Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
  • Posts

    839
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Confused
    Ann O'Maly reacted to scholar JW in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    Well, what took you so long? 2 hours from my old sparring partner on JWD, Alan F who incidentally was forced to concede that there is, in fact, a 'connection' established from the context on page 208. I hope it takes you much less time to discern the nature of the 'connection'!
    Read that paragraph again on p. 367 in Franz's COC , 2nd edn, Sept, 1994 which clearly shows Franz' s agreement with the Society's later published statement in the Proclaimer's book that Brown did, in fact, connect Daniel's 'seven times' with Lukes' Gentile Times in Luke 21:24.
    That is correct, Franz was forced to withdraw his earlier view in harmony with Carl Jonsson's original dogmatic claim, however, this was no doubt due to the fact that I had written to Franz to seek the reason for his change of mind. He had none but simply acknowledged Jonsson's work but it left the impression in my mind that the reason for this change was the simple fact that the said 'scholar' by means of that email had compromised him.
    scholar JW
  2. Haha
    Ann O'Maly got a reaction from Anna in What is the best or most polite thing to say to a Jehovah's Witness so he/she won’t harass me at my doorstep every day?   
    Ask them to please put you on their Do Not Call list. You may get a visit once a year or two just to check you still live there or still don't want to be routinely called on ... excepting any occasional mistakes made by those who were either not told of the DNC or weren't paying attention.
    So to make sure ...
    Put up a sign: 'No religious callers' or 'No Jehovah's Witness proselytizers' or 'JWs beware: Rabid, salivating, two-headed apostate lives here. Knock at your own risk.' ? 
    And JWs don't come to your door every day - c'moooon. 
     
  3. Like
    Ann O'Maly reacted to AlanF in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    As usual, JW defenders with their preset agenda are here making pronouncements on subjects they know little or nothing about. I'll disabuse them of some of their notions with facts.
    On 1914:
    C. T. Russell made the 1914 date the linchpin of his chronological doctrinal structure beginning in 1876. His creation, the Watch Tower Society, has continued with this false structure through today.
    How do we know that Russell's chronological structure is false? By many methods, but what I'll mention here is that the proof is in the pudding:
    Not a single one of Russell's predictions for visible events based on that structure came true.
    Not one of the supposedly Bible-based claims made by Russell's successors in the Watch Tower Society for the post-1914 period are valid:
    Famine in the world has, on average, been much less severe than pre-1914.
    Pestilence in the world has, on average, been much less severe than pre-1914.
    War has been, on average, nearly the same in terms of per capita killed than pre-1914.
    Earthquake frequency and intensity have been about the same as pre-1914. The risk of death due to earthquakes is substantially lower than pre-1914; the per-capita death rate in the 18th century was about 2 1/2 times lower than in the 20th century.
    Had the mass killers of history claimed by the Watch Tower Society to have been operating on an unprecedently high level since 1914 actually been so operating, they would have killed an unprecedently high percentage of world population, resulting in a massive population crash. Yet we see a massive population explosion beginning in the early 1800s and continuing without letup through today.
    Yes, today there are many potential severe killers on the loose: global warming, political crises, war, etc. But these do not support the Watch Tower Society's tradition about post-1914 events (e.g. famine, pestilence, war, earthquakes). Thus, trouble in the world today is irrelevent to the Watch Tower Society's claims about events beginning in 1914.

