Posts by PetrW

153

When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas in

probably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.

in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?

" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.

PetrW

The dispute over the year 607 BCE or 587/586 BCE is, in my opinion, unnecessary, if(!) this date would be decisive, to calculate (chronological speculation) 2520 years and determine the beginning of the reign of Jesus Christ.

The entire theological construction (more accurately: chronological speculation) concerning the "2520" years is flawed, or if you will, problematic. Every single point of this calculation is problematic, and the possible collapse at one single point of the entire calculation leads to the inevitable collapse of everything else, or the impossibility of continuing the calculation. With some irony one could say that you will never even get to the question of 607 BCE or 587/586 BCE, because the earlier calculation steps already fail and do not allow (non-violently and rationally!!!) to proceed further...

Single points:

1. Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:7 that neither χρονους (times) or καιρους (appointed times), nor the day or hour (Matt. 24:36) of His own coming can be known. If anyone attempts to overcome this, such as Russell, who claimed that in 1914 faithful Christians would be raptured to heaven and the reign of Christ would begin, this is a false prophecy. It does not change the fact that many others tried to do this long before Russell. As early as the 2nd century, for example, Hippolytus of Rome was converting 70 weeks to 490 years from the book of Daniel (system: a day per year) - he began a series of experiments with Bible numerals that successively alternated: from 666, through 1000, 1260. All of these early medieval attempts failed, so as time increased, it was necessary to duplicate these numerals or shift the starting date, etc., etc.

If you take seriously (you don't have to!) Jesus' own words about the impossibility of knowing the exact time of his coming and the sign of his coming, and not the attempts of various "Russells", then even the year 607 BCE or 586 BCE need not trouble you in this regard...

Let's move on.

2. JWs claim that the Aramaic term "idan" used in Dan 4:16 (25) (NWT) means year. The seven "idan" should be "seven years" when the government of Nebuchadnezzar was taken away. If the writer of the book of Daniel had wanted or should have used the Aramaic term for a year, then he would have written "schena" as in Dan 6:1 (62 years of life) or Dan 7:1 (the first year of the reign), likewise the Aramaic passages in the book of Ezra e.g. Ezra 4:24; 5:11 or 6:3 etc. But the Aramaic term for "year" in Dan 4:16 is not found. That alone, is enough to seriously doubt the "seven years" in Dan 4:16.

The mere occurrence of the word "idan" in the book of Daniel, does not make it possible, to determine exactly what chronological length the word "idan" expresses. The LXX Greek version usually translates the term as καιρος (see Acts 1:7 above), which would correspond to the meaning of "a certain period of time," with only the context determining the approximate duration.

Thus, for example, in Dan 2:8 (first occurrence), Nebuchadnezzar threatens his counselors that they want to get "idan" i.e. "time" (cf. the following verse 9 - and the synonym "seman") before he, the king, forgets his dream. In any case, it was so long before the king's work tasks would make it impossible to return to this riddle. It probably couldn't have been long, and even shorter than "idan", the king is annoyed. He decides in less time than "idan", namely, to kill all his advisors. Daniel then in Dan 2:16 begs for "time" i.e. "seman", a time roughly equivalent to "idan", to explain the dream. According to Dan 2:19, the "seman" lasted only one night. In one night God reveals the content of the dream and its interpretation.

Another example: Dan 3:5. Nebuchadnezzar builds a golden statue and commands that at the time of "idan" when everyone hears music playing, they must bow down to the statue. Then in Dan 3:7 it is stated that "at the time" when the music began to play, the writer used for the concept of time, a synonym for "idan" as in Dan 2:9 and in the form of the Aramaic "seman" i.e. time. At the appointed time of "idan" or "seman" the music plays. Does "idan"//"seman" refer only to the time when the music is playing? Probably yes, because the punishment for not fulfilling the extortionate listening to music was to come, according to Dan 3:6, "at that time"//"at that hour". And the denunciators, according to Dan 3:8, came to the king at "seman" (cf. LXX: καιρος) to complain against the Jews.

Also in the passages of Daniel chapter 4, we find a similar picture: Dan 4:16 (25) The NWT uses "idan" to establish the time limit of the seven "idans". Were they weeks, months, or the risings/setting of a star or constellation? In any case, it was not one "idan" to grow long hair and fingernails, but seven "idans", a time limit which according to Dan 4:34 (NWT) is made up more of "days" ("at the end of those days").

