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!
Next theory:
AMIII realized that taking a position on vaccines was counterproductive, and started to advocate for returning to normalcy. Figuring people need to get back to door-to-door, he proposed a full reversal on vaccine policy.
The other members didn't want to give up the fear control. AM called them all tyrant libtards during one GB meeting, and from there his fate was sealed.
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!
He got in trouble for same reason every one gets in trouble : addiction to hard-core snuff porn.
original reddit post (removed).
When is he going to come out as trans?
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..
So, before designing the programs for the different astronomical charts, all the software engineers from around the world got together in order to create a consiracy just to discredit 607 BCE?
It seems that way. Like I said, if it were possible to time travel, he would then argue we didn't do the time traveling correctly. We would have to form some sort of committee to come up with the right procedure to time travel - you know, press the buttons the same way or something.
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..
You raised the contention not myself for I simply quoted COJ's statement that he presents 17 lines of evidence that establishes the chronology of the NB Period consequently the dates 586/7BCE as Neb's 18th year are established for the Fall of Jerusalem. Whether COJ has succeeded in this attempt is open to criticism and is refuted by the research of Rolf Furuli. who has shown that the Chronology for the NB Period is short by at least 20 years.
In contrast, rather than relying on the chronology of the NB Period in order to fix a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as is the COJ'S method, WT scholars have used the Bible and the biblical '70 years which clearly established that 607 BCE is the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
COJ's use of 17 lines of evidence holistically does not disprove 607 BCE because none of these lines of evidence uses any biblical data or reference and that applies to each one of those lines of evidence.
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..
False. Jonsson in his 4th edition on pp.77, 88 uses the expression: "seventeen different lines of evidence "; 'seventeen different lines of evidence".
Note that not one of these lines of evidence by itself refutes or disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.Missed the point completely. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing. Yes, 17 is the number. Yes, they are lines of evidence. The evidence provided isn't against 607 in as much as its for 587. It's an important distinction. There could be a 17 independent lines of evidence *against* 607, and each could arrive at a different date. Each line arguing a different date is a line AGAINST 607. But if all the lines agreed on a single date, that's an entirely different story. It's evidence FOR 587. Yes that disproves 607, by it raises the confidence level for 587 to near certainty.
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..
While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29"Beginning to bring" or "starting to bring" evil / destruction onto the city (starting thr process described, and to some extent already in progress) isn't the same thing as having it happen to Jerusalem first, as an order of operations.
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..
Combining a get posters here, @Disillutioned JW and @TonusOH:
That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.
If all of these varied translations are from relatively few manuscripts, then it shows how difficult it is to get a consensus (impossible, by the look of it).
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!
Six screens?
Does Johnny have insider info on tight-pants Tony?
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..
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.
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.
