Jump to content
The World News Media

Pudgy

Member
  • Posts

    4,676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @George88I understand that the Babylonians would extend their fist against the sky they were looking at, and a "cubit" was the width of the fist when viewed against the sky.
  2. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred. 
    Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago.
    <bloviation> ** begins
    However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom:
    *** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! ***
    . . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27.
    Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not:
    *** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point ***
    The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year.

    *** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! ***
    Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come” 
     
     Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?" 
    That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014:
    *** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! ***
    The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come!
    BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above:
    *** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today ***
    Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . . 
    Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation." 
    In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914:
    *** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
    . . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth. 
    *** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” ***
    Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established
    </bloviation> ** ends
  3. Upvote
    Pudgy got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Despite my initial resolve not to be interested in Babylonian Astronomy, clay tablets, and conflicting dates circa 500bce to 600 bce, I find myself fascinated that You Guys find it of sufficient interest to pour over it in such detail. Perhaps there is something here that I am missing.
    A rough analogy, I suppose would be like Quantum Physics, which I find fascinating, but unknowable, and can only be guessed at by trying to visualize what an esoteric equation is really representing in reality. Also far beyond my ability to comprehend, but at least I can see a practical use for quantum studies. 
    Nowadays you need a good understanding of Quantum  Physics to understand Astronomy, or solid state electronics, or even how light behaves. This has PRACTICAL applications, such as Smart Phones, GPS, FTL communications, etc. We use this each and every day in contemporary society.
    The people back in Babylonian times have been dead for 2600 and more years, and what they wrote in clay mud with sticks is not relevant anymore.
    I can see enjoying knowing, so there is that, but if the subtext of all of this research is to be able to prove that the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and God’s Kingdom established has already occurred … it’s a complete waste of time.
    You can stand in the street and look around and see those things have not yet happened.
    You know, Jonah was super ticked off that he did all that work, hardship and danger, and God changed his mind about Nineveh.
    At least he didn’t try to convince people they had been destroyed invisibly.
     
  4. Upvote
    Pudgy got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Despite my initial resolve not to be interested in Babylonian Astronomy, clay tablets, and conflicting dates circa 500bce to 600 bce, I find myself fascinated that You Guys find it of sufficient interest to pour over it in such detail. Perhaps there is something here that I am missing.
    A rough analogy, I suppose would be like Quantum Physics, which I find fascinating, but unknowable, and can only be guessed at by trying to visualize what an esoteric equation is really representing in reality. Also far beyond my ability to comprehend, but at least I can see a practical use for quantum studies. 
    Nowadays you need a good understanding of Quantum  Physics to understand Astronomy, or solid state electronics, or even how light behaves. This has PRACTICAL applications, such as Smart Phones, GPS, FTL communications, etc. We use this each and every day in contemporary society.
    The people back in Babylonian times have been dead for 2600 and more years, and what they wrote in clay mud with sticks is not relevant anymore.
    I can see enjoying knowing, so there is that, but if the subtext of all of this research is to be able to prove that the Great Tribulation, and Armageddon, and God’s Kingdom established has already occurred … it’s a complete waste of time.
    You can stand in the street and look around and see those things have not yet happened.
    You know, Jonah was super ticked off that he did all that work, hardship and danger, and God changed his mind about Nineveh.
    At least he didn’t try to convince people they had been destroyed invisibly.
     
  5. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    @George88Well for the longest time they thought the Bible was wrong about Belshazzar being the last King of Babylon, so it wouldn't surprise me if the so-called "authorities" are wrong about other things.
  6. Like
    Pudgy reacted to TrueTomHarley in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    You don’t seem anywhere near sensitive enough to share that information with. You might mess it up. Ask Rolf. He’ll help you.
  7. Haha
    Pudgy reacted to BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Admitting this only exacerbates the situation for that individual. Why mention that person in any argument when they lack the credentials you have just acknowledged? It is essential that you begin addressing your own mistakes before rushing to correct those of others.
  8. Like
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I believe you were under the same misconception in the past, perhaps under a different name. As I recall O'maly saying on this forum, she claimed NOT to have done the actual translation herself, but was involved in getting the professional translation published. Sorry I didn't correct you earlier.
  9. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I decided back in 2001 that he was a bloviating academic eminently worth ignoring. In fact I despise academics in general. I have any number of relative who are academics, and they suck at cage-match street-fighting arguments.
     
    Every argument that asks you to respect their credentials isn't worth your respect. I'll respect a clear argument, clearly backed up by data expressed in the manner of a Laconian.

     
  10. Haha
    Pudgy got a reaction from JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    …. beats having to work for a living ….,

  11. Like
    Pudgy reacted to Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    ...and then convince everyone in the personal interpretation of that reality. lol
  12. Haha
    Pudgy got a reaction from JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

  13. Like
    Pudgy got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    To find out what is REALLY TRUE ….…. just look out the window.
  14. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    In all of our bloviating, can anyone supply me with the 13 sets of observations the WT is referring to?

    Apparently Gemini and Chatgpt think that to share such information would upset the natural order of things and that I should have to go through the bloviating-overeducated-economically-useless to get to it.
     
     
  15. Haha
    Pudgy got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

  16. Haha
    Pudgy got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I was afraid to look but when I did I realized the video had been filmed in front of a live studio ostrich.

