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

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.

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.