Posts by Larsinger58

14

Josephus Does Write About Jesus Christ

by villagegirl in

i just happen to have the complete works of josephus, right here in front of me.

josephus wrote several books including the antiquities of the jews.

chapter 3 under sedition of the jews against pontius pilate; concerning christ .... paragraph 3 quote : "now, there was about this time, jesus a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

Larsinger58

The records confirm that Josephus, over the years, was edited and revised. Just what was the original Josephus is a matter of debate.

12

Everlasting life is a free gift. Or is it?

by hoser in

at the meetings i hear from time to time that everlasting life is a free gift from jehovah, but from a jehovahs witness point of view is it really?.

you will not receive the "gift" if:.

you miss meetings.

Larsinger58

People complain about my long posts, so let me be blunt!

To get rid of Satan, God kills EVERYBODY on the general rule that God, as the creator, has the right to limit the life of his creatures. So everyone must die, regardless of being righteous or unrighteous. That includes God's belovede only-begotten son, Jesus Christ. This was a great way to get rid of Satan without hearing his legal complaints!

Then it becomes an issue of God's right to revive those who have died! God revives Jesus Christ, of course, and many other favorites, but he doesn't exercise that right when it comes to Satan.

So everlasting life is offered to those whom God chooses, but after they have died, whether symbolically or literally. That includes Jesus Christ!

So really, death is not that big of a deal if it is temporary. Death has a great sting only if it is permanent!

24

The real danger of "end times" thinking

by new22day in

if the world is going to come to an end doesn't it drain one's motivation to make the world a better place?

is religion just giving people a free pass to apathy and letting them off the hook?

.

Larsinger58

The "end of the world" is really kind of misleading.

Armageddon is not going to destroy the world's infrastructure. The survivors will enjoy the "spoils" of those who don't survive. Governments are made up of concepts in the people's minds, so destroying buildings mean nothing. The people will be killed. The Bible gives us the context of a lot of dead bodies whose flesh will be eaten by the birds, picked clean. Then crews will come and bury the bones. So that is close to what happened in Egypt where the firstborn just dropped dead.

So maybe people will go crazy, walk to some public park or something in the nude and then drop dead, making easy pickin's for the scavenger birds.

In the meantime, rather than the "end of the world", a better concept is a CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT. The "end of the world" simply means government by man, influenced by Satan, will end end and God's kingdom of 1000 years will begin. Then after that, JUDGMENT DAY, which could last up to 100 years.

11

Looking for feedback on this approach

by NCC-1701 in

here's something i've brought up into conversation with a couple of witnessess and i was curious about what other thought.. let's say a witness goes into a coffee shop and sits between an athiest and a christian.. the witness starts a conversation with the athiest about the bible.

the athiest poses the question about the reliability of the bible.

the witness explains that the bible is completely trustworthy because of it's historical accuracy, meticulous transmission, etc.. the athiest says that's interesting and thanks him for the information.. the witness then turns to the christian and begins the same conversation he had with the athiest.

Larsinger58

The divine name was a big deal for the Jews. Even they didn't like pronouncing it, it was sacred. In Hebrew the name had a certain sound and a certain meaning. The Jewish language is much like Native American. The names mean something, like "Sleeping Bull" or "Dances With Wolves" (stop laughing! ) So when a Jew heard the Divine Name he heard "He causes to be."

Now comes the translation! Do you translate the meaning of that name into another language? Or just the letters? Bottom line is, there is no way possible to transfer the significance and feel and pronunciation of the divine name in Hebrew into any other language. Thus the decision was made not to violate the sacredness and uniqueness of God's name in Hebrew into another language. Instead, it was practical to substitute the a reference to God by a title, such as "God" or "Lord." That's why there is no ancient texts that contain a "translation" concept of the divine name in Hebrew in Greek. Why would there be?

So what the WTS has done by putting "Jehovah" wherever they wanted is just a very sad stiuation. The bible in Revelation says clearly not to change a single thing, not to add or subtract. Yet they ignore this an insert "Jehovah" where they think and interpret it should be. This is problematic because of clear overlap between Jehovah and Jesus when "Lord" is used. For instance the phrase, "Those belonging to the Lord" could be a reference to either Christ or Jehovah. It's an exegetical choice which it means. But if the WTS decides to insert Jehovah, it is just guessing or imposing their own doctrinal bias--they are not translating the text.