  17. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Of course they do provide such evidence that discredits the Watchtower's claims concerning these dates. Why do you think the Watchtower Society is the biggest opposer of all Neo-Babylonian tablets? Why do you think every article about them is written to sow seeds of doubt?
    You can interpret it however you like. Or you can throw the whole thing out. It changes nothing. It's just another line of independent evidence that helps people put a BCE date on all the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. But it's hardly the only one. In another post I'll provide the list that "J Halsey" added to the Internet. I don't know who he is and I never saw this until today. It seems fairly complete. 
    I have never heard anyone use 18 year cycles or 19 year cycles to validate any related conjectures. But if you are saying that if we follow that pattern it intersects with 607/6, then it sounds like you might be saying that you are the example of the lengths some people are eager to go to since you are the one claiming that these patterns intersect with 607/6 BC. I do agree that it's a stretch though, because NONE of these patterns have anything to do with 607/6 BC or 587/6 or 568/7 or 588/7. 
  18. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).
    The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.
    Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.
  19. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    It's a point I find disconcerting too. Every Witness or ex-Witness that I know of who has ever reported their findings after looking into the actual observations on the Babylonian tablets, is now in one of the following categories:
    Is still a Witness, but no longer believes that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was anywhere close to 607 BCE Or, they are disfellowshipped. Or, potentially both. There seems to have been two exceptions still out there, but one has been equivocating. And the other has had their theory embarrassingly demolished (not by me), and hasn't responded since then that I know about. No one I know who has reported their findings still believes in the 607 doctrine. That might be scary, even for @xero. So, I can think of only a couple solutions:
    The WTS can forbid anyone from trying to confirm the observations on the tablets themselves. Or, the WTS can address the problem openly and without obfuscation and conjecture. Naturally, I prefer the latter, because I think the first method won't work, and will ultimately backfire. @xero will likely delay his own findings as long as possible and overemphasize the potential for error and the "just don't know for sure" factor.
  20. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Not to get into this again with you, but VAT 4956 refers to about 30 very specific events. They are astronomical events which the same tablet itself says are tied to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
    No critics link it to "the Saros cycle of 19 years" because there is no such thing as a Saros cycle of 19 years. If you ever are able to locate such a reference I'd love to see it. 
    The WTS doesn't propose an 18-year-cycle. Nor did they ever mention an intention to propose one. Nor do the publications ever mention "saros" or 18 years in any context about lunar or solar or planetary or astronomical events. 
    Trying to tie overwhelming evidence from person's who have no interest in the Watchtower (Steele, Sachs, Hunger, Ptolemy, Stephenson, Parker, Dubberstein, etc.) to persons who are critics of the Watchtower is just an old trick sometimes called "poisoning the well." It's just another logical fallacy people still fall for to avoid looking at the evidence for themselves. In this case it is the Watchtower that is the opposer of the tablets, plain and simple. But it has become necessary to grasp at almost anything to sow doubt about the tablets
    What was that criticism? Where is it found?
    Are you able to explain why scholars praised him for being so thorough?
    There you go!! Something we can agree on.
  21. Upvote
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I just think that if anyone hasn't done what I already suggested - namely listing the tablet, the translation, the astronomical data in Babylonian Terms, the translation to today's terms, the snapshots of the skies and they have time for bloviating reams of text, then I distrust all of them. Don't ever ask me to trust an authority. I may as well go w/Zecharia Sitchin then.
  22. Haha
    Pudgy reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    Reasons:
    It saw a picture of the cuneiform on the tablets and thought some of the symbols looked like swastikas. Doesn't think Babylonians were a diverse enough lot. And they were slaveholders, too. Confused   [Nebu]....KO...[v] ID-19 with Covid-19. [The 19th year of the reign of KO-v-ID].  And that somehow implies that the vaccine might not have worked.
  23. Like
    Pudgy reacted to Srecko Sostar in JWs sue Norwegian government   
    Regardless of some theological elements associated with Jesus' baptism, because he was "perfect" and came from "Heaven", it still remains as a powerful reminder of the fact that he was baptized at the age of 30.
    All the theology of the WTJWorg fails in every element about baptism, because it dared to depart from the path given by Jesus as the only correct MODEL of when to be baptized. If he was baptized as a "perfect man" at the age of 30, how old should an "imperfect man" be before he decides to take such a step of complete dedication to a religion and ideology (which changes more and more anyway, because it has been proven fallible and inaccurate).
    Caught in their "own wisdom", GB misdirected and allowed their lawyers to refer and appeal to the UN Charter on Human Rights. Because UN rights have never been theologically justified for the functioning of the WTJWorg administration and their "theocratic and hierarchical system" in which a man (male) rules.
    WTJWorg's reference to UN rights has only one-sided meaning; "acknowledge, admit my JW religion and leave me and my sort of worship alone". Having the freedom to stop being Catholic and become a JW is a welcome human right for GB. But when a JW needs the freedom to change his religion and become something else, then WTJWorg wants to abolish all his right to freedom of choice, because it blackmails him with its "theological and doctrinal dictatorship".

     
  24. Thanks
    Pudgy got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in JWs sue Norwegian government   
    Some selected excerpts from the Court’s decision. 
    To see the fines or court costs the WTB&TS having LOST the case  is sentenced to pay in $USD, multiply Norwegian Kroner, NOK, by 0.0955.
     












  25. Thanks
    Pudgy reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction   
    I'm just trying to get clarity on what these postulated 13 are, so I can see for myself, but it's like pulling teeth. I wish the WT listed all of these along with snapshots of the tablets as well as snapshots of stellarium and captions explaining what we see.

    As you can see from Gemini, for some reasons of national security can't tell me what the 13 positions are.
×
×
  • 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.