Posts by MeanMrMustard

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

You raised the contention not myself for I simply quoted COJ's statement that he presents 17 lines of evidence that establishes the chronology of the NB Period consequently the dates 586/7BCE as Neb's 18th year are established for the Fall of Jerusalem. Whether COJ has succeeded in this attempt is open to criticism and is refuted by the research of Rolf Furuli. who has shown that the Chronology for the NB Period is short by at least 20 years.

You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.

Note to readers: Now we come full circle -

In contrast, rather than relying on the chronology of the NB Period in order to fix a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as is the COJ'S method, WT scholars have used the Bible and the biblical '70 years which clearly established that 607 BCE is the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

COJ's use of 17 lines of evidence holistically does not disprove 607 BCE because none of these lines of evidence uses any biblical data or reference and that applies to each one of those lines of evidence.

There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.

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

False. Jonsson in his 4th edition on pp.77, 88 uses the expression: "seventeen different lines of evidence "; 'seventeen different lines of evidence".

Note that not one of these lines of evidence by itself refutes or disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

Missed the point completely. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing. Yes, 17 is the number. Yes, they are lines of evidence. The evidence provided isn't against 607 in as much as its for 587. It's an important distinction. There could be a 17 independent lines of evidence *against* 607, and each could arrive at a different date. Each line arguing a different date is a line AGAINST 607. But if all the lines agreed on a single date, that's an entirely different story. It's evidence FOR 587. Yes that disproves 607, by it raises the confidence level for 587 to near certainty.

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

While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29

"Beginning to bring" or "starting to bring" evil / destruction onto the city (starting thr process described, and to some extent already in progress) isn't the same thing as having it happen to Jerusalem first, as an order of operations.

An example: Let's say I make a list of things I want to accomplish over the weekend. Half way through the weekend you read the list. I say "I'm beginning to plant my flowers." You can't infer its the first thing I did, maybe it is. But maybe not. It doesn't have to be, and that's the point here. The language doesn't *require* it. And that allows the Bible to agree with history quite well.

I know you are taking the perspective that the phrase in v18 is a later edition. Could be - granted. But I'm meeting scholar at his level - his fallback. We can show, just by letting the verses speak for themselves, that his escape route from the hard evidence for 587, mainly "Bible good - secular bad", even that doesn't work.

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

Combining a get posters here, @Disillutioned JW and @TonusOH:

That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.

Right. That's why I prefer to start at Jeremiah 25. Even though COJ shows quite clearly 587 is the year, WT apologists always have their trump card - mainly arguing from the Bible as the absolute authority. For such people, no amount of physical evidence will suffice. It will always be "clunky" and "wishy-washy", as scholar states. If you could imagine a world where we could time travel (in a DeLorean, of course!), go back and visually, physically confirm 587 as the date, it still wouldn't be enough for scholar. Some objection about the reliability of the time machine would be raised.

If all of these varied translations are from relatively few manuscripts, then it shows how difficult it is to get a consensus (impossible, by the look of it).

I don't think that is the case. There are translations that tend to be more literal, and those are always good to focus on. Some translations offer a "common" language format. All sorts of paraphrasing goes on in this case. For most religions out there, remember, the date of Jerusalem's destruction doesn't play a role in a far-fetched prophetic scheme. So something like 25:29, might be rendered with "first".

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

Six screens?

Does Johnny have insider info on tight-pants Tony?

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

The simple fact is that we have a definite date not wishy-washy date for the Fall of Jerusalem. A precise date does not of itself prove its accuracy but if you compare the alternative dates for the same event then it comes down not only to accuracy but methodology and confidence.

Note to reader: "wishy-washy" for scholar means "date I disagree with". Which bring us to this gem of a comment:

The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.

Note to reader: COJ's book, now in its 4th edition, peer reviewed, doesn't present 17 lines of evidence against 607. It presents 17 lines of evidence, FOR 587, showing how each independent line agrees with the others, ending finally in astronomical calculations, which are very accurate and precise.

There's nothing "wishy-washy" about 587. Which being us to this jewel:

WT critics are dogmatic in their contention that 607 BCE is wrong so they make that claim definitive, a counterclaim to this would be that such critics provide a definitive date or solution and if this cannot be done then they should cease their dogmatism until the matter is resolved definitively.

Of course, this has already been done, and he knows it, as his last comment reveals. It's important to note that it's the WT apologist that MUST stick to every point dogmatically, violating grammar, changing plural to singular, mutating servitude into complete desolation, proposing conquest order that contradict the grammar in the verse, and established historical order, independently of any set date.

There is no contradiction between history and the Bible. There is only contradiction between history (and even astromony at this point) and the WT's ungrammatical reading of the scriptures and interpretation of these events.

It is the epitome of dogmatism.

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

Jeremiah sets out a list of nations starting with Judah to experience Jehovah's judgement whether it is of a conquering order or otherwise is not made plain in the prophecy for it begins with Judah and then successively lists and describes the fate of each nation.

