simwitness

Joined

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

Posts by simwitness

• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  scholar posted:

  Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607, 586 or 586. Such evidence can only relate to what these dates signify and that is to events namely the Fall of Jerusalem wherein much secular evidence abounds.

  huh?? must be some kind of high scholar secret code or something....

  At this stage no single artifact has been found that written in Hebrew has the dates of either 607, 586 or 587. Niether has any artifacts been found that deal directly with the reigns of the kings involved at the time of Jesrusalems Fall No doubt these comments will come as a great surprise but as 607 is an historical date as it is anchored in biblical history and is not a mythical as some would suggest

  I haven't heard anyone call 607 "mythical"... obvioulsy the date is real... it was a realy year in history... unfortunately for you, you cannot provide any secular evidence that the event "The fall of Jerusalem" occured in that year. While plenty of secular (and biblical for that matter) evidence has been provided that show that the event did occur in 586/587...

  And, from my understanding no "artifacts" will be found with the dates "607, 586,587" since that is not the way records were kept during that period... this is a smokescreen scholar, and you know it, because again you have been pushed into a corner with your own comments and can see no "scholarly" way out.

  "Anchored" in biblical history"... cite me chapter and verse, scholar, where this specific date is "anchored"...

  it desrves as much consideration as the alternative dates.

  But while you admit that it (607) has no more evidence then the other alternative dates, you yourself give no consideration to those alternative dates (586/587)...

  Have a pleasant day....
• 
  90

  Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

  by Frannie Banannie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i really wanna know.

  i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

  frannie b

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  As to John 1:1... which, if any, of the available translations most accurately represents what John (the author) actually meant to say??

  Any translation that goes beyond this is an interpetation and has bias.

  Any translation which says "he can't have meant this because Mathew states this" is even further interpeting one authors statements by virtue of another's.

  This is my issue with "all" of the available translations... they all have some form of bias and go well beyond the job of "translating" the work at hand.

  Now, as to my issues specific with the NWT:

  1. Thier reasoning for substituting "Jehovah" when none of the available "originals" support their claim (that the name was left out by the people doing the copying for various reasons). Primarily becuase this smacks in the face their teaching(s) that the bible as we have it today is "the same as" the original, and also because it smacks in the face the divine authorship and protection...

  2. There are other examples of obvious switches to verses that can only serve to support thier specific theology... one that comes to mind is where they insert the word "apostate" in an old testament scripture, (I think it is in proverbs) that clearly is not what the scripture would naturally translate to. Another comes to the reasoniung of the "cross vs stake" argument where they clearly intend to mislead the reader with their proof (an image from an ages old book).

  It is their lies and deciept that they use elsewhere that causes me to question the validity of ALL of their "scholarly" works, and this most definitely includes thier "tranlation" of the Bible.

  Now, if we were to discuss the history of the bible itself, you can see why there is even more reason to question it's "divine nature", outside of translation biases itself.
• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Any chance of any of the abundant secular evidence for 607????

  I am waiting with you City Fan.

  I, for one, will not be holding my breath.
• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Scholar...

  Some simple questions for you... these should be yes/no answers, but feel free to add any pointers to evidence as you see fit. It should also help those of us who are "in the poo" to understand.

  1. Is there secular evidence that points to Jerusalam destruction in 607 that does not require any external biblical interpetation to arrive at that date?

  2. Is there Is there secular evidence that points to Jerusalam destruction in any year that does not require biblical interpetation?

  3. Is there any secular evidence as to Jerusalem's destruction whatsoever?

  Yes this subject comes up often and I find myself having highlight the many gross misconceptions and ignorance concerning chronology and the rather stupid claims against 607. It amuses me that as soon as this subject arises every and I give a simple defensive reply then everyone comes out of the woodwork

  We come to you seeking guidance on this subject, we ask you for your "abundant secular evidence", yet you provide none. I am glad that we "amuse" you so, but it would appear that you come here seeking the exact attention you get.

