Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    839

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ann O'Maly

  1. Ann O'Maly
    Blowing smoke then. You cannot make a robust defense, @bruceq. Perhaps someone else can help you. Anyone?
  2. Ann O'Maly
    All I see is JW.org's unsubstantiated assertions that there is a second fullfillment. So please, highlight the relevant part that gives Scriptural basis.
  3. Ann O'Maly
    Nebuchadnezzar succeeded the throne in 605 BCE.
  4. Ann O'Maly
    You already c&p'ed a whole section from JW.org. The answer to my question was not there. Highlight it for me please. Explain in your own words (1 Pet. 3:15). Or are you just blowing smoke?
  5. Ann O'Maly
    I did miss the explanation about the Scriptural basis for expecting a fulfillment of Dan. 4 beyond what Daniel said it was. All I saw was JW.org's unsubstantiated assertions that it was so. So please, highlight the relevant part that gives Scriptural basis.
  6. Ann O'Maly
    What 'greater fulfillment? Where does the Bible indicate that Dan. 4 has a fulfillment beyond Nebuchadnezzar. Book, chapter and verses, please. Besides, "Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015204 So. Where is the Scriptural basis for the immense tree in Dan. 4 to represent Judah and God's rulership?
  7. Ann O'Maly
    Then you know the interpretation Daniel gave of the tree dream, and you know that it applied to Nebuchadnezzar and his kingship - no one else. The question is, Do you believe Daniel's divinely-inspired interpretation here? http://www.livius.org/pictures/israel/gezer/the-gezer-calendar/ His two months are harvest His two month are planting His two months are late planting His month is hoeing up of flax His month is harvest of barley His month is harvest and feasting His two months are vine-tending His month is summer fruit. Translation by W.F. Albright
  8. Ann O'Maly
    Haha. So you cannot follow through on what you started. Ah well.
  9. Ann O'Maly
    Let's focus on the Bible's own interpretation instead, hey? Who did God (through Daniel) apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to? (Read Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).
  10. Ann O'Maly
    I didn't ask what wasn't Christendom's interpretation of it. Do you even know what Christendom's interpretation of it is?
  11. Ann O'Maly
    What is Christendom's interpretation of it?
  12. Ann O'Maly
    We're not saying the Bible is incorrect for giving rounded numbers. Rounded numbers are easier to remember. The fact however remains that, astronomically if the Hebrews had a lunar-based calendar, their months would run from "new moon to new moon" as indicated in Isa. 66:23*. New moon to new moon averages at 29.5 days. As @JW Insider said, the month lengths had to alternate (although not necessarily in a strict 30-29-30-29 pattern). Problems arise with regard to people's interpretations of prophetic numbers - especially when they want to convert rounded or schematic months and days into solar years, in which case, a 360-day schematic year is magically converted into 360 solar years of 365.24219 days each! The method is inconsistent and there is no scriptural warrant to convert '7 times' into 2,520 years in the first place. * Also see Isa. 1:13,14 and Amos 8:5 which show the importance of new moon festivals in ancient Hebrew culture. It was formalized in Exodus.
  13. Ann O'Maly
    No - didn't see that. But yes, I can understand why one might not want to stray into the murky waters of non-canonical texts and the potential late dating of Daniel lol. 148 or 149 if we add on the summer solstice. But yes, the Bible often uses rounded numbers. It's not 'solar.' 360-day years are 'ideal' or 'schematic' - never 'solar.' With a 354-day lunar-based calendar, yes. It's neither fish nor fowl. If 7 years are 2,520 days, then it's neither lunar-based nor solar-based and it's several days short of the 365.24219-day tropical year assumed in the 'day-for-a-year' conversion to get to 1914.
  14. Ann O'Maly
    You may find these two sources helpful. Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies, p. 193 f. Jonathan Ben-Dov, The 364-day Year in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Pseudepigrapha The earliest manuscripts of Daniel date to the 2nd century BCE, btw, as you probably already know. The tl;dr version is that, when using the 360-day schematic year in calculating anything, you have to always remember to add on the 4 epagomenal days - i.e. the 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes - thereby making the year 364 days, which was the calendar the Jews used at the time. So with 42 months (of 30 days each), you'd have to add on 3 x 4 epagomenal days = 12 days + another 2 epagomenal days for the 6 months left over which in total = 14 days to add to that schematic 1,260-day period, which comes to 1,274 days in those 42 months or 3.5 years. Daniel certainly spoke of 7 periods. He did not, however, apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to the throne of Judah. He applied it solely to King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).
  15. Ann O'Maly
    Good points. Also, some terminology is more common or even unique to JWs, so if we punch in those terms (e.g. 'God's kingdom' or 'ransom sacrifice'), we are going to get jw.org at the top of the list. Punch in 'Kingdom of God' or 'atonement doctrine' and jw.org will be way down the list if it appears at all on the first page.
