MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,896 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  38

  The Latest From The Loony Left

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  so apparently, not only can people identify as men or women, regardless of reality, but they've now declared that people can identify as black or white as well!

  no word yet from rachel dolezal, who will no doubt be declared a visionary, and sadly michael jackson didn't live long enough to celebrate.. i must say, now that i am a black woman, my views on reparations have completely changed.

  y'all owe me some reparations bitches to make up for slavery yo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Also, since white cis-gendered males can now identify as black lesbian transgendered women, it seems crystal clear there no more need for the concept of white privilege. #GreatSuccess
• 
  57

  Prince Andrew & Jeffrey Epstein, WTF

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  in fact, several "wtf"s, not least - why were you visiting a convicted pedophile after his release from prison, never-mind having any contact with him in the first place when his preoclivities seemed to be an open secret.. and the best he can some up with is "i don't remember"?

  you don't remember?

  there's a fucking photo of you with one of the victims and accessories to the crimes you dumb fuck!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  In another rare occurrence, Bill Clinton has issued a public statement:

  Although the acts of Jeffery Epstein were horrendous, I would really like to encourage all the victims to heal their emotional wounds by burying any memories of the experiences as deep as possible. The victims of his secret, corrupt sex trade deserve not to be reminded about their experiences, and they should be allowed to quietly forget about them as the years pass, especially in the presence of law enforcement. Also, on the heels of the Prince Andrew interview, I would like to formally voice my disapproval for his clearly dishonest story. Everyone should keep in mind this dishonesty, and always question everything Prince Andrew might say, especially if he were to insinuate my involvement in any of these events.
• 
  277

  Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

  these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

  (1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Scholar is well pleased that you recognize the fluidity in the translation of so this gives one reason to think about the meaning of that verse.

  All of my posts have been recognizing the exact opposite. You have a 16/17 year history on this site arguing in favor of the WT’s chronology. You aren’t a troll, unless you are playing at God-level. But heck, I can see why people think you are just trolling. For now, I’ll assume you have a heavy cult bias against “the devil’s dates”. I don’t know how else to explain this... and I definitely don’t know why you keep referring to yourself in the third person.
  

  Furuli is helpful here because unlike COJ, he is an expert in those ancient languages so his research must be taken seriously.

  You missed the point completely. Set COJ to the side for a moment. Go to biblegateway.com, type in Jeremiah 25:11 and ask the site to display ALL of their translations for comparison. Or click here: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Jeremiah%2025:11
  

  Every one of them divide the verse into two separate thoughts, with the “for seventy years” modifier attaching to Babylonian servitude of “these nations”, nothing else. Some go all the way and just make two sentences from the verse. It is not COJ we are talking about. It’s entire rooms full of Hebrew translators, all agreeing. Even the NWT committee renders this verse as two separate thoughts. You can’t attach “for seventy years” to the first part of the sentence. If you do it is grammatically incorrect. But Furuli, who isn’t biased at all, it’s that authority we should trust. Because maybe, since Furuli says so, we should conclude that pretty much every other translation committee/team doesn’t understand English. They all know the 70 years applies to Judah, but forked it up, each and every one of them, when composing their English version. But hey, a JW scholar with every reason to mislead, says that maybe, if you squint hard, hop up and down while drunk, on Thursdays, well you can kinda translate it the way we want - and look and the NEB!
  

  Riiight.. and the possibility of you taking exceptions and making them the rule is just hot air. Suuurrre.
  

  Verse 9 provides the context for what follows in that Judah was to be made desolate and along with other nations would be in servitude to Babylon. for 70 years.

  Verse 9 explicitly expands it to other nations round about. So does verse 11. So does chapter 27, 28, and 29. Good forking lord.
  

  You fail to understand the meaning of what I have said so please expalin for in the case of each separate nation when each period of servitude applied?

  I’m assuming this didn’t come out right - another sheriff or rottingham incident? Do you want me to list the “nations round about” and specify the start and end dates for their participation in the 70 years? And if so, what good would that do?
  

  Indeed it is plainly stated that Judah would be desolate for 70 years, that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years and that the other nations would also serve Babylon for 70 years.

  Ok. Ok.. I see what you are trying to do now. You are trying to move that modifier to the first part of the verse. It doesn’t work. You can’t do that unless you ignore grammar, or fall back on your logical fallacy.
  

  Simple. Babylon remained as a political entity under a new King of Babylon under Persia and after 539 which was only its Fall it would experience a final judgement of being destroyed over time along with its kingship and land.

