Posts by Ethos

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Btw...Jeffro is you're going to quote Josephus regarding how long the temple was in ruins, you might wanna quote the part where he says 70 years too. Let's not use references when it's convenient. You also might wanna retract this statement:

The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

Jeremiah 48:7 "And Che′mosh will certainly go forth into exile, his priests and his princes at the same time.."

Jeremiah 49:3 "Howl, O Hesh′bon, for A′i has been despoiled! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rab′bah. Gird sackcloth on yourselves. Wail, and rove about among the stone pens, for Mal′cam himself will go even into exile, his priests and his princes, all together. 4 Why do you brag about the low plains, your flowing low plain, O daughter unfaithful, you the one trusting in her treasures, [saying:] “Who will come to me?”’”

Jeremiah 49:34 "This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning E′lam in the beginning of the kingship of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, saying: 35 “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Here I am breaking the bow of E′lam, the beginning of their mightiness. 36 And I will bring in upon E′lam the four winds from the four extremities of the heavens. And I will scatter them to all these winds, and there will prove to be no nation to which the dispersed ones of E′lam will not come.’ 39 And it will certainly occur in the final part of the days that I shall gather the captive ones of E′lam,”

Many. many, other scriptures could be quoted, but I think this is sufficient.

Pterist: the group of exiles, the deportation from Jerusalem's destruction

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

AnnoMoly said: How does arguing 'Cyrus was king of Babylon therefore the Jews continued to serve Babylon after the Persians conquered it' help you with the 70 years question? You see, even after the exiles returned, they were still in servitude, but to to the Persian kingdom. They had to pay tribute to Persia and the Persian king could order them about, as this letter from the inhabitants of the Samaritan kingdom and its reply indicate.

Because as Jeffro and others tried to argue, "there was no Babylonian King" to call into account, therefore Jeremiah had to be fulfilled in 539 B.C.E. By demonstrating how Cyrus could still be called "king of Babylon" (by both biblical and secular sources) it squashed that argument, as this is all related to the fulfillment of the beginning and end of the 70 years. The rest of your reply was a red herring and unnecessary, as you're not really putting forth something I object to since you obviously didn't understand the point being made.

1. How can Nebuchadnezzar have been 'called to account' when he was DEAD?

The scripture does not say 'Neb will be called to account at the end of seventy years'. It simply says 'the king of Babylon' will be called into account. Obviously, it wouldn't be Neb since he wouldn't be alive at the end of 70 years. Strawman argument that shows you didn't understand my argument.

2. The sense of Jer. 51's OTT warnings: Nebuchadnezzar was the first neo-Babylonian king to start oppressing God's people, but subsequent kings continued after him. Therefore, Babylon and whoever was reigning were going to be punished (Jer. 25:12).

Jeremiah 51 specifically mentions the vengeance coming upon Babylon (the attack of the Medes) and correlates it with the "vengeance for his temple". (V. 7-12) Although the oppression of the Jews is mentioned, the primary reason for the "vengeance of Jehovah" is for the temple as it so clearly states. Didn't really change anything about my argument though.

3. The temple was raided of its utensils 3 times - in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when Jehoiachin and several thousands were taken into exile, and when Jerusalem and the temple were finally destroyed (Dan. 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:12,13; 25:13-17).

What exactly is your point? All looting from the temple occurred under the direction and decree of Nebuchadnezzar. Showing us that this happened on three occasions proves.....? Jeremiah 51 specifically condemns Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans for looting the holy utensils. The false prophecy of Hannaniah in Jeremiah 28 again proves the Jews associated the 'breaking of the yoke of the king of Babylon' (the servitude), with the returning of the temple utensils.

4. Nabonidus and Belshazzar lost possession of the temple utensils when Cyrus took Babylon. The utensils therefore became Persian property in 539 BCE.

Again, another irrelevant point. The returning of the temple utensils is when the vengeance of the temple (Babylon's calling to account) is fulfilled. Not the loss of possession from Babylon to Persia. That was not my argument.

How does anything in your response prove your point about when you think the 70 years of servitude ended?

I'll simplify it for you. King of Babylon called into account (end of 70 years) when the temple utensils are returned. Temple utensils were not returned in 539, therefore the 70 years could not have ended. Get it now? Sheesh.

You haven't provided one solid rebuttal yet. Are you going to try harder with your 'Response to Premise 3'?

