Srecko Sostar

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Separate church and state

I guess how people will be in conflict about "give God and give Cesar", because this are Two Masters you have to please :)) and Bible is very clear with command to JW members; obey, be in subjection to secular government :))

What do you think about "separation" in Old Israel Theocratic State, in time of Saul, David, Solomon and others? Who obey and how - God JHVH vs Kings?

4 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Separate church and state

I guess how people will be in conflict about "give God and give Cesar", because this are Two Masters you have to please :)) and Bible is very clear with command to JW members; obey, be in subjection to secular government :))

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Hitler wanted anyone who did not agree with him or fight with him  -dead. 

Thanks to God JHVH, because he allowed "secular governments" and "secular people", who opposed the Nazi invasion with full force and enabled today’s freedom, even for those who refused to contribute to the Allied struggle, to win in that battles. 

Since the JW's believe that "gentile time" is over in 1914, do you think the YHVH intervened in historical events of 1941 and helped the "Allies" to overcome the "Axis Powers"? Because, under Hitler, WTJWorg could not serve God and preach and have congresses and other stuffs, so to speak. So, YHVH had an interest in one side winning and the other side losing, right? Can you prove that YHVH did not interfere in earthly conflicts od WWII, precisely because of your doctrine of “gentile time” which teaches how God’s passivity lasted 2520 years and ended in 1914, and because he, supposedly, create Earthly Part of his Government in Spiritual Paradise of WTJWorg. 

 Nazi German was a real threat to JW's to completely exterminate them from Europe. So, God would lose his "witnesses." How could that not happen, maybe he sent Michael again to oppose some another "Prince of Persia"? :))

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This doesn’t entirely make sense. If it is true, then the JW mentioned is an atypical outlier. The suit would certainly not have Branch support. The Witnesses overall consider alternative service laws a very good bargain and are appreciate of them. Typical of their responses is this:

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/taiwan/successful-alternative-service-conscientious-objectors/

"In 2000, Taiwan implemented an alternative civilian service program that allows conscientious objectors to fulfill their obligation to perform national service without violating their conscience. Under this arrangement, those who conscientiously object to military service have been given the option to work in hospitals, in nursing homes, and in other areas of the public sector." - quote from link you provide.

"In particular, the petitioner insisted that two clauses of the law, which require 36 months of in-camp service twice the active-duty service duration of 18 months, run counter to the Constitution, due to their punitive nature." - quote from link 4Yah2me provide.

First, how much time last civilian service in Taiwan? And second, as we see, the place where the replacement service is performed is very different and it seems that working at local correctional facilities is "uncomfortable", to petitioner,  compared to what is offered in Taiwan.

Third, GB WTJWorg are not willing to agree to any kind of "civil service". In the past they objected to the jurisdiction (who is in charge) of the civil service, and similar.  GB can be picky. :)))

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

P. 79: The Dynastic prophecy does not include all kings, and therefore is useless for chronology. The words “For three years” (broken before and after) need not even refer to a length of reign.

    P. 80: Another possible unknown Neo-Babylonian king suggested by F. he finds in the signs for the name ^idAG-GI on a tablet published by M. Jursa in 1997. F. erroneously transcribes the name as Nabû-šalim. But a name Nabû-šalim would mean “Nabû is well”, and this is not an appropriate statement (F.’s wrong translation: “Let Nabû have peace” is equally blasphemous). If GI stands for šalāmu, only -mušallim or -ušallim would make sense.

Mansikka got the idea about Neb-V from Furuli book?

6 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Jehovah speaks of all the creation days as "a day" ..... so it is clear it is not a 24-hour day but an epoch.

Translators translated words they found in copies of Scriptures. Did Moses wrote Hebrew word that we have today translated in Bible as - "day"? And did the word he wrote signify what people today think it meant? 

