Posts by Larsguy

75

1000 asked to leave Brooklyn Bethel!

by cyberguy in

jw
friends

1000 were asked to leave brooklyn bethel (actually, this includes the farm and patterson) "voluntarily!

" only 6 replied to the request in the last 3 weeks.

it looks like the "waters" of bethel are drying up, or rather, their revenues are drying up!

Larsguy

Hi Kat and others...

Yes, unfortunately those at Bethel may come out of there with none of the basic benefits which is unfortunately, but you characterized them as "giving up everything" to go there. But really that's a two-sided coin. Maybe like some career criminals they weren't going to do anything that challenging in the first place. Bethel may not be financially appealing but then every single aspect of their daily needs are taken care of. They don't have to worry about the basics including food and shelter! If someone said: "Come to New York, get room and board in a wonderful Christian environment" I might take them up on it. Maybe they are not leaving becasue it's so great not to worry about those things so many in the "real world" have to deal with, particularly even people with training and professional degrees are now being laid off, particularly now in the high-tech sectors.

So it's a 2-sided coin. Bethel is a great alternative when you're young; like going into the military. It's just hard news when you leave and face the being competitive in the job market.

Not disagreeing with your sentiments, just thowing in some perspective. Obviously this is a general disaster for the individuals!

L.G.

23

2 New Books at Assembly

by Osarsif in

jw
friends

nuevas publicaciones presentadas en las asambleas de distrito (2 books + 1 tract)

resumen de la asamblea de distrito "celosos proclamadores del reino de dios"

los testigos de jehova vuelven a anterior metodo de estudio biblico

Larsguy

The title of the Book translates as "Let us adore the one true God", probably in English is "Worshiping the One True God"...

L.G.

4

Celebrity EX JW's

by worldly girl in

jw
friends

i saw the post on "david letterman", and i must be really out of the loop, i didn't know who that guest was that you guys were talking about, nor did i know that she is or was a dub.

so... i thought i'd start a thread, and try to list as many "celebrity ex jw's" as we could come up with!!

so please add to this list!

Larsguy

http://www.georgebenson.com/bio.html

George Benson

Wayne Henderson of the Jazz Crusaders (an elder)

Welton Felder of the Jazz Crusaders (an elder)

Madonna (Just kidding!)

28

607 chronology debunked

by JanH in

jw
friends

there is no evidence that our time has any specific biblical prophetic importance if the 1914 claims are wrong.even doctrines like the "two-class" system, which is a unique interpretation by the jehovah's witnesses, is actually dependent on the 1914 date.

the bible states that the final fall and destruction of jerusalem was in the 19th regnal year of nebuchadnezzar (jeremiah 52:12; 2 kings 25:1-4; 2. chron 26:11,19).

the most secure source of absolute dates comes from contemporary inscription with astronomical observations.

Larsguy

Hi Fred:

Larsguy,
You make me laugh. LOL.....

I do my best! What have you been up to lately but giving these designer apostates around here a hard time? I love it!! You've make me laugh a lot too! Keep up the good work!

(You're the same Fred Hall that believes Jerusalem fell in 529BCE, right?) --just kidding!

L.G.

28

607 chronology debunked

by JanH in

jw
friends

there is no evidence that our time has any specific biblical prophetic importance if the 1914 claims are wrong.even doctrines like the "two-class" system, which is a unique interpretation by the jehovah's witnesses, is actually dependent on the 1914 date.

the bible states that the final fall and destruction of jerusalem was in the 19th regnal year of nebuchadnezzar (jeremiah 52:12; 2 kings 25:1-4; 2. chron 26:11,19).

the most secure source of absolute dates comes from contemporary inscription with astronomical observations.

Larsguy

Hi Jan,

Sorry, I meant to put this in my previous post. But since you did post this information about the VAT4956 and it seems to be such a key text, I was just wondering since you wrote this before AlanF found an error by the translators Sachs/Hunger in Line 18, do you think that affects the overall credibility or dating of the text?

AlanF discovered that Sachs/Hunger lied about the Moon being present on the 15th of Sivan in 568BCE when, in fact, according to AlanF it should have been "Venus"; the moon was 10 days away from Virgo at the time, kinda hard to miss or presume it was an accidental "error". Anyway, AlanF checked this out with his own astronomical program and thus exposed this misrepresentation by the original translators. You know how brilliant AlanF is (he taught me a lot about astronomy, as you know in the good old days back at H20--I didn't know East from West or Right from Left!) So do you think there are other errors in the transliteration that might affect the credibility (or dating, heaven forbid!) of this document?

