Jump to content
The World News Media

Srecko Sostar

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I am now going back to a previous post of yours.
    I will not attempt to disprove historical facts. I am also not concerned with "MY" position on the year 587 BCE. I am still only stating that the evidence points to 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It's not my position. It's the position of all the current authorities the Watchtower quotes where they refer to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, not one exception.
  2. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I'd say that every one of those authors and researchers and experts that the Watchtower quoted as authoritative believed that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. No exceptions. Of course, so far I've only been able to find about half of those sources and resources making a specific comment or reference to Nebuchadnezzar's years of reign, and/or the Neo-Babylonian reign as a whole. All the ones I have found, with no exceptions, consistently point to his reign from his accession in 605 BCE, and his calendar regnal years from 604 to 562 BCE. That puts his 18th year exactly in 587 BCE, using only the Watchtower's experts and authorities. 
  3. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    All right. Since you won't try to answer the question yourself, I'll start here with your latest questions and work backwards to the point where I already answered them the first time.   
    Don't know and don't care. You are the one who clearly cares more about COJ. I suppose you could look it up.
    I am certainly not, as you say: "Evading the question about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar." The Bible indicates that his reign lasted very close to 43 years; so I believe he had a 43rd year, therefore I believe he had a 37th. There are many business tablets dated to that year, along with one of the oldest and most famous astronomical diaries. I have no problem with any of the information on any of them. I am able to confirm that the diary dated that year does indeed refer to astronomy events that can be calculated to 568 BCE and 567 BCE. Although there are always a few readings that can be quite similar to any other year (even this year, 2024 CE) there are a lot of them that can ONLY have happened in that particular year 568 BCE.
    I have no way of verifying whether some or any of the historical information is true, meaning whether Nebuchadnezzar himself was actually involved in any campaigns referenced for that same year. At least we know that the Babylonians were more forthright about their defeats and their fears than say, the Assyrian and many Egyptian records, so I am willing to give the information on the astronomical tablet the benefit of the doubt.
    As to what seems like a specific question that asks for solid evidence solid evidence that the tablets in question that refer to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar were specifically generated for the "destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC"
    This seems a lot like asking me to provide solid evidence that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were specifically generated  to help George Washington win the Revolutionary War in the previous century before Lincoln. Why would I want to find evidence to support something I have never claimed, and a premise that I find completely ridiculous? I will never want to or try to provide evidence that whatever Nebuchadnezzar was reported to have done in his 37th year was specifically generated for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.  
    Perhaps you only meant to ask if a tablet that indicates that his 37th year was 568 BCE somehow also provides evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587. Of course it doesn't. All it does is provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE. If someone's is proven to be 37 years old this year, then that is absolute PROOF that they were 27 years old 10 years earlier, and that they were 18 years old 19 years earlier. So any true evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was in his 37th year in 568 BCE (if true) is also evidence that 27th year was 10 years earlier, and his 18th year was 19 years earlier, therefore, 587 BCE. 
    If you don't agree with the points I just highlighted in red, above, we probably could just stop the conversation right here and stop wasting each other's time, with your evasions and my need to repeat the same answers over and over. So I'll go on to the next, but I am also asking you if you agree with the points I just highlighted in red in that last paragraph. Are you willing to at least respond to that question about whether you agree to only what's in red?
    That will give us a place to start, and then we can move on to whether you believe that there is really any TRUE evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 568 BCE.
  4. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @George88, You also still attempt the same thing scholarJW attempted several times with me in the past by trying to claim that this is apostate data, that it is COJ methodology. This time around, even scholarJW admitted that COJ only repeated the standard evidence given by others. So I doubt that this particular "ruse" is working so well any more. Here are just some of your examples:
    It's a clever ruse, only for those who don't realize that Carl Olof Johnson had nothing to do with this data. In the next post I'll supply some names of persons that the WTS thinks are better to quote from. None of them have ever shown support for the WTS Chronology, however.
  5. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    …. From George88:
    “Pudgy appears to be seeking another altercation, but it would be wise to let it pass. Do not squander your valuable time. These individuals enjoy feigning kindness despite being anything but.”

    Kindness is in the eye of the beholder.
    I will, and have, risked traffic accidents to get a turtle off a road.
    I capture spiders in the house and take them outside.
    However, I do spray cockroaches with 91% alcohol without remorse.
  6. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @George88: I know that your accusations that I am the one deflecting are untrue, and I'm pretty sure that the 3+ people on this forum who might still be following the conversation also figured that out many, many pages ago. But I will go ahead and answer your questions one more time, even though I already responded directly to all of them. Perhaps, by comparison, it will serve to further highlight your attempts to divert and evade and dodge. 
