Ann O'Maly

Psalm 82:1, 6

God takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges:
...

 “I have said, ‘You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.
 

Is the psalmist talking about false gods here? Are the angelic 'gods' legitimate or not?

Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13 - I have concluded that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during their life, also that everyone should eat and drink and find enjoyment for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.

Ecclesiastes 5:18 - This is what I have seen to be good and proper: that one should eat and drink and find enjoyment for all the hard work at which he toils under the sun during the few days of life that the true God has given him, for that is his reward. 
 

On 4/23/2016 at 5:54 PM, Allen Smith said:

That would make his accession year 603BC as some historians attest to.

I also would like Allen to name these historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE.

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So I edited my post down to almost nothing about the intercalaries. When I saw your post, I realized that I had already removed the lines you critiqued. Sorry to have put you to the trouble over nothing.

Well, it served to refresh my own memory, and in the process I found a couple of very useful articles on Jstor that I hadn't been able to access before, so it's all good.

It was an official statement to People. The journalist will have contacted the press office at HQ and received the official statement.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Remember that the Chronicle says that his father died, Abu 8, and Nebuchadnezzar traveled in the month of Ululu.

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At any rate, the only nearby Ululu II that was added was in Nabopolassar's 19th year, not his 21st.

There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month.

The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No matter what, though, I can't see that this has any bearing on his accession year. In fact, the Chronicle mentions specifically that he went back to Hatti-land in the accession year, and that he stayed until Sabatu.

Indeed.

So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).

11 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So a more logical look at this point would be, even with fine horses, the amount of travel would be within a 7-10 mile radius per day. Mainly, not to cause on due attention to themselves from enemy forces.

You think they would have attracted less attention going slower? Hm. Do you have any real reasons why a horse couldn't cover about 30 miles a day? Regarding the water issue, the Ahal Tekke was reported to have covered over 200 miles of desert in 3 days without water in that 1935 race (that's about 70 miles per day!). It's likely the crown prince and his small military escort would have had the best, most suitable horses for so important a journey.

You do make a fair point about traveling from Jerusalem. I only chose Jerusalem because Neb had taken Jewish captives so he must have been in the general area (and there's Dan. 1:1,2 to consider, although this may have been on his return trip after securing the kingship), and Jerusalem is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that, and the rest of your arguments and non sequitors derive from that misunderstanding. The Chronicle does say Neb had just conquered the "whole area of Hamath" which is about 130 miles further south from Carchemish and less than 500 miles from Babylon in a straight line.

Also Google 'Frank Hopkins.' In summary, back in 1886, Frank Hopkins, a military dispatch rider, rode a Mustang stallion named Joe 1800 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Rutland, Vermont, in 31 days (average 58 miles per day). Joe finished in excellent condition, after traveling no more than 10 hours per day.

Jerusalem (or Hamath) to Babylon - 500 miles divided by 58 miles per day is nearly 9 days.

So, without beating this horse to death (get it?), let's just leave it there by saying it is perfectly feasible for Neb to ride back to Babylon in the time frame the Babylonian Chronicle records. 

57 minutes ago, Allen Smith said:

BM21946 States Neb took less than a month to arrive at Babylon. Now my conservative estimate would be that it should have taken him at least 2.5 months.

Why? Show your working.

Here's mine (and I get the feeling we've had this conversation before, many years ago, right?):

A horse with outstanding endurance and speed that was around in antiquity (Alexander the Great is reported to have owned one) is the Ahal Tekke breed. In a famous 1935 race from Ashgabat to Moscow (2,600 miles, including desert terrain), it took these horses 84 days to complete their journey. (Google.)

2,600 miles divided by 84 days is approx. 31 miles per day on average.

Jerusalem to Babylon, a straight line over the desert, is approx. 500 miles.

500 divided by 31 miles per day is 16 days. Enough time even with a slower horse.

Pulling together all the information we have:

The Babylonian Chronicle says Nabo died 8th Abu. 

Josephus' Babylonian source adds that the chief noblemen held the royal throne for him.

The Chronicle says Neb returned to Babylon in Ululu (the very next month) and was pronounced king on the 1st of that month.

On 4/3/2016 at 11:06 PM, JW Insider said:

One way to know that the word "for" was more appropriate than "at" is found in the context of Jeremiah. Note that the same idea had occurred in Jeremiah 25:

There's the context of Jer. 29 too. The letter was addressed to the captives taken 10 years before Jerusalem's destruction, i.e. the major exile* of 597 BCE (617, WT time). This means most Jewish exiles would have been 'at Babylon' 80 years - not 70. So this is another indication that 'for Babylon' is the more appropriate rendering here.

