Posts by simwitness

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

simwitness

Marjorie,

Thank you.

There are 2 things that I have enjoyed about this and the KISS thread, and that is the simple, reasonable logic that you and AlanF have displayed. I have always found it amusing that others refuse to take the simple way, becuase they have been taught that it "must be harder than it is". It is that teaching, and that teaching alone that enslaves so many... It is just this enslavement that Christ was putting an end to. Too bad it only took a few days after his death to muck it all back up again. (Biblically speaking, of course).

No leaps are required, no special "It really means this" is neccesary.

And again, Scholar's insistant refusal to answer even the most basic direct question put to him.

Scholar may be a "scholar" but he has not learned anything.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

simwitness

Plum,

In our english dictionaries, and our usage of the words, I have no issue with what you are describing.

My question to scholar, is for his reasoning behind saying that is what the OT writers meant. IMHO, if they meant "vassal/king" they would have used a word that more accurately described that. (I am, of course, assuming that such a word existed).

I find it interesting that Scholar has yet to answer my questions, and his only response to AlanF's recent question has been to say "That scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to mean, it really means something else".

Scholar, If you do not intend to address my question(s) - as simple as they should be for you to answer, please say so.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

simwitness

Furuli doesn't mention his interest in 'hovahs. Too embarassed maybe?

More likely, he doesn't want to expose his bias.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

simwitness

Scholar,

I find it highly interesting that instead of answering any direct questions, you prefer to turn the question back on the individual.

This can only mean that you are unable to answer the questions.

Remember, it is you that is asserting that "kingship" or "reign" really means "vassalage", therefore the burden of proof is on you, not others.

AlleyMom has provided her proof as to why it cannot/does not.

Where is yours?

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
friends

i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

simwitness

Scholar,

Please explain:

Regarding Daniel 1:1 it can be interpreted to pertain to the latter part of his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer hence the expression kingship rather than reign as put in the NWT

How "kingship" is any different than "reign" when the verse says "In the third year of".???

I really want to hear your explanation.

You also state:

In any event you have your chronology based on secular schema and mine which is based on a biblical schema. Never the twain shall meet.

When in reality they have met, at 539, you just refuse to accept the rest of the math. THe only "bilbical schema" you present is WTBS schema, and that has already been shown to simply be a "means to an end (date of 1914)".

Please explain, in simple terms, how (or why) the math doesn't work. So far, the only reason you give is the "70 years", and while I understand your issue, have you ever considered that possibly, just possibly, it is your interpetation of the 70 years that is wrong, and not the dates themselves?

21

A little gem from the latest WT

by dmouse in

jw
friends

.

it never ceases to amaze me the propensity that the wbts has of seeing the straw in someone else's eye but not the rafter in their own.

this little gem is from the latest july 15th watchtower, page 22. .

simwitness

Pot, this is the kettle... you're black.

5

"You disfellowship yourself - cop out..."

by confuzcious in

i was talking to an elder today and called him on several points.. one of the points was that the org disfellowships people for unscriptural reasons.. i gave examples of a gambler (yes, the bible talks about greediness, but it's silent on gambling.

) being involved in boxing.

etc.. anyway, he said that, "well it's not the organization that disfellowships... but in actuality, the persons disfellowship themselves.. what is your guys response???.

simwitness

While it may be the individual that chooses to do the actions that they would be disfellowshiped for, it is the organization that carries out the punishment.

Otherwise there would be no judicial committees, no formal announcements, etc.

It is the punishment that is being debated, not the "root cause" of said punishment.

Ask the elder if the guy at the electric chair chose to be executed. Likely he would say that they did. In reality it is the judicial system that chose the appropriate punishment for the action. (this is not to debate right/wrong of the death penalty, it is simply an example).

For the witnesses it is simple black/white decision. They allow little grey area. They state:

"Whoever that is not with us, is against us", when in fact they should be stating " Whoever is not against us, is with us".

While it may seem to be the same statement, there is a subtle difference.

8

'You cant blame God for the mistakes his Org. makes!'

by Hamas in

jw
friends

i had a discussion with an 'associate' i used to know back in my meeting days last night.

he really did show what it means to be a brainwashed victim of the watchtower.

i told him about false prophecies, and how the wt claims to be a true prophet of god.

simwitness

you're exactly right... I can't blame God for the mistakes of "his" org... But I damn sure can hold them (the org) accountable for said mistakes!

6

There are no contradictions or inconsistencies!!

by greven in

i found a funny site demonstrating the mental gymnastics employed by christian apologetics to refute contradictions.. .

enjoy!.

are there really contradictions in startrek?

simwitness

Refiners:

At least Star Trek offers a vision of Hope for ALL mankind... even if we do have a WW3 and a Eugenics war in the 1990s...

oh wait, maybe they are false prophets too?

I.D.I.C.

:)

20

Watchtower says JW meetings follow the 1st century model

by ozziepost in

modern dub meetings follow the format of the first century christian meetings, or is that vice versa?

subliminal messages reinforce the message found in the watchtower of november 15, 2002. page six shows a picture of st paul's basilica in rome with the message that this is not the place for "spiritual refreshment".

the facing page (p7) shows an illustration of what is purported to be a meeting of first century christians.

simwitness

hmmmm....

methinks that in the first century there was no "bible" to study.

methinks that the limit to the "get togethers" in the first century were for fellowship and upbuilding with others of "like mind"

if there were studies, it would have been of the "old testament" writings only, since none of the "new testament" existed.

I doubt seriously that there were any "formal" meetings, just "gatherings" of followers.