Conclusion: in terms of the meaning of the Aramaic "idan", it can be seen that it is a temporal concept that expresses an arbitrarily fixed length of time, usually in (hours) days (for night prayer or when music is playing and shortly thereafter), weeks (the king's work tasks) or months (hair and nail growth). Only the context determines how long the "idan" lasts.

From this perspective, if the "idan" in Dan 4:16 (25) NWT does not have to be a year long, and apparently it does not, then the consideration of counting the 2520 years further is completely unnecessary.

3. JWs (and some others in the present and past) claim that the 42 months and 1260 days in Rev 11:2-3 must be recalculated in the "day=year" formula. Nowhere is the necessity for any recalculation given this text of Rev 11:2-3 stated. And if this calculation worked in biblical times, it was at God's direct instruction. It is up to the one making this claim to prove that God told him to do so...

But to judge the accuracy of the "day=year" conversion in Rev 11:2-3, a simple thing will suffice: if JWs claim that 1260 days is 1260 years, then they have the following problem: In the passage regarding the two "witnesses" of Rev 11:3 and the duration of their prophesying i.e. 1260 days, it is further written (Rev 11:9 (11)) that their dead bodies will lie in the "great city" for "three and a half days". The JWs in their interpretation of Revelation claim that these "three and a half days" are "three and a half years", from 1916 to 1919, and of course refers only to selected persons among the JWs of the time.

But then, the two witnesses who preach 1260 days according to Rev 11:3 must also preach 1260 years!!! Or do they not? Or do they? Or how? 😊 The dead will be dead for 3.5 years because day=year and 1260 days is also actually 1260 years, but no, it's 1260 days, no, it's 1260 years. So how many? 😊 And if we take into account that the apocalyptic locusts that the JWs identify as their preachers are supposed to do damage for 5 months (Rev 9:5), then they are supposed to do damage for 150 years, right? Or is there no day=year conversion here? Not to mention that the Beast from the Sea is supposed to work for 42 months (Rev. 13:5), which, keeping the day=year conversion, again conflicts with the JWs' interpretation of who this beast is.

The whole "day=year" recalculation is completely confusing and betrays JWs exegetical arbitrariness.

4. Astrophysical problem. Let us concede, despite the above arguments, that the 2520 days=year calculation is correct. Then the astrophysical problem arises. The 2520 "years" is actually the claim that it is 2520 "rotations of the Earth", around the Sun. And we come to the problem of determining the year: what type of astronomical year should be used? A tropical year with a duration about 20 minutes shorter (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds) than a sidereal year (365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, 9.45 seconds)? Without accounting for the variable length of each type of astronomical year, that 20 minutes over 2520 years makes a difference of about 35 days. Ironically, this confirms what Jesus said in Mat 24:36: no one knows about the hour and day.

And the main question: do we even know which type of year Jesus will follow when He comes? If we include another claim of the JWs, namely their calculation of the Passover, in addition to their reasoning about year types, or more accurately, calendarism, then the question becomes even more complicated. The JWs use a kind of luni-solar calendar, based on Jewish tradition, to prove that their calculation of Passover, and their calculation alone, is the accurate one. As a result, they celebrate the original, annual feast according to the solar calendar twice a year according to the lunisolar tradition... I'll leave the conversion of 2520 years back according to the lunisolar calendar to the Gregorian calendar to them.

Result: there's really no need to bother with 607 BCE. For those who argue that the chronological speculation with the 2520 year year is correct, there are so many obstacles and problems ahead, in my opinion, that proving 607 BCE may not even happen.

13

Progress on the NWT Study Bible

by slimboyfat in

the society has been working on the nwt study bible since the revised nwt was released in 2013. so far they done the nt up to philemon.

that makes about 17% of the entire bible including the hebrew/aramaic scriptures.

at that rate the study edition of the whole nwt will be completed sometime around the year 2077. .

PetrW

I remember some article in WT or some other literature (sometime between 1990 and about 2005 when I read it) that mentioned the case of some medieval applicant for admission to some Catholic order. He couldn't get in somehow, so he memorized(!!!) the entire(!!!) Bible. The article came out - as I recall - negatively, in the sense that the person in question had made an unaddressed effort but had chosen the wrong church...or something like that.

