Jump to content
The World News Media

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.
  3. I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."
  4. Yesterday
  5. Speaking of humor. I like this guy and I learned some things at the same time.
  6. How do other religions that justly adhere to the "law of nature" differ in their practices, and what significance does a beard and dress code have in this context? I can comprehend how heretics, such as certain Orthodox followers in Russia, might suspend their worship of God to appease a murderous dictator. However, fundamentally, those religions that adhere to scripture correctly, if one can indeed find such, stand apart. Therefore, the challenge is, how to remove the "law" from scripture, and from reasonable human beings. LAW 1. The "Law of Nature" is the will of God relating to human actions, grounded in the moral difference of things, and, because discoverable by natural light, obligatory upon all mankind (Rom 1:20; 2:14,15). This law is coeval with the human race, binding all over the globe, and at all times; yet, through the corruption of reason, it is insufficient to lead us to happiness, and utterly unable to acquaint us how sin is to be forgiven, without the assistance of revelation. This law is that generally designated by the term conscience, which is in strictness a capacity of being affected by the moral relations of actions; in other words, merely a sense of right and wrong. It is the judgment which intellectually determines the moral quality of an act, and this always by a comparison with some assumed standard. With those who have a revelation, this, of course, is the test; with others, education, tradition, or caprice. Hence the importance of a trained conscience, not only for the purpose of cultivating its susceptibility to a high degree of sensitiveness and authority, but also in order to correct the judgment and furnish it a just basis of decision. A perverted or misled conscience is scarcely less disastrous than a hard or blind one. History is full of the miseries and mischiefs occasioned by a misguided moral sense. (from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia)
  7. No. We’re about to throw him out of there, too, and into the open club. That’s nothing. You should see how bad he gets when he’s challenging ME!
  8. When the same principle was applied in ancient times by the Apostles and then by Paul to the various congregations, why was it deemed necessary to remind the congregation of where their loyalty should lie, and whom they should serve? You seem to give the impression that the Bible lacks importance merely because it holds no personal significance to you. What does Scripture say about such people and this particular mindset? lol!
  9. JWs have always had and will continue to have, as can be seen from everything, problems to harmonize the so-called "biblical principles", "lists of rules" and "bible-trained conscience". Basically, it turns out that it's best for JWs "to stick" to what GB says, because that way they won't "make mistakes" and won't "stumble" anyone. lol
  10. You have demonstrated, JWI, that your perspective aligns more with personal apostasy, catering only to the closed club of like-minded individuals, and those who have been disfellowshipped for frivolous reasons. Your recurrent attempts to distort the truth, especially when confronted with your errors in challenging me, highlight a stubborn resistance to acknowledgment. The judgment of our discourse's merit lies with the public, not within the biased confines of your fellowship, which, regrettably, has separated from the guiding principles of the Watchtower, despite your previous association as a Bethelite. Your words or posts have never mattered to me because your assertion of 587 BC will always be incorrect, even by secular standards. Should you fail to provide evidence to the contrary, it reflects poorly on your integrity rather than on the validity of the facts presented in a coherent story that even a six-year-old could understand. Nevertheless, you seem aware of this and yet persist in trying to divert attention from your erroneous perspective, attempting to persuade others that your stance—akin to arguing with a phantom—is of greater significance. How amusing!
  11. He’s mine. We manipulators in the closed club drew straws for him, and I won.
  12. I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words: You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note: COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point: *** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus *** It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.
  13. Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.
  14. Indeed, your distorted perception is peculiar. However, as usual, you focus on the incorrect aspects by manipulating the context or making unwarranted additions, much like a subpar researcher. This is a feeble attempt to undermine my post, resulting in a disappointing outcome. I encourage you to present to the public the actual reason for my inclusion of 12-16 in my remarks. Carl Olof Jonsson wrote about it, even though the tablet clearly states the 11th year and the 17th year, not referring to 612 BC as you claim. Are you dismissing his words while simultaneously defending him vehemently? Is this the diversion you're aiming for? I guess I'll post that part you forgot to include. The Gentile Times Reconsidered -- Jonsson, Carl Olof -- 4th ed., rev. and exp, 2004 "The last chronicle (B.M. 35382), the famous Nabonidus Chronicle, covers the reign of Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar. This chronicle unfortunately is damaged. The portion covering Nabonidus’ twelfth year to his sixteenth year of rule is lacking, and the portion where the words for “seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Nevertheless, we have the option to review whatever remains from the seventeenth year under Grayson. Additionally, one could regard the statement from COJ as dubious. Shall we? https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/ Of course, in my opinion, COJ's work is fundamentally flawed in every aspect. I could even argue that he, his research, and his book are a mockery and an insult to genuine scholars. Have you reached the point where you're considering banning me, as you have done with many others in the past while claiming that I have multiple accounts like those individuals? lol!
  15. That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate. Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.
  16. I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332 Archives from Erech, 1923 That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found. But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612 I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along.