The British Museum was contacted and admitted that it indeed was an "error" by Sachs/Hunger, obviously, but didn't seem like they wanted to do anything else about it or correct it with the Venus reference. Basically they said: "He who writes no books make no mistakes" or something like that. Plus I haven't heard of an official correction by Hunger (Sachs is deceased).

So would this new, recent discovery by AlanF about this error and his belief Line 18 should be a reference to Venus, perhaps affect the dating found in the text in any way? or is it still reliable for dating the 37th year in 568BCE, do you think?

Thanks, Jan

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/XERX5.HTM

28

607 chronology debunked

by JanH in

jw
friends

there is no evidence that our time has any specific biblical prophetic importance if the 1914 claims are wrong.even doctrines like the "two-class" system, which is a unique interpretation by the jehovah's witnesses, is actually dependent on the 1914 date.

the bible states that the final fall and destruction of jerusalem was in the 19th regnal year of nebuchadnezzar (jeremiah 52:12; 2 kings 25:1-4; 2. chron 26:11,19).

the most secure source of absolute dates comes from contemporary inscription with astronomical observations.

Larsguy

Thanks, Jan.

I just wanted to know from you directly that we were supposed to ignore Josephus.

By the way, Josephus speaks about the 70 years in Against Apion, his last work in AP 1.19 even though he does seem to change his mind two paragraphs later in AP 1.21 as you note with a reference to 50 years.

Since it's the same work, I was just wondering why he contradicts himself apparently in just 2 paragraphs. Or if he did change his mind why didn't he correct that in AP 1:19?

Of course, it all seems suspicious but it had been noted by someone that Josephus could have been referring to when Cyrus became king in Persia in reference to the 50 years since there is a 20-year gap between when Cyrus became king in Persia (559BCE) and when he conquered Babylon (539BCE). Is Josephus' reference, then truly a contradiction of himself in the previous paragraph and a change of heart about the 50 vs 70 years, or is he just making a reference to the interval of 50 years up to Cyrus becoming king in Perisa in paragraph 1:21 and to when he became king in Babylon in 1:19?

Do you think that's possible? Or is he just contradicting himself here in the same work?

Any comments?

Thanks, Josephus...um, I mean Jan! (oops!)

L.G.

P.S. I found this photo of Nehemiah with Xerxes and Darius I thought you might like to download for your files. Why did you give up your webpage?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/XERX5.HTM

28

607 chronology debunked

by JanH in

jw
friends

there is no evidence that our time has any specific biblical prophetic importance if the 1914 claims are wrong.even doctrines like the "two-class" system, which is a unique interpretation by the jehovah's witnesses, is actually dependent on the 1914 date.

the bible states that the final fall and destruction of jerusalem was in the 19th regnal year of nebuchadnezzar (jeremiah 52:12; 2 kings 25:1-4; 2. chron 26:11,19).

the most secure source of absolute dates comes from contemporary inscription with astronomical observations.

Larsguy

Hi Jan, you adorable man.... Thanks for this post!! WOW! It's great!!!

In all your research though, funny to me, you don't mention Josephus, the Jewish historian, except once in passing in your entire dissertation. Are we avoiding him on purpose for some reason? Here's something he has to say about the 70 years of "servitude" and when they began in Antiquities 11.1.1:

Ant. 11.1.1 "In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they has served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that SERVITUDE seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their timple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity; and these things God did afford them."

If the 70 years of "servitude" didn't begin until the Jews were off their land, that is at the time of the LAST DEPORTATION (Jer. 52:30) which happened in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, per Josephus, that would date their return as (based upon 587BCE as the 18th year, 586BCE as the 19th year, and 582BCE as the 23rd year) late as 512BCE!!... clearly 25 years beyond the historically established date of 537BCE.

So what's your Josephus policy here, Jan? Do we just ignore him? He's completely contradicting the 587BCE-537BCE chronology (only 50 years!) here by introducing 70 years from the 582 BCE the 23rd year of Neb-2 to the 1st of Cyrus in 512BCE. ??