The main point of why I recall this is that something similar is now - a few decades later - being attempted in the WT as well. They think that by accurately translating, they will achieve something better. In part, yes, but I think they are just repeating what they were giving decades ago as an argument against unnecessary bigotry.

The text of the Bible more accurately: megapixels or printing ink and paper - the "letter" becomes an idol.

47

The First Holocaust

by nicolaou in

please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.

the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.

as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.

PetrW

@nicolaou

Let's make the assumption as many Christians do that the Bible is historically accurate. The Noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.

That means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation. As if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children God killed.

***

The only connection I see with the flood and the holocaust (rather: I am forced to use your comparison...) is that the flood of the world removed the perpetrators of the holocaust not the victims. The flood of the world swept away the then "Mengele" with his pseudo-medical experiments on humans. If there were "unclean" animals in the time before the Flood, then the question is what all that society was doing for animal and human experimentation... what experiments on children it was committing, what disgusting bestialities it was committing...

Nobody feels sorry for the perpetrators of the Holocaust. No one feels sorry for the Japanese doctors who experimented on people, no one feels sorry for the end of the German extermination camps, where people went straight from the freight trains to their deaths by suffocation... it doesn't matter if there were 15, 20 or a million Mengele. They created conditions that were unbearable for life and lost all humanity.

The flood was survivable, and it was survivable because people were warned. Only Noah and his family took it seriously.

11

Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.

the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.

this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.

PetrW

@peacefulpete

The verb απολυω has a wide semantic field. And indeed it can mean "to send someone away" as many translations use this meaning in Acts 15:30/33. But it can also indeed mean "separate" see Acts 28:25 - here it is explicitly stated. Staying still in the realm of how the writer of Acts used this verb, compare the same form of απολυω in Acts 15:30 and Acts 4:23. The exact same verb form (participle in the aorist passive) is translated according to context: in Acts 15:30 as "to send away" and in Acts 4:23 as "to let go". Certainly - even without any special knowledge of the Greek - it can be seen that the "blame" for the confusion lies, to some extent, rather with the translators or the emendation of later centuries. One of the many reasons for this is the decline of knowledge of Greek. It is common to refer to the 2nd century AD as the linguistic turning point in the "Western" Church, when Latin came in and its dominance lasted essentially until the European Renaissance. By the time Greek studies resumed...

But I think there's more to it than that. Rather, these - apparent or real - ambiguities in the NT text serve as an argument for you to question the text. I think you made the right choice! I would even add another. For example, the question of why God Almighty did not take care to preserve the quality of his text? We still have extant, extensive inscriptions from the time of, say, the Emperor Augustus. Even in Latin and Greek. And nothing in the Bible. A few torn papyri or manuscripts missing this or that...

From a rational point of view, then, the Bible would be on a par with other ancient works that are indeed interesting, in many ways can still inspire us today (see Roman law) or are important for the historical identity of Europe (Herodotus, Thucydides), etc., etc., but that's about the end of it.

I honestly don't know how else to answer you, but I think that despite the objective state of affairs, which you rightly criticize in many ways, I think it all makes sense. Jesus, as a historical figure, simply influenced billions of people. And while many chose to bestially murder, burn, torture, enslave, and commit senseless crimes in his name, there were also those who lived out his example, covertly, quietly, often subtly. Many have suffered great injustices for his name's sake from the very ones who took his name. This too is true.

Maybe it's worth trying again, a second time, a third time. But with that, one is extremely cautious and distrustful. But even the little one truly believes Jesus is worth it, I think.

12

Watchtower May 2024 Who is being referred to as 'we'?

by Listener in

this is the magazine that presents some of the 'new light' from the oct. 2023 annual meeting.

it discusses some of the things they have now decided they don't know and revised some of the things they do know, or think they know.

when they start discussing some of the things they do know, most of them are still guesses and they use qualifiers.

PetrW

Listener, thanks!

What I like about it is that it's possible to watch "online" as WT slowly turns into a moloch. They are tangled up in their lies because 110 years since 1914, nothing is working the way they think it should.

It's becoming more and more obvious - only the lazy fail to notice.

I don't think it necessarily has to end badly, that there is no way back, to honesty, to repentance, to a change of mindset, to an apology. From time to time, a country or political party will apologize for their past, but let's just say it often takes them decades since they did those things.

But in the case of the WT, a clear apology for the past would lead to disintegration. That's something that's hard to expect. I'm anxious to see how they manage to pick those turns!

