xero

6 hours ago, Miracle Pete said:

It’s as if Jesus himself is speaking. What about carpenters? Is your opinion the same for them? 

Boom! Roasted!

@George88It's "little whiny girl".

"A "whinny" typically refers to the characteristic vocalization of a horse, particularly the sound made by a horse when it is excited, happy, or trying to communicate with other horses or humans. It's a high-pitched, neighing sound that horses make by expelling air through their nostrils while vocalizing. The whinny can vary in intensity and duration depending on the horse's emotional state and the context in which it is vocalizing. It's one of the many ways horses communicate with each other and with humans."

People who bloviate often exhibit certain psychological tendencies or motivations that drive their behavior. Here are some aspects of their psychology:

1. Need for Attention: Bloviation is often a way for individuals to seek attention and validation. They may feel a sense of importance or superiority when they dominate conversations or express their opinions forcefully.

2. Insecurity: Bloviation can also stem from feelings of insecurity. Individuals may feel the need to constantly assert themselves or demonstrate their knowledge in order to mask their own insecurities or feelings of inadequacy.

3. Narcissism: Bloviation can be a manifestation of narcissistic tendencies, where individuals have an inflated sense of self-importance and believe that their opinions are inherently superior to others'. They may disregard or belittle opposing viewpoints.

4. Desire for Control: Bloviation can be a way for individuals to exert control over a conversation or situation. By dominating the dialogue, they can influence the direction of the discussion and maintain a sense of power.

5. Lack of Self-awareness: Some individuals who bloviate may lack self-awareness regarding the impact of their behavior on others. They may not realize that their excessive verbosity or grandiose speech can be off-putting or alienating to those around them.

6. Difficulty Listening: Bloviation often coincides with a lack of active listening skills. Individuals may be more focused on expressing their own thoughts and opinions than on genuinely engaging with others or considering alternative viewpoints.

7. Validation Seeking: Bloviation can be a way for individuals to seek validation and approval from others. They may believe that by impressing others with their knowledge or rhetoric, they will gain admiration and respect.

8. Intellectual Insecurity: In some cases, bloviation may stem from a fear of being perceived as intellectually inferior. Individuals may overcompensate by attempting to demonstrate their intelligence or expertise in a particular subject.

9. Habitual Behavior: For some individuals, bloviating may simply be a habitual behavior that they have developed over time. They may not even be consciously aware of their tendency to dominate conversations or monopolize attention.

Overall, the psychology of bloviating individuals is complex and multifaceted, often involving a combination of factors such as insecurity, narcissism, and a desire for validation and control

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

Unlike other apostate posts, this one you voice a complaint which lacks a coherent commentary to support your argument, Tom, or Xero?

I don't know whether you just had a seizure, but you're not making sense. You're one step away from talking in word salads.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. Is there a recommendation to do something? Believe something? 
 

This phrase "Why don't former members of Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the impact that other religions have on societies as a whole here?" is weirdly ambiguous.

On the one hand it claims that "former members" have a certain belief in common, namely some ambiguous "[a failure to]  "recognize the impact that other religions have on societies as a whole here"".

I don't know how anyone could know anything consistently true about ex-JW's other than that they are ex-JW's. Their reason for being ex-JW's varies, and how any of the business of being an "ex-JW" could be queried such that one could speak of them as a bloc in holding any given attitude about anything is beyond me.

Then it seems there's some squishy words which we're supposed to imagine flows naturally to "What are you doing about evil in the world?" Implying that some unclearly named others aren't, w/o making an explicit argument. 

Then we're having our attention directed to a case of some nuns who have issues with their hierarchy, and somehow this is supposed to exemplify something, but what that is isn't clear either.

Then SS uses this as an opportunity to express himself, however how any of his expressions can in any way connect with the OP's ambiguous post is beyond me.

Maybe if I passed this through some gematria calculator, it will make more sense.

https://www.gematrix.org/?word=Why+don't+former+members+of+Jehovah's+Witnesses+recognize+the+impact+that+other+religions+have+on+societies+as+a+whole+here%3F
Turns out that phrase has the value of 8957, which is also tellingly the same numeric value as the phrase:
https://www.gematrix.org/?word=stalked by fallen ones then why they hiding in bunkers they must know something you useless eaters on the surface dont know hahahaha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4v1cb04vB4

I'm not surprised about anything any more. When I see the scope of the evil that humans have brought to life on this planet I'm at a loss as to why Jehovah hasn't ended this nonsense a long time ago. I can no longer even imagine a series of events which would lead me to conclude that the end was something I should be expecting, as in the manner normal humans have as to expectations. All I can say is that the end will happen at an unexpected time, which could mean that my expectations based on events have to be thoroughly exhausted and then when it is no longer even possible to expect anything, then the end will come. But I say hasn't this already come to pass for many, many thousands upon thousands of people besides me and my puny thoughts? So even if I might contingently be exhausted as regards my expectations, then the end isn't anything contingent on anything any one of humanity might be expecting.