    I will mention up front however, that I already knew that you and scholarJW would do nothing but evade such a simple question, but the more important point is that this type of evasion is true of ALL Witnesses who know the answer. It's even seen in the very careful wording of the Insight book's Chronology article. Once you do more research on your own, you begin to realize that the WTS publications, especially since 1981, had to start choosing their words much more carefully so as to avoid admitting what they now knew to be true, and what they didn't want readers to know. I'm embarrassed by the technique, because it's also a type of evasion. The 1969 Watchtower eclipse mistake and the 2011 Watchtower that fell for Fururi's fumbling fiasco were also embarrassing, but the culprit was probably just a lot of "wishful thinking." Agenda driven research is typically myopic.
    So I will answer your questions one more time in one of my next posts, but before I do, I will remind our expansive audience that the simple question to you was:
    What BCE year does Babylonian astronomy evidence point to for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? 
    Here are your responses:
    You simply evade, evade, evade, and then try to claim that I am the one evading. 
    Also, you can throw out your reliance on COJ as a boogeyman, and just use the "expert" authors and researchers that the Watchtower Society quotes instead:
    *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
    Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, . . . D. D. Luckenbill: . . .—Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia
    . . .  A. T. Olmstead, . . .—Assyrian Historiography, . . . Professor A. W. Ahl (Outline of Persian History). . . . Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975 . . . . .A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. . . .  (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, . . . Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) . . .The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. . . .  . . . (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) . . . Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971 . . . Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler . . . Professor O. Neugebauer . . . —The Exact Sciences in Antiquity,. . . . George Rawlinson . . . . P. J. Wiseman, 
    Or we can use persons on the following lists of experts, researchers and authors found in the 2011 Watchtower about VAT 4956:
    *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
    [all text snippets below taken directly from the article's footnotes, with only a few repetitions]
    Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000 reprint, page 8. Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents, by Ellen Whitley Moore, published 1935, page 33. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, “Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers,” by John M. Steele, published 2000, page 36. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1972, page 3. . . . Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3, 90, 106. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sippar 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein, and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pages 25, 35. Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume VII, (Tablets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty and A. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36. Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by Ronald H. Sack, published 1994, page 232. The month on the tablet is Ajaru (second month). —Nabonidus and Belshazzar—A Study of the Closing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, published 1929, page 61. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. 17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,  . . . (An Astronomical Observer’s Text of the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, pages 67-76, . . . (Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, (“The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson and David M. Willis, in Under One Sky—Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen,  This analysis was made with the astronomy software entitled TheSky6™. In addition, the analysis was augmented by the comprehensive freeware program Cartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and a date converter provided by the U.S. Naval Observatory. . . . So, let's forget about your precious need for COJ's association with the dates in question, and only make use of the same resources that the Watchtower thought useful to list. 
  7. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    What is see is that you, Georgie, as the self appointed “Vicar of Warwick” are trying to support anything that will lead people to agree with the supposition about which EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET WAS WRONG ABOUT that God’s Kingdom by Christ was established circa 1914. A theory of a billion words, but without any factual basis whatsoever.
    No real evidence of any type, by anyone, anywhere supports that idea.
    WWI was a coincidence … no more.
    NO EVIDENCE … zero, zip, nada, goose eggs to the contrary.
    I can look out my window and SEE that the Great Tribulation has NOT occurred.
    I can look out my window and SEE that Armageddon has not occurred.
    I can look out my window and SEE that God’s Kingdom does NOT rule.
    (… I trust Jehovah has his reasons …)
    I can easily see, as a non-scholar that doesn’t really give a damn, that JWI’s data is better than YOUR data, and easily see that YOUR rhetoric is evasive, deliberately misleading and MOST IMPORTANTLY, entirely Agenda driven.
    It’s like watching two guys in a movie arguing about what size tires work best on a 1971 Corvette Convertible pulling a U-Haul trailer at various speeds up to 120 miles an hour …. when the car was destroyed in a collision with reality 37 years ago.
    It really, really, REALLY does not matter.
    I can easily see with droopy eyelids and ADD that JWI’s data, arguments, and presentation makes more sense than yours.
    ….. but I can look out the window, or stand in my yard, and see it doesn’t matter.
    But that’s OK … I have notebooks full of drawings and data and calculations, teaching myself Celestial Navigation with a Sextant and a Chronometer on the open ocean, and I have no reasonable expectation of ever being on a boat or ocean again before I die.
    I think you are entirely wrapped too tight as the self-appointed Vicar of Warwick.

