Posts by peacefulpete

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..

peacefulpete

😂 ok I guess we will just again forget Gedaliah.

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

peacefulpete

We seem to be talking past each other. The only point I was making was the presence of a Ceasar on the coin in the Jesus story dates the story after 70. Or by someone unfamiliar with the Idumean coinage. Especially the way it is written with the assumption of the image on the coin.

I was not commenting on the question of whether Jews would have handled such a coin. My last post shows that at least post 70, when Idumean coins had Ceasar on them, they were in use, even minted by them. Maybe this reflects a compromise of necessity?

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..

peacefulpete

OK, forgive me if this has been already mentioned. This was posted some years ago:

Isaiah’s Prophecy – Light for all Mankind Volume I; page 253 paragraph 21:
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king” – the Babylonian Empire – the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17,22,27) True the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination – when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What will then happen to Tyre?

The Society does NOT take the seventy years of judgment against Tyre as being literal. Their interpretation is that the seventy years applied to Tyre is FIGURATIVE – it stands “ROUGHLY” as the time of Babylon’s greatest domination.

Now as regards Tyre, no it never fell to Babylon.

Post from old thread:

There was no such city as "mainland Tyre". The nearby city on the Lebanese coast was instead called Hosah in the Bible and Osa and Ushu in Egyptian and Akkadian inscriptions. These were suburbs of Tyre but were not called Tyre; Ezekiel in fact called the mainland suburbs "Tyre's daughters" (Ezekiel 26:6, 8, "settlements on the mainland" in the NIV), not Tyre itself. Tyre was an island city and was described repeatedly as such by Ezekiel, who described it as "in the midst of the sea" (26:5), "powerful in the sea" (26:17), as having its borders "in the heart of the seas" (27:4), as being like a ship in the sea (27:27-34), and whose king declares himself as "surrounded by seas" (28:2).
The city that Ezekiel describes as razed and thrown into the sea was island Tyre, an event that would leave the island as bare as a shiny rock. This was not a mainland city and Ezekiel did not refer to Hosah as "Tyre" but as "her daughters on the mainland" (which were already destroyed in v. 8 before Nebuchadnezzar then besieges Tyre itself in v. 9-14).

That the Babylonian siege of Tyre was unsuccessful even Ezekiel (apparently in later reflection) reports: Ezekiel 29:18,19

18"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a hard service against Tyre: every head was made bald and every shoulder was peeled; yet had he no wages, nor his army, from Tyre for the service that he had served against it. 19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. 20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labor for which he served against it, because they wrought for Me, saith the Lord GOD

BTW...It probably looked that Babylon would conquer Egypt and it did invade around the time Ezekiel said those words. But they failed. So Ezekiel is 0 for 2.

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

peacefulpete

The issue regarding coins was the presence of the image of Ceasar. This had to have been Vespasian or later. Prior to then, according to Adler, the Roman Idumean coinage was without the image of Ceasar in deference to the Jews. Interestingly the Vespasian coinage commemorating the Roman assault of 70 (now with Ceasar's image) was minted by the Jews themselves by the last of the Herodian kings Agrippa II.

14

Could the law abiding Jesus or his disciples have used a coin depicting Caesar?

by EdenOne in

so, i was just viewing an interview with professor yonathan adler regarding the origins of judaism as an everyday practice of the masses.

he makes a very convincing argument that the jews only became torah observants in a generalized way around the beginning of the hasmonean dynasty, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc.

you can watch the interview here:.

peacefulpete

I think Prof. Adler is stating what has been known for some time. Whenever weighing the historical usefulness of ancient writings, it's necessary to recall that winners wrote it. What we can be pretty sure of is the primary history of the Jewish faith was a 're-creation' of the deep past using ancient diverse traditions mixed with religious idealism of the 6th century BCE then further revised and reinterpreted during the Hasmonean period. Later Rabbis developed the concept of a mythic Great Assembly, (led by the last of the prophets), that defined and even rewrote the OT (Tanakh) during those years to, IMO, give authority to these revisions recognized by careful readers.

The 'winners' that eventually defined Judaism after 70/135 spawned from the Pharisee sect, and with them came the Tanakh and Torah. Most of the other Jews becoming absorbed into them or other sects such as the diverse forms of Christianity that disavowed the Torah. Those were largely the choices.

His comments about the coins must be regarded as another evidence the Gospel narrative dates to post 70.

26

Details of Noah’s Ark

by enigma1863 in

jw magazines have claimed the flood story has so much detail that it couldn’t be just a made up story.. is it detailed?

name one person outside of noah’s family.

name one nephilim.

peacefulpete

Boogerman....The word used for the ark is an Egyptian loanword teebah. Its only other usage is the 'basket' of bulrushes that Moses was riding on the Nile waters. (in contrast to the word 'aron' used to describe the sacred ark/chest). The word choice seems deliberate literary means of equating the stories on a symbolic level. The motif of passing through waters is a recurring word picture depicting 'new beginnings' throughout the Bible, likely drawn from the creation stories description of splitting the waters.

Readers of the Noah stories with some sailing experience, recognize the impossibility of a square sided box not being crushed or capsized and have assumed the writer must have envisioned a boat shape to withstand the incredible power of waves. If you have ever been in a boat on rough water the first thing you do is point the bow into the oncoming wave to not be flipped. The wave energy is dissipated by the shape of the hull whereby the boat gently lifts rather than tossed. Don't fault the artists who assume the boat shape, they are trying to rescue the story.

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

enough...Translators of necessity introduce new viewpoints to the work. modern values, personal biases, interpretive choices. Functionally the words used by translations for 'checed' each carry a nuanced meaning. So no, these words cannot all equally accurately convey the meaning of checed in any particular usage.

The WT is making a choice to use 'loyalty'.

6

Images

by peacefulpete in

simple question.

while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.

if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.

peacefulpete

First thanks for all responses.

EdenOne...it is almost as if there was more than one author.

Hopeless1...Your post raises another point. If the anthropomorphisms in the visionary descriptions ought be regarded as metaphorical and allegorical word pictures, mustn't these narratives where YHWH interacts with humans in human form then be viewed as the same? The narrative itself be merely an allegory?

The point remains that at the most fundamental level there is a contradiction. The anthropomorphic depiction and descriptions against the higher theological notion that the absolutely indescribable transcendent God cannot and ought not be reduced to the likeness of humans or anything else.

6

Images

by peacefulpete in

simple question.

while the deuteronomists and later writers of the bible condemned the use of images of yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne.

if the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?.

peacefulpete

Enough...ok rewording the question, would it seem consistent for God to give visions of himself and have these described in text while simultaneously condemn drawing a picture to represent him? Are both not human creations to assist praying or conceptualizing God? Would a God who rejects earthly visualizations of himself provide visualizations in earthy forms? Why is the one blasphemous and not the other?

Tangentially, is it coincidental their visions were identical with iconography of other gods?

10

Micah 6:8

by enoughisenough in

i saw this in a video sometime back ( don't remember now ) but it caught my attention...micah 6:8 was changed in the "silver sword" ...they changed the words in that scripture from " to love kindness" or in some versions to "love mercy" or "love grace" or "love goodness" to nwt silver : " to cherish loyalty".

sometime afterward there would be articles about being loyal to the organization.

some of you may recall this.

peacefulpete

I understand, my post was off topic.