Likewise regarding your response. You spent most of it refuting arguments/bringing up points that I have no objection to....or that were completely desultory if you're arguing in favor of Jeffro's 609 chronology. Maybe you can try a little harder too.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

New International Version: "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."

New Living Translation: "So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate until the seventy years were fulfilled, just as the prophet had said."

English Standard Version: "to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.

Young's Literal Translation: "to fulfil the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, till the land hath enjoyed its sabbaths; all the days of the desolation it kept sabbath -- to the fulness of seventy years."

DR Bible: "That the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremias might be fulfilled, and the land might keep her sabbaths: for all the days of the desolation she kept a sabbath, till the seventy years were expired."

Just a bunch of hogwash intended to make onlookers think the NWT has sullied the translation of 2 Chronicles, when in fact, every translation quoted linked the fulfillment of the 70 years with the keeping sabbath. Some even said "she kept a sabbath TILL the seventy years expired." (contradicting Jeffro's 587 to 538 chronology). Another said "While it lay in ruins, the land had its 70 years of rest." (contradicting the 609 to 539 chronology) again. Another says "The land finally enjoyed its sabbath rest, lying desolate UNTIL the 70 years were fulfilled." (contradicting the 587 to 538 chronology yet again).

Hilarious.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

never a jw said:

Conclusion:
So the ending point of the 70 years is 539 BCE.
Your conclusion implies that you trust secular chronology and history.
If you accept secular history to reach 539 BCE, you have to accept 587/586 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem too.

1). That was not my conclusion, it is Jeffro's.

2). This is also a hasty generalization. The same secular chronology used for 539 is not the same as 587. And there is a variance of reliability with different secular/historical records and therefore all secular history is not to be accepted and to be held of the same merit.

isaacaustin said: If the WT were wrong about 607BCE then what? Then their whole chronology leading to 1914 collapses. Then Jesus did not turn his attention to earthly affairs in 1914 and begin examining all professed Chrisitian religions. He did not choose the International Bible Students as his people...and the org has preached for 100 years.

Incorrect. There are other methods (besides the Gentile Times chronology) for arriving at 1914 as a pivotal date. Therefore, the chronology would not collapse as it would still have sufficient Biblical and secular support.

TD said:Would it be consistent to accept the dates in the captioned quotes above if one rejects the data and methods with which they are arrived at?

I think explaining what secular dates you accept and why you accept them would be helpful.

This will be explained in a future post, in which the secular evidence for 539 is compared with that of 587.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Jeffro: Still simply ignoring the fact that Jeremiah 25:8-12 refers to "all the nations" serving the king of Babylon rather than Jewish exile, Ethos claims that it is 'impossible' for the 70 years to end in 539. The language in Daniel 5:26-31 (not sure why Ethos elsewhere made reference to a "prophetic riddle mentioned in Daniel 9") directly relates to the judgement of Babylon's king. Even the New World Translation has a cross-reference from Jeremiah 25:12 to the calling to account of Babylon's king in Daniel chapter 5.

You are committing the fallacy of using Daniel to qualify what Jeremiah meant as a premise for your conclusion. Daniel cannot be used to qualify the prophetic denouncement of Judah and the servitude to Babylon, especially when there are no stelwart lexicographical or hermeneutical justifications for doing so, such as a direct quotation or specific reference to V. 8-12 in Daniel 5 or Daniel 9. Another fallacy you commit is by advertising the use of a cross reference, as another premise to give credence to your argument. For your argument to stand one on one leg, though, the only usage of the NWT-cross references would have to be for references to similar events and prophetic fulfillments. However, as the "All Scripture Inspired" Book explains on p. 324 par. 20 the criteria for a cross reference in the New World Translation includes: "(a) parallel words, (b) parallel thoughts, ideas, and events, (c) biographic information, (d) geographic information, (e) fulfillments of prophecies, and (f) direct quotations in or from other parts of the Bible." The cross-reference also directs you to several passages in Isaiah that in no way relate to the overthrow of Babylon. What a hasty generalization.

It wasn't the same administation.

It was the same administration. When Cyrus conquered Babylon there was no immediate reversal of Babylonian policy and the consequent conditions imposed by the Babylonian servitude remained until Cyrus issued his decree and began to change Babylonian policy. Indeed, the Jews continued subservient to Babylon's rules and directives even after Cyrus ascended the throne, and were therefore still subsurvient to the King of Babylon when the supposed servitude terminated.

