Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,928 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  😒
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  I am neither saying nor implying that at all.

  Didn't say you did. 🙄 I gave a broader analysis.

  The part where you were wrong was really this bit:

  You just end up like the rest of Christendom who say "we don't know" as well

  Because that's precisely why they won't let go of 1914 for the foreseeable future. (Though that is separate to how they are perceived by outsiders as just another nutty group.)
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  So who cares about 607 BCE anymore? In the face of all that failure and the new "we don't know" it is virtually meaningless. Believe in 607 BCE all you want. You just end up like the rest of Christendom who say "we don't know" as well, many of whom also believe these are the last days.

  You’re kind of right (and you hit right at the core issue), but also not. Though there could be a long term plan to quietly abandon 607 BCE, it is many years off if at all. The Watch Towers Society needs 607 BCE and 1914, and will do for the foreseeable future. One of their core tenets is that they are ‘the only true Christians’, but without their eschatology hinged around 1914, they’re just another group like other Adventists and more specifically other Bible Student movement groups. More broadly they’d be like other nontrinitarian groups such as Christadelphians. So, who cares about 607 BCE? They do. See also Are 607 BCE and 1914 still relevant?
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  WT scholars do know precisely, and that was 607 BCE .

  I’ve provided clear logical reasoning that demonstrates that the sources indicate 587 BCE when properly examined. But all poor addled ‘scholar’ has is ‘70 years must have started in 607 BCE because it must have ended in 537 BCE because it must have started in 607 BCE…’. And all because they’re too embarrassed to admit that their dogma about 1914 is nonsense. 🤣🤦‍♂️
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  We are in total agreement.

  Indeed. But I wanted to cover my bases for when ‘scholar’ inevitably claims again that non-JW interpretations are ‘fuzzy’. Which is of course a lie.

  This does not mean that there are no historical references therein.

  Just because Jack and Rose weren’t real, it doesn’t mean we don’t know when the Titanic sank.
  
  
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  I've commented countless times how the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) is viewed as a collection of religious texts, not historical ones. Religious truth and historical fact are very different things. One cannot expect to produce precise historical dates from religious narrative.

  The stories the Jews wrote about the Neo-Babylonian period were interpretations of events that actually happened, and there are corresponding verifiable historical events. So it makes sense that details about the sequence of events they sought to explain are present in the stories. Though their explanations for the events are steeped in superstition (e.g., exile as a 'punishment from God' or Cyrus' general policy of religious tolerance twisted into a 'decree just for the Jews'), the chronological data contained in the relevant stories are consistent with the actual chronology of the period found in other sources. In this regard, the Jewish stories about the Neo-Babylonian period are not better or worse than Babylonian records that present historical details among other details grounded in religious belief. (The same obviously does not apply to earlier stories based on oral traditions such as the 'patriarchs' or the 'exodus', or other adaptations from Babylonian mythology such as the 'garden of Eden' or 'the flood'.)

  However, in my analysis of 586 or 587?, I do nevertheless include the proviso:

  As there are no known secular records that provide a specific date for the [destruction of Jerusalem], information from the Bible must be used. Whilst one might question the reliability of the Bible, if the details therein are not considered reliable for determining the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, then no specific year can otherwise be asserted with any certainty.

  JW superstitions about 607 BCE, of course, remain an utter failure whether the data in the Bible is reliable or not.
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Poor boofhead who does not seem to understand that Chronology like any science is a 'work in progress'.

  Notice how the dishonest ‘scholar’ shifts the goalposts. Initially he claimed that the Watch Tower Society ‘knew’ about 607 BCE since the 1870s (apparently proud of the fact that they’ve been wrong for so long):

  What it proves is that scholars do not know the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, but celebrated WT scholars from the 1870s knew, and it is 607 BCE

  But they didn’t have any ‘precise’ date since the 1870s at all. When it was pointed out that they actually believed it was 606 BCE then, and that they only changed it to 607 BCE in the 1940s (because it took them about 70 years to realise there was no ‘year 0’ after 1 BCE), he didn’t acknowledge his error, instead trying to reframe their change from one wrong year to another wrong year (which he had pretended never happened) as ‘progress’. 🤦‍♂️

  With ‘logic’ like that, I suppose it’s unfair to expect him to understand how solstices work. 🤣
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ('scholar' is intellectually dishonest and doesn't actually care about facts, but I provide the answers for the benefit of honest readers.)

