Posts by MeanMrMustard

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.

61

Why are so many Jehovah’s Witnesses Angry and Rude?

by Vanderhoven7 in

why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?

or is that just my imagination?.

mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.

MeanMrMustard

If I had to sit through those mind-numbing meetings, I might be really grumpy too.

9

The Last of Us

by Simon in

looking forward to the first episode of this new computer-game to tv-show adaptation that airs this sunday.. it has pedro pascal from got and the madalorian plus bella ramsey, also from got, who played the bad-ass lady mormont.. lots of it was filmed near us, some right round the corner (there's quite a few productions film around here, we get ice-cream near where they filmed scenes from interstellar).. this show is a post-apocalyptic zombie series and early reviews are that it's awesome, so i'm hoping for good things, especially since walking dead jumped the shark a few seasons ago and we gave up on it.. anyone else planning to watch?.

MeanMrMustard

@Simon:

Watching too. These days I'm looking for a decent story. I liked Episode 3. I know a few people that were ticked off by it being a gay couple, not because the story was bad, but just because anything like that seems as if it's forced into the script. But I have to say, I don't think they forced it. It wasn't the main focus. They put effort into the characters, not the politics. So, I was ok with it.

Episode 4 and 5- watched those too. Have you?

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

MeanMrMustard

@DD :

Maybe they should consider hiring you. You aren't anointed, and you seem to have some ideas. Plus I hear they can pay in quality liquor.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

MeanMrMustard

Imagine a biography about John. In the biography, in response to a question about after dinner activities, John's grandmother says:

"John will clean the kitchen, and the family will take a walk for 30 minutes."

Employing scholar's method of "exegesis", clearly (because John is the main subject by context - his biography), this should be understood as John cleaning the kitchen for 30 minutes while simulateously taking a walk for same amount of time. And even though the next paragraph in John's biography lists each family member on the walk (some 20+), the writer definitely didn't mean it as family, but rather the main subject (John) only on the walk.

Also, there is no way John could start cleaning 15 min into the walk, as it's not the family, but John only, it's all 30 min.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

MeanMrMustard

According to you. But the Bible says 70.

The Bible says 70 years of servitude of nations (plural). You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation". It's nowhere in the Bible, especially Jeremiah 25:11.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

MeanMrMustard

Utter nonsense. The text is quite ambiguous according to scholars and commentators for a number of translations into English are possible based on the Hebrew text. The immediate context proves that the subject in view is not Babylon or the nations but Judah.

Pure delusion. I invite everyone to go to biblegateway.com, type in Jerimah 25:11. At the bottom there is a link to view the scripture in every English translation they have. All of them... ALL.. render the verse this way. I'm sure you can find a "version" out there that renders it differently, but it's not a translation, it's some version that inserts preconceived ideas into the text.

And this is the trouble JWs find themselves in here. The prophecy originated in Jerimiah, and Jerimiah was painfully clear. The grammar used is so clear that just about every translator that's ever given this verse a shot has rendered it as two separate thoughts (in one way or another). And then for good measure Jerimiah starts to list off the nations to which the servitude would apply (v 18). And then goes into what the servitude means in chapter 28 (and it's not strictly desolation and exile).

This is simply your opinion for I would argue that the 70 years of servitude and desolation apply both to Judah and the nations.

Yes. Yes you would.

Grammar won't help you because the text as it reads is ambiguous so you have read this verse in context and the subject in focus is the Land -Judah.

Flawed logic. It's very similar to the "during every birthday in the Bible something bad happened, therefore birthdays are bad" type of logic.

Servitude or 'serving Babylon under Neb's reign took different two different forms , first , one of vassalage under a present monarch and an Exile whereupon the Monarch was deposed and forced into Exile to Babylon.

Right. And because it's 70 years of servitude (even applying to other nations), the Exile fits quite well with the official historical data. But not 607.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

MeanMrMustard

Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying God’s word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant.

The point is that the phrase "to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" in 2 Chronicles can't be applied to the language that wasn't in Jerimiah. Ezra was bringing together something from Leviticus, but that doesn't change the content of Jerimiah.

The land was paying off its sabbaths all the days it was desolate, until the seventy years (of servitude of the nation's to Babylon) was over (completed/fulfilled). This is in no way requires an equivalence of desolation to 70 years.