The 'servitude' made no mention of exile. There is no evidence that all the nations were exiled to Babylon, although "all the nations" were in servitude to Babylon. There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile.

Yes there is. Both the writers of 2 Chronicles and of Jeremiah make direct reference to the prophetic denunciation foretold in Leviticus 26. We read at Leviticus 26:34 "“‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies.At that time the land will keep sabbath , as it must repay its sabbaths.35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it."

The "paying off of sabbaths" is tied into the fulfillment of the 70 years foretold in Jeremiah by 2 Chronicles 36:21 "21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." The fulfillment of the seventy years is in no uncertain or abitrary terms connected with the keeping of the sabbaths, which would happen while the Israelites "were in the land of their enemies." This directly connects the 70-year prophecy with the exile of the Jews to Babylon. Here, again, is where your 609-chronology begins to shatter, because the Jews remained in "the land of their enemies" AFTER the alleged 70-year prophecy ended, therefore the land continued to pay off it's sabbaths for the fulfillment of the 70 years, which supposedly had already ended.

Jeffro/Carl Jonnson's Chronology:

609 - Babylonian servitude (the 70 years of Jeremiah starts)

587 - The paying off of sabbaths start

539 - The 70 year servitude ends

538 - The paying off of the sabbaths end

But notice the 70-year servitude ends while the Jews are still in the land of their enemies.The keeping of the sabbaths is said to end in 538 BCE, yet the Babylonian servitude ends in 539 BCE. But the scripture says: "All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." The fulfillment of the 70 years of Jeremiah included the paying off of sabbaths, "while YOU are in the land of your enemies". But this 70-year fulfillment is relegated to a 49-year fulfillment (from 587 BCE to 539 BCE), which directly contradicts the words of 2 Chronicles. The 70-year servitude supposedly begins in 609 BCE, but Jeffro unwittingly purports that the "keeping of sabbaths" does not begin until 587 BCE.

Yet again, this ignores the fact that the scripture states it will keep sabbath to fulfill the seventy years of Jeremiah, which coincides with the Jews "being in the land of their enemies." Using Jeffro's interpretation, the "keeping of sabbaths" is also in no way fulfills the 70 years since the land of Judah would have been in servitude to Babylon as world power anyway; which again blatantly contradicts 2 Chronicles.

Simplified: Leviticus 26 tells us the sabbaths will be paid "while the Jews are in the land of their enemies" (V. 34), 2 Chronicles tells us the land kept its sabbaths to fulfill the 70 years of Jeremiah (V. 20), thus linking the exile to the 70 years. Jeffro's chronology blatantly contradicts 2 Chronicles and thus Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra.

41

FREE Home Bible Study?!?!?

by Christ Alone in

so i finally took a deep breath and watched the annual meeting report.

i found a little nugget before the "new light" discussion began.

there was a report about the "public preaching" that was taking place in manhattan.

Ethos

ChristAlone, I appreciate your sincerity and your efforts in wanting a JW to answer questions...but it's extremely difficult for me right now. You make 10 posts in one thread, I can only make 10 posts in a whole day. I hate making statements and then being unable to defend them, as it's not really much of a discussion or a debate. I'm composing a list of all your questions and will start a thread answering them once I am alloted more posting time.

Thread continued here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242554/1/Whats-so-Special-About-FREE-Home-Bible-Studies

25

What's so Special About FREE Home Bible Studies?

by Ethos in

continuation of this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242543/2/free-home-bible-study.

newyorker: the familiar observation that the bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year.

calculating how many bibles are sold in the united states is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 americans purchased some twenty-five million biblestwice as many as the most recent harry potter book.

Ethos

Jeffro: It isn't clear if the claim refers to number of copies actuall sold (rather than given away) or number of copies printed, or whether it refers to the number of copies printed per year, or total printings ever

New Yorker in their article: "Annuals of Publishing": "a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased some twenty-five million Bibles—twice as many as the most recent Harry Potter book. The amount spent annually on Bibles has been put at more than half a billion dollars.Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/12/18/061218fa_fact1#ixzz2CpaOMn2I

mrsjones5: Waa! What a baby you are. You made the mistake of not doing any research and obviously didn't know what you were talking about.

Who really didn't do any research and didn't know what they were talking about?

So everything else in the thread were red herrings (like questions about why JW's use the Bible Teach Book) or that the WT used to charge for subscriptions. All red herrings. All diversionary tactics. All issues that detract from the substantiated and thoroughly documented facts.