  8. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    Tom you have treated me with vitriolic contempt with every braindead word you write! How is that not mean-spirited to those two working brain cells you're rubbing together? Did you lose one of them? LOL
  9. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    That is such an understatement. Problem is, there is so much to learn and we are so puny in the universe my fear is we're not sufficiently intelligent to learn what there is to know.
  10. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    That's correct, and you also have things going on in China and Europe at the time. Therefore the events have nothing to do with the fact that this and ALL OTHER astronomical diaries and observations from his time point to 568 as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and that is the same thing as pointing to 587 as the 18th year, and 586 as the 19th year. It absolutely does not matter what events were going on at the same time. You are right that they have no value for the year stipulated by the tablets.
    Interestinig isn't it? This has come up before in old topics, that Jeremiah may have meant the expression "70 years" in much the same way as it looks like Isaiah used it. "The typical or "fated" lifespan of a kingdom" like that of Babylon. As if it were already a cliche about Assyria, and the "lifespan" of a kingdom rarely went beyond a dynasty of say, father/son/grandson before a new dynasty would begin. It may not have been literal, a literal, exact 70 years, but just used a way of reminding people that empires and dynasties come and go, and Jehovah will use that same lifespan cycle, of the rise and fall of empires, to both punish and then release his people. In that sense Babylon's "70 years" becomes Judah's "70 years" of reversal. Not that either one needs to be exact or even needs to coincide. The "70 years" given to one is the cause of the "70 years" of the other. 
    I personally don't buy it, though, because it's so obvious that the fall of the Assyrian Empire was most apparent 70 years before the fall of Babylon was most apparent. From 609 to 539 is a much better theory than 587 to 517 for the "flip side" of the 70 years for the Temple. I think you have implied that the Temple might have actually been effectively destroyed in 597 or at least at the Babylonian Chronicle's event associated with 597. It makes for an interesting "compromise" only 10 years off the WTS date, and 10 years off the evidence from all the astronomy dating for NEB II.
    You said that wrong. Accession year is used so that his 37th regnal year IS also 568 and not 567, according to the way Babylonians were required to count. If you had used a different method of counting regnal years (NON-Accession year counting) then the 37th year would be one year EARLIER not later, because his accession year (the zero-th year) would have already counted as his 1st, therefore his Babylonian counted 10th would be counted in NON-Accession as his 9th. And his 37th would be counted as his 36th. The year earlier was 569 BCE, not 567 BCE. But G88, BTK59, etc., never admit error.
    He didn't say it was destroyed in 597, though, did he? He said it fell. Just like Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539. It wasn't destroyed then. For most cities, it wasn't worth destroying if they could still be forced to pay tribute, keep the fields planted, keep the vineyards dressed, etc. There is more wealth to transfer to a king when you DON'T destroy the city but take away their elites who keep most of the trading profits from the "people of the land," and replace those elites with soldiers who are required to take most of those same profits back to their king. 
    Also, note that the Bible said it took him about a year and a half of siege to take Jerusalem and finally break through its walls. If you notice the wording carefully in Jeremiah, it appears that most of the ones exiled in 597 were apparently NOT from Jerusalem itself. That happened in year 18/19.
    (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile:
    in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
     In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
     In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.
    In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
    As you also indicated elsewhere above: the opposite is true. You need to work with the dates by their face value, and not try to disprove them just because you assume certain events must have happened elsewhere at a different time. I can say I was 60 in in 2017 and that I saw a total solar eclipse in NYC, but you can't say I wasn't just because you claim that I should have been 60 during the Viet Nam war, or that there was another total solar eclipse in 1925, so THAT must have been my 60th year. The desired event has nothing to do with the date. My birth certificate doesn't change for any events, my driver's license doesn't change for any events, my passport doesn't change for any events. 
  11. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    It's no excuse for bad behavior, and I don't suggest a notion of interior 'gentle souls'. There are people who appear to be inherently straightforward in expressing their views and to the more genteel that might strike as crass or obnoxious. But that's different than being a bully. A person can be born with a personality that is straightforward. Bullies are made. Person's who project their thoughts straightforwardly aren't hurting or threatening anyone's person. Maybe their ideas. But not their person. So when it comes to "obnoxious trolls" I'm not sure what behavior you refer. I don't think AlanF was a troll. AlanF was a man who cared about facts, evidence and sound thinking. He also cared about people. Concern for people drove him, and in particular concern for people who were being intellectually manipulated.