  It seems to that opposers are fearful that WT chronology might be right after all as they refuse consider the basic aecular and scriptural facts of the matter. What these clowns do not realize is that 607 is a calcuable date that it follows both secular and biblical evidence, has a simple methodology and is based on a well established secular - biblical based date of 539 and follows a legitimate exegesis of a seventy years desolation from the decree of Cyrus in 537. This three staged computation then is well established.

  I, for one, am not an opposer. I have simply asked for the "abundant secular evidence" that you purport exists. The only "well established secular" date you have provided is 539, the rest is "biblical exegesis", and the only exegesis you accept is the WTBS... since the WTBS has been wrong on so many other accounts, why should we accept this exegesis from them as "biblical fact" ??

  Since there is "abundant secular evidence" that points to 586/587 for the destruction of Jerusalem, shouldn't a "legetimate exegesis of the 70 years..." be supportive of that date, or atleast take it into consideration?

  Isn't exegesis all about trying to make a "Critical explanation ", and wouldnt that "critical explanation" require taking into acount all secular evidence... especially when we talking about an interpetation of a 2000+ year old piece of "prophetic" text?

  Isn't the only true reason that 607 is so very important to the WTBS is that it is the very foundation of their claim of being the "faithful and discreet slave" on christ's return in 1914?

  In short, scholars have dug a hole for themselves on their efforts to minimize by higher criticism the relevance of God's Word for Christians. They have turned biblical chronology into a bewildering array of assumptions incomprehensible to the layman and you expect me to say nothing.

  scholar, you have said nothing... you haven't added any real information into this thread... you have only stated a premise and steadfastly refuse to provide any evidence, or even argument for that matter, for your claim.. you only state it is "this way" with nothing more. When pressed on this matter, you reflect the argument back, and continue to never add anything new.

  It is only the WTBS "scholars" who have dug themselves into this hole, by refusing to look at the "abundant secular evidence" that clearly shows that Jerusalem did not fall in 607, or providing any evidence that it did.

  I will debate this subject ad nauseum

  Debate? You havent debated anything, you have simply stated your position... and when pressed on your position you either disappear or cry "Apostate" or clown or some other ad hominim attack... that's not a debate.

  As far as "Ad nauseum", does that mean you will go back to the issue in this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx that you swore you would not let die?

  Or do you mean it as it is defined "So as to disgust or nauseate"... ??

  Face it scholar, the foundation for your faith is built on the sand.. and the sands of time will work against it.

  Have a pleasant day...
• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  Scholar,

  This has become a circular argument. The reason being has nothing to do with my "reasoning ability" but your steadfast refusal to point to any secular evidence for 607. I completely "get" the point that you are attempting to make, but do not agree that it is the correct conclusion. There is "abundant secular evidence" for 586/587, you have yet to disprove any of that. (And please note, no one has asked you too... we have asked for secular evidence for 607 only)

  You have proven that this evidence either does not exist, or that you do not have any idea how to find it.

  Your evidence to date has consisted of accepting the WTBS interpetation of the 70 weeks and applying that to a singular fixed date, and ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.

  Secular history does not require biblical interpetations to arrive at dates. If they are in conflict, it is likely the biblical interpetation that is at fault, and not the secular information.

  Riddle me this, scholar, why is 607 so very important to you and the WTBS? Why must it be the only correct date?
• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  scholar,

  are you serious in your statement here?

  Not one poster on this board has provide a shred of secular evidence that only supports 586 or 587. I have repeatedly asked for one piece of evidence and all I get is smoke and mirrors.

  really, if you are, I suggest you seek proffesional help, as not only this very thread provided a couple of pieces of secular evidence, both threads I linked provided evidence, and countless others have provided evidence. Perhaps you have a memory problem, since you seem to forget these things so quickly.

  Beyond that, what does it matter wether or not we have provided any evidence in support of our date? We have asked you to provide any secular evidence that supports 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. You keep deflecting that back, when you have said that 607 is supported. Please show us that support.

  As to this statement:

  I have provided evidence for 507 begiining with Stage One namely the Nabonidus Chronicle will clearly attests to the date for the Fall of Babylon. I will not comment on Stage 2 or 3 until the contrary position is stated.