    On 607:
    The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.
    The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule.
    Much more could be said, but for now I'll leave it at that.
    AlanF
  4. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I don't think you can be talking about Gerard Gertoux developing an ego and leaving the truth, because really we have absolutely no proof of that. The only thing that is evident from his own writings is that he believes Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. So I am not sure what you mean by trust. That we can not trust him because of that? As far as I am aware he has never criticized the WT and he has not advertised his research regarding that subject, in fact he has been laying pretty low, and not really wanting to talk about it with anyone.
    Why is that dangerous thinking? Isn't that just stating a fact? I didn't say that we should be complacent, but I do think we should be realistic.
    I think there is a danger though in promising people something that will happen in their life time, and then it not coming true. My best friend, a long time pioneer, left because she lost faith that this is the true religion because of promises that were "without a doubt true" but that never happened and that kept getting explained away. I personally feel it's a little presumptions to claim these things. Then some will say..."well, they were in it for the wrong reason, that's why they left". But what is it we are feeding in people when we put such emphasis on the imminent end? We are doing exactly that, we are encouraging serving Jehovah for the wrong reason. Not because he is a God deserving our exclusive devotion, but because of what we can get out of him very soon. I wonder, did Jesus have in mind attracting people to the Kingdom in such a way? Yes, of course we tell them to "repent" because the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near, yes it is good we are not complacent like other religions, yes it is good we keep a sense of urgency, and yes it is good to keep our hope alive and in front of us, but to make certain claims (or I should say the Slave, we just repeat what they say) which are blatantly erroneous, makes fools of others and us, and can cause people to stumble. Perhaps this is a test. How loyal are we to Jehovah "despite" man's errors. Another good friend of mine, a very zealous faithful sister, is not allowing the errors of man to slow her down, or stumble her. She  waves her hand in dismissal at the new explanation to why Armageddon hasn't come yet, aka the 'overlapping generation'. Pretty much in a similar manner as Br. Herd did in the December broadcast when talking about our "past" understanding of the generation. He seems to think we've finally got it. She thinks it's nonsense. Her motto is; when it comes it comes, in the meantime I am here to do my job. And if I die so what?  Hopefully I will be resurrected. And if not, I won't even care, will I?
    When the Slave admits they've sometimes had wrong expectations, that doesn't mean we have to have those same wrong expectations too, does it?
  5. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
  6. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly reacted to JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...
     
  7. Haha
    Ann O'Maly got a reaction from Pudgy in Maybe It’s Not Cold On the Moon? ~ ?   
    Somebody quickly build a Starbucks there or those pioneers will never survive.
  8. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to JW Insider in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    apologies in advance that a few keys on my keyboard are not working, including the shift and caps lock along with a few key letters. workarounds take a long time, so although i will repair a few of the problems created, some of this post might be hard to read.
     
    Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here. what he is saying above is that he might be only one of two brothers in the entire world who have demonstrated competence in chronology. you admit that you have not followed the thread that closely, but perhaps you might wish to follow it more closely on this basis alone. you are evidently privileged to be in the presence of a very rare level of competence.
    since this topic has veered from its original course, and it was started by me, i'm happy to create a new version of it that deals only with the more serious issues about watchtower chronology vs. bible chronology vs. secular chronology. evidently i still have the ability to move posts from one thread to another, to keep topics organised. if i still have some of these moderator functions available to me, i can always move irrelevant and irreverent posts back over to this thread.
    if i do decide to start a new thread, i will probably not be moving any posts from here, but will likely try to summarise by quoting from posts made here. this might have to wait until i add a wireless keyboard to this laptop, or perhaps i'll start using my Macbook more often, which slows down my typing by about 50wpm until i get used to it. that would likely cut down the length of my posts by more than 50 percent --and who wants that?
  9. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to TrueTomHarley in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I do not know who Neil is. In responding to a post of mine before, you seem to assume that I do. (I have not followed this thread closely)
  10. Confused
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    My experience exactly in the few years that I have come back to this forum - she is always ready for a fight - and does not care for real scholarship - even if she professes it. 
    A person's search for truth also involves a reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject. Even if good arguments are given - she does not consider it and goes back to her old arguments.    
  11. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Hmmmm......I beg to differ. How about we both ask a number of friends a simple question at the KH this Sunday or in a field service group: "do you know how to explain why we believe 1914 and 607?"
    In any case, it looks like you are trying to evade the question by implying that understanding how we come to 1914 (and 607) requires too much time and that one has better things to do (which actually confirms what I said, that most don't really know) and also you are detracting from the question by implying that those who do this, are really just trying to discredit the Slave and score points for themselves on a discussion forum.
    I can't say anything about what was said under another heading, but I do know that the question that arose a number of times was if WT accepts 537, then why does it not accept 587, if both dates are verifiable by the same astronomical/historical l sources.
    I am not here to score points either, (and if anyone is, well then they are to be pitied because what real value does collecting points from complete strangers who have no impact on your real, outside the internet, life have?). I am not trying to prove the Slave are deceivers,  but how would you explain to someone what I posted earlier but you never commented on. It was in answer to your comment:  " Faith is important - but Jehovah knew that us simple folks - we always need small steps to look forward to and he lovingly gave it to us.... and what is more.. the proof of the pudding is the eating....... world events since 1914 has proven that it is a 'reality'...... We will soon be seeing the last prophecies regarding Babylon the great, the call to peace and security...and the 8th king in action.... as a matter of fact - religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak...."  And my reply was:
    "BUT that does not mean the dates and numbers and lengths of periods we simple folks put together are always correct are they? What has happened to the millions that were not supposed to die? (they did). What has happened to the generation that was not supposed to pass away? (they have, practically) What has happened to the children that were not supposed to even finish school in this system? (they did, and they have children of their own). What has happened to the world that can't get any worse? (it did, and still might)".
    Religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak, but there have been many signs before that, that actually turned out NOT to be the sign
    To be fair, this topic here "607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported" really does call for secular,/scholarly knowledge because it is an academic subject.  No matter how noble feelings are, they still have no impact on whether something is true or false. And I cannot somehow connect a date with love for Jehovah, especially if there is a possibility that the date could be completely erroneous.
    I think those people have been paying attention to the signs on the ground. Probably since they first learned about them.
    Indeed, the Amaharets.  And it is a consolation to me that even if we are totally wrong about Christ's enthronement in 1914 and it takes another 2000 years for Armageddon to come, surely Jehovah will look upon us that we, the Amaharets, did our best to follow in the footsteps of Christ, by preaching the Kingdom and by living our life in harmony with God's moral standards. Surely Jehovah will recognize that the majority of Christ's sheep are unable to verify or understand everything the Bible, or what the Slave presents, like the Beoreans were able to. I can't imagine a missionary in Peru being overly concerned about Neo Babylonian chronology. Surely it is sufficient that these ones have verified the fundamental truths. And those who desire and are able to delve deeper into the academic side of this particular issue, and in all honesty find discrepancies with 607, surely they will not be disqualified? Thankfully, Jehovah is the reader of hearts. However, if those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility to disseminate spiritual food to the Amaharets, and they feed falsehood, they will be judged severely, for obvious reasons. So really, we have nothing to be worried about. For the Amaharets and those "academics/scholars" who are pure in heart and motive it's a win win situation isn’t it?


     
  12. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to scholar JW in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Ann O Maly
    To all thus interested:
    Would someone please post page 208 of Brown's Eventide and give Ann some peace. I could but am not disposed to at this moment because I am concerned about Ann's postings on this subject and her apparent bias against the WT scholars not wishing to add 'fuel to the fire'.
    scholar JW
  13. Like
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Yes I do, but you do realize not everyone has the opportunity to study chronology for themselves, I mean really study. Not only that, but going to original sources for this kind of research is not really encouraged by the Slave.
    Of course we both know that Gerard does not support 607. I assume you are not mentioning that aspect because that would only confirm what I said before; Witnesses are judged by whether they believe in 607 or not. 
    The fact is he WAS a witness at one time but as you say, his present status is uncertain. But why are we doubting his Witness status in the first place? Why does the fact that he does not support 607 automatically change his status from being a brother to maybe not being a brother?
  14. Like
    Ann O'Maly reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    I think I read this book circa 1962, in Jr. High School, and don't remember much, except that the PROOFS were so sloppy as to make the book almost unreadable. It was in Paperback..  I remember it as being fair quality Science Fiction.
  15. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Arauna and all:
    See also:
    Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List: 7. Immanuel Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision
  16. Like
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Anna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Will someone post page 208?
  17. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Arauna in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
    Allan and all:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
    Emmanuel Velikovsky became known in 1950 and after him there were many authors who revised the Egyptian timeline and other Middle eastern timelines...  Read his history under the link above.   Since then there have been many good scholars who reject the timelines of all middle east and Egyptian chronology. ..... but they are outcasts amongst the rest of the fraternity. 
  18. Haha
    Ann O'Maly reacted to TrueTomHarley in 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?   
     