  12. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    AlanF would talk about Neo-Babylonian chronology until my eyes glazed and my ears were bleeding, and he'd still only be at the start of what he wanted to share. I'd have to open a bottle of fine wine and break off a piece of well-molded and stinky cheese to get him on another topic so I could rest.
  13. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
    I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 
  14. Thanks
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in ACTUAL evidence Nebuchadnezzar's 18th is 587 BCE. TEN TIMES BETTER evidence than for Cyrus in 539?   
    FYI, I have moved some of the posts about AlanF and the ensuing discussion about errors, behavior, forgiveness, prodigality, etc., over to a new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90947-forum-participants-we-have-known/
    I believe that, so far, this move only affected some posts by @BTK59, @Many Miles, @TrueTomHarley, and @Srecko Sostar
  15. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    I'm not intimately familiar with AlanF's participation here. But it's contrary to my experience that AlanF would attack things a person said for no reason. On the other hand, if he felt a person's intelligence was anywhere north of idiocy, he would become increasingly aggressive in his presentation of information and responses if the individual refused to learn. For AlanF, that reaction was somewhat of a compliment. It meant he saw intelligence in the person he was engaging. How what he said might make them feel was not something he'd spend much time considering, let alone worrying about.
    A weakness AlanF had, in my opinion, was that he tended to discount the extent of influence emotion can have on a person's ability to comprehend. Academically he'd yield that latter point, but in discussion not so much. Some individuals have such an emotional need that there are things they just can't allow themselves to learn of because it would wreck the world they depend on. A person on a ledge we should not push. I'm not suggesting that's the case with the other names you mention. One I've had some decent amount of interaction with and find them pleasant enough and not tide down emotionally. But with AlanF seeing anything through another person's lens of emotion was something he had trained himself to refrain from as a matter of learning, and learning was what he thrived on and lived for.
    AlanF and I have both been downrange of one another's conclusions and arguments, so I know that experience. Some of those discussions were more than robust! Thankfully we both gave one another full liberty to speak freely in our exchanges without thought of feelings. But I only know how I experienced it, not how the same would be experienced by another person. Another person could easily find it offensive, or even as an attack. Whether I agreed or disagreed with AlanF (or anyone else!) I always looked for whatever I can learn from each interaction, and there is always something to learn. That said, later in my life I have determined not to spend time suffering fools.
  16. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    That's what I'd expect to see emphasized in video produced by the society. But my comment alluded to PEW research which found nearly 70% of persons raised as JW do not identify with the religion as adults, which is not something I would expect the society to produce a video of.
  17. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known   
    That was an instance of a person who, as an adult, returned to what he had been raised in. The situation with JWs is to the contrary. Children raised in the religion, as adults, cease identifying with it and don't return.
  18. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    It's pretty simple.
    Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar.  Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE.  That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar. But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work. So a Watchtower contributor or writer looks at the eclipse log for 641 BCE, and lo and behold there was a total eclipse that year.  So the Watchtower writer/editor says: Look Ptolemy and Babylon say that a partial eclipse happened in 621, but we found an eclipse that doesn't match that description in 641. Even though it doesn't match, we'll go with it, and say it's even BETTER than the right one that matches, because the 641 eclipse is TOTAL not partial. It's the same as if this happened, not that it ever would:
    BTK59 says, I found a report with a map of a burial mound of Cherokee Native Americans in Dahlonega, Georgia, USA containing tiny "Indian arrowheads" of the exact shape that the Cherokees made. I wondered if the map was accurate and if I could find one of those tiny arrowheads. And look, it worked, I just found this Cherokee-style arrowhead exactly where the map pointed.  JWI says, Wait, No. I just found a large flint spearhead in burial mound of Osage Native Americans in Joplin Missouri. This must be what you were really looking for, because it was found in a burial mound just like you said. Now BTK59 has two options here. He could say: BTK59 says: JWI, you are a despicable fool. The map said the tiny arrowheads were in Georgia, and that's where I found an arrowhead exactly matching the description. And now you bring me a large spearhead from hundreds of miles off the map. And you say it's the same just because they were both in burial mounds. Or, BTK59 could say: "I see no conflict with this observation, JWI." 
  19. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Mic Drop in California's New Death Tax   
    There is no real estate tax in Croatia, yet. They have been putting it off for decades. So the owner of the property does not pay any taxes to the state because of reason he own something, house or any other real estate.
    In the case of inheritance of real estate from parents to children, no tax is paid (spouse, descendants and ancestors who form an upright line and adopted children and adoptive parents who are in that relationship with the deceased or donor). In other cases, 3% of the market value is paid.
  20. Thanks
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Forum participants we have known   
    It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors.
