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
    @Arauna Lighten up! 😆
  2. Ann O'Maly
    Nonsense. You are twisting Jeremiah's words. The Babylonian king was not 'called to account' two years after the 70 years ended. No, this is what I encouraged you to do, Neil - to read Jer. 51:37 in context. You're swinging this around again, lol. Thus, you cannot tell me when in Babylon's history certain key elements of Jeremiah 51 were fulfilled, i.e. when, Media and its allies reduced Babylon to rubble, There was a bloody battle with said invaders, resulting in the Babylonian army being slain, God's people had to run for their lives from the city. So no, Jer. 51:37 was not fulfilled with the city's gradual, centuries'-long decline culminating in its final abandonment in the 4th c. CE. To use this as support for your back-to-front argument about Jer. 25:12 is a prime example of cherry-picking! 🙄
  3. Ann O'Maly
    Gertoux was about to submit a University thesis in the mid/late 2000s on archaeology and history of ancient worlds. He made the mistake of courteously informing the governing body about it and they told him to stop or he'd get disfellowshipped. Obviously he diverged from the official WT teaching somewhere. Echoes of COJ, hey? The difference was that, at the time, he did stop.
  4. Ann O'Maly
    FYI: Your images haven't embedded, @JW Insider
  5. Ann O'Maly
    Nearer to 1950s and '60s Watchtower- and fringe-ideas-world. To be fair, 'The Genesis Flood' was written before the mechanics of crustal plate movement were fully known and published. And then there's Velikovsky ... 🤨
  6. Ann O'Maly
    🤣 Love it!
  7. Ann O'Maly
    I meant read proper science books. 🙄
  8. Ann O'Maly
    1. It's off topic, 2. Do some reading on Earth history, plate tectonics, and geological time. 🙄 @AlanF, may I suggest that, rather than have Anna's thread go off track, a new one might be started on human existence/development, etc.?
  9. Ann O'Maly
    Yes! The king was certainly punished then. Why start the judgment in 537? Which king was punished in 537? Why not start the judgment in the 4th century CE when Babylon was a pile of rubble and the nation's punishment was complete? It doesn't work, Neil. Anyway, contextually, Jer. 51:37 is talking about the desolation and depopulation of Babylon at the hands of the Medians and its allies (v. 27f.). When did that happen? It also talks about God's people having to flee for their lives during this same bloody battle resulting in the slaughter of the Babylonian army (v. 1-6, 45). When did that happen? (Yeah, I guess we're straying into the nature of prophecy, how literally we're supposed to take it, and which cherry-picked parts are historically true. Another can of worms, lol.)
  10. Ann O'Maly
    Jeremiah is the source of the 70-years prophecies, though. Later interpretations and references to them need to harmonize with what Jeremiah actually said. The root of WT's divergence from mainstream understandings of the 70 years is its insistence that the 70-year period relates to the length of time the land would be 'desolate, without an inhabitant.' However, Jeremiah nowhere says this. He talks about a '70 years servitude' to Babylon and a '70 years for Babylon' but not that the land would be uninhabited for 70 years. It is this (mis)understanding that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme. As far as I can see, WT nearly always ignores the problem of Jer. 25:12's sequence of events. One time it attempts to resolve it (w79 9/15 p. 23-24) by claiming the nations continued serving the king of Babylon after the city had been conquered and its king removed by Cyrus because Cyrus then became king of Babylon - the 70-year period was only up two years after the conquest and it was when Cyrus let the Jews go that the Babylonians were punished. Not only is this convoluted tripe not in keeping with the wording in Jer. 25:12, but it goes against Ezra's wording too at 2 Chron. 36:20: "He [Neb] carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign" As for WT's solution to Jer. 29:10 - it doesn't offer one. It sticks with its translation 'at Babylon' and sidesteps the context by applying it to exiles taken 10 years later. But we still have the wording of the texts to get past. The 70 years are fulfilled, then the Babylonian king is punished / then God will turn his attention to the exiles. It's not the other way around.
  11. Ann O'Maly
    You're asking us to believe that the King of Babylon was called to account two years after he was forcibly deposed and his city conquered. Riiight. When did Babylon become a desolated wasteland, by the way? Thank you for also confirming that Young did, in fact, resolve the 587/586 dilemma and that you initially told a whopping fib. 👍
  12. Ann O'Maly
    You've just confirmed what I've said! The 70 years end and Babylon is judged. When was Babylon, its King and the land of the Chaldeans judged, Neil, you dipstick? (Hint: it wasn't 537!) So no apology for telling your big, fat, porky pie about Young and his conclusion about the year of Jerusalem's destruction. Smh. 🙄
  13. Ann O'Maly
    But Babylonian domination wasn't limited to over the Jews. Babylon dominated a whole host of other nations too. Source When did the 70 years' servitude for the nations end? Did it depend on when Cyrus proclaimed his decree to the Jews and when they were settled back home? The nations' freedom couldn't all hinge on that, surely? No need to apologize. Your questions/comments are genuine and come from the right place. Even if we end up not agreeing or are not entirely convinced with each other's viewpoints, at least we're having an open, intelligent discussion. 🙂
  14. Ann O'Maly
    How does that fit with the 70 years being fulfilled when the Babylonian king was 'called to account' (Jer. 25:12)? Edit to add: How does this also fit with Jer. 29:10 where the 70 years are fulfilled then God turns his attention to bringing the exiles back?