This is one reason why the GB of JWs is called the "man of lawlessness," because once they get an idea in their heads, if it is strong enough, they think they can set aside God's laws and do what they freel strongly about. They never learned that "OBEDIENCE is better than sacrifice."

In my opinion, if they truly wanted to honor God's name, the closest way they could do that is to use the tetragrammaton: YHWH. That way, at least the name remains authentic and mysterious. "YHWH" is more authentic than "Jehovah" or even "Yaweh." Even "He Causes to Be" is more authentic than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" which are just adaptations to the tetragrammaton.

Ironically, the WTS thinks they are honoring Jehovah, but just the opposite is occurring. It's like that guy who tried to steady the ark when he thought it was going to fall over but when he touched it, he instantly died. The law said not to touch the ark because it was holy. Same applies here, God's word is holy and we are told not to touch it or change it, but they decided to "fix it" with their deluded concepts of the importance of God's name and ended up making what is sacred something no longer sacred.

Anyway, the GB was "disfellowshipped" on November 10, 1992 -- for this and many other acts of "lawlessness." They are now cast out and in spiritual darkness.

13

Another scripture that has questionable language with regard to satan

by cptkirk in

of course even people with novice level bible understanding know that paul had a "thorn in the flesh", what they may not know, or not have bothered to also observe is the bizarre language with which was used to convey this thought.. "turn with me in your bibles please to 2corinthians 12:7" <----lol.

an "angel of satan" was sent to paul.......hmmm, were the writers of the bible apostates?

they called satan's minion an angel?

Larsinger58

This is a deep and interesting topic. But in the context of Satan doing things for God, note that even after the 1000-year reign of Christ, Satan is let loose to test the nations.

So it would seem there is a legal, moral or philosophical competition about certain things and if Satan is sent to carry out certain chaillenges, then it won't be questioned later.

My personal experience bears this out. Because at one point, Jehovah was trying to make a bet with Satan about how much pain I could stand. I was shocked to see Satan and Jehovah together on seemingly good terms. But that is similar to what happened with Job. Jehovah called Satan in on a bet and Satan was to carry out the test. It's my impression that if Satan didn't carry out some tests, then there might be some issues and challenges. But if Satan himself carries out the test, then he can't complain about the result.

But the COMPETITION between Jehovah and Satan and between Christ and Satan is evident elsewhere in the Bible. This was set up in Eden where to Jesus Christ God said: "I will put enmity between you [Jesus Christ} and the woman [Satan, his wife] and between your seed [angels following Jesus] and her seed [angels joining Satan's rebellion]." Thus Satan was not destroyed immediately, but a competition was set up. This was played out finally when the battle in heaven took place and Christ's angels and Satan's angels battled. Satan and 1/3 of the angels were cast down to the earth.

Thus it was to Satan that God said in Eden: "He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel." So that was set up in Eden, this legal and moral competition between God's standards and Satan's complaints against God. I was there, in spirit, when the battle of heaven took place before I became the Christ. What it was was a court case against Satan! The battle was thus a legal debate. For all of Satan's excuses, he was condemned because even if he was unhappy to the point of death, he could have just committed suicide, but instead he vengefully tried to hurt God and Christ by killing billions of humans. There was no legal or moral excuse for that except vindictiveness, so Satan was condemned.

PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH: Paul's weakness was one of the eyes. That is, a "roving eye." You can see someone staring at something and you know they are inappropriately thinking something. There used to be laws on some books that made it illegal for what they term "crotch gazing." Some gay men, curious about the sexual "package" of others would glance at or stare at the crotch of other men. I can't say exactly what Paul's issue was, but he being gay, likely had a problem with improper watching, which some call a "roving eye." In those times, young atheletes exercised in the nude. So maybe Paul was caught going to the gymnasium to watch the nude young men. This was something observed by those in the congregation who knew what was going on, but they ignored it. Now Paul wasn't doing anything, of course, but he was looking!

Now looking at naked men and curiosity about other men's sexuality is a common factor for gay men. That's why they hang out around bathrooms or showers out of their desire and sexual curiosity of other men.

So Paul, though wanting to do good, his flesh couldn't resist improper gazing. This became like an "angel of Satan" because Satan could exploit this weakness. Paul asked it to be removed but God did not remove it, which was a factor to keep him humble.

Now Jehovah likes to gamble, but he also knows how to win. Case in point in my case, Satan got into trouble by being excessively beautiful. His problem was with vanity. So the person chosen as the physical body of Christ at the second coming, which is me, was a person not beautiful. So it almost removes that possibility of any kind of a challenge in that area.

