simwitness

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 266 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by simwitness

• 
  10

  JUST GOT THIS FRM WEBSHOTS...........

  by qwerty in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  below is an email from webshots.

  does this prove the wt is surfing looking for copyright violations?.

  thanks for uploading photos to webshots.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Apparently they don't understand that parody and or satire is not an infringment of copywrite laws...

  Maybe you can educate them?
• 
  22

  What does 666 in the book of Revelation really mean?

  by JH in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  revelation 13:18 here is wisdom.

  let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.

  so, does anybody have understanding here?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  funkyderek...

  Interesting, but there's no indefinite article in Greek.

  so, what is the proper translation?

  wouldnt that make it more ambigous instead of less?

  You see, I am of the opinion that people have spent thier lifetimes trying to understand a riddle, where the answer is so simple as to be "well duh" at the end...

  Remember in the LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring -- they are at the door to the mines, and a riddle:

  "Speak friend and enter" -- they spent time trying to come up with a password, a "complicated" answer... only to discover that it was the word "friend" that they needed to speak...(albeit in Elvish...but nonetheless the point is made)...

  Anyway... good discussion... countless theories abound....
• 
  22

  What does 666 in the book of Revelation really mean?

  by JH in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  revelation 13:18 here is wisdom.

  let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.

  so, does anybody have understanding here?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  While the writer was possibly talking about a specific man, I personally think he was saying "any man"...

  ...for it is the number of a man...

  as to effectively state that following any man is to follow the beast. (Especially if you are putting that man in God's place, etc... )

  But, that is probably way too simple... especially for others that need grander meanings in the scheme of things...
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  I'd like to ignore scholar for a few moments and turn to questioning just why this particular issue even exists.

  Why would the WTBS even need to publish the remark about Brown's "connection"?

  IMHO, the only reason that the WTBS even included that reference was to contradict Jonnson's published work. This begs the question, Why does the society feel the need to respond to "apostate" materials? "Good little witnesses" don't study outside of the society's marerials, so wouldn't even be aware of the association, or who "Brown" was.

  Obviously, the Society felt threatened in some way by this body of evidence, and needed to direcly contradict a statement made in it. By directly contradicting it, they hope to force the reader into just the kind of decision making that scholar represents. The kind that says:

  "The Society says this, Jonnson says otherwise, Jonnson is wrong."

  Now, the bigger question is: What does this really say about the "Society of truth" ?

  If the WTBS has to publish a contradiction to an "apostate's material", and has to fudge the facts in order to contradict it, what does that really say about the society's intentions and honesty? If, as AlanF has posted, the GB and the writing department know that the direct reading of the sentence, especially by the "masses" is intended to show an equality in the two times, and yet they know that that is not what Brown was suggesting, what does that really say about them?

  This is such a minor point, such a "trivial matter", yet this is what the society chooses to contradict. Wouldnt it have been just as simple to state that "Brown was the first to do this, yet he did not directly connect the two times ..." and been honest about it? What pourpose, other than to contradict an "apostate's" work could it have served? Being honest in the discussion about Brown's work would not have made the society's position on the two times any different, Brown wasnt a member of the society, nor had the slave been picked, so who cares if he was wrong?

  scholar has continually posted the following statement:

  If you can't get the facts of modern history straight, how can you be trusted with ancient primary resources?

  Obviuosly, The society can't be trusted, because the GB and the Writing department knowingly publish material that is not honest or truthful.

  scholar also posted the following:

  Jehovah's Organization is one of truth!

  If that is true, then the WTBS cannot be a member of that organization.

  Scholar,

  I want to thank you for your participation in this thread. You have helped again to prove that the WTBS cannot be trusted in matters of modern, or ancient history. You have allowed us, the "apostates" to demonstrate to others just how the society's writing department, and the GB thinks, and how they feel the need to "fudge facts" in order to contradict apostate's works. This is not the only case, this is just one example of thier actions.