  17. There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked. You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC.
  18. It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it. I have no issue with employing BC, even though the ancients couldn't have linked it with "Before Christ" or "Before the Common Era," as they could not have foreseen that modern calculations would transition to "Anno Domini" or "Common Era." Therefore, I concur with the Watchtower's stance on historical chronology. When were the tablets first recorded, and what additional information did newer scribes incorporate into previously documented tablets? If the original tablet was damaged, to what extent did scribes rely on interpretative translation to restore its content? The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius. However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround. However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16. The question arises: Without relying on the tablet itself, how is Nabonidus 14 calculated to correspond to 612 BC? In this case, I accept the advice of "Brinkman" and "Glassner." Now scholars like "Beaulieu" reference the works of "Parpola" but he does mention the lack of the Neo-Babylonian period in Nineveh. "Unfortunately, research on the Neo-Babylonian period is often hampered by the aridity of the sources. Building inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian rulers seem opaque and lifeless when compared to Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and annals, which, despite their partiality and the need to use them cautiously, provide a chronological sequence of events and a wealth of information on NeoAssyrian political and military history. Research on the Neo-Assyrian period is further enhanced by the partial survival of the state archives of Kalhu and Nineveh, invaluable sources for the political structure of the Sargonid empire. The lack of equivalent source material for the Neo-Babylonian period—only a handful of documents have been discovered in the remains of the royal palace at Babylon—means that the political history of the Neo-Babylonian empire remains an enigma to historians. Nevertheless, a few areas for future research likely to produce outstanding results can be delineated." Therefore, I fully support the Watchtowers chronology that begins in 4026 BC with that of the secular chronology that starts in 4004 BC.
  19. Yes, you don't have to look hard to know I ignore fools, Pudgy, lol! Isn't it fascinating when Pudgy starts denying any involvement in the banning process, only to enable it through an alternate persona? lol!
  20. I would never suggest blocking or banning The Vicar of Warwick, Wally McNasty and his doppelgänger minion troupe of whack-a-mole up and downvoting mute sock puppets. It could only be better with recorded squirrel noises and rubber bulb bicycle horns in both hands.
  21. Can I just check if both of you have blocked me or just this identity? You really should write a book someday. Wow. I’m speechless.
  22. @Miracle Pete Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!
  23. It's rather amusing to observe how individuals such as Pudgy, Tom, JWI, Many Miles, Xero, or members of the closed club are compelled to support apostates here through alternate accounts. Quite humorous, indeed! In this case, it appears you are Pudgy's or Many miles, maybe even Tom's sock puppet as they like to refer to it, and since you have posted it, PROVE IT, don't just make accusations, lol! Please refrain from engaging in verbose rhetoric, discussing login, timing, or infringing upon others' privacy rights, as done by moderators like JWI as proof. Let's avoid any further nonsense if that intent is going to be applied. This type of behavior typically emerges right before they expel someone, primarily because they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. They resorted to using sock puppets for hurling insults, and carrying out their malicious deeds. Consequently, they deceive people by claiming that no one has been banned due to their actions, which is not only false but also an outright lie. So, I'll just block you right now, you can speak with your other self at will.
  24. Alphonse: Having downvoted what I consider statements of irrefutable fact … please feel free to correct any and/or all points. Otherwise, you prove yourself a Troglodyte.
  25. Last week
  26. When I was a young man and the “end of the conveyor belt” was over the horizon I was intensely interested in such things. Now I am only interested in provable reality, as I can see the end of the “conveyor belt”, and everybody’s predictions have been 100% wrong, 100% of the time. So ….. what’s the point? I am sitting in my car outside WalMart, and I can look around and see the Great Tribulation has NOT OCCURRED. I can look around and see Armageddon has NOT OCCURRED. I can look at the bag of pills on the front seat and see that God’s Kingdom ruling has NOT OCCURRED. A thousand iterative calculations “PROVING” IT DID, and all the hopes and dreams, and wishful theories are wrong. When it happens you will know it. Really! Really
  27. The top part is just the Babylonian kings based on the tens of thousands of contract/business tablets, with no concern as to their BCE dates. Just trying to match up the Biblical events underneath. Then the two unnecessary rows at the bottom offer the standard BCE timeline in green, and the WTS timeline in blue. Note that the WTS timeline agrees with the green standard timeline from 556 onward, but differs from 580 on back. The WTS publications also agree with 580 being part of Evil-Merodach's reign, so I have included that date. But the orange dates refer to the entire reign of Neriglissar which is the only range of standard dates which the WTS leaves open to a 24-year period rather than a 4-year period. The assumption is that there may be one or more unknown kings who reigned for 20 extra years during this period. Like I say, these BCE dates aren't necessary for understanding the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them. I would not stake my life on either one of the timelines. The only thing I would push back on is the false claim that the blue (WTS) have more or better evidence behind them than the green (standard).
  1. Load more activity



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.