Posts by MeanMrMustard

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

MeanMrMustard

Six screens?

Does Johnny have insider info on tight-pants Tony?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

The simple fact is that we have a definite date not wishy-washy date for the Fall of Jerusalem. A precise date does not of itself prove its accuracy but if you compare the alternative dates for the same event then it comes down not only to accuracy but methodology and confidence.

Note to reader: "wishy-washy" for scholar means "date I disagree with". Which bring us to this gem of a comment:

The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.

Note to reader: COJ's book, now in its 4th edition, peer reviewed, doesn't present 17 lines of evidence against 607. It presents 17 lines of evidence, FOR 587, showing how each independent line agrees with the others, ending finally in astronomical calculations, which are very accurate and precise.

There's nothing "wishy-washy" about 587. Which being us to this jewel:

WT critics are dogmatic in their contention that 607 BCE is wrong so they make that claim definitive, a counterclaim to this would be that such critics provide a definitive date or solution and if this cannot be done then they should cease their dogmatism until the matter is resolved definitively.

Of course, this has already been done, and he knows it, as his last comment reveals. It's important to note that it's the WT apologist that MUST stick to every point dogmatically, violating grammar, changing plural to singular, mutating servitude into complete desolation, proposing conquest order that contradict the grammar in the verse, and established historical order, independently of any set date.

There is no contradiction between history and the Bible. There is only contradiction between history (and even astromony at this point) and the WT's ungrammatical reading of the scriptures and interpretation of these events.

It is the epitome of dogmatism.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

Jeremiah sets out a list of nations starting with Judah to experience Jehovah's judgement whether it is of a conquering order or otherwise is not made plain in the prophecy for it begins with Judah and then successively lists and describes the fate of each nation.

Starting in verse 17, the list of nations is just an enumeration of all the nations that will serve Babylon, in one form or another, for 70 years. Jeremiah just got done stating that "these nations" will serve, and for emphasis, he starts to list them out, getting more general toward the end of the list. It's a way of underscoring the clear grammar of verse 11 - there are a plural number of nations serving Babylon. The listing doesn't imply conquering order at all - that's why you reach for the unusual translation of verse 29.

Going to biblegateway.com again, enumerating v29 in every translation they have, it becomes pretty clear. All of them, except one, render the verse and some derivation of "beginning to bring". The CEV uses "first", but it doesn't surprise me that you find at least one on your side, especially among the versions that don't mind wondering from the literal language:

KJ21

For lo, I begin to bring evil..

ASV

For, lo, I begin to work evil...

AMP

For behold, I am beginning to work disaster ...

AMPC

For behold, I am beginning to work evil ...

BRG

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

CSB

For I am already bringing disaster...

CEB

Look! I’m bringing disaster ...

CJB

For, look! — if I am bringing disaster ...

CEV

Starting with my own city of Jerusalem, everyone on earth will suffer from war.

DARBY

For behold, I begin to bring evil ...

DRA

For behold I begin to bring evil ...

ERV

I am already making these bad things happen ...

EHV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

ESV

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

ESVUK

For behold, I begin to work disaster ...

EXB

Look! I am ·already bringing [beginning to bring] ·disaster ...

GNV

For lo, I begin to plague the city ...

GW

I am going to bring disaster ...

GNT

I will begin my work of destruction ...

HCSB

For I am already bringing disaster ...

ICB

I am already bringing disaster ...

ISV

Look, I’m beginning to bring disaster ...

JUB

For, Behold, I begin to bring evil ...

KJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

AKJV

For, lo, I begin to bring evil ...

LSB

For behold, I am beginning to bring ...

LEB

For look, on the city that is called by my name I am beginning to inflict harm ...

TLB

I have begun to punish ...

MSG

“‘Prepare for the worst! I’m starting off the catastrophe in the city ...

MEV

For I am starting to bring calamity ...

NOG

I am going to bring disaster ...

NABRE

Now that I am inflicting evil on this city ...

NASB

For behold, I am beginning to inflict disaster ...

NASB1995

For behold, I am beginning to work calamity ...

NCB

Behold, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NCV

Look! I am already bringing disaster ...

NET

For take note, I am already beginning to bring disaster ...

NIRV

I am beginning to bring trouble ...

NIV

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NIVUK

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NKJV

For behold, I begin to bring calamity ...

NLV

See, I am beginning to make trouble ...