11

Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.

the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.

this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.

PetrW

@peacefulpete (Act 15)

I'll return briefly to your original post regarding Acts 15:

The modern versions of the Greek NT omit verse 34 (see NA28), only reporting a variant.

I think verse 34 unnecessarily addresses the question of where Silas was, and the problem is only apparent and stems from an incorrect translation at the previous verse 33.

The translation you quoted (v. 33):

After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out.

supports the unnecessary question.

A literal translation of v. 33, keeping with the grammatical order, would be:

"They had done (loosely: spent) some time, they were parted (απελυθησαν) in peace from the brethren to those (who) sent them out."

Of crucial importance here is the translation of the verb "were parted" (aorist passive of απολυω) and the missing addition of the decision to return to Jerusalem (which does not appear until v. 36).

The meaning of "were parted" is specified shortly before in v. 30, which literally reads something like this:

"These then, being parted (απολυθεντες, also aorist passive of απολυω) , went down to Antioch...."

Conclusion: the whole (apparent) problem is solved, in my opinion, by a careful reading of the Greek text, which in v.33 only(!!!) communicates that the four (Paul, Barabbas, Silas and Mark) greeted the brothers at Antioch as a farewell (literally: were parted), but the decision to leave Antioch was made "a few days later" (v.36).

Neither Silas nor Mark went to Jerusalem alone, and in all probability they did not leave Antioch for such a time or distance that they could not contact Paul and Barnabas again. Emendation of the text by v. 34 is unnecessary.

43

Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze in

dominic enyart exposes watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the cross.

information packed.

interesting take on paganism as well.

PetrW

@peacefulpete

I think the NT has its own, unmistakable origin that is not dependent on any other text (outside of the OT). But that doesn't mean there aren't arguments for the opposite claim - like what you cite above. For me, it's a matter of choice. I choose the Bible...

So I am answering "theologically", not based on the results of literary analysis, as that may indicate otherwise. I would liken it to the question of creation and evolution; the question of finality of life and eternal life, etc. etc.

***

Going back to the cross or stake with the JWs, I think they are "trapped" in their methods of dealing with the NT-text. If I compare the issue of the cross and, for example, the exile of John on the Isle of Patmos, at their core, both are (relatively) insignificant issues that do not change the meaning and implications for salvation, then regarding the cross, JWs will strenuously "argue" about how Jesus did not die on the cross, but if you ask them where in Revelation it says anything about the exile of John on the Isle of Patmos, they will remain silent. Because there is no mention of exile anywhere. Yet they claim he was there in exile. Remember the picture of John in bonds, in their commentary on Revelation? How can they portray something that is not in the NT text? They wave their hands that it is irrelevant. But it's like they're depicting Christ on the cross...

43

Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze in

dominic enyart exposes watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the cross.

information packed.

interesting take on paganism as well.

PetrW

@JW Scholar:

What bunkum. Scholar is wary of a fellow who purports to represent scholarship wears a cap for it is not a good look.

Seriously his arguments are weak and absurd. The simple fact of the matter is that the lexical evidence for stauros in both its noun and verbal form means 'a upright pole or stake'. Over time the word came to mean a two-pieced instrument, a cross and this is given as second meaning for the Greek word. The Gospel writers who witnessed the execution of Jesus described the instrument as a stake- a single piece of wood and not as two-pieced instrument. It would have been impossible for Jesus to carry a cross over some distance over a rough road for some distance in a severely weakened state. The argument that he carried the patibulum is fanciful.

Although we cannot be dogmatic about the instrument of Jesus 'execution the NWT was quite correct in rendering the Greek word as 'torture stake' based on lexicography rather than 'cross' which is based on tradition.

***

PW: I think that nowadays it is difficult to determine whether it was a simple stake or some (and what?) wooden construction. The problem, in my opinion, is that it is impossible to decide exactly whether it was a Roman method of punishment and execution or just some "local", Jerusalem variant. Therefore, literary references from outside of what was then Palestine do not shed much light on the issue. The references to e.g. Livy are, in my opinion, with a question mark... Another problem, may appear to be the fact that two others were executed with Jesus. So it can be assumed that there was relatively time to build the "cross" and it was intended to be an execution to act as a deterrent to others. No expense had to be spared in the use of wood, especially as the condemned brought it themselves. In fact, "crucifixions" often took the form of mass executions of up to several thousand people, and it can be assumed that there were no "ceremonies"...