  'scholar':

  Why is it that scholars cannot resolve the 586 or 587 BCE controversy?

  Fallacy of division, loaded language. The 'controversy' (a difference of one year based on ambiguity in the source materials available during the 19th century) exists because although modern scholarship favours 587 BCE (the correct year), some sources defer to the older (mostly religious) traditional dating without reviewing all the available information. No scholars independent of JWs support 607 BCE.

  Why can scholars not precisely determine the beginning of the 70 years?

  Religious scholars are divided on whether the number should be interpreted literally or figuratively (a fault of the ambiguity in the source materials). If interpreted literally, the period necessarily began in 609 BCE, 70 years before the definite end in 539 BCE. Babylon definitively removed the last vestige of Assyrian power in 609 BCE.

  Why is it that scholars cannot agree as to an understanding of the 70 years

  A combination of ambiguity in the source materials and fallacious (mostly religious) appeals to tradition.

  How is it that nowhere in the Bible does it state that the 70 years was a period of Babylonish domination?

  The question is predicated on a lie. Jeremiah 25:11-12 explicitly identifies the period has one of servitude to Babylon, as does Jeremiah 27:1-11 and 2 Chronicles 36:20.

  Why do scholars ignore the clear testimony of Josephus' discussion of the 70 years?

  This question is also predicated on a lie. Historians do not ignore Josephus (who wrote centuries after the events in question), but they balance his statements with contemporary Neo-Babylonian records, as well as other statements from Josephus himself:

  • Against Apion, Book I: "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid"
  • Antiquities of the Jews, Book X: "Containing the interval of one hundred and eighty-two years and a half. From the captivity of the ten tribes to the first year of Cyrus."

  Why do scholars ignore the missing 7 years of Neb's reign?

  Red herring. There are no missing 7 years as the story in Daniel is not a historical account. However, even if it were historical, the total duration of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (inclusive any '7 years of madness') is the same in the JW chronology. JW chronology also does not specify any specific 7 year period. The Bible's references to Jehoiachin's release from prison in the first year of Evil-Merodach makes it impossible to add 7 years to the total length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

  Why is it the case that no peer review of Furuli's analysis is published in academic journals?

  Furuli did not submit his work for peer review. It is self-published. Where Furuli's views are mentioned by scholars, they are rejected.

  Why is it the case that critics of Furuli's research do not use the same methodology that has produced conflicting results?

  Furuli's claims about the lunar observations are demonstrably false. Honest assessment of the observations necessarily conflicts with Furuli's dishonest 'findings'.

  How do scholars account for the Babylonian gap of 20 years between secular and Bible Chronology?

  Scholars recognise that there is no "gap of 20 years". For the Neo-Babylonian period, 'Bible chronology' is consistent with secular history. It is only the fringe JW interpretation that is contradictory.
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ there’s no telling the wilfully ignorant. But other readers can see your lies for what they are.

  It would be nice if aqwsed12345 could quit with the ‘walls of text’ too. If only there were a way of just giving a brief summary and linking to more substantive text. 🧐
• 
  187

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  What it proves is that scholars do not know the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem,

  Fallacy of division. Just because not everyone knows something, it doesn’t mean no one does. Most modern scholarship recognises that 587 BCE is the correct year, despite various (mostly religious) sources using faulty appeals to tradition for 586 BCE.

  The precise date is 29 July 587 BCE. See 586 or 587?

  but celebrated WT scholars from the 1870s knew, and it is 607 BCE

  Poor doofus doesn’t even seem to know they said it was in 606 BCE until the 1940s. 🤣 When they finally realised there was no ‘year 0’ between 1 BCE and 1 CE, they moved it to 607 BCE to retain their superstitious numerology about 1914.