  I urge all readers to :

  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. - 1 Thessalonians 5:21

  Have a nice day!
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all.

  No, quite to the contrary. The society attempts to mislead the readers that Brown DIRECTLY connected the two times so as to make them one and the same. The society is wrong in this reguard. Your attempts to trivialize what the society meant in the proclaimers book will not help you.

  Where does the society refer to page 208 as it's "proof" of the connection? If it is in personal correspondance to you, please scan and post it so that other's can see this "proof". Also, have you actually read the entire body of Brown's work and come to this conclusion on your own, or is your only bits of proof that which the WTBS has sent you?

  it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism and then when the Society made a different statement he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter.

  Jonnson has provided more than enough proof for his position. You on the other hand have only provided the words of the WTBS as your proof. You need to do more work than this if you want to convince anyone that you are correct.

  Unsupported by who? As far as I can tell, it is only unsupported by the WTBS. You have not shown that his view is unsupported by anyone else.

  In short the Society has proved the connection and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.

  No, they haven't proven it, by any measure of proof. They have only stated it.

  Answer this, scholar... is time linear? Arent all things then connected thru time? Is this the connection that the WTBS implies? Is that the only connection that exists between the two?

  Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times

  But isn't Brown's meaning/length and very definition of the two times where any true connection would occur? Where has the WTBS discussed, at length, these meanings?

  Do your homework, don't just keep reciting the same tired words.
• 
  23

  Does anyone else still get Armaggeddon Nightmares!!

  by Lainey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i haven't posted for a few weeks as i have been back at work busy beavering away, however as it is my day off i thought i would see if anyone else has the same trouble that i have, and also if there is anything they have found useful.. i have always had trouble eating properly and sleeping ever since my early teen years, but over the past couple of years or so (even though i know i don't believe the watchtower teachings anymore) i have at least 3 or 4 times a week, the most vivid awful nightmares about armaggeddon, and the different ways that jehovah is going to destroy me because of my wickedness.

  i wake up in tears and shaking with fear, and then i am not able to get back to sleep, i just lie awake until the morning not daring to close my eyes.. i can't believe that as a grown woman, the watchtower teachings keep coming back to haunt me.. lainey.

  ps can i also thank all the posters for the kind personal messages that i have received since i came here

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  no, but I expect one any day now!
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  I have been giving this more and more thought, and my earlier comment:

  My point is simple, Both author's are correct for thier intended meaning of the word "connected". Is it the same meaning? Absolutely not.

  Is incorrect...

  The WTBS use of italics and statement, along with no other background evidence presented shows that they intended to mislead the reader's of the Proclaimer book into believing that Brown connected the two times much more directly then Brown actually did.

  While it is "technically" correct that on page 208 a connection between the two is made, it is not a direct connection, it is only a connection based on the timeline that the "Seven Times" would occur "during" the "Gentile Times".

  Which one of the writings give's you the better sense for what Brown intended?

  Unless scholar can prove otherwise, you would have to say that Jonnson gave the clearer sense of what Brown intended. If for no other reason then that Jonnson included enough evidence of the rest of Brown's work to show his line of reasoning.

  scholar, Do you have any evidence to the Contrary? Evidence outside of the WTBS's own litereature?

  Other than the 1 statement in the Proclaimer's book, where does the WTBS discuss at length Brown's work?

  Do you have any evidence that shows that Jonnson, deliberately or otherwise, was biased in his research of this matter? Any evidence that he ignored any text within Brown's work, that Brown intended any kind of direct connection between the two?

  Have a pleasant day!
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Since I happened to have the copy of GTR that scholar references, I decided to look up the paragraph in question, found on page 69...

  Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period begain in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:34, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then, are demonstrably false.

  Now, scholar, the onus is on you.

  Prove that Brown believed otherwise. You obviously have access to the GTR, the information in "the chapter above" and to Brown's work that is being discussed.