  You have not shown any secular evidence as to the destruction of Jerusalem , you have only provided a date for Babylon's destruction, and a biblical interpetation for how that applies to Jerusalem's... that is not "secular evidence for the date of 607".

  Either admit that you have no evidence, as you have never supplied any, or provide some.

  Have a pleasant day.
• 
  9

  Jesus chose the WTS in 1918/9, it's the only absolute!

  by Deleted in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  after all the dust settles it appears that the only thing the wts can hang its hat on is that jesus approved what the wts was doing to further the kingdom interests in 1918/9 - no matter the changes of new light before and since.

  so just what was it that the wts doing at that time?

  selling copies of the finished mystery printed in 1917. courtesy of heraldmag.org here is the text of that book http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/library/comntary/rev/finish/vol7.pdf at sites like freeminds and shaun's research there's some good brief analytical work on many of the 1500 "errors" contained therein.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  the light of truth gets brighter and brighter

  Yeah, but it helps if the bulb wasn't burnt out to begin with!!!!
• 
  125

  Making 607 crumble

  by ellderwho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

  but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

  im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  There have been several threads on the 607 date recently... in everyone of them scholar has attempted to maintain that 607 is the correct date. To date, he has yet to ever provide any secular evidence to back his claim. His only evidence is that which is provided by the WTBS in the form of the AID or insight books.

  I would suggest that all readers review the earlier threads and discussions... debating with scholar about it is a pointless endeavor... much like fishing in a swimming pool.

  We're still waiting for him to respond to comments on this thread:

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61024/1.ashx

  And here is a very K.I.S.S thread about 607 that uses the WTBS's own publications to prove that 607 is the incorrect date:

  586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/807441/post.ashx#807441
• 
  90

  Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

  by Frannie Banannie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i really wanna know.

  i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

  frannie b

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  One has to wonder why scholar and the WTBS is so incistent on them being "unknown and unknowable"...

  They are not "unknowable"... there are records, there are witnesses (pardon the pun) that do know thier identities. Therefore they are knowable.

  Just because the committee and the WTBS wish to remain anonymous, does not mean that it is possible for them to remain so. If someone "in the know" chooses to disclose the information, they can. It is up to the committee/WTBS to confirm or deny that information... If the WTBS were to deny it's validity, that is one thing. To the best of my knowledge, they have not... they prefer to call it "rumors and gossip", thereby attempting to discredit the source without dealing with the actual information.

  We have a list of names from Ray Franz of the committee members. It is up to the individual to decide if the source of those names is trustworthy.

  What would Ray have to gain by publishing a list of incorrect names? If they were wrong, his credibility suffers. If they are correct, what true difference does it make? After all, The WTBS, and scholar, maintain that the committee was "under the direction of the holy spirit" and would not dare to question the validity of the work itself.

  The question then becomes what does the society have to gain from keeping the committee anonymous? Since there are questions as to the validity of certain passages in the NWT, only the translator(s) could properly speak to why they chose one form over another. Since the WTBS wants them to be "anonymous" they attempt to hide that it was men who did the translation and attempt to claim that it was the "holy spirit" or "god" that directed it, and claim that the translation is sound.

  In the end, when one is presented with a claim that is not easily verifiable, it is the credibility of the person making the claim that is used to decide if the claim is valid. Since Ray has nothing to gain and everything to lose by making his claim, his is more credible than scholars "unknown and unknowable" claim. The WTBS has everything to lose and nothing to gain by revealing the committees names.
• 
  15

  Jesus has supported immortal soul!?

  by Mr Bean in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  he fully supported pharisees, knowing well their teachings regards.

  immortal soul.. .

  yet he supported them in their dispute with sadducees.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  simwitness

  While Jesus criticized the Pharisees' legalism, I really can't think of any occasion where he criticized their theology

  But, wasn't the pharisees theology so entrenched in legalism that they were, in essence, one and the same? By criticizing thier legalistic approach, or focus, wasn't he in fact criticizing the theology?