Should be consider Josephus just as crazy, ridiculous and unreliable as the WTS?

Just wondering.

Thanks, guy!!

L.G.

P.S. I also notice that Josephus never gets over his 70-years kick, by the way. In his very last work he mentions it again in Against Apion 1:19 and claims a historian you mentioned as reliable, Berosus, actually backs him up in this obviously wrong 70-year obsession of his. I noticed you mentioned Berosus as a good source? If he backs up this 70-year ridiculousness, wouldn't that discredit him also? Here's the quote from Josephus' very last work, "Against Apion":

Against Apion 1:19 "...BEROSUS shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean... This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation...at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when relating the acts of this king, he described to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of SEVENTY YEARS, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."

What's the story on BEROSUS' chronology supporting the 70 years which we know is impossible if dated from the 23rd year of Neb-2 in 582BCE? Don't we need to dismiss Berosus and Josephus together as incompetent historians since this obviously is a direct contradiction to the 587BCE chronology? Everybody knows the Neo-Babylonian period wasn't THAT long, right?

Thanks, Jan, if you find out anything to clear this up for us. It's more than clear from your spectacularly wonderful and comprehensive dissertation that Jerusalem clearly fell in 587/586BCE, but just tying up some bothersome loose ends here.

Thanks, pal...you're the greatest!!

L.G.

8

Jw's discuss 607 in the pure language

by expatbrit in

jw
friends

want a larf?

http://www.purelanguage.net/forums/showthread.php?s=19a006f652e80247ed638b865fb37971&threadid=2944.

expatbrit

Larsguy

I am aware that any mention of chronology has some attraction for crackpots like Larsguy, who apparently has forgotten to take his medicine this week. It's important not to be mislead into believing there is any serious doubt whatsoever about established neobabylonian chronology, and any cursory reading of the evidence will tell you why.

Hi Jan,

You know, when it comes to 587BCE, I don't have to say a thing. Josephus says it ALL. According to him, 70 years expired in FULFILLMENT of Jeremiah's prophecy for the "SERVITUDE" of those deported at the time of the last deportation. Here's that quote:

Ant. 11.1.1 "In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they has served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that SERVITUDE seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their timple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity; and these things God did afford them."

ANALYSIS: Per JOSEPHUS, if seventy years of SERVITUDE are applied to the last poor ones deported in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, if Jerusalem fell in 587BCE then they didn't get back to Jerusalem until 517BCE.

Currently the Jews' return is dated to 537BCE.

So there's a discrepancy suggesting that either Josephus is wrong or the Neo-Babylonians revised their chronology shortening that period.

So I don't have to dismiss the 587BCE chronology as incompetent, Josephus does that for me quite well.

Now if you have the research to overturn, Joephus, then fine. Why not share it with us. But you can't use the VAT4956 any more since it is no longer available for use by pagan historians since it happens to be in my back pocket. Sorry.

L.G.

29

Sign of the Last Days THEN!

by JanH in

jw
friends

the last days in the 14th century

all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

Larsguy

Hi GSX:

I rate Bible "chronologists" right up there with numeralogists. If you work the numbers long enough you can eventually get them to agree with whatever you want. Of course as a Bible chronologist you're forced to work with the inconsistencies of the book itself so if you can make sense of an imperfect manmade piece of propoganda then more power to ya.

This is the anti-chronologists ultimate cop-out, imaginaging that ANY POSSIBLE numbers can be worked out. Well, maybe that's almost true, I've seen some very involved chronological match-ups, but some things only give you a few options.

For instance, the prophecy of the "70 weeks" which must begin when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem". There are different versions of when this applies but ultimately it can't be linked up to just any year.

That's why there is such an important focus, though on astronomical texts. They give you just one date to deal with that is scienfically matched up and that's it. If you can't line your chronology up with that dating then you have to dismiss the record as a fraudulent. But if you can you get some credibility.

Thus the VAT4956 just by being a post-dated document is dismissible for 568BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar but not for the 511BCE dating in the text since it is the cyrptic double-dated year. If you presume this was the best way some astronomers found to retain a reference to the original chronology that was revised during the Seleucid Period then 511BCE usurps 568BCE as the most reliable secular dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. That's just academics. Thus, 511BCE would challenge the Biblical chronologies more than 568BCE ever could. That's why it's nice that 511BCE just so happens to agree with dating the 23rd year of Neb-2 in 525BCE which matches up with one of the Bible's chronologies for the year Jerusalem began to be rebuilt, the very first application, the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE!