  Prove where Jonnson made any error in this statement.

  To Recap, the only proof you have offered so far is this paragraph of page 208 of Brown's work:

  The times of these monarchies are fixed by the ?seven times? of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mohammedan Imposture.... then must it be maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the period of the second judgment; and commencing in 1873, are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates with the ?seven times? of the monarchies, and with the 1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.... The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his second coming, foretels all these events; and upon that memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down of Jerusalem, and ?that the Jews should be led captive into all nations, during the times of the Gentiles, obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at which he is to appear as the Judge. [Vol. 2, p. 208]

  And This "QED" From yourself:

  The issue is onlly important as it relates to accuracy. It is clear that connection does not mean equating as Alan Falleges, niether Jonsson, the Society or myself say that these times were equivalent. Jonsson makes a statement, the Society contradicts this with page 208. Case fully proved.

  And, also, where exactly does the society refer specifically to page 208 of Brown's book?

  Have a pleasant evening.
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Scholar...
  
  

  :It seems that you want to trivialize this matter and or either ignore it

  If I wanted to ignore it, I would not have entered into this discussion with you.

  However, I do see it as a trivial matter, especially in the grander scheme of things. You don't agree that it is trivial, big deal. Who's right? Me or you?

  :The fact of the matter is Jonsson has stated his position rather dogmaticaly which contrasts with the less than dogmatic position of the Society as shown in the Proclaimers book.

  Well, I'm sure volumes could be written on this one sentence alone, but here is my "simple, trivialized" answer:

  Jonsson and the WTBS disagree, or have differing opinions on the matter at hand. Now, who is more Dogmatic about it? If you write the WTBS and tell them they are wrong, what stance will they take? What stance will Jonnson take? While they may both passionately defend their position, who says "believe as we say or die at the armageddon"?? Who will force your family and friends to shun you if you disagree with them?

  Beyond that, and back to the point I made several posts ago: You have chosen the "fuzziest" connection possible in order for the WTBS to be correct in the Proclaimers book. (to "associate mentally").

  My point is simple, Both author's are correct for thier intended meaning of the word "connected". Is it the same meaning? Absolutely not. Which one of the writings give's you the better sense for what Brown intended?

  If you want to prove Jonnson wrong, your going to have to go alot further than restating what the WTBS states. Go to the source, study all the Brown (and only Brown) has to say about the two times, and decide for yourself if they were truly "connected".

  Have a pleasant day.
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  (I will delete the previous two posts, since the system won't let me correct them!!!!!...)
  

  scholar,

  QED? Don't think so. It is only "QED" if you are of the mindset that the WTBS is always right.

  Isn't it entirely possible that Jonnson and the Society are looking at the data from two different viewpoints, and therefore they are both correct?

  :niether Jonsson, the Society or myself say that these times were equivalent

  So, then you are all in agreement. What was the problem again?

  :Jonsson makes a statement, the Society contradicts this with page 208. Case fully proved.

  The society contradicts it, or Brown's work "appears" to contradict it?

  The only connection is in the fact that the times run "at the same time" or "during one another"... not a very solid connection between the two, given the linear nature of time itself, and since your contradiction is based on only one paragraph out of a book, not a very solid body of evidence either.

  You haven't proven your point, becuase the only evidence you have brought is this one statement:

  "The Society says this, all who disagree must be wrong..."

  :It is Jonsson who first raised this issue as part of his platform in deconstructing the teaching of the Gentile Times

  I still do not agree that he was "deconstructing" anything... I see it that he was showing a history of the teachings...showing how the society was niether the first, nor unique in this aspect.

  His "platform" was a book detailing the evidence against the Society's 607 timeline. This (the whole connect issue) is but one minor point, and a point that can be "proven" for and against both sides.

  If your only rebuttal will be:

  "The Society says this, all who disagree/contradict must be wrong..."

  Realize that that is a statement of Faith, and not Fact.

  Have a pleasant day.