Jump to content

Ann O'Maly

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    713

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Ann O'Maly last won the day on September 1 2016

Ann O'Maly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

440 Excellent

See reputation activity

12 Followers

About Ann O'Maly

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. lentaylor71 started following Ann O'Maly
  2.    JW Insider reacted to a post in a topic: Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?
  3.    Srecko Sostar reacted to a post in a topic: Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?
  4.    Anna reacted to a post in a topic: Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?
  5.    Space Merchant reacted to a post in a topic: Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?
  6. Ann O'Maly started following Maybe It’s Not Cold On the Moon? ~ ? and Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?
  7. Ann O'Maly
    Hi folks. Just breezing through. I've not dropped off the end of the earth - I'm just *really* busy. Got a notification on my email saying the Librarian wanted to know if Leolaia's excellent article "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" was still available. The previous link is now dead, apparently. Try here:
      Hello guest!
    Glad to see these discussions are still going. Hi and bye
  8.    Outta Here reacted to a post in a topic: London, England JW Convention - Fashion Show
  9.    James Thomas Rook Jr. reacted to a post in a topic: London, England JW Convention - Fashion Show
  10.    Jack Ryan reacted to a reply to a status update: You seem to be bitter, unhappy and have a hate for the Witnesses - hence the constant
  11.    James Thomas Rook Jr. reacted to a post in a topic: Is it appropriate for minors to get baptized?
  12.    James Thomas Rook Jr. reacted to a post in a topic: Is it appropriate for minors to get baptized?
  13.    James Thomas Rook Jr. reacted to a post in a topic: Is it appropriate for minors to get baptized?
  14.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: Evolution Destroyed in 7 minutes by Jehovah God's creation ~ ???
  15.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: Anti-Masturbation Training Video For Jehovah's Witnesses!
  16.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  17.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  18.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  19.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 1914 (and 607) - Where did the WTS get the idea?
  20.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  21.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  22.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  23.    Ann O'Maly reacted to a post in a topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?
  24. Ann O'Maly
    Fixed that for you.Â
  25. Ann O'Maly
    There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
  26. Ann O'Maly
    Naw, I saw the original, outrageously out-of-order post but hadn't had chance to comment on it earlier. I partially agree with @AlanF in that people should be allowed to show their true colors. However, if there is to be any meaningful discussion of 'controversial' subjects at all, no matter how idiotic and difficult some posters might be and have been for years [let the reader use discernment ], one shouldn't have to wade through a quagmire of base insults and crud-slinging to get to the relevant, on-topic parts.Â
  27. Ann O'Maly
    Wow. I get called all the cusswords under the sun ... just for calling AllenSmith[insert#here] a kumquat several pages ago? Â
  28. Ann O'Maly
    I think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study:
      Hello guest!
    From the introduction: "Deportees played a key role here [in the less populated regions]: they were settled in marginal rural areas and integrated into the land-for-service sector of agriculture.33 Given plots of land to cultivate, they had to pay taxes and perform work and military service in return. The majority of cuneiform sources pertaining to Judeans originate from the land-for-service sector of Babylonian agriculture." - p. 6 "Agriculture was of huge importance to the Babylonian economy, and a great many deportees were settled in the countryside to bring new land under cultivation. There is no evidence that the Babylonians practised Assyrian-style two-way deportations, but deportees were predominantly taken to Babylonia, especially to depopulated areas in the countryside." - p. 9 I've only skimmed parts of this doctoral dissertation because it's only just come up in my email feed.
  29. Ann O'Maly
    From the 'Neil-Speak Glossary': Fact: /fakt/ : noun plural noun: facts a thing that is imagined to be true but bears no resemblance to objective reality. post-truth, Trumpian, 'alternative facts'. also commonly known as 'BS'.
  30. Ann O'Maly
    Those 'greater minds' haven't benefited you any as far as scholastic honesty and integrity are concerned, unfortunately, even when your face is repeatedly slammed with the scriptural and historical evidence. Well, that was a success story, lol. Neil's heart-warming experience of how JWs helped an educated, professional couple convert to Judaism will doubtlessly be included in a forthcoming JWdotOrg Broadcasting production. You read it here first, folks. The rest of your post is even sillier than your first paragraph so isn't worthy of comment. Tap or click on the image, then tap/click again, then swipe or Ctrl + to enlarge? Your browser may need a cache clear-out and relaunching?
  31. Ann O'Maly
    You had listed your source as this, Nana: The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out. The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year. Nice try, though.
  32. Ann O'Maly
    Your antiquated source has Cyrus conquering Babylon in 538 rather than the established 539. It doesn't help you determine that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 538. In reality, once the year is corrected, it shows that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 539. We have no issue with Cyrus issuing his decree after Oct 539. (Just saw Alan had already addressed this. Soz.)
  33. Ann O'Maly
    I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again  This is how attentive to detail you are - you still can't even get the page number right. In the 2nd edition, Franz discussed John A. Brown on p. 142-3. There is nothing about Brown on p. 367 - just a reproduction of a letter regarding Franz's disfellowshipping. As I showed in my previous post, your assertion about Franz agreeing with the Proclaimers book statement is wrong. But you know all this. AlanF went over this with you many years ago. And yet you persist in these untruths. Likely for the same reason I can't address him by his chosen online misnomer. I start breaking out in hives when I do. ------------------------------ About the 537 thing. There was a fun thread on that topic started by one of the Allen Smiths a while back. His argument for a 537 return could be summarized thus: Link to post. Â
  34. Ann O'Maly
    Smh. Um, for years you have been clutching that ball tightly to your chest, ungraciously refusing to bat it across. Fortunately, someone has thrown over another one. It took the person* less than 2 hours, Neil! To review, you claimed: At last, readers here can judge for themselves how 'plain' and 'evident' the connection is ... or otherwise:  Further, you said: I also have his 2nd edition, although it's a 1992 printing. Franz did not "support the Society's position" about what was stated in the Proclaimers book. He actually said: "Brown first published this interpretation in 1823 and his method converted the “seven times” into 2,520 years in exactly the same way found today in Watch Tower publications." ... meaning that the way Brown converted 'seven times' into 2,520 years, by using a day-for-a-year method, is the same one Watchtower uses. That's quite different to what you were implying. By 2004, Franz had added a footnote: "See page 134 of Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. The book makes the erroneous statement that, although not ‘clearly discerning’ the date with which the 2,520 years would begin or end (evidently meaning that his dates for the beginning and the ending did not match those of Watch Tower teachings), Brown “did connect these ‘seven times’ with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.” As Jonsson’s book The Gentile Times Reconsidered correctly states “Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.” His 2,520- year calculation did, however, play a part in the later linking of the “seven times” with the Gentile Times in 1826. See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, pages 32-36, for a full discussion of this development." - p. 179 So as usual Neil, your claims do not align with reality. * Thanks go to Alan F for promptly providing the scan.
  35. Ann O'Maly
    Indeed it is. You know what to do.
  36. Ann O'Maly
    Somebody quickly build a Starbucks there or those pioneers will never survive.
  37. Ann O'Maly
    In all your nearly 20 years of possessing it, you've never 'been disposed' to sharing it. Again I ask, Neil: Why should anyone bother Bethel about it? Don't they have enough to do? YOU have the page. YOU are here now. YOU can easily post it ... unless the page's contents contradict your claim which, given your long posting history on the internet, is entirely probable. But if you're not going to do it, you're not going to do it, so let's move on.Â


×
×
  • 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.

  I accept