.
hypocrites and liars can go to h3ll for all i care!!!
animals are so much better companions!!
I tend to concur.
In fact, I have frequently felt more comfortable working with animals than working with people:
- and the further up the chain of command in the workplace I that I have been, the more frequently I have felt this way!
Everybody else is capable of turning on you and plunging a knife into your back with little compunction - but your dog never will.
Bill.
our dc coming up this weekend, i hated them and the only thing that kept me going ,was the reward of booze at the end of each day.my then wife,zelous judgemental pioneer, you know the type,not only droned on about my drinking, but about everyones drinking, a real barrel of laughs not.
anyway, one year we went to another dc, in newcastle, all seemed to be going well, until lunch.we went over to a hotel for lunch,i ordered my fresh orange and food, a few minutes later, the local jw,s arrived for lunch, they had all pr-ordered drinks,alcoholic drinks, and not one drink but many !!!
they were buisy getting boozed up for the afternoon session,way to go, i was about to join them, when my wife told me " dont even think about it ", anyway she was outraged, but there they were ,with thier little convention badges, men and women, young and old, getting merry, they dont even do that here in scotland, !!!.
I can recall an International Assembly in 1978 in which one of the brothers doing "volunteer" work as a car park attendant had a bottle of beer with him, just in case he got thirsty on the job!
Certainly, heavy drinking after the end of each day at an assembly became common place, after they canned evening sessions (assembly sessions, that is!) from 1973 onwards. Previously, when the assembly program did not finish until after 9 pm each day, everybody was too worn out to party.
That so many sssembly delegates hit the bottle afterwards shouldn't be surprizing:
- it is enough to drive most people to drink!
Bill.
I recall it being said on more than one occassion that "We know that the Watchtower is more important than the Bible :
- 'Christendom' has been reading the Bible for centuries, and it has done them no good!"
Bill.
all of us who have any ties to the jws know that they have their own vernacular, their own slang.
sure, there are formal titles that we can't really get away from: pioneer, ministerial servant, elder, ______ overseer, governing body, the (watchtower) society, etc.
but there are plenty of other bits of parlance they use that i can do without.... for example:.
"Right Heart Condition": Actually means "quite gullible" - at least when it comes to swallowing WTS Doctrine.
"Christain Freedom": In the JW world, this translates as "Free to do as you are told."
Bill.
if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.
using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.
do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?
WMF,
You have a PM.
Bill
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:.
Blondie,
As Alan Feuerbacher correctly points out, over the years the WTS has altered many things as regards is views about chronology. These changes have included its description of the year 539 BC - from being an "Absolute" date to being a "Pivotal" one.
A definition of what constitutes a "Pivotal Date" is given in the 1990 edition of the All Scripture book, page 282:
"A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds to a specific date mentioned in the Bible."
All very well - except that the same publication provides no definition of what the phrase "sound basis for acceptance" means!
In other words, this loose phrase leaves the WTS free to pick and choose whatever it likes from secular sources:
- probably from a realization that the very same evidence that supports Babylon's fall as occurring in 539 BC also supports 587 / 586 BC as being the date for Jerusalem's destruction. Much snake-oil salesmanship is needed to talk your way out of that contradiction!
Bill.
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:.
Knowsnothing,
You are right on the money there!
People could actually get harmed by taking that nonsense seriously - as you pointed out, some may have "doubts about the 'truth', but hang onto it because of things like these." (I myself was in that category for a considerable time).
Bill.
that 539 bc is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.. - practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of babylon by the medo-persian armies under cyrus the great.
however, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:.
- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.. for a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence.
LS
Certainly, most Middle Eastern history as we know it has come to us with a Greek bias - not surprizing, given the significant part Greek culture has played in the formation of Western Civilization.
That Persia formed - and then, even more importantly, maintained - the first great empire in world history is a point not so widely appreciated:
- At its peak, the Persian Empire controlled an estimated 44% of the world's population ; making it, from that point of view, the greatest empire ever. (By contrast, the British Empire ruled 25% of the world's population).
- The Persians even managed to control Afghanistan, a formidable achievement on its own!
The commonly held view of Persepolis is that, one night and while in a drunken rage, Alexander the Great destroyed it. Fortunately, however, he only succeeded in razing part of the complex (mainly the Treasury Building).
The tomb of Darius I (Darius the Great) is clearly identified by a stone inscription on its location at Naqsh - e - Rostam. (Not quite at Persepolis, but within about 3 miles of it). How though, are the other three tombs at that site identified? This is something you will have to help me with!
I will likely have other questions about these and related matters - but one at a time!
Bill
that 539 bc is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.. - practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of babylon by the medo-persian armies under cyrus the great.
however, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:.
- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.. for a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence.
That 539 BC is the overwhelmingly accepted date for this occurrence is without doubt.
- practically every reference work you consult will cite this date for the taking of Babylon by the Medo-Persian armies under Cyrus the Great.
However, even the most widely held theories are open to challenge:
- this is, after all, part of the scientific process.
For a challenge to succeed, though - particularly if it were to overturn such a widely held view as this one - it would have to come up with some very convincing evidence. Despite this, there is one poster at least who is convinced that 539 BC is not the correct date for Babylon's fall.
Larsinger, you have the floor!
Bill.
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:.
LS,
The point that I was trying to make at the beginning of this discussion was not that 539 BC is an "Absolute" date:
- rather, the issue is that if you were to accept 539 BC as being the correct date of Babylon's fall, then you would also have to accept the date 537/536 BC as being the time that Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar.
i.e. all the evidence that points to 539 also heavily points to 587/586.
That - and only that - is the point I was trying to make.
539 BC is not a pet theory of mine, so let us remove that straw man out of the way from the start!
Certainly, nothing in science is necessarily set in concrete. Accepted theories are challenged frequently, but for a challenge to be successful, it must pass the full scientific process - which includes review by ones peers. After all, that is how science progresses (thankfully - otherwise without the paradigm shifts that have occurred in medical science alone, many of us on this discussion board may not be around!).
However, the question as to whether 455 BC - rather than 539 BC - is the correct date for Babylon's fall is properly the subject of a seperate discussion.
Let's keep this one on the subject i.e. the inconsistency of holding to 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall, while dismissing 537/536 BC as the date for Jerusalem's destruction.
Bill.
PS: As to whether 455 BC is the correct date for the fall of Babylon, I have no particular axe to grind, and am certainly open to suggestion:
- but on another thread, not this one!
