tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.comments2010-10-29T21:33:42.710-04:00JB and the JWsJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-13491660273768408652010-10-29T17:42:09.938-04:002010-10-29T17:42:09.938-04:00This is interesting. I've been meeting with Je...This is interesting. I've been meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses for three weeks--really my first exposure to the faith. <br /><br />sarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-19396603599152077622010-07-15T01:14:45.916-04:002010-07-15T01:14:45.916-04:00no more news, JB?
aw.no more news, JB?<br />aw.Petrus Caietanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-677479532564620412010-07-15T00:20:43.252-04:002010-07-15T00:20:43.252-04:00Uriah is certainly not your typical Jehovah's ...Uriah is certainly not your typical Jehovah's Witness. [2]Petrus Caietanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-76637958831786080262010-07-13T16:35:45.550-04:002010-07-13T16:35:45.550-04:00well, if you don´t mind reading in a pc, you can d...well, if you don´t mind reading in a pc, you can download Crisis of Conscience on 4shared.<br /><br />or I could send it to you myself.Petrus Caietanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-91515331498067773302010-07-13T16:25:14.613-04:002010-07-13T16:25:14.613-04:00I find it interesting that he essentially says tha...I find it interesting that he essentially says that no Jehovah's Witness can actually refute the apostate arguments, though their explanation for why (that they're spiritually weakened by the very attempt) is somewhat plainly an excuse. [2]<br /><br />aw.<br />/shrugPetrus Caietanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-68825505231676841892010-07-12T01:11:42.423-04:002010-07-12T01:11:42.423-04:00ok, JB, I did read Nick´s account.
xDok, JB, I did read Nick´s account.<br />xDPetrus Caietanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-60673210013597314902010-06-22T18:21:42.695-04:002010-06-22T18:21:42.695-04:00Cool! Thanks for sharing that experience. I'...Cool! Thanks for sharing that experience. I've blogged about some topics you touch on (LDS epistemology, homosexuality, etc.). I appreciate your account here as well as all the links. No posts since April? bradcarmack.blogspot.commistahdoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10565026922565152435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-23850216918606213642010-06-22T18:13:07.066-04:002010-06-22T18:13:07.066-04:00We should be friends. http://bradcarmack.blogspot...We should be friends. http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/04/diversity-problem-restoration-religion.html and we have the same blog template.mistahdoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10565026922565152435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-69951357556333044742010-05-20T11:19:09.551-04:002010-05-20T11:19:09.551-04:00To StandFirm:
Thanks for your contributions to th...<b>To StandFirm:</b><br /><br />Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. I look forward to reading those posts (along with that external site about the 607 issue) and others on your blog when I have a chance, hopefully before I write a post dealing with the 607 issue in general. (Perhaps eventually, time permitting, I'll write a few posts here as replies to some of yours over at your blog. I think it could be quite an enjoyable exchange.)<br /><br />In the meantime, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the substance of my post above. Would you be willing to embark on the undertaking that the anonymous JW apologist who'd previously been commenting here had refused?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-50003367213091905902010-05-02T23:35:19.021-04:002010-05-02T23:35:19.021-04:00My reply will be published on my blog when I write...My reply will be published on my blog when I write it.<br /><br />If you wish to debate with me, you can find me at Topix, in the Jehovah's Witness forum, at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness<br />Anyone can post without signing up.<br /><br />If you accept, please write me a comment on my blog first. It will only be about one topic if we do debate, and not about everything and anything as the comments on my blog are.StandFirmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228912997731709009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-46947778482995124502010-05-01T03:56:45.114-04:002010-05-01T03:56:45.114-04:00I've replied, in part, to StandFirm as follows...I've replied, in part, to StandFirm as follows;<br />"So, when Jesus said that it doesn't belong to humans to know the day or hour - times or seasons - Russell decided actually, it does and should belong to humans to know just that?