How did Moses understand the inspiration, which told him to write the word “day” or a word that signifies what is not (which need not be understood) a day of 24 hours, but it is 7000 years or some other longer period of time? Should he have been interested in how long the "day" lasted? Did Moses anywhere in his writings gave specific idea how to understand "Creative day" duration? Did he understand or try to understand, did he care, about how long "day" lasted?  Did he (or some other biblical writer) indicate that the duration of the "creative days" should be counted and associated with any prophecy? Or to link them to any interpretation like those that WTJWorg link to 1914 or 1975?

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Please yourselves, either believe God or believe men.

I think i can understand what you say. On other side, if Genesis book speak about "Day" in which God created this and that, than "faith" will believe what Moses wrote - "the day" (from sun to sun or from from sunrise to sunset), not 1000 or 7000 years or eons. If believer have faith that God can create things in literal 24 hours, because he can and want, than interpretations, on what word "day" means in Genesis and what "day" means in other part of Bible, are not necessary for faith but for mind.    

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Just to emphasize that the issue here is whether or not a global flood happened c. 4,400 years ago. 

https://ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth

 

Because of the identical flood stories, but in different parts of the planet, it could be that similar cataclysms occurred in different places at different times to different people. It would also mean that “God warned" not only Noah, but other individuals or groups of people around the world as well.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

American scholar of religion Holly Folk

.. said in video:

I hope that perpetrators everywhere are brought to justice 

Not to use groups as scapegoats

Crimes to not go unpunished

Family CSA and Institutional CSA

Beliefs of organization not driving behavior of CSA

JW have not/are not guilty for "typical" CSA as it is case in many other religious organizations because JW do not have set clergy as in Catholic Church. JW operate as lay organization. No "Sunday Schools"

JW are not "closed society" 

Most cases in JW are in fact incest, abuse inside family and relatives

The JW families decided to keep the matter a secret

Ex-JW demonized WTS

Victims with their lawyers want money 

WTJWorg Lawyers made claims how Elders are Clergy and how JW have hierarchy which is same as in Catholic Church. 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Pekka Mansikka said:

Quote

Tiglath-Pileser III became king of Assyria in the third year of Nabonassar, king of Babylon. If a major change were to be made to the chronology of Assyria in order to find the solar eclipse of Assyria, it would directly affect the chronology of Babylonia.

The history that emerged in Croatia in 1991 has no influence on the history that was created in the USA at the same time. The records that were created at that time are of the greatest importance for each nation separately. And every nation can best interpret the historical records of its own history.

But let's say that the then president of Croatia, F. Tudjman, asked the then president of the USA, George H. W. Bush, to send an air force and retaliate against the JNA, which was against the independence and creation of the Croatian state. What will be written about it in Croatia, and what in the USA? And what about the rest of the world? What documents can we find today, 30 years later? What will we find after 2520 years? One could argue that the conversation between the two presidents did not take place, but would anyone argue that these two presidents did not even exist, just to prove that this kind of conversation did not take place? Or vice versa.

I am not versed in this subject enough, but I suppose that the ancient peoples at some point introduced a systematization (record) of their history on the basis of several factors; the change of seasons, the movements of the sun and the moon, and the existence or duration of rulers. Were the Egyptians more precise than the Babylonian and Assyrian “astronomers and historians”? Did the Babylonian astronomers know better than the Assyrians? That can be discussed, of course, but for some other reasons.

In the context of this club, the question arises; Is all this dilemma aimed at further proving that one religious theology followed by 8.5 million believers possesses the “truth” about the beginning and end of the “gentile times”? Is it really necessary to revise the chronology from that time because it is wrong? Or people who disagree (as WTS researchers and scholars) have failed in calculations, similar to Mr Mansikka's first version when he added 20 years to Nabonidus?

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That is funny. In the old days, it was called, revision. Something like First Edition, Second Edition, etc. He adds information as it becomes available. Instead of revising the same book, he titles it differently. Only foolish and ignorant people think, that's a problem. Just like with grammar, they find it a need to show others their personal arrogance. What's funnier, COJ's book is the fourth edition, available right now. Why the other editions were removed from circulation, only a few know what mistakes he made in the beginning. So, I guess ex-witness books are funny to.