Starting in verse 17, the list of nations is just an enumeration of all the nations that will serve Babylon, in one form or another, for 70 years. Jeremiah just got done stating that "these nations" will serve, and for emphasis, he starts to list them out, getting more general toward the end of the list. It's a way of underscoring the clear grammar of verse 11 - there are a plural number of nations serving Babylon. The listing doesn't imply conquering order at all - that's why you reach for the unusual translation of verse 29.

Going to biblegateway.com again, enumerating v29 in every translation they have, it becomes pretty clear. All of them, except one, render the verse and some derivation of "beginning to bring". The CEV uses "first", but it doesn't surprise me that you find at least one on your side, especially among the versions that don't mind wondering from the literal language:

KJ21

For lo, I begin to bring evil..

ASV

For, lo, I begin to work evil...

AMP

For behold, I am beginning to work disaster ...

AMPC

For behold, I am beginning to work evil ...

BRG

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

CSB

For I am already bringing disaster...

CEB

Look! I’m bringing disaster ...

CJB

For, look! — if I am bringing disaster ...

CEV

Starting with my own city of Jerusalem, everyone on earth will suffer from war.

DARBY

For behold, I begin to bring evil ...

DRA

For behold I begin to bring evil ...

ERV

I am already making these bad things happen ...

EHV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

ESV

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

ESVUK

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

EXB

Look! I am ·already bringing [beginning to bring] ·disaster ...

GNV

For lo, I begin to plague the city ...

GW

I am going to bring disaster ...

GNT

I will begin my work of destruction ...

HCSB

For I am already bringing disaster ...

ICB

I am already bringing disaster ...

ISV

Look, I’m beginning to bring disaster ...

JUB

For, Behold, I begin to bring evil ...

KJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

AKJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

LSB

For behold, I am beginning to bring ...

LEB

For look, on the city that is called by my name I am beginning to inflict harm ...

TLB

I have begun to punish ...

MSG

“‘Prepare for the worst! I’m starting off the catastrophe in the city ...

MEV

For I am starting to bring calamity ...

NOG

I am going to bring disaster ...

NABRE

Now that I am inflicting evil on this city ...

NASB

For behold, I am beginning to inflict disaster ...

NASB1995

For behold, I am beginning to work calamity ...

NCB

Behold, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NCV

Look! I am already bringing disaster ...

NET

For take note, I am already beginning to bring disaster ...

NIRV

I am beginning to bring trouble ...

NIV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NIVUK

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NKJV

For behold, I begin to bring calamity ...

NLV

See, I am beginning to make trouble ...

NLT

I have begun to punish Jerusalem ...

NRSVA

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVACE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVCE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVUE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

OJB

For, hinei, I begin to bring ra’ah on the Ir ...

RSV

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

RSVCE

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

TLV

See, I am beginning to bring evil ...

VOICE

Do you think I will bring disaster ...

WEB

For, behold, I begin to work evil ...

WYC

for lo! in the city in which my name is called to help, I begin to torment ...

YLT

For lo, in the city over which My name is called, I am beginning to do evil ...

The rendering of "beginning to bring" makes much more sense. It aligns perfectly with v18 - "as it is this day". And it doesn't try to turn "nations" into a singular, and "serve" into "desolation".

It also makes physical sense - as your proposal would require Babylonian armies marching over long distances, for months, without attacking anyone, leaving their worst enemy, Assyria, standing while Babylon is unguarded.

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

I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me...

Ditto! I agree. I think it's healthy to step away now and again.

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

How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?

The logic here... 🤦

You know the difference between precision and accuracy, right?

I can give you an incredibly precise measurement for the weight of a full grown elephant: 5.1745385637655364469346 ounces. Is it accurate?

Accepting for a moment that there a big debate between 586 and 587: The fact that you propose a more precise date doesn't mean it's correct. And if there is a large body of evidence pointing to a less precise date range, it can most certainly disprove your incredibly precise fantasy date.

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

Again nonsense. Jeremiah makes it quite explicit in ch.25 that Jehovah's judgement of the nations began first with Judah and lasted for a period of 70 years. The NWT reads similarly to other translations.

No. The order Jerimiah lists the nations doesn't imply a conquering order. It's just an enumeration of the nations "round about" that will serve the king of Babylon.

If that list described a conquering order, starting in verse 17, it means you have Judah conquered before Assyria. How is this supposed to have transpired? Do the armies of Babylon pour out, passing through Asssyria, Persia, without conflict, only to arrive at the nations surrounding Judah, ignoring them as well, but allowed to pass through without resistance? What did Neb say to these nations? "Nevermind the massive army I'm moving through your lands. Just passing through. I'm really after this small state on the coast. But I might attack on my way back"?

Good lord. This is utter craziness. The list of nations is just a list of nations. Verse 29 is translated as "beginning to", not "first".