<br /><br />Why, then, did Russell believe to his dying day that Christ hadn't returned in 1914, but in fact had returned 40 years earlier? Wouldn't that truth preclude Jesus selecting the Watch Tower Society per his comments in Luke 12 where he pointed out he'd be looking for ones who were alert, watching for his return and ready to open the door at his arrival.<br /><br />Where the Watch Tower Society (Russell included) watching for Christ's return in 1914 or had they instead opened the door for him in 1874? What did Russell believe? He seemed to believe that Christ had returned in 1874 and 1914 would be when Christ would draw the current age to an end with Armageddon.<br /><br />In doubt about this? Please see the 'Proclaimers' book pages 40, 46, 47 and 631-633.<br /><br />You also state that only Jehovah's Witnesses know the meaning of 1914. But they didn't have their current understanding back in 1874, did they? Russell certainly didn't believe that 607 + 2560 years = 1914 and Christ's parousia, did he?<br /><br />I think it's fair to conclude that the application of Daniel 4 with the "gentile times", plus 607/1914 is esoteric knowledge in that Jehovah's Witnesses claim it was only revealed to Russell. That would fall into the category "understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest".<br /><br />It's also fair to conclude that Russell got his ideas about 607 etc from Nathan Barbour (Proclaimers book page 40 onwards) who in turn got his eschatology from the Adventists.<br /><br />Has the teaching regarding 1914 changed, at all? Has the Jehovah's Witness understanding of the generation of 1914 changed at all? If so, would that mean that Jehovah's Witnesses have been taught - and in turn taught others - falsehoods? Would that, in turn, mean that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have "the truth"?"Mark Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-67751405570003410002010-04-29T17:38:39.560-04:002010-04-29T17:38:39.560-04:00My response to Mark Hunter's comments to me he...My response to Mark Hunter's comments to me here and on my blog can be found here:<br /><br />http://stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-to-mark-hunter.htmlStandFirmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228912997731709009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-80891683384535565762010-04-28T14:55:28.742-04:002010-04-28T14:55:28.742-04:00@ Standfirm; why would Russell even have been tryi...@ Standfirm; why would Russell even have been trying to figure out the parousia, using 607 or otherwise? Didn't he read Acts 1? Why are Jehovah's Witnesses obsessed with their esoteric knowledge?Mark Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-7036319382328875682010-04-25T21:56:11.250-04:002010-04-25T21:56:11.250-04:00I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you'r...I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.<br /><br />If you're interested, a defense of 607 BCE can be found at http://thirdwitness.com/607_BCE/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/<br /><br />My blog defending Jehovah's Witnesses on general issues is at stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.comStandFirmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228912997731709009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-60857270550922804802010-04-18T23:42:56.395-04:002010-04-18T23:42:56.395-04:00Hi JB, I'm a LDS. You said you met some missio...Hi JB, I'm a LDS. You said you met some missionarys (Creon and Orestes) in Greece. I was wondering where you are living now. Well anywho, my name is Julia and I live in Brazil. I've lived in the U.S.A. before, and I know what its like to meet mormons that you can relate to, and others, not so much. The people may be different in habits, culture, humor... but we all do have the same purpose. Keep on reading the Book of Mormon if you think there is some truth to it and keep on praying. Dont expect angels or other heavenly beings to prove The Book is true, but you will feel a nice, warm, conforting reasuring feeling that you're doing the right thing. I'll check the blog latter but if you want to keep contact my email is rockababy55@hotmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-61833960863883780572010-04-13T08:49:25.419-04:002010-04-13T08:49:25.419-04:00To the anonymous JW apologist: Apologies for the ...<b>To the anonymous JW apologist:</b> Apologies for the delay in responding. My computer became... unusable... and I had to get a new one. A rather regrettable - and expensive - difficulty indeed.<br /><br />Anyway, with all due respect, you continue to systematically misconstrue and misrepresent everything that Mike and I have been contending. I have to confess, I may have to revise my relatively tolerant stance on the whole "cult" issue; this degree of evasion pushes the limits for anyone in a normal epistemic situation.<br /><br />You ask where they officially endorsed the elements of the chronology presented; I point you - <i>yet again</i> to the quotations from Watchtower Society publications found in the post above and in Mike's video. Those are the quotations you persistently and steadfastly ignore and refuse to engage.