It's sort of like so many men in ancient times were caught up and influenced by women, like Solomon was influenced by his many wives, or Samson got caught up because of his relationship with Delilah, or even King David with Bathsheba. So to avoid that happening with the Christ at the sescond coming -- or the first for that matter -- these men are gay (i.e. "eunuchs"). So you could be the most beautiful and influencial woman in the whole world, but all your charms won't have much of an effect on a gay man besides annoying him. That's why, like at the Academy Awards when I see these incredibly gorgeous women dressed in these beautiful gowns -- basically, I'm looking at the gown! (ROFL! I'm not kidding!)

Same with white supremacy. Satan's greatest tool against mankind is exploiting white men and Nazism. "Gog of Magog" represents Nazism, which Satan will exploit when he is let loose after the 1000-year rule. It is a very hard thing to resist being told you are superior to other types of men. So to avoid that potential temptation, Christ at the second coming is black. If you're black, it is very difficult to be a racist against your own race or any others.

So the human element and imperfection becomes a factor. If someone is black, gay and unattractive, they are not likely to become a Nazi, be seduced by some beautiful woman, or develop excessive vanity.

But I understand the temptation! When I was growing up I was awkward physically. I was the last person chosen for the baseball team, even though I wasn't really chosen, I was just the last person left. So I grew up feeling ugly and awkward. I didn't spend much time looking in the mirror. But then, once I started dressing up in drag and it was clear I had a striking resemblance to Diana Ross, then I became a local celebrity! Suddenly, people liked me and wanted to be around me! So I experienced for the first time acceptance. I still wasn't that pretty but men who would otherwise pass me by suddenly were available to me because of my celebrity status. It is exactly the same thing with someone rich. Somehow, if you're rich, people don't really see the physical man; you're still someone people genuflect to and accept. So it can be tempting to get a big ego if you're beautiful or talented or both.

So in Satan's case, who was extremely beautiful, he wants to blame God for his course and downfall because of that beauty. Now is that valid? Well, it coudl be argued that's the csse, if even marginally. So that's why at Satan's trial, the issue wasn't the issue of fate or contributing circumstances to Satan's rebellion, but the fact that there could be no excuse, regardless of what is going on with you personally, that you have a right to kill someone else out of your unhappiness. You know, you're unhappy, you want to relieve that unhappiness by putting a bullet in your brain, but then you decide to go kill off lots of other people. No way!

At any rate, that is not the ultimate criteria for Satan's final death. Death of Satan is a non-issue because God decided that ALL his creatures would die, simply on the basis of a temporary life. Like a plant or an animal is born, grows up, has beautiful moments and then withers and dies out. So if you kill EVERYBODY just on that general principal that the first life given is temporary, then Satanis no different than Christ who dies like every other angel or human. The KEY to eternal life, though, has not to do with who dies, but who gets resurrected! So it is not about who ends up dying, but who ends up remaining dead.

So for those who have issues with God. Some who think he's cruel and unfair and whatever. For those, God has the message they can understand, which is if you insist: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That is, legally, life is a gift and God is not under obligation to extend any life. He is the creator of the universe and he has a right to run it the way he wishes. It's HIS WAY, OR THE HIGHWAY!

So in the very end, God has given me the entire universe of angels and mankind. So those whom will live forever will be people that I like and enjoy. It will be all about ME. People with bad attitudes and issues are not going to get resurrected to spoil it for others. It is just that simple.

In the meantime, because of the temporary imperfect flesh, certain rules are suspected. Case in point, those of the elect who are chosen for certain positions no longer become under law and so they can no longer be tempted by physical things. That is, no longer being under law, there is no law against anything, including fornication or homosexuality. So at some point I was commanded to go out and have sex with other men, something I had faught decades to get over. But I did that for the sake of other elect who had to do this same thing. It's like being an undercover drug agent where you pretend to use and buy and sell drugs to get a drug bust. But the courts don't charge you because you are one of their agents working for the law. So we're not sinning for our own pleasure, but to complicate things for the opposition and to eliminate their interference. How can Satan work at tempting you to sin if you can't sin? How can Satan tempt you to commit fornication if fornication is now not a sin? He can't. Obviously, this will only be temporary, but for now that's how the WAR is being played out between God and Satan.

So when it comes to God, Satan is a total loser! He can't help but to lose because God has all the aces in the hole!