NLT

I have begun to punish Jerusalem ...

NRSVA

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVACE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVCE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

NRSVUE

See, I am beginning to bring disaster ...

OJB

For, hinei, I begin to bring ra’ah on the Ir ...

RSV

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

RSVCE

For behold, I begin to work evil ...

TLV

See, I am beginning to bring evil ...

VOICE

Do you think I will bring disaster ...

WEB

For, behold, I begin to work evil ...

WYC

for lo! in the city in which my name is called to help, I begin to torment ...

YLT

For lo, in the city over which My name is called, I am beginning to do evil ...

The rendering of "beginning to bring" makes much more sense. It aligns perfectly with v18 - "as it is this day". And it doesn't try to turn "nations" into a singular, and "serve" into "desolation".

It also makes physical sense - as your proposal would require Babylonian armies marching over long distances, for months, without attacking anyone, leaving their worst enemy, Assyria, standing while Babylon is unguarded.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me...

Ditto! I agree. I think it's healthy to step away now and again.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?

The logic here... 🤦

You know the difference between precision and accuracy, right?

I can give you an incredibly precise measurement for the weight of a full grown elephant: 5.1745385637655364469346 ounces. Is it accurate?

Accepting for a moment that there a big debate between 586 and 587: The fact that you propose a more precise date doesn't mean it's correct. And if there is a large body of evidence pointing to a less precise date range, it can most certainly disprove your incredibly precise fantasy date.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

Again nonsense. Jeremiah makes it quite explicit in ch.25 that Jehovah's judgement of the nations began first with Judah and lasted for a period of 70 years. The NWT reads similarly to other translations.

No. The order Jerimiah lists the nations doesn't imply a conquering order. It's just an enumeration of the nations "round about" that will serve the king of Babylon.

If that list described a conquering order, starting in verse 17, it means you have Judah conquered before Assyria. How is this supposed to have transpired? Do the armies of Babylon pour out, passing through Asssyria, Persia, without conflict, only to arrive at the nations surrounding Judah, ignoring them as well, but allowed to pass through without resistance? What did Neb say to these nations? "Nevermind the massive army I'm moving through your lands. Just passing through. I'm really after this small state on the coast. But I might attack on my way back"?

Good lord. This is utter craziness. The list of nations is just a list of nations. Verse 29 is translated as "beginning to", not "first".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

What nonsense. Are you saying that the word exile ' does not occur in the Bible, particularly in the OT?

Jeeeeezus. That's incredibly disingenuous. Strawman of all strawmen.

And if the 70 years were not connected to an exile then what was it connected to?

You most definitely know what it's connected to. The nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.

Jehovah used Babylon to punish Judah by means of an exile for a period of 70 years and you cannot rewrite history.

He used Babylon to punish Judah, first as a vassal state, and then in exile. However, the time period is tied to the supremacy of Babylon by the clear grammar of Jerimiah 25.

Absolutely. Plain reading of the text and understanding the text by means of exegesis.

Exegesis is not a process that's divorced of grammar. The first principle of proper exegesis is respecting the grammar of the verse. If you don't respect grammar, then you can make any verse mean anything.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

The king of Babylon came in and razed Jerusalem, burned down the temple and stole the holy icons and the ark of the covenant and the Jews stayed in their homeland. The Aramaic books of the Bible and the work of Ezra can be explained away, Elvis is alive, they didn’t land on the moon, the earth is flat, JFK plot, like a conspiracy theory against what the Bible says over and over again that the Jews spent 70 years in Babylon.

PPPPFFFTTtt, lol ha ha ha ha lol. Good lord.

So, reading the scriptures grammatically, not disregarding the most basic sentence structure, the very mechanism by which meaning, through text, is conveyed - that is what you equate to believing Elvis is alive and denying the moon landing?

Pfft ok. The Bible NEVER says the Jews were exiled for 70 years. You are reading into it, ignoring grammar as part of "interpretation".

The JFK plot? Lol lol ha ha ha.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

Aannnnnnddd again - Jerimiah is clear. It's 70 years of servitude, for the nations of the region, to Babylon.

That is the definition of the 70 years according to Jerimiah. Priper "exegesis" takes into account grammar.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

MeanMrMustard

That is not debunking 1914, because while Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, Jesus still became king in 1914.

Good lord. So you already have a new chronology? Just need to lose 20 years somewhere I suppose.