     
    First Responders!!! STAT!!! Food fight in aisle 607!!
  19. Thanks
    Ann O'Maly got a reaction from Bible Speaks in I THINK WERE GETTING A ICE AGE HERE AGAIN! - 100 ? years never so cold! - ❄️☃️❄️☃️❄️   
    The reason I linked to the article was to respond to your idea that an increase in CO2 is good thing because ... PLANTS. We need sufficient quantities of plants to use up the CO2. If people keep chopping down huge land areas of forest, there won't be enough plant life to absorb all this supposed beneficial CO2. But too much CO2 isn't good for plants anyway, and they need more than that to survive and thrive. See the article 'Plants cannot live on CO2 alone' linked to earlier.
    Excess CO2 results in the acidification of the salty oceans which in turn harms ocean life - including plant life. You mentioned acid rain before. Even though you said it's a result of mixing carbon and rainwater (it actually results from mixing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with rainwater), you apparently didn't join the dots of how damaging it would be and is to plants!
  20. Upvote
  21. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly reacted to Matthew9969 in Is it time for this forum to close its doors?   
    It does appear that they are attempting to copywrite the NWT and all their publications. As far as being concerned about people misquoting their content, they have no concern when they misquote or take out of context other sources...most of the time not giving source information for the misquoted context.
     
  22. Upvote
    Ann O'Maly got a reaction from Shiwiii in Why do we subsidize Higher Education for the Elite JW's while discouraging most JW's from University Educations?   
    There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
    Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
    "We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
    assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
    pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
    pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
    3/6/12 BOE letter.
    "Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
    its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
    servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
    education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
    arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

    • Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
    • Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
    • Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
    education? (3 John 9)
    • Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
    • How is he viewed by the congregation?
    • Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
    • Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
    • Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
    participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

    As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
    that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
    higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
    that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
    meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
    1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
    On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
     
  23. Confused
    Ann O'Maly reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in I THINK WERE GETTING A ICE AGE HERE AGAIN! - 100 ? years never so cold! - ❄️☃️❄️☃️❄️   
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    I used to do solar insolation studies for a living ... THIS is why we have climate change.
    Milankovitch Cycles.
    ...and the fact that Sol is a variable star.
    BECAUSE it is getting warmer ... bacteria are pumping out more CO2.
    The only REAL greenhouse gas is water vapor ... clouds.  A mile thick blanket ...shiny on top ... and black on the bottom ... covering three States is REAL. 
    Banning the propellant in asthma inhalers and refrigerant in air conditioners is politics.
    ..and gross stupidity.
  24. Confused
    Ann O'Maly reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in I THINK WERE GETTING A ICE AGE HERE AGAIN! - 100 ? years never so cold! - ❄️☃️❄️☃️❄️   
    Global Warming being mankind's fault is all about money ... and the transfer of money via Socialism to the poor .... with the brokers of Carbon Credits getting filthy rich acting a mediators of economic equality.  Mankind is being guilt-tripped into the NEW Religion of "saving the planet" .... after all... the Priests have to have their 747 personal jets.
     

  25. Confused
    Ann O'Maly reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in I THINK WERE GETTING A ICE AGE HERE AGAIN! - 100 ? years never so cold! - ❄️☃️❄️☃️❄️   
    Immortality of a human soul is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on humanity ... "global warming"  caused by man is the second biggest lie.
×
×
  • 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.