Posts by Hoffnung

110

Greetings from a new member

by EdenOne in

jw
friends

greetings everyone.. just wanted to say hello to everyone, being a new member from western europe.. some may know me from another forum (eden, from e-jehovas-witnesses.com), but most don't, so this is my little intro.. male, in my early 40's.

still an active member in good standing of a jehovah's witnesses congregation in my country, and honestly not planning to change that status, despite my unorthodox beliefs.

sometime i will elaborate the reason why i don't feel i must leave.

Hoffnung

Hi Eden,

I checked out your website and can identify with how you feel about it all. You made some real good points in the 2nd part of your Mission Statement. It is great you can do all this research and draw conclusions at your own pace, and just as you I was struck by the somehow peaceful way Ray Franz wrote about his own experiences inside the GB.

You wrote that meetings provided you a spiritual routine and fellowship, and you just have to weed out what you know to be incorrect. I thought like that for a while too. The problem is, or will become, you know now what it means to really see. It will be hard, if not impossible, to become blind again. The longer I kept attending meetings, the more I noticed how many points were advanced without back up from the bible, and how many verses were pulled out of context to fit an idea. In the end, the ride home after every meeting, was a discussion between my wife and me about such points we had noticed during the meeting. After about one year like this, it became obvious for us that attending meetings was a waste of time. By then, I had also stopped going in service because I could not continue spreading ideas that I knew to be falsehoods, and as a reaction to being inactive, our "friends" started to keeping their distance from us, so that took away the last reason for us to keep going.

We are both inactive now, and reconnecting with the worldly family of my wife, and making new friends, enjoying simple things like birthdays etc.

I don't know if anybody recommended it, but I would like to encourage you to read Steven Hassans book: "Releasing the Bonds, empowering people to think for themselves". You will understand better what really happens at the meetings, and why many people need a lot of time to move on after having quit being a witness.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

Thanks Ann,

it can be added that Jeremiah's words "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years", leave completely open how the Babylonian kings go about making-the-nations-serve. Sacking the city 1st, together with plundering and taking prisoners as ransom, is defenitely one of the possibilities within the scope of Jeremiah's words. Vassalage was another option, but there is no record of that on Babylonian Chronicle 4. Either way is absolutely acceptable to fulfill the prophecy. Assyria was indeed the 1st to get the full load of the emperialistic style of having to serve Babylon, many others followed soon thereafter, as shown in the Babylonian Chronicle 4.

Another strawman of FTF debunked.

FTF, by the way, you are providing a great platform for free publicity for C.O.Jonssons great book:

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

Thanks,

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

FTF, I am not even dreaming of convincing you, that was never my idea. That would be like trying to convince a born-deaf person of the beauty of music.

However, many honest-hearted others will read this and will draw the same conclusion as I did.

Hoffnung

47

2012 report analysis - countries with reduced publisher figures

by cedars in

jw
friends

i've just started munching through the figures for 2012 in the new 2013 yearbook, now available on jw.org.. i thought you might be interested to see which countries saw "negative growth" over 2012.. these are as follows.... .

*sudan is so dramatically reduced because south sudan is now independent and the society has adjusted the publisher figures accordingly.. .

countries added.

Hoffnung

also interesting how they shuffeled population numbers around in countries that moved under another branch. Quite unlikely that Luxemburg lost 15% of its population in just one year. I guess somebody had used the wrong stats in the previous years.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

So, a summary of FTF's arguments:

There is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute to the nation of Babylon in 609 B.C., thus Jonnson's hypothesis does not meet the burden of proof. it is documented that many nations had to pay the Babylonians quite heavy spoils in Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4
The challenge to anyone who said "among the nations" means something other than it says: please provide a translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations". It is demonstrated by C.O.Jonsson in a long footnote on page 195, that the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective. The context of the quotes FTF uses disprove his very argument. There is most certainly no reason at all to reject the Masoretic Text and use the LXX instead, unless you collect errors. Furthermore, the Insight book concurs with C.O.Jonsson on this point.
There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations. The 70 years in Jeremiah 25 specifically refers in the verses to Babylon, and its period as regional superpower, and not to the exact lenght of Judah's servitude. the very Fact this point is brought up, shows FTF does not understand what he reads, or does not want to understand what he reads in Jeremiah 25:11, 12
The perfect mood not being indicative of a continual action from the past continuing into the future, thus signifying the servitude had not yet begun by 605 B.C. in view of point 2 and 3 above, considering what shady reasonings and faulty translations you are willing to abuse to score a point, to find the exact limits in the verbal conjugaison that Jeremiah might have used in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 is a very weak foundation to build any conclusion upon.

FTF thank you for showing to the many lurkers how dishonest your reasonings are.

PS: apologies for my earlier double post.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

sorry, double post

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", that there is no record of any nation paying tribute to the Babylonians, is easily debunked with Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4, describing the last few years of Nabopallassars reign. A picture of the chronicle is below.

It reads:

1 The eighteenth year of Nabopolassar(608/607): In the month Ulûlu the king of Akkad (Akkad=Babylon) mustered his army and

2 following the bank of the Tigris to the mountains of Bit-Hanunya

3 in the district of Urartu, he went up. He set fire to the cities and

4 plundered them extensively. In the month Tebêtu the king of Akkad went home.

5 The nineteenth year(607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

6 Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince,

7 mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...].