  Pfft. Lol. It can’t remain a political entity. The physical city was still there, and people too. But nobody could serve Babylon anymore. Nations could serve Persia.
  

  Ok cool. So if I walk into work tomorrow, go into the owner’s office, shoot him dead, bury him in some shallow grave out in the desert, no worries! He’s not REALLY dead. I mean the business continues just under new leadership. He only experiences real death once the business is run into the ground and closes its doors.
  
• 
  277

  Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

  these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

  (1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I am glad that you have read both Jonsson and Furuli. Your claim of the commitment of logical fallacies by Furuli and my good self is simply 'hot air' on your part.

  I disagree. Both you and Furuli take small exceptions and elevate them to the rule. You’ve got all sorts of Bible translations rendering 25:11 as a clear separation of thoughts, and you quote the NEB, a translation known for English fluency over accuracy, and treat is as the baseline. Furuli, in a vain attempt to extend the kings lists by 20 years, finds “anomalous” business document tablets that seem to be dated outside of various kings regnal years here and there. A month here, month there. Most turned out to be collation errors. But instead of considering these anomalies as possible scribal mistakes or collation errors, these tablets were taken as truth and used to argue against the other thousands of documents.
  

  Verses 1-9 provide the context for this chapter and it is the context that proves that the 70 years specifically applies to Judah as recent scholarship on the subject shows.

  This is literally ludicrous, scholar. Verse 9 specifically says Babylon will come against Judah and “all these nations round about”. That’s two verses before “these nations” in v11. Its servitude for “these nations”, as recent scholarship on this subject shows.
  

  The Bible provides a detailed history of what befell Judah thus a Chronology can then be made but this is not the case with the other nations for which no details are given as to their particulars periods of servitude apply.

  Non sequitur. That is pure logical BS.
  

  No it does matter that the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and desolation running from the fall to the Return.

  Yes it does matter. Seventy years of servitude for Babylon of “these nations”. What nations? 25:9 - Judah and all the nations round about. It’s seventy years for Babylon - 29:10. It’s plainly stated.
  

  The verse 18 follows on from what is stated in vs. 12 which deals with the nations, first Babylon beginning after the 70 years had elapsed in 537 BCE... Nope the calling into account for Babylon only commenced after the 70 years had finished in 537 and not 539 BCE as shown by recent scholarship.

  25:11 specifically says the servitude is under the rule of Babylon.
  

  How can Babylon be called to account after it’s been overthrown? There is no Babylon, as a ruling entity, after 539. There is no meaningful way anyone can serve the king of Babylon after the empire is gone, as recent scholarship has pointed out.
  
• 
  277

  Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

  these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

  (1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  In connection with the translation of Jer. 25:11 you should consult the major technical commentaries on Jeremiah and read what Rolf Furuli has written on the grammar of this text.

  Let’s not beat around the bush. You know that in my previous posts I recommended Carl Jonsson’s book. You, then, should know I’ve read Furuli’s arguments, and COJ’s counter arguments that he regularly places on his site.
  

  You both employ the same logical fallacy of taking exceptions and elevating them to the rule.
  

  Yes one must read the context of this chapter and you will notice that in vs.1 and vs.9 which shows that the target is Judah and not Babylon.

  Verse 1-9 are just intro verses. They don’t, in any way, limit the scope of the seventy years to Judah alone. Jeremiah is a Jewish prophet, prophesying to Judah, but the content of the prophesy speaks for itself.
  

  From 25:11 :
  

  1. Judah will be desolate.
  2. These nations will serve the Babylon seventy years.

  What nations? The ones listed, starting in verse 19. Verse 17 again says Jerusalem itself, and the cities of Judah, will become “ruin”, a “horror”, a “hissing and a curse”, and the states “as it is this day” - meaning the servitude has already begun.
  

  The whole of chapter 27 is about the nations submitting to Babylon.
  

  The historical accounts in the Bible concerning Judah provide data that allows one to construct a clear chronology for Judah but such is not the case for the other nations.

  This makes no sense. The Bible alone can’t provide a clear chronology. You have to anchor it with external sources. Those are well documented in COJ’s book.
  

  Jer. 25:11 simply states that Judah along with the other nations would serve Babylon for a period of 70 years

  Yes correct. As vassals.... unless they rebelled. In the case of rebellion, they would be destroyed and forced to submit. Guess which option the Jews chose. But that choice was made 20 years into the servitude of “these nations”.
  

  ...and scholar has always said that the 70 years was a period of desolation of Judah,

  No. It doesn’t matter what you have always said.
  

  ...an Exile of the Jews to Babylon and a period of servitude to Babylon beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.