  15. Ann O'Maly
    It's. Simple. Math! 360 / 12 = 30 F'goodness' sake!
  16. Ann O'Maly
    The answer was even there in your random c&p's. You're too much of a giant nitwit to have noticed! 🤣🤣🤣
  17. Ann O'Maly
    🤣 at Cesar's Googling and lengthy, but irrelevant, copy-and-pastes in a vain attempt to hide his embarrassing blunder, and that further drive home the point that he had no clue what Gertoux or I were talking about. 👋👋👋 Well done!
  18. Ann O'Maly
    Date is disputed. Other non-WT models are out there that fit the 390 years with the conventional timeline. As has been shown ad infinitum, Jer. 25:12 falsifies your claim that the 70 year period of the nations' servitude to Babylon ended with the repatriation of the Jews. ... is another subject beyond the scope of this thread and it similarly involves an erroneous WT starting date. Again, WT interpretation of these periods is upended by sound exegesis and by WT following its own new approach regarding types and antitypes: 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. - w15 3/15 p. 18 Neil, whatever WT fantasies you have swirling around in that stubborn skull of yours, you know what you've just said above isn't true. You know Young's articles well enough and are familiar with his conclusions. Doesn't your conscience prick you when you lie like that, especially when you can be caught out so easily? Have you no shame? Smh. 😦 "In this paper, the method is applied to all Scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles relating to the date of Jerusalem's fall to Nebuchadnezzar. It is shown that all texts involved are in harmony with themselves and with each other, and the only year possible for Jerusalem's fall is 587 BC." - http://www.rcyoung.org/papers.html "The conclusions from the analysis are as follows. "(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year." - Young, R.C., 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?', JETS 47/1 (March 2004) 21–3.
  19. Ann O'Maly
    There you go again, Neil. Back in your fantasy world.
  20. Ann O'Maly
    It's Watchtower chronology that skews the biblical and secular dates for that period. Otherwise, the Bible and history fit very well.
  21. Ann O'Maly
    But the 70 years are not contingent on Jerusalem being repopulated. Jeremiah prophesied that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years and that time would be up when the Babylonian king was 'called to account.' (Jer. 25) That 'calling to account' happened in 539 when Nabonidus and Belshazzar were deposed/killed. Thus, 539 marked the end of the 70 years servitude to the Babylonian dynasty.
  22. Ann O'Maly
    Ezra said Cyrus' decree was given in his 1st year. WT understands that to have been late 538/early 537 (we won't go into how valid or otherwise that assumption is for now). The trip, according to Ezra 7:9, takes about 4 months. Ezra also said the Jews were settled in their cities by the 7th month (Tishri - around October). Therefore, WT understands that the first batch of Jews had returned to their homeland in 537. "Then, during his first year as ruler of Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree opening the way for the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem. (Ezr 1:1-4) ... A remnant that numbered 42,360 (including men, women, and children) made the journey, arriving in Judah in 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 1:5–3:1; 4:1)" - it-2 p. 332 - Insight, Volume 2
  23. Ann O'Maly
    The problem with that approach is that God's promise in v.10 would have been meaningless or misleading to those thousands of exiles already there. The whole reason for the letter was to neutralize false information coming from bad prophets who said the Babylonian yoke will be broken within a couple of years (Jer. 27 & 28). The letter was meant for those already exiled - not for those still in Jerusalem who, at that point in time, may never have ended up in exile. After all, God was giving them opportunities to avoid disaster: Jer. 27:11, 17 - But the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to cultivate it and dwell in it. Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and you will keep living. Why should this city become a ruin? Had they listened, Jerusalem would have been left alone and no more captives would have been taken. Jerusalem's destruction was not a foregone conclusion; 70 years servitude to Babylon (regardless of whether the Jews were exiled or at home) was inescapable.
  24. Ann O'Maly
    Those scriptures only talk about them settling in their cities in the 7th month and building some makeshift temporary altar. Ezra 3:6 - From the first day of the seventh month they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, though the foundation of Jehovah’s temple had not yet been laid. Ezra 3:8 - In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah. So the Jews, quite sensibly, didn't start work on the temple during the winter but waited till the next spring (536, WT time).
  25. Ann O'Maly
    Think about that for a minute. Let's use the rNWT for this verse: 10 “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’ But who was Jeremiah talking to? V. 1, 2: These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the rest of the elders among the exiled people, the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, after King Jec·o·niʹah, the queen mother, the court officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen and the metalworkers had gone out of Jerusalem. The letter was for the exiles taken in 617 (WT time). Checking the figures in 2 Kings 24 and at the end of Jer. 52, the greatest number of captives were taken then. Jehovah told these exiles that he would turn his attention to them once their 70 years 'at Babylon' was fulfilled. But if these exiles were taken in 617, when God turned his attention to them after Babylon fell, they would have actually been 'at Babylon' 80 years - not 70. Something has gone awry with WT's translation and application here, don't you think? Or do you have a resolution for this anomaly?
×
×
  • 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.