End the end. God WINS! Some are happy with that. Some not. Those not, will be excused from being present.

76

Are homosexuals born that way? The March 15 Watchtower seems to say so.

by matt2414 in

15 one brother who was raised in a christian household wrote that for as long as he could remember, he struggled with homosexual tendencies.

he said: i always felt awkward.

it seemed that i didnt fit in anywhere.

Larsinger58

In the NT, the Bible says that eunuchs are "born that way from their mother's womb" and thus the Bible itself acknowledges that being "gay" is natural. Some men and women are born without the usual attraction to the opposite sex. This causes complications, of course. But at least we know that the feelings of gay men, which they experience from the earliest of ages is a natural state of the human condition. That's #1.

#2 is that the Bible does not condemn masturbation, but recommends it along with the proper Christian "fantasies" at 1 Thess 4:3-8.

So you have an example of a very oppressive organization that imposes its own distorted and perverse ideas about sex and sexuality upon its members, causing much harm and heartache to them.

Now being "gay" doesn't mean you're an active homosexual. Being born a eunuch was considered a "gift" but that gift of not being attracted to the opposite sex was to be used for SINGLENESS. The average man would want sex and marriage and children. But without that overwhelming desire to mate, one can lead a single life and focus on a career, perhaps in public service. We all acknowledge the inherent conflict in having a career vs. a family.

Also, consider how much more difficult it is to be gay if you have guilt over masturbation? Masturbation is a God-given means of controlling and lowering natural sexual desires. No where is it condemned in the Bible. Even the design of the woman, where her clitoris is right in front, thus very "handy" tells you masturbation is normal. God doesn't care if you have sex with yourself. There is no requirement to marry.

But there is a moral issue gays have to deal with in regards to the prohibition of oral and anal sex. Jesus calls John the disciple that he loved and it is clear they had a special relationship with each other that was public. Jonathan and David actually considered themselves "soul mates" and exchanged vows! Was this just a great friendship between two buddies? When Jonathan died David said the love of Jonathan was more sweet than the love of any woman. Hello?!!! Why would he even make that comparison?

So it appears the Jews culturally did not condemn the relationship between two men, but did condemn sex between two men in that special relationship. It is as if they were like adoptive relatives.

So I think the biblical challenge to gays, those that are in a monogamous relationship resembling a marriage is to determine whether or not they can be happy without the oral and anal sex. That is, can they be happy just having a special person to share their life without having oral and anal sex with them? That's an easy answer, because lots of couples, gay and straight, who might start out having sex end up not having sex later but still remain a committed couple. So you have to separate the love of sex for the love of another person.

That's my 2 cents on this topic.

22

Daniel was confused.

by transhuman68 in

i did some research after reading this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246165/1/using-microsoft-excel-to-disprove-watchtower-theology-authority.

and realized there have been some flip-flops in the watchtower's interpretation of daniel's prophecy.

here is the interpretation from 'pay attention to daniel's prophecy' (1999) pg.301:.

Larsinger58

QC: 2520 years is a total scam. Judea's desolation began in 587 BC, not 607BC. Get up to speed download Gentile Times Reconsidered.

COJ in GTR takes the popularist's view of the ancient timeline wherein 587 BCE reflects the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, the date they assign to the fall of Jerusalem.

The WTS, of course, seem to have focussed on 539 BCE as the "pivotal date" in ancient history that they consider uniquely reliable. Many other dates they dismiss as "revised" dates in ancient history. So first note, that 539 BCE is part of the secular timeline that dates the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar II to 587 BCE and the 20th of Artaxerxes to 445 BCE.

The WTS uses the Bible's reference to a 70-year exile and desolation period of sabbath rest at 2 Chronicles 36:21. Thus they add 70 years to 537 BCE, the year they date the return and get 607 BCE as the year Jerusalem falls. By contrast the secular history would reflect this same period as only 50 years (i.e. 587-537 BCE).

To make the "70 weeks" prophecy work, which clearly must begin in 455 BCE, the WTS rejects the 445 BCE date for the 20th of Artaxerxes, use archaeology to prove a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I, and overlap 10 years of Xerxes and Darius I to move the date for the 20th of Artaxerxes back in time 20 years from 445 BCE back to 455 BCE. Then, to get back on track with the secular timeline, they add those 10 years back during the reign of Artaxerxes I, which makes his rule 51 years instead of 41 years, using two extant texts dated to year 51 of Artaxerxes! These texts are considered "spurious" or alternative by COJ but they are there!