    But there is one exception for humans. We are to watch for errors in "teaching." And since ours is a teaching ministry, even for the youngest among us, we MUST watch for errors when it comes to teaching wrong doctrine and the possibility of misleading others:
    (Matthew 16:12) . . .Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of bread, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (James 3:1) . . .Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.  (Galatians 6:1) . . .Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. . . . (Ephesians 4:14, 15) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. But speaking the truth. . . (Matthew 23:15) . . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves. (Hebrews 13:17) . . .Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. (Matthew 18:6) But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.
  21. Thanks
    Srecko Sostar reacted to TrueTomHarley in Forum participants we have known   
    Another ‘tortured soul,’ methinks, for whom I must have compassion.
    The best way to heal and not to further inflict torture upon oneself is to forgive.
    “If errors were what you watch, O Jah, Then who, O Jehovah, could stand?” (Psalms 130:3)
    Errors are all people watch today, inside or outside of religion. Nobody stands in the face of such treatment.
    What is that saying about resentment—that it is like drinking poison and hoping the other person will die?
  22. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Yes. It's one of the first sets of items I ever checked against the astronomy applications. It's a summary of Rolf Furuli's book. And this is an even bigger embarrassment to the WTS than the Nabopolassar 5th year eclipse that I mentioned in my previous post. 
    The article was smart not to use Furuli's name, because his previous book on chronology had also been full of some amateur errors. (And in order to hide the fact that he was merely trying to create "scholarly-looking" support for the WT chronology he said he was developing the "Oslo Chronology." That's where he's from.) And using his name would have led people to the Internet, where his book and his theory had already been thoroughly debunked. And, in the worst-case scenario, it would have potentially driven more Witnesses to do what you are doing, obtaining software to look it up for themselves.
    But unfortunately, while removing Furuli's name, the article tends to imply a kind of "editorial 'we'" which implicates the WTS itself, and the article therefore implies that the WTS knows others who have validated Furuli, or has itself tried to verify these readings. Obviously, they didn't or they would discover exactly what you will discover when you check it out for yourself.
    The problem starts with the fact that there is a well known copyist's error on the tablet. (Most all the astronomy tablets we have are copies, or even copies of copies.) There is actually more than one error, but none of the others are significant. This copyists error is considered to be off by one day, although some experts say that it may actually be that it was the name of the star that is off, and it is still the correct day. (When I use the term "experts" I mean many of the same people that the WTS quotes as experts in "Insight" etc.)
    I wrote up my own findings, but they are not as well-documented and well-presented as has been done by others. The person who presented it best in my opinion has been on this forum. Her name is Ann O'maly, although I expect that's a "screen name" meant to be a pun on the word "anomaly." Her write-up on it is on academia.com, and we also discussed it here on the forum. I'll point you to both in the next couple of posts, and we can discuss it again from there.
  23. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Mic Drop in California's New Death Tax   
    The real estate industry pushed this through to give an extra incentive for people to sell their homes. With low taxes, you keep the home. With high taxes, you are more likely to sell.
    Kevin Mullins authored... democrat
  24. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Mic Drop in California's New Death Tax   
    The ads promoting 19 didn't mention that it would put elderly heirs on the pavement because of massive tax increases nor did they say the funding came from real estate agents.
  25. Like
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in Forum participants we have known   
    Dad had a "rebellious-lost son" who left and came back. But dad also had a "faithful JW-son" who showed that dad made a mistake somewhere in his upbringing. Not only with the "lost son" but also with the one who "stayed at home".
    Now, did the father make a mistake in upbringing, so he created a "broken household"? And where was the mother? Or was he a "single father"? Or was the older JW son actually the "goat", because he showed all the accumulated negativity when his younger brother returned?
    SO, MM made a good point. JWs have no solution even for their own social deviations. They have the same sufferings as the rest of the religious world, who are in "the safe place of their own religion".
    I think the population of "nominal JWs" is increasing, regardless of whether they were "born into the religion" or accepted it by coming "from outside". 
    My impression of this view increases when I see "mute" JWs standing by the carts and carrying on their private conversations with each other a few meters away from the "source of spiritual food".
    Jesus was active in reaching people with the "good news". What is "active" about standing 10-15 feet from the cart?
    On the other hand, JWs want to "fix the world", because they want to "fix people" so that they turn to God. So what exactly is the WTJWorg mission? "Going/flee out of the world" and not returning to it?
    So why are they fighting for tax breaks and state money?  It is a form of returning to the world from which you supposedly escaped.
    Or for "freedom of speech and belief"?  Within their church they have complete freedom to believe their own speech.

  • 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.