simwitness

Joined

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

Posts by simwitness

• 
  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.
• 
  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

  deleted duplicate post
• 
  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

  deleeted duplicate post
• 
  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

  AlanF... Thank you for your comments.

  Scholar,

  this is not just some minor error on the part of Jonsson

  Who said he was in error? I asked you what difference it truly made if he was... IF he was in error... yet you maintain he is, when there is evidence he is not in error. Prove that he is wrong... prove that Brown actually "connected" the two times as the WTBS suggests... so far, the only "connection" is limited to one paragraph in his works, and then it is a fuzzy connection at best.

  Perhaps, the WTBS is "in error" by overstating this connection.

  Again I ask you, what makes Brown's work worthy of this debate? I also think you are way overstating it's importance:

  In fact it is foundational to his original treatise and in his later published GTR

  In my reading of the GTR, it seems to be more of a footnote regaurding other's attempts to come up with an end times chronology, and is not an attempt to explain every facet, or connection of each author's attempt. If anything, it is showing that the WTBS is in no way unique in it's attempts, nor is it even genuine in being the originator. Nothing that the WTBS teaches is something that they (the WTBS) originated on thier own.

  That the WTBS says "Brown Connected" and Jonnson says "Brown didn't connect" means nothing. It is a difference of opinion on a body of work by a dead man. It is only too bad that Brown cannot, for himself, say what he intended by that one paragraph on page 208.

  if you cannot get the facts of modern history correct then how can you work and interpret ancient primary sources.

  "facts of modern history" is a far cry from interpeting an authors interpetation of biblical passages and meanings.

  I have no interest in working or interpeting primary ancient sources, there are enough people wasting their time on that right now. What can be said is that the WTBS is not interested either, as they are only interested in sources that back up their chronology, and they are finding them fewer and farther between.

  The WTBS hasn't been able to get it's own history straight, much less "ancient primary sources". Hell, it took them 80 years to figure out what the word "generation" meant, and then they only made it more vague. (Bonus Question: What resource did they use as thier "dictionary" for that word?)

  BTW, how many archealogical expeditions has the WTBS funded? How many "original texts" can be found at Bethel? How much has the WTBS contributed to the understanding of the "Bible Age" ? Has the WTBS actually contributed anything unique to the world of biblical archeology or understanding?

  Riddle me this, Scholar, Where does the WTBS do it's research? Where does it gain access to the "ancient primary resources"?

  One last thing:

  Jonsson has blundered with this recent history or has twisted, ignored or been biased the evidence. You then would have to question that in regard to secular chronology is he also being honest, biased and accurate with the data. Rolf Furuli well demonstrates that Jonsson's claims are biased and not accurate

  Firstly, you have not proven that Jonsson has blundered anything, or that he has twisted, ignored or been biased. These are your assumptions, these are your claims, but you have yet to prove any of them.

  While I don't claim that Jonsson was unbiased, I do take his word as to why he did the research. He was attempting to prove the WTBS's chronology was correct, and soon discovered that it was not. He, Like others before him, attempted to share his work with the WTBS only to be "kicked out" without reguard to his research.

  Yourself and, I assume, Rolf Furuli are, on the other hand, biased to prove the WTBS correct. You do not take a scholarly approach to the material, but instead start with an assumption that the WTBS is correct, and then ignore any data that might prove the WTBS wrong.

  In short, you have a vested interest in Jonnson (and others) being "wrong".. therefore your research is heavily biased, and not to be trusted.

  The WTBS writings have been shown time and time again... to have blundered with recent history or has twisted, ignored or been biased with the evidence... doesn't this mean that they are not to be trusted?
• 
  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...

  While I agree there is a "loose association" of the two times evident in Brown's work, I do not agree with your statement that Johnnson made an error in saying that the two times were not connected.

  This has been dealt with by other's, in this very thread, in much detail. Detail you choose to ignore.

  Basically, this comes down to semantics, and you are grasping at straws in order to prove a point.

  If the only defense that you can muster for your organizations "scholarly chronology" is this, then you really have no leg to stand on.

  Obviously, you realize the implications that Johnsson's, Penton's and Franz's work means to the society and it's chronology, and in usual fashion you look for any flaw to attempt to discredit it. If the society's chronology and interpetations were, as they claim, "inspired of holy spirit", then these works would have no meaning, and you would not bother looking for these insignificant "errors".

  Even IF Johnsson was wrong in this regaurd, what true difference does it make? Has Johnsoon once claimed infallability? Did he tell his reader's, in any way, that if they choose to believe different than what he wriote that they would be "lost" at armageddon and were not true christian's?

  And if this is the standard taht you hold Johnsson to, is this not the same standard that you should hold the WTBS too? How many error's are they allowed to commit before the entire body of works must be tossed? After all, the WTBS does teach that if you choose to believe different, you will be dead at armageddon, and you are not a "true christian". Even your posts, in this thread, insinuate as much...

  Scholar, If the facts were all that mattered to you, you would see how simple this really is... "theory's" and "interpetations" of writings are not facts. Faith is not fact. Faith is a choice, and making the choice to have faith in the WTBS, despite it's many shortcomings, cannot be made based on "facts".

  Have a pleasant day.
• 
  208

  THEY'VE DONE IT!!!! The WBTS set a new date!

  by dmouse in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the latest watchtower, dec 15th 2003, is an out and out attack on the rank and file for dropping into a drowsy state spiritually.

  ok, so armageddon didn't come before the generation of 1914 grew old and died.

  but does that mean that the big a isn't near?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  dmouse,

  I think you are correct, that this information is in here for a reason, however I disagree that they are trying to point at 2034 specifically...

  I think they are trying to say that the end will happen between now and the maimum 120 year thing...

  Could happen tomorrow, but it definitely should/would/could happen by 2034.