Which timeline is reliable?

In the meantime, you have other issues! For instance, even COJ considers the simple reading of the "70 weeks" prophecy to point to Cyrus fulfilling thta prophecy! How obvious can it get? The prophecy begins with the "word that goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" and the beginning of the work to rebuild Jerusalem is dated in month 7 in the 1st of Cyrus. So some reading the Bible, such as Martin Anstey, feel as though there is a direct conflict between the Bible and this part of the secular timeline. That is, Martin Anstey also dates the "70 weeks" as beginning in 455 BCE but dates that event to the 1st of Cyrus rather than the 20th of Artaxerxes.

Chronologists also note something else, particularly in comparison to COJ, which is the 70 years of desolation per Josephus is dated from the lst deportation down to the 1st of Cyrus. That's a direct secular contradiction between the Jewish timeline for the NB Period and the current secular records, which all come from the Persian Period.

So is 587 BCE a truly reliable date for the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar II? If you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and follow Josephus by adding 70 years, then 525 BCE would date year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. But at this point we find an incredible coincidence. COJ promotes the astrotext called the "VAT4956" as the most important ancient document for chronology. In this text, the majority of the planetary observations clearly are dated to 568 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. This agrees with year 18 falling in 587 BCE. But there were always two obvious "errors" in the text in Lines 3 and 14. Line 3 says the moon was 1 cubit in front of the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A)(sigma-Leonis) on the 9th of Nisan. Hermann Hunger, who translated the text, notes this is an "error for the 8th"; that is, a day off. Then in Line 14, P.V. Neugebauer notes about a day's discrepancy for the Moon being 1 cubit away from beta-Virginis (MUL KUL sa TIL GIR UR-A) on the 5th of Sivan. Using a modern astronomical program, however, it turns out that these two lunar positions that are about a day off for 568 BCE, are exact matches for 511 BCE. Because of the exact match, it is not considered an "error" but an intentional insertion into the text. But why? Well, one obvious explanation is that the originators of the text are trying to hide a reference to another date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II; obviously, the original dating.

At this point, those who compare 511 BCE with other timelines, note that this dating matches the same timeline you get when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, and thus 525 BCE year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II in 525 BCE. In that case, year 37 falls in 511 BCE!

Now at this point, you have no choice but to investigate possible secular revisionism for the NB and Persian Period in the secular records. That's because you now have Biblical harmony and secular harmony via the VAT4956 when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.

WHAT DOES THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION SHOW?

Almost immediately you have little choice but to observe another critical contradiction between the secular timeline and the Bible, which is found at Ezra 6:14,15 with comparison to Daniel 11:2. These scriptures not only show that Darius I only ruled for 6 years, but that year 6 of Darius I was also the accession year of a king called "Artaxerxes" who was prophesied to wage a major compaign against Greece. That campaign was clearly the massive invasion of Greece by "Xerxes" at the time of the Battle of Salamis. Thus per the Bible, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I were the same king. If that's the case, then the 21-year by Xerxes must be combined with the 41-year reign by Artaxerxes, reducing the Persian timeline by 21 years. Further, if a fake 30 years were added to the reign of Darius I, perhaps to make him old enough to be the grandfather to "Artaxerxes" his alleged grandson vs. his son, then you reduce the timeline by 30 years. Thus right off the bat, if you want to follow the Bible, you automatically have to reduce the Persian timeline by 51 years. That means that 539 BCE is bogus along with 587 BCE as well as 607 BCE.

So anyone now still dating 587 BCE to any legitimate date in the current NB timeline are not up to date on all the issues, and are ignoring both the Bible and the VAT4956, both of which date year 37 to 511 BCE.

Now whether or not you follow this, clearly there are "choices" to be made and each must make their own choice. But there is absolutely no getting away from revisionism and a conflict between secular records like those of Josephus and the VAT4956 and other records coming down to us, like the "Babylonian Chronicle" which itself claims to be a copy from the 21st year of Darius (II).

You have to ask yourself, why does the VAT4956 hide two 511 BCE references in a text otherwise dated to 568 BCE for year 37 of Neb2, and why 511 BCE for year 37 coincidentally is the same dating you get when the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455 BCE? Is this a coincidence or evidence of the original timeline?

CHOICES! But these choices should be "informed" choices!