<br /><br />To be perfectly honest, the 1972 <i>Awake!</i> article is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I repeat myself: neither myself nor Mike has alleged that the Society has <i>consistently</i> upheld the various propositions in question (e.g., the proposition that Evil-merodach reigned for two years, the proposition that Neriglissar reigned for four years, etc., etc.), only that they have, in fact, upheld the propositions in question. They asserted them as truth in publications that are supposed to constitute 'spiritual food'. That is the issue here. Now, as to the 1972 <i>Awake!</i> article, I read it and found the reasons given for undermining the 587 chronology to be very insufficient in light of the actual Neo-Babylonian evidence that does, in fact, confirm the propositions above, the conjunction of which establishes the 587 chronology beyond a reasonable doubt. I have already rehearsed a portion of this evidence, none of which you have addressed. Rather than repeat myself again, I invite you to actually read what I've said already.<br /><br />With all due respect, Mike and I have presented what I consider to be a very interesting case, one that you have not actually addressed as of yet. Were you to go seek "more reasonable people", I dare say that you would be even more outclassed than you are at present. While your rhetoric about "opposers" and all that is all well and good and makes for decent rhetoric, it's belied by the utter lack of relevant substance in your posts. I've been addressing the points you've raised, and yet you keep repeating them. I repeat my points because you've yet to actually address them. I urge you, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to actually do so.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-54034563547042661092010-04-11T11:27:40.171-04:002010-04-11T11:27:40.171-04:00I do hope that you enjoys the assemplyI do hope that you enjoys the assemplyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-62830912639862207712010-04-09T19:04:20.641-04:002010-04-09T19:04:20.641-04:00Uriah is certainly not your typical Jehovah's ...Uriah is certainly not your typical Jehovah's Witness.Mark Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-88907777911887873592010-04-07T18:41:48.096-04:002010-04-07T18:41:48.096-04:00No, here's what's tragicomic; your faith i...No, here's what's tragicomic; your faith is placed on a North American publishing corporation founded by a failed haberdasher.<br /><br />They've sold you, lock, stock and barrel, on the idea that God somehow needs a publishing corporation in order for the world to know the truth. And while they're doing that they've effectively blinded you to the person of Jesus Christ who boldly claimed, "I am the way, <i> the truth</i> and the life".<br /><br />Now you're spending your time debating bits of clay that have been lying buried in the ground for 1000s of years all the while your cognitive dissonance is frying your brain to the point whereby you feel 607 is more important than John 14:6.<br /><br />Wake up, smell the rejected wine in the Memorial glass and recognise that a publishing corporation never has, nor ever will, been able to make you right with God.<br /><br />If it could, why did Jesus need to die?Mark Hunter (former Jehovah's Witness)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-57043047529131184812010-04-07T10:35:19.068-04:002010-04-07T10:35:19.068-04:00Here is what is "tragicomic."
Mike post...Here is what is "tragicomic."<br /><br />Mike posts a video to do a chronological walk-back from 539 to 605 and then forward to 587.<br /><br />He thinks he's found something clever. WT opposers all high-5 him, with compliments of "great research." Other WT opposers add their 2-cents to insult the Wt with "they don't even know their own chronology."<br /><br />The chronology that Mike thinks he's cleverly found is what the WT presented in the 1972 Awake article. They reviewed it, gave their reasons for not trusting it, and dismissed it.<br /><br />Now, critics like yourself and Mike roll out saying that the WT has "officially endorsed it," and that they view it as "the most accurate," "they're sure about it," etc.<br /><br />This silliness is simply in your mind. Where exactly do they say "We've officially endorsed this?" They don't. They've officially dismissed it.<br /><br />Now, whether they are correct or not, is a completely different discussion.<br /><br />But, for Mike, you, and others to pretend they've officially endorsed something they've repeatedly dismissed, is pure intellectual delusion.<br /><br />But the fact that you, Mike, and others can't see that tells me that my time is better spent talking to more reasonable people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-21398300002940703902010-04-07T09:14:15.430-04:002010-04-07T09:14:15.430-04:00Amen to what Mark said.