From this point of view, Josephus Flavius, as a Greek-writing Jew, becomes more important. He uses the Greek σταυρος, both for the execution instrument, but also, and this is very interesting, to describe technical constructions. In Bell Jud 3:215 and 5:469-470, σταυρος occurs in the sense of a support (the Roman ramrod 3:215 and the corridor support 5:469-470). Technically these could be crossed beams, but in any case they are wooden posts/columns which, usually sunk into the ground, serve (see 3,215) as a support/bearing part for some other beams (δοκος) above them. Any wooden plank, beam, or log embedded in the ground for some function, as a support for something else, could be said to be a σταυρος.

However, if we want to say that a σταυρος is always and only a pole driven into the ground, then we are referring to texts in the NT where σταυρος is used to mean that it is uncarried (Simon of Cyrene carries a σταυρος according to Matt 27:32). Jesus, even before his death, gives the call to carry the σταυρος (Mat 10:38). Jesus, as the son of a carpenter, then knew the difference/agreement between σταυρος and δοκος (Mat 7:3 about the splinter and beam of δοκος in his brother's eye), so if σταυρος could be worn as δοκος, then it is possible to consider it, that there was already a prepared stake σταυρος on Golgotha, which was then driven into the ground, and Jesus (Simon of Cyrene) brought another σταυρος, in technical terms, a beam δοκος (possibly: plank or log). The resulting design would have been a classical cross, as an inscription was placed above the head of Christ - this requires that the σταυρος was longer than the one being executed. Up to this point, meeting the "technical" requirements for the above description, a simple wooden column/pole would of course also do. But here are some reasons to ponder that may compromise the simple pillar/stake hypothesis:

- Matt. 27:37 specifically says that the inscription in three languages was "over his head" and not "over his hands," which is what one would expect if Jesus was executed on a simple wooden pillar/stake.

- John 20:27 writes in the plural about the hands where the wounds should have been - again rather suggestive of a classical cross

- Matt 27:38 (see parallels) then states that the other two executed were on Jesus' right and left - if we compare the passage just a short time before, in Matt 27:29, then Matthew by "right" was probably referring to, the actual right hand, not just the place on the "right" side...

So, from my point of view, it is difficult to decide whether Jesus was executed on a stake/pole, which the etymology would support, or that the σταυρος was folded into the form of a cross at Golgotha.

*

However, the problem I see on the JWs side is that they have taken the cross/stake issue to an extreme where all who claim the cross are incorporated into a "false religion" and only those who worship the stake are the true, God-led ones. If the JWs had stayed on the plane of seeking and attempting to improve their understanding of the NT-text, then all would have been OK.

But as a JW one cannot question or argue with GB's decision on the stake. And that's exactly the most fundamental and worst point (not only) about this matter - a totally insignificant thing gets turned into a fundamental issue.

To put it another way: once JWs say that anyone who thinks Jesus died on the cross can remain in the JW fellowship without some negative sanction is allowed to use the term "cross" in public teaching as against other JWs or third parties, then I'll start to think that JWs have abandoned dogma and started to return to the gospel...

543

Encouraging scriptures for the day

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

hello my friends,.

here are some encouraging scriptures for the day:.

revelation 21:2 i also saw the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from god and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.. hebrews 11:10 for he (abraham) was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is god.. revelation 21:24 and the nations will walk by means of its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.. revelation 22:1 and he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of god and of the lamb 2 down the middle of its main street (of the holy city).

PetrW

@KalebOutWest

Finally, by definition "theodicy" is actually not a debate over why God would punish another with death if they deserved it. In the above drama, the pharaohs of Egypt are guilty of infanticide and thus God repays them by killing their firstborn, so to speak. (Again it's a liturgical drama, not a historical piece.) Why does theodicy not work here?

Because theodicy is not questioning why God brings justice upon the wicked, but why God allows evil if God can obviously do something in the first place. That is the opposite of what happens in the Ten Plague story: Pharoahs kill Hebrew sons, God kills Pharoah's sons. That is a story about God actively bringing justice for all to see.

*

Your interesting post, has slipped off my radar😎😊 I'll try to respond to it later...