I agree on that what you said about "revision". But in "second edition" author came with completely new idea, not just add few new information about old theory. In fact, he completely rejected his own old theory. 

For example, "overlap generation" is not just minor revision of "generation of 1914" with one or few new details. That is completely new doctrine based on old (wrong) elements. When Mansikka add 20 years to Nabonidus rule period (17 years) which is official by historians, that is serious thing. When author rejecting own previous conclusion and bring to readers idea of new king, "Neb V", which he installs in history simply by writing a new edition of the book, that is completely irresponsible. This says a lot about the value of both books, and puts the author in the position that the reader should not devote his time and attention to reading the books, and should by no means believe what he says.

JW or ex-JW, many of them can say and write nonsense.

I have never read a single book of COJ and don't know about editions. :)) Thanks for info :))   

@César Chávez What you're doing in this post is "trolling", isn't it? :))

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Note that Mansikka labels these books Vol I, II and III, when they are apparently just 3 editions of the same book, re-ordering the pages, and replacing obsolete material with new material.)

This is funny. 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

⁶ P.Mansikka: NCUSE, Volume II, 2020, pp. 22- 24

And this is more funny. 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, marching to the beat of your own drum produces ridicule by experts, and this feeds directly into the us/them psychology, or even persecution psychology, that some Witnesses thrive on. Like a good conspiracy theory, it's the very lack of evidence that is therefore turned into perceived "evidence." The ridicule over our belief without evidence (faith) supposedly makes us right, like a small David standing before a Goliath of evidence. We believe we must be right if the so-called experts all say something else. This is turned into a "Bible vs secular" argument, which some will turn into a "Jehovah vs Satan" argument. In reality it's nothing more than the "WTS vs Bible&archaeology." Ultimately, the WTS is accepted over the Bible&archaeology because . . . well, because FDS & 1914!

I recently heard a good observation about this issue, on video. Namely, every thought uttered, that calls into question the established official doctrine of the WTS, every uttered question that opens a dilemma about the doctrine or the dilemma about the accuracy of a particular JW statement and written article, JW members consider it a danger to their faith, temptation or spirituality test, and even as prophesied persecution and devil's attack.

So, any questioning, critical thinking and challenge of existing (or former) religious teaching will cause deep unrest among most JW members. In both cases, when something like this comes from outside, from other people, and also when it occurs in the person himself. 

It is quite demanding to follow such topics that are open on the Forum, at least as far as I am concerned :). About 607 BCE, chronology, history, astronomy and much more. There is a lot of text to read, and it requires a lot of prior knowledge and knowledge of many things.

During my process of leaving JW, I checked the statements of others who had become ex-JW before me. Regarding quoting other people’s quotations from books or articles that were supposed to support the WTS position and strengthen the faith of the members - as/for secular archaeology, literature, and scholars ostensibly support them. In two, three of those examples i recognized, saw that what you, i think, called in other places, intellectual dishonesty. 

So this, if you (I or anybody else) remain confident that the authors of the article in the WTS have read everything well and concluded correctly about the text and the topic then everything is fine. But that “faith in God, in people, in the Organization” can put to the test, for whatever reason that can be the trigger. But, above all and everything, there must always be what is called “truth and honesty,” no matter how much something else originally initiated the processes of “awakening”.

A modern parallel of current events with a humorous break from Mansikka's book.

Impeachment!

Evil-Merodach betrayed the state and the people. In order to circumvent the decision of the Babylonian Senate, which forbade him to run for king again, E-V changed his name, thus circumventing the administrative ban and defeating the opponent in the elections. :)))

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So this Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) was nice to a Jewish king, therefore he was unpopular, therefore he he had to change his name to Nebuchadnezzar to be popular again.

Yes, it is possible that he came up with the idea. In the first version, he added 20 years to Nabonidus. In this second version, he came up with a new solution. Extend the reign of E-M by changing its name to "Neb V". But, by changing own name, has the E-V alias "Neb V" also changed his tolerant attitude towards other religions? 