ChristAlone: Ethos, I was really hoping for a jw that would argue honestly. I know they are rare, but I was hoping. And the reason you get so many replies to your comments is because the WT (and you by association) have little to base your claims on. You both make so many claims that you can't support while others CAN.
perfect1: Ethos, dont say stupid shit. Its like no one ever loved you enough to tell you you are wrong before. dont worry, youve found us.
Jeffro: Maybe you should make better statements.
carla: How you can flat out lie like that is beyond me especially on this board! You may think you are getting away with lying to the public but fortunately jw's reputation usually preceeds them at the doors.
mrsjones5: Ethos is full of crap as usual.

This thread was started not to debate the issue (as I believe it's been thoroughly debunked in one post) but to show that I am not ignoring arguments and am not haphazardly making ludicrous and unsubstantiated 'crap' statements as so many have insinuated recently. 607 thread response shortly.

25

What's so Special About FREE Home Bible Studies?

by Ethos in

continuation of this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242543/2/free-home-bible-study.

newyorker: the familiar observation that the bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year.

calculating how many bibles are sold in the united states is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 americans purchased some twenty-five million biblestwice as many as the most recent harry potter book.

Ethos

25

What's so Special About FREE Home Bible Studies?

by Ethos in

continuation of this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242543/2/free-home-bible-study.

newyorker: the familiar observation that the bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year.

calculating how many bibles are sold in the united states is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 americans purchased some twenty-five million biblestwice as many as the most recent harry potter book.

Ethos

Continuation of this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242543/2/FREE-Home-Bible-Study

NewYorker: The familiar observation that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: the Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year. Calculating how many Bibles are sold in the United States is a virtually impossible task, but a conservative estimate is that in 2005 Americans purchased some twenty-five million Bibles—twice as many as the most recent Harry Potter book. The amount spent annually on Bibles has been put at more than half a billion dollars.

Now that's just an estimation. There is much room for marginal error, which means this figure could be even higher. But for the sake of conclusiveness, let's take a median of 25 million for the past ten years (since November 2000).

25 million X 10 = That is a total of 250,000,000 Bibles sold *not distributed for free* in just the last ten years.

The article also states: But other research has found that ninety-one per cent of American households own at least one Bible—the average household owns four—which means that Bible publishers manage to sell twenty-five million copies a year of a book that almost everybody already has.

According to United States Census Bureau: The number of households in the United States in 2000 was 105.5 million. 1 In 2010, there were 114 million households. 2 You get a median of about 111 million. Now if the average household owns four Bibles, we multiply 111 million (for the past ten years) times 4 and we get 444 million total Bibles in household possession between 2000 and 2010. 250 million Bibles were sold in the last ten years alone and the number of households (which factors in immigration, emigration, deaths, foreclosures, and so forth) only increased by about 7-10 million.

So if 250 million Bibles were purchased in the last ten years, and if the estimated aggregated total of Bibles owned (for every American household) is 444 million, then most American households have purchased a Bible. Subract the two and you get 194,000,000 Bibles that weren't purchased in the last ten years. So, to simplify all the statistics:

2000-2010: 250 million Bibles *PURCHASED IN THIS TIME INTERVAL*

2000-2010: 194 million Bibles *NOT PURCHASED IN THIS TIME INTERVAL*

Even if we assume all 194 million Bibles were given away for free, most households still purchased a Bible.

Who really was spewing a whole bunch of crap without researching and looking up the facts?

Reference 1: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf

Reference 2: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

41

FREE Home Bible Study?!?!?

by Christ Alone in

so i finally took a deep breath and watched the annual meeting report.

i found a little nugget before the "new light" discussion began.

there was a report about the "public preaching" that was taking place in manhattan.

Ethos

Talk about overanalyzing and overscrutinizing my every statement. Obviously when I said no one I know I was talking about people who weren't JW's. Most people pay for Bibles. How about you do some research and stop using special exceptions (such as online websites and charitable organzations/churches) to argue your case. That is like trying to use the success of Adele's 21 to argue that piracy is not affecting album sales.

The Bible is the most bought book of the year, everywhere....and people wanna argue and say it's crap that I said most people have to pay for their Bibles when the facts show that it is.

It's also unfair how I'm given a plethora of statements every time I post...when you guys know my posts are restricted and then expect me to reply to everything. At least be reasonable?

607 response coming tonight.