10 - "When seventy years have been completed for Babylon..."

The emphasis of the 70 years is always Babylon. Not just Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon. It's 70 years of Babylonian rule. And 25:12 makes it really clear because when the 70 years is up, Babylon falls ( in that order ).

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.

So? I don't see where the 70 years is attributed specifically to Neb. It's "for Babylon".

I think the rest of your posts veered away into different topics. So I'll leave it here.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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..

MeanMrMustard

@DisillutionedJW:

Thanks for the responses. A lot to parse through.

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this 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!

MeanMrMustard

Sheesh. I guess nobody got the Lloyd reference with that last one.

Tough crowd...

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this 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!

MeanMrMustard

Breaking news! Finally we know!

As it turns out, the issue with Tony goes back for quite some time. AMIII had been growing disillusioned with organization more and more as time went on. He finally reached his breaking point in November of 2021. Desperate to find a way out, he began reaching out to the exJW community. His plan was to go public, and perhaps write a tell-all book (like Franz), retire, and hopefully spend his final years in peace.

He finally found someone he could trust, someone with a way of distributing his confessions to the world. It's never been disclosed who he sought out, but all we do know is that in order to stay under the radar, he arranged to meet this person in Thailand sometime in December of that year.

Morris packed up his evidence and took a secret flight over. But people that know Anthony, and who saw him after he got back, have said he returned from that meeting disappointed, sad, and empty. Later, witnesses would see him in the cafeteria rocking ever so slightly front-to-back and mutter under his breath: "just control it".

Worried about his mental health, AM was referred to a psychiatrist. The witnesses that escorted him to his appointments remember screams coming from inside, and loud confessions: "It went on for days! He had no control over his penis at all!!! I was forced to wear tight corduroy chaps and a brown wig."

Later he met with a judicial committee, and after telling the entire truth - which we will never fully know - they felt sorry, extended mercy.

It sounds like he's been through a lot.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

MeanMrMustard

Wrong thread...

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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..

MeanMrMustard

Grammar is not the issue in Jer 25:11. It is the context and interpretation. The wording of the base text allows 70 year desolation of Judah.

No. Grammar **shouldn't** be an issue. But if you disregard it, then it **becomes** an issue.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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..

MeanMrMustard

@DisillutionedJW:

To me it is clear that the verse is saying Judah and the listed gentile nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (even if the desolation of Jerusalem was not proclaimed to last for 70 years).

Right. From this verse you can't say the 70 years applied to the desolation. You can say Jerusalem will become a desolation, but the 70 years attaches to servitude. It applies to servitude of many nations. What does it mean when you have a bunch of nations serving a single nation? Some sort of empire. It's Babylonian rule. Seventy years FOR Babylon.

About the commentaries you cite. A commentary is just that - someone commenting. And that's fine, but in the end, if the commentary winds its way around tortured logic just to switch seventy years of servitude of many nations into 'a period of time when one nation lost its sovereignty' - thereby extending the date beyond v12 to when the Jews got back and started to rebuild, then that commentary wouldn't hold anymore weight to me than the WT commentaries.

I don't go for the "someone - somewhere agreed with me, therefore true" argument. (Not that you are using that logic)

That being said, that commentary begins the 70 years at 606, the date they choose for the first Exile, long before Jerusalem's destruction. Fine - its defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude. Ummkay. But that still doesn't mean Judah will be "desolate in the sense of servitude/vassal" for 70 years because the 70 years applies to the nations. 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'?

Why not stick to 539 as the end of the 70 years, as verse 12 says, back up to around 609 when he was conquering Assyria, and call it a day?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i 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..

MeanMrMustard

There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.

Oy. You still aren't understanding. A "plain reading" *IS* a grammatical reading. A "plain reading" of the verse that violates grammar is a contradiction. It's a square circle. It's a married bachelor.

Context can clarify the unclear. It can't completely reverse the "plain text" grammatical reading of a clear verse. This isn't like John 1:1 where the true meaning of the Greek is highly debated, and probably will be forever. These verse are universally rendered.

1) Jeremiah 25:11 - It's seventy years of servitude for a plural number of nations. You appeal to context to change many nations into a singular nation. You appeal to context to change servitude into desolation (without an inhabitant) and captivity during the same time span.

2) Jeremiah 25:12 - There is an order of events, and the language used is clear 'When the 70 years ends, Babylon is punished'. You appeal to context to change the meaning to the exact opposite, mainly 'Three years after Babylon is punished, the 70 years ended.

In short - if you think you are conducting a "plain reading" without considering grammar, you are reading it incorrectly. You are reading INTO the verse.