Speaking of humor. I like this guy and I learned some things at the same time.

The upshot of all this so far feels a little bit like a carnival side-show "cover the spot" game only worse.

You have to get the cuneiform translations correct (some argue about the translations)
You have to argue for the cuneiform documents not being altered (some argue they've been altered)

You have to download multiple pieces of software and plot and print each one so you can scrutinize them. (make sure they all have the same resolution and viewpoint)
You have to remember that weird carry the one math thing (or is it minus the one) for BCE dates when you put it into the software.
You have to assume that the software is computing all this correctly, so you'll want to get a chart of eclipses and spot check the software using eclipses in modern times and locations.
You have to assume these have correctly created the right constellations using Babylonian/Assyrian names.
Then you have to research and see if there's evidence that the intercalary months which got added, got added when and where the authorities say they got added. (not all agree)

Or you can just quote your favorite authority and go with that.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Understanding historical events involves delving into the past to gain insight into the present. A skilled researcher knows exactly where to find the necessary information, much like navigating by the stars. If the destruction of "Nineveh" occurred in 612 BC, what astronomical evidence supports this event?

Then you have references to the destruction of Nineveh in 606 BC and the siege of Nineveh in 635 BC.

Either we conduct our own research or acknowledge the flawed nature of JWI's research. It is not possible to have it both ways.

The only way I've found any historians able to date with any certainty events in the past is when the initial recorders were accurate as to both the astronomical events these were seeing as well as the events which were occurring at the same time. Without the astronomical events you don't have any precision. Of course I'm referring to dates prior to our Common Era.

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And the beard is a subliminal message for Santa Claus.

merry krats mikh. --- yiddish for scratch me (I studied w/a Jewish engineer who told me that one)

18 hours ago, George88 said:

Not at all. I wholeheartedly endorse 607 BC as the correct date. However, I utilize the dating system from secular history to validate it

How does that work, since nothing secular has attachments to anything we can verify w/o astronomical triangulation?

Like my mom always said ...."small pants fit small behinds"

@JW InsiderSo you're saying they are wrong. Got it. 

Reading Josephus in Against Apion
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/2849-h.htm

19. I will now relate what hath been written concerning us in the Chaldean histories, which records have a great agreement with our books in oilier things also. Berosus shall be witness to what I say: he was by birth a Chaldean, well known by the learned, on account of his publication of the Chaldean books of astronomy and philosophy among the Greeks. This Berosus, therefore, following the most ancient records of that nation, gives us a history of the deluge of waters that then happened, and of the destruction of mankind thereby, and agrees with Moses's narration thereof. He also gives us an account of that ark wherein Noah, the origin of our race, was preserved, when it was brought to the highest part of the Armenian mountains; after which he gives us a catalogue of the posterity of Noah, and adds the years of their chronology, and at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon, and of the Chaldeans. And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia. (Seems to indicate 70 years concluding w/Cyrus @539 BCE)
 
Now as to what I have said before about the temple at Jerusalem, that it was fought against by the Babylonians, and burnt by them, but was opened again when Cyrus had taken the kingdom of Asia, shall now be demonstrated from what Berosus adds further upon that head; for thus he says in his third book: "Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister's husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years; his son Laborosoarchod obtained the kingdom, though he was but a child, and kept it nine mouths; but by reason of the very ill temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world, a plot was laid against him also by his friends, and he was tormented to death. After his death, the conspirators got together, and by common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus, a man of Babylon, and one who belonged to that insurrection. In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen; but when he was come to the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army; and having already conquered all the rest of Asia, he came hastily to Babylonia. When Nabonnedus perceived he was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle with him was beaten, and fled away with a few of his troops with him, and was shut up within the city Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls of the city should be demolished, because the city had proved very troublesome to him, and cost him a great deal of pains to take it. He then marched away to Borsippus, to besiege Nabonnedus; but as Nabonnedus did not sustain the siege, but delivered himself into his hands, he was at first kindly used by Cyrus, who gave him Carmania, as a place for him to inhabit in, but sent him out of Babylonia. Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."