  No. 25:18 “as it is this day” - the servitude was ongoing during the time of chapter 25.
  

  But that is what Jeremiah explicitly states that it was only after the 70 years had been fulfilled or ended that a Judgement against Babylon would come into effect.

  I have it exactly what Jeremiah states in vs.12/

  That’s right. 70 years ended, then Babylon is held to account. 539 was the holding Babylon to account... so the seventy years was over by 539. It can not be 537 as the WT claims.
  
• 
  277

  Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

  these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

  (1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  No. 25:12 says the exact opposite. It explicitly states the order of events : First 70 years ends, then calling to account. In no way can the calling to account happen after the 70 years.

  Quoting myself here. I messed this paragraph up. Went too fast @ work on a phone. Meant:

  No. 25:12 explicitly tells an order. 70 years ends then Babylon is called to account. The WT has the 70 years ending in 537 BC, two years after Babylon was called to account. Doesn’t work.

  Also, I am definitely coming down with a cold. May not respond , maybe I will.. don’t know.
• 
  277

  Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

  these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

  (1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  No for there are various translations for Jer.25:11such the New English Bible which renders the text this way:'For seventy years this whole country shall be a scandal and a horror,these nations shall be in subjection to the king of Babylon".

  Right. I can’t get NEB online. Nor can I get the REB, which was created because the NEB was fast and loose with some of its translations. NEB was more concerned with English fluency than accuracy. I am suggesting that there is a really good reason why the English in 25:11 is rendered as two separate thoughts, with the seventy years only attaching to the servitude of “these nations” in 99% (probably more) of Bible translations out there - mainly, the Hebrew here is actually pretty straightforward. A long time ago when I debated this amongst other religious forums, I decided to test this idea. I personally emailed Hebrew scholars (real ones at Universities), and I threw it out to b-Hebrew mailing list too. The answers I received were unanimous - the grammar is simple in Hebrew. Unfortunately I didn’t keep these email exchanges.

  But you can easily see if you display all the translations in biblegateway next to each other.
  
  

  Not only that, but you are stuck with the context of 25. Even looking at 27:6 - 12, the emphasis is on serving the king of Babylon.
  

  It is only for Judah that we a defined history for their servitude to Babylon as for the other nations roundabout we have no similar defined history.

  This makes no sense. Word salad. It’s defined right in chapter 25. The nations are explicitly listed.
  

  Jeremiah clearly states that other nations would also serve Babylon but Judah would serve for a precise period of 70 years.

  No. It explicitly states the opposite in simple grammar. If you read the NWT of 25:11, states the opposite. Are you saying the NWT committee didn’t understand English grammar?
  

  Babylon certainly received a judgement with its Fall in 539 BCE but the final calling to account only took place after the 70 years had ended in 537 BCE with its gradual demise in history leading to its total desolation.

  No. 25:12 says the exact opposite. It explicitly states the order of events : First 70 years ends, then calling to account. In no way can the calling to account happen after the 70 years.
  

  So in verse 12 Babylon's judgement only begins after the end of the 70 years not before with its end of its city, kingship and land.

  Nice and easy!!!

  You have it exactly backwards.
  
• 
  32

  Another Professor Renounces Darwinism

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  david gelernter, a famed yale university professor, has publicly renounced his belief in charles darwin’s theory of evolution, calling it a “beautiful idea” that has been effectively disproven.. article.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I find it odd that a computer scientist would “deny” evolution. The process of evolution is an algorithm. There is a division of computer science dedicated to “genetic algorithms”. These are algorithms that are evolved with the process of natural selection, applied over “generations”, shapes by a “fitness” criteria. NP-hard problems, such as the traveling salesman problem, can be solved with genetic algorithms. What’s interesting is that these algorithms are not “perfect”, but tend to be very efficient.

  The “evolving” process is a precursor back propagation algorithms that train neural networks.
• 
  24

  Do You Think That Belonging To Certain Political Parties Suggests You Are Uneducated or Poor?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i hear some people say that if you are a republican or democrat that you must not be very educated, intelligent or monetarily stable.

  .

  do you think it’s proper to paint any person as less than favorable because of their political opinions?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  We can’t judge intelligence by political party. But one thing we know for sure - All big “L” Libertarians have three nipples.
• 
  34

  New Massachusetts Bill ProposesTo Fine or Jail Someone For Calling Someone a Bitch!

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  and if you call someone a bitch , you would be fined 150 dollars the first offense and second is 200 plus possible jail time..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  What about certain cultural dialects that use “bitch” in a positive way?