To the anonymous JW apolo...Amen to what Mark said.<br /><br /><b>To the anonymous JW apologist:</b> Your failure to actually grasp the point is rather tragicomic. As I've said before, it does not matter that the Watchtower has "written many articles outlining the complete unreliability of these dates", or authored many "articles that show 587 is false, and the dates and reasonings that lead to that conclusion are completely unreliable". The reason why this is irrelevant is because Mike and others have never been arguing that the Watchtower has <b>consistently</b> supported, indirectly, the 587 date, only that they <b>have</b> supported what you smear as "the 'extreme confusion' presented by secular historians". (After all, Jehovah's Witnesses are not known for doctrinal consistency to any large degree. On this issue, there is no one "WT's position", but rather several "WT's positions"; what we're interested in here is the very existence of that minority strand, not whether it's their dominant position on the matter at all.) You still refuse to address the quotations in which they <b>officially endorsed</b> things like the two-year reign of Evil-merodach. The quote is to be found in the post above. If you want to call the charge that "[the Society's writers] themselves have affirmed all premises in a valid argument for the 587 BC fall of Jerusalem" as being a "ridiculous claim", the least you could do - for the sake of plain and simple intellectual <i>honesty</i> - is to refute it by actually engaging with the citations offered. You have conspicuously ignored them all.<br /><br />Now, you continue to dismiss the two-year reign of Evil-merodach. All that about Ptolemy's Canon is all well and good, but where, exactly, is your response to the numerous Neo-Babylonian texts I cited that explicitly state that Evil-merodach reigned for two years? After all, I've certainly never cited Ptolemy's Canon; there's been no reason to, since we have all the evidence needed elsewhere. Note also that merely citing much later historians who give alternative reign lengths is patently insufficient, whether they be Flavius Josephus or Polyhistor. Also note that while vague remarks about additional names found at Borsippa are interesting, they are irrelevant unless we have reason to think - contrary to Neo-Babylonian records - that any of them belong in the period in question.<br /><br />(And, having just read through the article from the 5/8/1972 issue of <i>Awake!</i>, I can see that it dealt with none of the evidence that I've used.)<br /><br />As for the Watchtower's independent case for the 607 date, I hope to address that in a future post. While we wait, however, how about addressing the issue at hand? Here's your mission:<br /><br />- First, actually deal with the fact that Watchtower publications irrefutably <b>have</b> endorsed the "secular" reign lengths of each Babylonian ruler in question.<br />- Second, show how the indepedent evidence that I've cited for the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar don't establish the two- and four-year reign lengths.<br />- Third, provide actual evidence to think that their reigns were otherwise.<br />- Fourth, construct a Babylonian chronology of the period that includes your pretended 'correct' reign lengths. It's one thing to talk smack about "secular historians" (which, when speaking of folks like Josephus, Berossus, Polyhistor, or the Babylonian records themselves, is really somewhat of a misnomer); it's another to actually do the hard work and put forward some answers. Why do you think the Society has never provided an alternative chronology for the Neo-Babylonian kings?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-60829534627640730012010-04-07T04:42:22.401-04:002010-04-07T04:42:22.401-04:00@ anonymous - but it all comes back to Russell'...@ anonymous - but it all comes back to Russell's belief that he knew when the parousia started. He proclaimed it as being 1874. Then it was changed. A few times. Now we have 1914.<br /><br />Isn't all of this in direct contrast to what Jesus said in Acts chap 1?<br /><br />Could it be that, rather than chewing over this piece of artifact or this piece of evidence, we take Jesus as his word and realise that it doesn't belong to us to know the "times and seasons"?<br /><br />As a Jehovah's Witness I fully understand your desire to shore up the 607/1914 argument. It is, afterall, the foundation upon which your faith in the Watch Tower Society is based.