21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; ( So the 70 years was understood by Josephus to begin 20 years BEFORE the burning of the temple)  but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. I will now add the records of the Phoenicians; for it will not be superfluous to give the reader demonstrations more than enough on this occasion. In them we have this enumeration of the times of their several kings: "Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom. So that the records of the Chaldeans and Tyrians agree with our writings about this temple; and the testimonies here produced are an indisputable and undeniable attestation to the antiquity of our nation. And I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious.

@JW Insider"17. Babylonian Eclipse Observations From 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Huber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004, page 186. According to VAT 4956, this eclipse occurred on the 15th of the third Babylonian month, which suggests that the month of Simanu began 15 days earlier. If the eclipse fell on July 15, 588 B.C.E. according to our Julian calendar, then the first day of Simanu would be June 30/July 1, 588 B.C.E. Therefore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu) would have started the new year two months earlier, on May 2/3. While normally the year of this eclipse would have begun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states on line 6 that an extra month (intercalary) was added after the twelfth (last) month (Addaru) of the preceding year. (The tablet reads: “8th of month XII₂.”) Therefore, this made the new year actually not start until May 2/3. Thus, the date of this eclipse in 588 B.C.E. well fits the data on the tablet."

So are we saying this isn't true?

 

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he had to fake the day also and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So hopefully it's pretty clear that the 1st of the 13 lunar readings fits 568 and does not fit 588 at all.

1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)

568 BCE:

Author's verification value:  The moon is located behind the constellation Taurus according to the celestial body's direction of movement (downwards).

Result:  The Moon is behind the constellation Taurus according to celestial direction. -  Same

588 BCE:
"Here, the saying that the moon is 'behind' is related to the movement of celestial bodies. The moon referred to here is the setting moon and is located above Taurus, so Taurus sets first and then the moon sets afterwards ."

Simulated values:  Above is the moon's position at 6:30 PM on May 2, 588 BC. The moon appears to be located in the upper part of Taurus. The central Alpha star has already disappeared, and the moon continues to set above it, giving it an impressive appearance. 

Result:  The Moon is clearly visible behind the constellation Taurus. -  Same

You say that "it doesn't fit at all" , but that's not what it looks like.

Ok, so can anyone tell me why I should prefer 568 BCE over 588 BCE when the astronomical data fully matches 588 BCE but only partially 568 BCE?

588 BCE:
https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220583459010

568 BCE:

https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

I find it amusing that I'm in the same boat as you. However, there's a crucial distinction between us. When things get tough, you have the advantage of being protected by the owner, who happens to ban individuals like me. This is precisely why you don't have to be cautious and your account remains unaffected by the site's rules and regulations. It seems unfair that the warning is intended solely for me, while all the other foolish people here remain untouched.

I think people who trouble themselves to own or run sites have the same kind of character that people who "start new religions" have. I don't know or care about anyone's history. To me talk about people is what tiny-minded people do. <patting my own back>Whereas the smart ones spend their time on the issues</end patting my own back>

So have you looked at the Korean guy's site yet?

Just now, George88 said:

I like it as well since we can apply it to just about anyone here, especially Pudgy, lol!

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'd still prefer a separate topic about the astronomy evidence for the 13 lunar observations, for example, that would not allow any of the ad hominem stuff and desperate attempts to divert and distract. 

When I see ad hominems I see a weakness. I like that. It lets me know when people have sh*tty arguments.

4 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

This comment disregards the misguided claims made in the Watchtower articles, which have been influenced by apostate perspectives. It is important to note that these assertions are being made by an individual who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness but has unfortunately lost all credibility. This person should have been disfellowshipped not because they believe in the Watchtower Chronology, but rather due to their misrepresentation of scripture and God's word.

I could give a rip about the character or motivations of anyone involved in questions of fact. I do find really, really annoying and unhelpful all this sort of meaningless chatter. It's like some stupid, stupid squirrels chasing each other around the trunk of a tree, dashing across the street and getting squished because they kept their eyes on the wrong nut.

@George88I understand that the Babylonians would extend their fist against the sky they were looking at, and a "cubit" was the width of the fist when viewed against the sky.

Then there's this guy.
https://blog.naver.com/gjinzzang/220599019521
 

You have to use chrome and translate from Korean to English.
 

It looks like he's plotted the 13 and has screen shots and observations.