* The numbers taken then were far greater than those taken at Jerusalem's destruction - 2 Kings 24:14-16; Jer. 52:28-30.

On 4/4/2016 at 5:43 AM, JW Insider said:

[From Wikipedia] On 10 October Cyrus won a battle at Opis, opening the road to Babylon, and on 12 October "Ugbaru, governor of the district of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle" (Babylonian Chronicle). Ugbaru is presumably the same person as the Gorbyras mentioned by the Greek historian Xenophon, a Babylonian provincial governor who switched to the Persian side. Cyrus made his entrance into the city a few days later; Nabonidus was captured and his life spared, and nothing is known of the fate of Belshazzar.

The problem with identifying Darius the Mede with Ugbaru is that the latter died on the 11th of Arahsamnu - only a few weeks after Babylon fell. Gobryas was a different person entirely and was only appointed satrap of Babylonia in 535 BCE. So this guy remains a bit of a mystery.

Ooh. Scripture ping-pong!

Proverbs 18:17 (RNWT) - "The first to state his case seems right, Until the other party comes and cross-examines him."
 

There are JWs I know who disbelieve Prince was a 'brother' so this official confirmation is welcome.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'd say the answer provides the greater challenge, judging from the responses on this forum alone.

Yep. This is probably why the question hasn't yet been answered.

Allen, it's real childish to make a mistake and call the person who pointed it out 'stupid.'  

To further JW Insider's answer about how Nebuchadnezzar raced back home to secure the throne, here is the excerpt from Josephus' Against Apion, 1.19 (134-138): 

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-apion/1926/pb_LCL186.217.xml

Note that Neb took a shorter route across the desert.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now I'm smelling fish Ann O'Maly!

We have been through all this before, so lets say: I'll stick to mine and you stick to yours!

 It's a challenging question, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

BM21946 Say’s what?

Um. Obverse side, Allen. I quoted from obverse lines 9, 10 and 11 regarding Neb's accession. You quoted from the reverse side lines 11, 12 and 13 which deals with Neb's 7th year, you doofus. 

On 4/6/2016 at 6:47 AM, The Librarian said:

Some of you may remember this post:

http://www.jw-archive.org/post/104605270868/first-jworg-tattoo-ive-seen-i-should-think

That's a terrible photoshop 

On 4/6/2016 at 6:47 AM, The Librarian said:

What would you say to a young one wanting a "JW Tattoo"?

I'd tell them that, when the novelty wears off and they wake up one day saying to themselves 'what the heck was I thinking?', it's an expensive and painful process to remove it. Don't bother in the first place. 

7 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Secular chronology has many problems when deciding when NEB reign started. The given is 605/4 BCE. Yet even with the business tablets, controversy ensues.

Haha. Really? Which business tablets pose a problem for establishing when Neb's reign began? The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 pinpoints the day Neb acceded the throne: 

[Obv.9] For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,

[Obv.10] when on 8 Abu [15 August 605.] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon

[Obv.11] and on 1 Ululu [7 September 605.] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. 

7 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

There’s a sloth of more information that also points to 606BC.

Points to 606 BC as what? Jerusalem's destruction? Nebuchadnezzar's accession? What? And what is this information of which you speak?

You're all huff and bluster, Allen. As usual.

So where does the NT teach about a non-anointed true Christian?

 Have I interpreted? I have asked questions about your reasoning and the JW interpretation.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Of Course not. But whatever Jesus  liked in the vision is what the vision contains.

So if he put the great crowd in the same place as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels in his vision, who are we to say different?

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation.

Where does the NT teach about a non-anointed true Christian?

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

They are then in a position to serve as kings and priests along with Christ Jesus, and will commence work to extend the blessings described at Rev 21:2-4 to all obedient mankind in a 1000 year rehabilitation (tear and death removal) program for the earth and its inhabitants. This will include all those resurrected to earthly life during that time, along with those survivors of the "great tribulation" described at (you guessed it) Rev 7:9,14.

Where does the Bible say the kings and priests will be instrumental in a thousand year rehabilitation program for the 'great crowd' and resurrected?

To quote you:

"This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation." 

11 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Example “The House of Egibi” Tablets. EX-WITNESSES glorified these tablets as indisputable, when in FACT the original translation, stated NEBUCHADNEZZAR III on 604BC. It was modern historians to think it was an error.