<br /><br />But why not try instead going to Jesus as the only way to the Father, and believing him alone as "the way, the truth and the life"?Mark Hunter (former Jehovah's Witness)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-39164015903994422812010-04-06T19:29:59.310-04:002010-04-06T19:29:59.310-04:00Let us not confuse the two issues here: 1) What th...Let us not confuse the two issues here: 1) What the WT's position is, and 2) If they are correct.<br /><br />The WT has been explicit about their views on the unreliability of these dates and has discussed this on many occasions.<br /><br />Mike's video ignored all this in an attempt to suggest they "endorsed" these dates they've consistently highlighted as unreliable.<br /><br /><br />Here are the specifics from the 1972 Awake. I think the WT's position on 586/587 BC, and in particular the reign of Evil-Merodach are simple to understand. The video from "The Apologetic Front" simply ignored their direct commentary on the unreliability of these dates.<br /><br />"Various attempts to harmonize the date 586 B.C.E. with what the Bible says are therefore unsatisfactory. None of such attempts fit the Bible’s testimony that Jerusalem and Judah lay desolate for seventy years.<br />The 586 B.C.E. date is based primarily on what is known as “Ptolemy’s Canon,” which assigns a total of 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty beginning with Nabopolassar and ending with Nabonidus at the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. According to this Canon, the five kings that ruled during this period were Nabopolassar (21 years), Nebuchadnezzar (43 years), Evil-merodach (2 years), Neriglissar (4 years) and Nabonidus (17 years). In line with the number of years thus assigned to each ruler, Jerusalem’s desolation in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year (nineteenth year if counting from his “accession year”) would fall in 586 B.C.E.—2 Ki. 25:8; Jer. 52:29.<br /><br />But how dependable is Ptolemy’s Canon? In his book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Professor E. R. Thiele writes:<br /><br />“Ptolemy’s canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year’s day were not mentioned.” (Italics ours.)<br /><br />So the very purpose of the Canon makes absolute dating by means of it impossible. There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. At Borsippa, for instance, were found names of a number of Babylonian kings that do not appear elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-25571185263102011092010-04-06T19:04:50.153-04:002010-04-06T19:04:50.153-04:00JB: "...the point is primarily that everythin...JB: "...the point is primarily that everything required to make a case for the 587 BC view is asserted within official JW literature."<br /><br />That's as long as you ignore all their articles that show 587 is false, and the dates and reasonings that lead to that conclusion are completely unreliable.<br /><br />Why not start with the 5/8/72 Awake article - "When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?"<br /><br />which outlines in great detail how the 586/587 date is calculated, and how the specific dates it's based on are completely unreliable.<br /><br />Also, make special effort to notice how they point out the unreliability of assuming 2 years for Evil-Merodach's reign and that it's impossible to base calculations on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-487734021157811498.post-84667464863518835282010-04-06T18:45:10.255-04:002010-04-06T18:45:10.255-04:00JB: "To my knowledge, no official attempt has...JB: "To my knowledge, no official attempt has been made by any authorized representative of the Society to explain the fact that they themselves have affirmed all premises in a valid argument for the 587 BC fall of Jerusalem."<br /><br />I don't think they comment on ridiculous claims like this.<br /><br />They've written many articles outlining the complete unreliability of these dates, along with specific commentary on the highly questionable length of Evil-Merodach's reign, pointing to 2 years or 18 years. <br /><br />To suggest they have "officially endorsed" anything related to the "extreme confusion" presented by secular historians is laughable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com