  16. Ann O'Maly
    Which test did you do? Did you put in the same search criteria as you said you did in your p. 8 post? Did you log into your Chrome or Google account on the Library computer? Sure. Nah. https://www.thetoptens.com/most-hated-religions-world/ http://religionnews.com/2016/09/14/muslims-surpass-atheists-as-most-unpopular-group-in-us/
  17. Ann O'Maly
    If 'Johnny the Bethelite' reported this (from his Bethel hidey-hole (more likely) Rick Fearon's closet ) then it must be legit. Having said that, the mental distress of suddenly being cast out and shunned by family and friends is no laughing matter and, tragically, there have been suicides or suicide attempts by those who have suffered this treatment. Â Â
  18. Ann O'Maly
    Pretty much. There has to be evidence that the departing spouse has committed adultery thereby 'scripturally' releasing the abandoned one from the marriage. If not, then, pfft, stuck forever. However, I saw this in the Branch Correspondence Guidelines (2007, revised 2008): "What if a mate is long missing and presumed dead? The law may allow that after a set time and a diligent but unsuccessful search for the person, he or she may be declared legally dead. If that occurs and the 'survivor' truly believes the absentee to be dead, he or she may remarry but should be willing to bear responsibility before God.—w69 7/15 447-8." - p. 75
  19. Ann O'Maly
    Hm. You do realize that Google remembers your computer's search history, your likes and interests, don't you? Therefore, if you are a frequent visitor to jw.org, Google will bias your searches toward the sites you've shown past interest in. When I opened a Chrome incognito window and searched "the kingdom of God," my first result was a wikipedia article, my second was the gotquestions site, third was the lifehopeandtruth site, and JW.org came fourth.
  20. Ann O'Maly
    The wider contextual argument has to factor in, surely, that Jesus was placed in the highest authority over the cosmos [you know the Scripture texts]. This, along with the immediate context of Stephen's appeal to Jesus (and how did he do that other than directly talking to him, or as we would term it as 'prayer'?) means that the 'Lord,' to whom Stephen appealed for his executioners' forgiveness, was indeed Jesus. 'Jehovah' at Acts 7:60 is incongruous with the explicit identification of the Lord's identity at v. 59. If the writer of Acts really wanted to convey that Stephen called upon Jehovah in v. 60 in contrast to 'Lord Jesus' in v. 59, he would have put 'Lord God' or 'Father' or even scratched in the Tetragrammaton. Ps. 110:1 is a red herring here. We have, in the Hebrew manuscript 'YHWH' and 'my Lord' - a 'Lord' in addition to 'YHWH' so clearly differentiated. But yes, at Matt. 22:44, the Greek has κύριος so 'Lord' should have been translated in the main text rather than 'Jehovah.' That Acts 7:59, 60 and 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 speak of Jesus being directly addressed are, to me, a slam-dunk . But I recognize, from within the JW mindset, how uncomfortable the thought is of talking to/praying to/supplicating Jesus directly. And so, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
  21. Ann O'Maly
    However, the context and wording of the passage in the other letter - the second one to the Corinthians - strongly suggests Paul was addressing Jesus. Let's take another look: Three times I begged the Lord [which Lord?] about this, that it would depart from me.  But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness [which Lord's 'undeserved kindness'? But cp. Acts 15:11; Rom. 1:7; 16:20; 2 Cor. 8:9; etc. - 'undeserved kindness' can derive from Jesus as well as from God] is sufficient for you, for my power [which Lord's power?] is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ [ahh, Paul clarifies that he means the Lord Christ] may remain over me like a tent.  So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful. Well, I'm of the opinion that it's the translator's job to translate what's there - not to interpolate. Yes, the NWT should have put the replacement 'Jehovah' as a footnote rather than into the main text. Regarding the parallel phrasing Stephen used: Jesus cried out, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) Stephen similarly cried out, "“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Seeing as Stephen was clearly addressing Jesus here, it's most natural that he'd continue addressing him when, a moment later, he says, "Lord, do not charge this sin against them."
  22. Ann O'Maly
    I've heard devout JWs use the expression. Some say the phrase comes from an old Scottish poem; others say it originates from the 99th 'The Nines' Wiltshire Regiment who were known for being very smartly presented. There are other hypotheses, but Its origin is unclear. I've not come across the 'nine gods' idea before. Given that no support has been provided, I'm guessing it's been made up.
  23. Ann O'Maly
    The book has been discontinued. There was a congregation notice back in November 2015 which said it was among those that "will no longer be available once stock has been depleted at the branch."
  24. Ann O'Maly
    Just another thought. The Org highlights in its QFR that 'God' was inserted into the KJV translation of Acts 7:59, thereby giving the wrong impression (in its view) that Jesus is God. However, it is also important to note that 'Jehovah' has been inserted into the NWT translation of the following verse 60 rather than keeping to the original 'Lord,' thereby similarly biasing the reader - this time into thinking Stephen was addressing the Father instead of the Son (the latter is consistent with the immediate context). This is how the verses ought to read: Acts 7:59, 60 - As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”  Then, kneeling down, he cried out with a strong voice: “Lord, do not charge this sin against them.” And after saying this, he fell asleep in death.
  25. Ann O'Maly
    Did Paul pray to Jesus? 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 - To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me.  But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ may remain over me like a tent.  So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.
×
×
  • 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.