MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,869 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  True
• 
  773

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

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. 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!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  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.
• 
  773

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

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. 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!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  He got in trouble for same reason every one gets in trouble : addiction to hard-core snuff porn.
• 
  11530

  It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  When is he going to come out as trans?
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  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.
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  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.

  
  You continue to miss the point. It's a matter of logic. To provide evidence is different than to undermine another's evidence. COJ is providing affirmative evidence.
  
  Note to readers: Now we come full circle -
  
  

  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.

  
  There's the fallback. In the face of overwhelming non-Biblical evidence *for* 587, its all swept aside because "the Bible says differently". And this brings us back to the grammatical issues you have with the scriptures themselves. The Bible agrees with secular history. You can only get to 70 years of desolation by forcing an ungrammatical, noncontextual reading of the scriptures, pushing it into the shape of your obscure religious framework.
  
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  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.
  
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  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.
  
  An example: Let's say I make a list of things I want to accomplish over the weekend. Half way through the weekend you read the list. I say "I'm beginning to plant my flowers." You can't infer its the first thing I did, maybe it is. But maybe not. It doesn't have to be, and that's the point here. The language doesn't *require* it. And that allows the Bible to agree with history quite well.
  
  I know you are taking the perspective that the phrase in v18 is a later edition. Could be - granted. But I'm meeting scholar at his level - his fallback. We can show, just by letting the verses speak for themselves, that his escape route from the hard evidence for 587, mainly "Bible good - secular bad", even that doesn't work.
  
• 
  208

  How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  
  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.

  
  Right. That's why I prefer to start at Jeremiah 25. Even though COJ shows quite clearly 587 is the year, WT apologists always have their trump card - mainly arguing from the Bible as the absolute authority. For such people, no amount of physical evidence will suffice. It will always be "clunky" and "wishy-washy", as scholar states. If you could imagine a world where we could time travel (in a DeLorean, of course!), go back and visually, physically confirm 587 as the date, it still wouldn't be enough for scholar. Some objection about the reliability of the time machine would be raised.
  
  

  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).

  
  I don't think that is the case. There are translations that tend to be more literal, and those are always good to focus on. Some translations offer a "common" language format. All sorts of paraphrasing goes on in this case. For most religions out there, remember, the date of Jerusalem's destruction doesn't play a role in a far-fetched prophetic scheme. So something like 25:29, might be rendered with "first".
  
• 
  773

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

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. 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!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Six screens?

  Does Johnny have insider info on tight-pants Tony?