62

Revelation 13 and 17 Beasts

by Duran in

revelation 17:8-11,12-14. revelation 13:3,5,7,8,10;11:2,3. revelation 13:11-17;19:19,20,21. revelation 15:2;20:4. what beast does it state that gets thrown into the fiery lake with the false prophet?

what beast gets the 42-month authority given to it in which time the motb is given out?.

what beast is the 8th king?.

PetrW

@Vidqun

But what I miss from your post is your interpretation. What do you think it all means? How is it all going to play out? Or are you still working on your hypothesis? Because that is all we can do at this stage: Work out a hypothesis according to available data. Put in into a theoretical construct and apply the data in real time. Then allow for the repetition of the experiment and/or peer review and see if it holds up to scrutiny.

PW: Good point about interpretation. Before I answer, I think exactly the same as you do, that the question of Revelation should be addressed primarily in terms of some theoretical construct - without names of institutions, rulers, or countries first.

My criticism, which I wrote to e.g. Mr. Kosonen, regarding the attempt to interpret e.g. some characters in Revelation as UNO etc., also applies to me.

Let me explain: i can think that if Jesus came at this time, then the institutions, rulers and beasts of this world, will definitely play some role in Revelation. But I have to be prepared for the possibility that Jesus will also come 250 years from now. And it is clear that the "materialization" I can afford today will certainly not be valid 250 years from now...

So I am watching the situation today, around me, but I am equally careful not to overestimate or underestimate the situation "here and now". Personally, I miss this approach: most interpreters who consider Revelation (apart from those who claim that it has all happened in the past) then, in my opinion, "bet" everything on one card. There is no natural caution or respect for the statement that no one knows about that day. Especially with ex-JWs, that caution should be obvious. Okay, many will agree with this, but again, few actually apply it to their interpretations as well - the actual world and the possible world.

It seems to me that if one were to actually do this, then one would have to sooner/later resign oneself to concretizing institutions/rulers/countries and go back to finding some theoretical construct and testing it. So first without the names...

Now for the interpretation. I, like millions of people before me over the centuries, have tried different variations. Different chronological scenarios. I've read the literature and commentary over the last 200 years or so.

In the end, only one approach worked for me: start from the end😊 The result is always clear. That's why I started looking at the storyline just before the end - who is fighting who and with what outcome. And strictly without names of states or institutions. As in sociology, I began to look at roles, functions and relationships - first in terms of the chronology of events.

To be specific: if in 11:7 it is stated that the two witnesses will be killed by the Beast of Abyss in 17:8 then those events, build on each other. First the witnesses, then the Beast. Or, if it is written in 16:10 that the bowl of wrath will be poured out on the throne of the Beast, then the Beast must exist, so the event of the 5th bowl must occur after the Beast appears. Or: if the 6th seal (7:3) states that the sealing of the 144,000 is to begin, then the 5th trumpet (9:4) states that the apocalyptic locusts, among others, are not to harm those who have the seal of God. And if the locusts are identified as the 1st woe (8:13), then the 6th trumpet (9:12) announces the release of the four angels, because the sealing of the 144,000 has been completed...

This created a basic chronological framework that suggested (I am still talking about a theoretical construct!) that events proceed roughly as they are described. There is not some parallelism or periodization of events.Then I looked for the individual meanings of the words in their symbolic meaning. This is very, very thin ice.

Three things became the main clues so that I didn't go outside the box (I often did):

*

What I described above very simply had results, for example, in that I then searched for the identity of the Great Babylon. I have written about 6 pages of this and will probably have to write about 6 more😊 The reason I was there was that I was commenting on firstly the history of interpretation of the concept, then the current state of biblical scholarship and only then, stating my opinion, which I support from the history of interpretation, the current state of biblical scholarship and from the extensive argumentation from the NT text, which is key.

But I'm too lazy to write!😊 So, even though I have a lot of background, I don't really feel like writing because discussing the issues is better than boring writing about who wrote what and when...😊

But while I have to argue "666" very well, then I am, as I write, half done (satisfied) with the identity of the Great Babylon, so then we can discuss it here...

**

I will try to finish the topic of Babylon the Great by the end of the week and then it will be obvious what I think about the Beast, the 10 Kings... And if there is any point in looking up their names at all (the Beast and the kings will be named something, but it will be clear that it is not that significant - the interpretation should apply as much to today as to the world that may be 250 years from now, or even what may have been until now... So again I return to what I wrote to Mr. Kosonen.)