22

Daniel was confused.

by transhuman68 in

i did some research after reading this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246165/1/using-microsoft-excel-to-disprove-watchtower-theology-authority.

and realized there have been some flip-flops in the watchtower's interpretation of daniel's prophecy.

here is the interpretation from 'pay attention to daniel's prophecy' (1999) pg.301:.

Larsinger58

Thanks for this. It's sad. Why would the Bible put these prophecies there for such small-time events in the world of JWs?

The light certainly is getting dimmer. But for those who don't realize it, the "1335 days" is the basis of the 1874 2nd coming doctrine. They applied this to 1335 years from the beginning of the Catholic Church to the 2nd coming in 1874.

So it seems they have an overwhelming desire to be a "prophet" and explain all these details so that they can claim to have holy spirit and understanding the best way they can. In the meantime, how many people wonder what the true interpretation is?

47

Can 70 years be symbolic in the Bible?

by Pterist in

in isaiah 23:.......tyre will be forgotten for seventy years....the span of a kings life !

in my morning bible reading i came across the above verse were 70 years is equated to the span of a kings life !

the wbts along will many seem to take a very rigid approach with dates and numbers and apply it to date setting end times etc, ...when it may be just a generalization.

Larsinger58

JEFFRO: In Against Apion I Josephus also says Jerusalem was desolate during the 70 years, and not for seventy years. If someone goes somewhere during the week, it doesn't mean they were there all week.

Oh, playing on words like COJ focuses on "for" vs. "at" Babylon. I can accept that. In fact, I applaud that because it is addressed and not ignored. But by the same token, "during the 70 years" could also mean Jerusalem was desolate for more than 70 years, which it was. Remember, per the Bible, Jerusalem was destroyed in year 19 of Nebuchadnezzar II. It was not until year 23 that the 70 years of sabbath keeping begins. So Jerusalem was desolate from the standpoint of being destroyed for 74 years. If "desolate" means no people being there, then it would date from year 23 since the Bible does say those who were in Egypt returned to Judea (Jer. 44:14,28).

But Jeffro. If you are even beginning to suggest that this references 70 years of Babylonian domination while using the current popular timeline, there's nothing I can do about that. The VAT4956 in line 3 and 14 confirm that 511 BCE was the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. So there's no academic choice here. You have to deal with a REAL timeline, and that means where 511 BCE is year 37 of Neb2.

Further, per the Bible, the "70 weeks" prophecy must begin in the Fall in the 7th month. Period. That fits the work begun in the 1st of Cyrus. So per the Bible, as Martin Anstey recognizes, the 1st of Cyrus should fall in 455 BCE.

If you disagree with this, then the debate begins as to how reliable the secular records are in regards to the current timeline. But we already know from Greek sources just who and when the timeline was changed. So at some point you need to deal with the conflicts in the history and the timeline, like "The Delian Problem" where Plato is consulted in 430 BCE when he wasn't born until 428 BCE! The timeline where year 18 is dated to 587 BCE is now an academic JOKE, Jeffro. After the timeline was changed so masterfully by Xenophon, the astronomical texts exposed the revisions so had to be destroyed. In desperation, likely Jewish astronomers created "diaries" as a safe place to hide original references to the original timeline. That's why you have coordinated references from 511 BCE for year 37. Funny to me, per the Bible, when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus, then 511 BCE dates year 37. How is it that the Bible and the VAT4956 .

14

CANDACE CONTI - REMOVED FROM JW.ORG?

by The Searcher in

has the org's comment on the candace conti case been removed from jw.org?

if not, can someone give me a clue how to retrieve it please?

thanks for any help..

Larsinger58

I don't quite get it.

If a guilty person admits something to his attorney or someone has a compromising medical condition his doctor knows about, the right to privacy protects that person. Further, I think the WTS considers themselves much like the Catholic priests who hear confessions but are bound by secrecy to reveal them to anyone else.

Seems like the WTS got caught in a loophole involving their legal responsibilities and their Biblical responsibilities. When in conflict, they always take the Biblical authority as higher.

If the WTS feels it did no wrong, then it means they would do the same thing they did before. It seems the courts recognized that the WTS subculture contributed to the abuse and so held them responsible. Plus, the WTS is big on the "at the mouth of two witnesses..." and thus accusers are often left on their own if there are no other witnesses.

On the other hand, it probably not clear precisely what elders must do in situations like these. But I suspect clarification of actions and specific rules will be coming forth with regard to future cases, so there has come some good from this about coming forward and standing up for the truth.