8 The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu.

9 After his departure, Nebuchadnezzar did battle at Biranati, situated in the mountains,

10 captured Biranati, set it on fire, and took many prisoners.

11 He conquered all of the mountains as far as the district of Urartu.

12 In the month Ulûlu the prince returned to Babylon. In the month Tašrîtu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

13 marched to Kimuhu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

14 He crossed the river, did battle against the city, and in the month Kislîmu he captured the city.

15 He sacked it and stationed a garrison of his in it. In the month Šabatu he went home.

16 The twentieth year(606/605): The army of Egypt marched [17] against the garrison of Kimuhu

17 which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. For four months,

18 they laid siege to the city, captured it, and defeated the garrison of the king of Akkad.

19 In the month Tašrîtu, the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates, and

20 pitched camp in Quramatu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

21 He had his army cross the Euphrates and they captured [22] Šunadiri, Elammu,

22 and Dahammu, cities of Syria,

23 and plundered them. In the month Šabatu the king of Akkad went home.

24 The army of Egypt, which was in Karchemiš, crossed the Euphrates and

25 against the army of Akkad, which was camped in Quramatu,

26 it marched. They pushed the army of Akkad back so that they withdrew.

27 The twenty-first year(605/604): The king of Akkad stayed home while Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son

28 and crown prince, mustered the army of Akkad.

Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4 clearly demonstrates that Babylon (or Akkad in the Chronicle) took the spoil of a lot of cities in the period between 609 and 605 BCE, and that during the reign of Nabopalassar, prior to battle of Carcemish and Nebuchadnezzar ascension on the throne in 605. It can also be added that Nabopalassar had already made alliances with quite a few other nations to defeat the many Assyrian strongholds, Cyaxares, the Median King, and the Scythians are specifically mentioned. It is beyond any doubt that Babylon was the dominating partner in all these alliances.

FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", is proven to hold no ground whatsoever, and FTF dishonest reasonings are again exposed.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

FTF,

- your point trying to make the meaning of Jer 25 dependent on Dan 9 and 2 Chron 36 was debunked, more than once. Too bad you don't want to see it.

- Your idea to use LXX to validate a so called servitude point was debunked too. C.O.Jonsson rightly demonstrated in a page long footnote LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective, a point on which the society agrees with him. Too bad you cannot see that either.

Other than that it was also demonstrated you willfully misrepresented what was written by C.O.Jonsson concerning Jer 25, hence an honest debate with you is not possible. You are not able to Face the Facts, but driven by an agenda we all know too well already, employing the usual tactics. We thank you though for exposing the fallacies of your reasonings to the many lurkers and newbies. It might help quite a few to wake up.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

Sorry mate, I don't debate with liars.

I have proven enough.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

You want to really know it, don't you. Let us, to demonstrate FTF's points hold no ground, and thereby also show FTF's dishonesty, provide the entire footnote 8 of C.O.Jonssons book, instead of the selections FTF made, and it shows that the conclusion based upon the LXX rendering of Jer 25 is plain incorrect, as it is a "defective translation" (society's own words in the Insight book):

"The quotation is from The New World Translation (NW), which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). The Greek Septuagint version (LXX) says: “and they will serve among the nations,” instead of: “and these nations wil1 have to serve the king of Babylon.” In Jeremiah 25:1–12 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are omitted. There are many differences between Jer-MT and Jer-LXX. Jer-LXX is about one-seventh shorter than Jer-MT, which contains 3,097 more words than Jer-LXX. A number of modem scholars hold that Jer-LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that was earlier than the text tradition represented by Jer-MT, arguing that Jer-MT represents a later revision and expansion of the original text, either by Jeremiah himself, his scribe Baruch, or some later editor(s). Thus, with respect to Jeremiah’s prediction that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would attack and destroy the kingdom of Judah, these scholars often find it difficult to believe that Jeremiah was able to give such concrete and specific forecasts. They find it easier to accept the more general and vague wordings of the Jer-LXX as representing the original prediction, with all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar being left out. However, some of the scholars who have adopted this view admit that it creates problems. If the original prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1–12, which was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and was presented to the king a few months later (Jeremiah 36:1–32), did not contain any references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar, how then could Jehoiakim, after having listened to and burned up the roll with the prophecy, ask Jeremiah: “Why is it that you have written on it, saying: The king of Babylon will come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to cease from it?’ “ (Jeremiah 36:29, NW) As this same question is found both in Jer-MT and Jer-LXX, the original prophecy must have explicitly mentioned the king of Babylon. Professor Norman K. Gottwald cites this verse and says: “If the prophet had not somewhere in his scroll openly identified Babylon as the invader, the sharp retort of the king is difficult to explain.” (N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, p. 251.) This strongly indicates that Jer-MT might very well represent the original text here. It should be kept in mind that LXX is a translation made hundreds of years after the time of Jeremiah from a Hebrew text that is now lost, and, as the editors of Bagster’s The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament point out in the “Introduction,” some of the translators of the LXX were not competent to their task and often inserted their own interpretations and traditions. Most scholars agree with this observation. The Watch Tower Society, too, emphasizes that “the Greek translation of this book [Jeremiah] is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text.”—Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 32.

It is now very clear for all to see FTF only selected what fitted his ideas and ignored all the rest. Any conclusion based upon the LXX translation of Jer 25 is looking for trouble. Exegesis of LXX jer 25? who are you trying to fool mate...

Hoffnung