To be popular, king don't need to change own name, but to change own behavior. In this case, to start persecuting Jews and everyone else who is not at the will of the "populists" who advocate authoritarian populism.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

new king, who has been unknown

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity.

Just a few words of review on these two statements he gave. “Neb V” is unknown to world history, but it was also apparently unknown to biblical writers who were “inspired” by God to record significant events. Let’s put it this way; if “Neb V” is not recorded in the Bible, then it is completely irrelevant to “biblical chronology,” to 607 BCE and to 1914 CE.

The second thing concerns the religious feelings aka diversity of "Neb V". How does Mansikka know what religious feelings the unknown king had? On the basis of what "records" did he come up with such an idea, when there is no record of "Neb V", according to Mansikka.  Apparently he said: Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes it is. Here he speaking about king A-M (mentioned in Bible and secular history as real person) and attributes to him such a quality, which he passes on to his own fictional king.

There is much more in his writings that looks as dilettantism:  

The author began researching the history of eclipses recorded in history and their timing in the course of history in the winter of 2017. 

Already at the beginning of this study, in January 2017, it was clear that in June 763 BC.....

What is significance of  "winter 2017" and "January 2017"?  When winter started? In winter 2017 or in January 2017? 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One of the major disadvantages is that Mansikka had previously utilized a contemporary piece of archaeological evidence in the first suggestion that he must now reject.

Thus, people who read his works might come to the conclusion that the author is superficial in his research and inference. I don't know how much time passed between his first and second conclusion. It’s nice when a man admits his mistake, but has he explained somewhere why he changed his original opinion and rejected his original conclusion?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But you have to give Mansikka some credit for trying.

Mansikka does not have only one problem, how to squeeze the non-existent 20 years into a certain period between Nba II and Cyrus. With his maneuvers, he should arrange all other historical figures not only in Babylon but also all around Babylon. Does he care about that?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The imaginary Nebuchadnezzar V should have been named

... Popeye..... and there would be no difference. Both are imaginary characters.    :))

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So the first one is now known as "I" and the second one is now known as "II." It's not that they every called themselves I and II.

Yes, i understand this. Same with BCE and CE. People of later time made system how to distinguish, recognize the order of occurrence in the timeline. 

 Marking with a number, name or nickname that was added much later to a person from the distant past, has the purpose of being recognized by today's people. Precisely because of that moment when someone appears in some role (for a ruler) a lower number should show that the holder of number "I" was in power before number "II", especially if both bore the same name or were from the same line of kings. The years of the beginning and end of the reign of an individual king would follow, or confirm the order of numbers "I" and "II", or further numbers if any. But that's just my understanding of this :))

On 12/30/2020 at 3:23 AM, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:1-5 describes the environment in the organization.

Absolutely! 

JW's makes every effort to separate themselves from "world". As product of that work they formed "Spiritual Paradise" and inner spiritual connections. In such atmosphere and condition today, and as in the past, Bible verses in 2 Tim have nothing with "worldly people", because even Paul addressed his Letter to Brothers and Sisters, Congregation/s as warning and advice how to maintain in faith.

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The reason that Mansikka calls him Nebuchadnezzar V is because III and IV were already taken by real persons who used the name Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar V is, in my opinion, a new imaginary person made up in order to create the additional 20 years!

By my stupid logic :))) also it would be normal that the numerical names of kings go in order from I to II to III to IV and then end with V.  But Mansikka put V between II and IV. Something is weird here!

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The green mark over the second year of Cyrus shows that this date perfectly aligns

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In this case (because he has added the extra 20 years before Nabonidus, there are now two marked dates that perfectly align

With this pace and with each new research and update date, Mansikka will get all the green settlements after .... 21 corrections. :) 

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Michael Shermer acknowledges that many scientists believe in God, no doubt because they sense there are limitations to science.

Do you have information to what religions these scientists belongs? Or they are just independent believers?