So it's a big ball of wax with lots of complications but every now and then when you get a good secular source in total agreement with the Bible then it works out great.

Another critical example is the absolute year the Jews officially come out of exile and regain control over their "promised land". That's an absolute date of 1947. You can play with it you can't do anything with it but note it. That's when they officially came out of exile, when they officially had a country again. But the Bible connects chronology to it for the second coming, namely 45 years after this event was when the Messiah was to appear. That is, in 1992. So it's interesting that this LOCKED-IN date that you can't change or manipulate just happens to agree with the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE when you apply the 2520-year formula that the witnesses have misdated to 607BCE.

So you see, when you're playing the chronology game, there are other levels of confirmation, including how many cross-prophephesies you can match up to your favorite chronology.

Here's another one that is DIRECT and UNCHANGEABLE. The succession of 70 weeks. 70 weeks is 490 years and makes up 10 jubilees each. The 70th week is the week the Messiah arrives. There is no argment that the 70-weeks ending in 36CE began in 455BCE, there is just debate on what actually happened in 455BCE. But ther is no debate it ends in 36CE. But that FIXES the successive 70-weeks based upon 36CE. That is, there is no flexibility in counting up every 490 years to another 70th week from 36CE. It's very fundamental and basic.

So though we're not presuming to place a great deal of emphasis on what the 70th week might have fulfilled in later years, it's interesting to simply calculate and be aware of when the 70th week falls closest to our day. 4x490 is 1960 years, so the closest 70th week from 36CE ends in 1996!!!

Is that significant? It is now since by either coincidence or design the mid-week Passover just happens to occur the same year as the Messiah was to return which was 1992-1993 based upon either the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE or the return of the Jews in 1947.

So what goes? You have a TRIPLE CROSS-REFERENCE fulfillment for the chronology of the second coming in 1992 that you can't misapply, since 36CE locks in the dating of thousands of years of successive 70-week periods!

So while looking at isolated chronologies might seem hopeless, once you start comparing and mixing and matching, soon you eliminate a lot of other missed chronologies and one or two stand the tests. Simply put as in this case, the 607BCE dating and the 587BCE dating if it were to match-up with the 70th week of 1989 to 1996 are mismatches. But the astro-text confirmed datin for 529BCE which dates the second coming in 1992 is a perfect match for the 70th week of 1989 to 1996 since 1992 is the midweek year.

So sorry, you can sit in a corner and close your eyes and put your hands over your ears if you want, but some of us advanced Biblical chronologists are having a field day!

L.G.

29

Sign of the Last Days THEN!

by JanH in

jw
friends

the last days in the 14th century

all through recorded history there have been people who have pointed to the calamities, horrors and disasters in the world, and preached that this signified an imminent end of the world.

this isnt even unique to christianity, which started off with strong millennial expectations in the 1st century, and for the most part retains the same expectations almost 2000 years later.

Larsguy

Hey Larsguy.....I don't know lots of what you believe.....but 1992? What was so special about that date? Were you born then or something?
ISP

Hi ISP,

1992 is a date long focussed on as being significant by those who have applied the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days to events happening to the Jews. 1917 was the Balfour admendment or something which fulfilled the 1260 days, and 30 years later in 1947 the Partition Agreement to fulfill the 1290 days. That means 45 years later in 1992 they were expecting something else regarding the temple at Jerusalem to fulfill the 1335 days. But nothing publicly happened.

The 1335 days, though, was always originally considered a reference to the second coming date. In fact, 1874, the original date for the second coming was based upon the 1335 days, 1335 years from the event that the witnesses felt was significant for the apostasy in the Catholic Church or something.

In this context, 1992 is most critically significant because it implies that Jerusalem fell in 529BCE which is the dating for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar found in the double-dating in both the VAT4956 and the SK400. If, in fact, the references in these texts are to the original chronology, then per the "7 times" prophecy, the Messiah should have arrived in 1992. It's just the updated date for the second coming which dismisses 1914 based upon the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE or 1934 which bases the second coming upon the fall of Jerusalem in the secularly popular but now completely dismissible and challenged fall of Jerusalem in 587BCE.

L.G.