You're not making sense.

To which Egibi tablet are you referring?

Whose original translation?

Nebuchadnezzar III lived in Cambyses' time, not 604 BCE.

The tablet would have just said 'Nebuchadnezzar' without the 'III' bit.

The tablet would have given a regnal year number, not a BC date.

The Egibi archive provides watertight evidence that the conventional neo-Babylonian timeline cannot stretch by an additional 20 years.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Can anyone be 100% sure, or could it be that these business contracts were based on the assumption that NABOPOLASSAR, was mistaken for NEBUCHADNEZZAR II.

OK, now the confusion is between Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II, not III? 

Are you suggesting that the bank officials didn't know the correct date when they drew up contracts?

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Variables the WTS has taken into consideration, as did Furuli.

Obfuscation, you mean. The 'variables' were more often down to the Org's and Furuli's mistakes and misunderstandings, their creating problems where none existed, or manipulating data to give the appearance that the Org's alternative historical  timeline was credible or better.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So if you take this discrepancy in to consideration with other historical artifacts, then the 19^th year of NEB would fall under what? 607BC. Why? Because history has recorded NAB starting point at 626BC. Is this assumption correct? Who knows.

Who knows? Archaeologists, cuneiformists, historians and archaeo-astronomers know because they have examined the available, voluminous evidence.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

But it does make one wonder how many more mistakes were recorded in antiquity.

You haven't detailed one mistake yet.

(Dangit, couldn't help it in the end, JW Insider )

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I can do what I like in a dream.

Maybe *you* can. But you're circumventing my point. Could John do what he liked in the vision Jesus gave him?

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am only illustrating that an explanation of earlier prophecy can come later than that prophecy, and is therefore relevant to time and place. I am not discussing whether something is part of the inspired record or not. Explanation or interpretation of prophecy does not need to be inspired in the sense that scripture is. ( comp.2Pet. 1:21).

And so we have a situation where the inspired NT indicates that all true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and share the same everlasting reward, and uninspired interpretations saying that only some true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and there are two groups of true Christians with different everlasting rewards. Which view has more weight?

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

There are no humans in heaven.  Rev.21:3-4. The "no tears" experience here happens to "mankind" after Armageddon. Those from among mankind who get resurrected to the heavens will leave their "tears" behind once that happens.

Would you agree, then, that using the 'no more tears' argument to try and differentiate two groups of victorious faithful dangles a red herring? The 'anointed' are no longer in tearful anguish once they get their heavenly reward and, by the same token, mankind is no longer in tearful anguish once they receive their reward. 'No more tears' applies across the board to all the rewarded faithful so cannot be used as an argument for the two destinies idea.

Well, Eoin, you are entitled to act in accord with your conscience. Quite right too. However, the original question was, 'why don't JWs celebrate Easter' so we're talking about a collective or organization's conscience rather than an individual's. If a JW researched and found the the argumentation* for not celebrating Easter as a Christian (or alternatively, a modern, secular) festival was flimsy, then he would still have to abide by the collective conscience of the Org. or risk an ecclesiastical slap.

As was argued before, just because a pagan used it/ did it/ invented it/ worshipped it, it doesn't necessitate that the thing itself is inherently bad.**

* Bad Company fallacy

** E.g. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003687

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not while they are human.

The 'no tears' thing only happens when they're no longer human? 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You are just demonstrating the flexibility of dreams.

How so? I thought I was demonstrating the opposite - that contextually, you can't place an event or person in a location other than where your dream (or vision) put them. If I told you the traditional version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears - which is set at a house in the middle of a forest - you can't then expound on that by claiming that, while the bears were at their house in the middle of a forest, Goldilocks was really at IKEA in the middle of a city.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Well...Scriptural canon may be locked down, but understanding moves with time and place. e.g. I would suggest Gen 3:15 was pretty obscure for a long time. But thousands of years after its utterance, Paul demonstrated insight as to its application at Romans 16:20.  (I am citing this as an example. I am not looking to argue about correctness of interpretation at this point.)

Paul's understanding is considered to be part of that same sacred, inspired canon. The canon is closed and inspiration ceased, did it not? If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' how and when did true Christians divide into 2 groups - one 'anointed' and one not? 

6 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Some the overlapping tablets referred to in the 2011 WT were either print errors in the (source) publication and were amended long ago, or have damaged and unclear figures which have long been known about. 

I wanted to edit and add a picture but it wouldn't let me. Try again:

Picture credit: Doug Mason