Anna

5 hours ago, xero said:

Because there are some fatties out there who need some discipline.

I agree. It is a sin against your body if you fill it with unhealthy food and eat to excess. Why? Because you clog your arteries, get diabetes, ruin your joints and a host of other ailments directly associated with an unhealthy lifestyle, one of which is gluttony. I would say it's tantamount to smoking, unfortunately it's hard to define. How fat is too fat? How much food is too much food? Where would one draw the line? What would be the criterion for counseling someone and for forming a judicial committee? So unfortunately, it is impossible and will never happen. Unfortunately too though, these obese brothers and sisters are giving a bad witness. Perhaps if they realized this, they would try and live healthy for Jehovah, if not for themselves.
Also of course, some really cannot help it because of certain medical condition or medication. This is only a small percentage though. But you will not know everyone's circumstance, and if the elders were to pry into reasons why someone is fat, then that would border on harassment. So I don't think anyone will be disfellowshipped for being fat anytime soon, if that were the case, then congregations in America would go down by half 😂

50 minutes ago, xero said:

One brother once asked me "Have you ever wondered why you haven't been appointed as an elder?" I think I shamed/surprised him by saying "I think it's because Jehovah hasn't decided it's time yet."

Perfect! 👍👏

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Hoping for the end implies faithfulness and humility. Predicting a specific time period for the end implies presumptuousness and haughtiness.

Yes, this clarification is important.

Unfortunately, those who are taking the lead, and believe they are in charge of producing food at the proper time, feel, and have felt, the need to put their hope into a definite prediction of sorts, rather than just talking about a hope.....that is sometime in the future. Hence we have a reworking of the 'Generation' although as far as I am aware no one requested "new light" on this. 

Yes, it seems like it. Not sure what your point is though 😀

2 hours ago, xero said:

May as well include this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

https://www.openculture.com/2015/10/in-1704-isaac-newton-predicts-the-world-will-end-in-2060.html

I used to joke that if it doesn't come by 2034 (120 years from 1914) that I might reconsider. (Somehow people didn't think that as funny as I did.)

I have noticed that the desire to see God's promises fulfilled (nothing wrong with that of course), drives the human spirit to "predict" or "hope for" the end always in their life time. The pattern is clear: Russell hoped for the end in 1874 then 1914, Rutherford 1925, Franz 1975, the 80's GB by the end of the 20th century, today's GB between now and aprox. 2035.
Each generation would say their children aren't going to make it to school....now those  children have children of their own...and grandchildren

There are recent discussions on JW talk with brothers and sisters giving this old world no more than 5 years, and there are a few optimistic ones who say within a year. If you were to ask members of your congregation when do they think the end will come, you will hear similar sentiments. Many believe the pandemic will lead straight into the GT.
Of course logically, the end will come in someone's life time, and one day we will be right.

I admire Isaac Newton because his "prediction" defied the rules of wishing for it in one's lifetime. For that reason he seems more believable. But of course I hope he is wrong...because of course I would like it to happen in our lifetime! Oh, the irony of it! 😂

It is not wrong to hope for good things to come, what is wrong is our serving God only for that reason, and building our hope up to the point of expectation delayed making us sick.

You have probably heard this sentiment before, it's great, and I like to remind myself of it periodically: "Plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"

22 hours ago, Witness said:

An untruth never becomes "brighter"

19 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

God relented, changed his mind and his intention. What if JW preaching service will be faced with same sort of decision about "Armageddon" in the future? 

Anything is possible!

4 hours ago, xero said:

I'm reminded of one criminal justice class I took. We got to interview a number of ex-felons. One thing that I learned from this is that people always give the most noble reason they can for their argument, though this is rarely the real argument. Often if you keep probing for their reasons you come down to something like...

(In answer to 'So why did you stab him?")

"I didn't like the look on his face."

This is true. I remember in the movie Die Hard, the baddies appear to have a noble cause; to exchange hostages in order to free.....can't remember who exactly, lol.  Then the moment when it dawns on Bruce Willis's wife that this is not their intent at all because in reality they are nothing but "common thieves" and this hostage situation was just a cover up and to buy themselves time. Their true intent was stealing billions.

12 minutes ago, xero said:

The question is whether the change is coming from a more accurate understanding of scripture in context (biblical archaeology, textual analysis) or the change is coming from external forces in human society.

Yes, of course.

3 hours ago, xero said:

A - I would say expecially w/regard to the trinity, that you have to have (to get all epistemological about it in the Gettier sense), to have knowledge of something, to have true, justified belief (to have knowldege, it has to be true, you have to believe it and you have to have good justification for said belief).

To believe something is to be able to provide a rational belief, an account of your belief. If you say "I believe in the trinity", that's not proof of your belief. That's a statement. You have to provide justification.

If you say "I believe in the trinity because the Pope says it's true, or because my preacher says it's true, or because I don't want to be called names." We all know those are not valid reasons, any more than if a person were to say "The governing body says it's true, therefore it's true and those are my reasons". These may be reasonable in the sense of these "reasons" being correlated with the proposed belief, but to believe something you have to internalize the thing in which you ostensibly believe.

I see a cat. I believe I saw a cat. I touched the cat. I form a "catness" analogy in my head as to when something has passed into the zone of catness and when it's no longer a cat. My belief has boundary conditions, and is potentially falsifiable. But at the moment I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten" and you see it, and acknowledge it, then we have some grounds for saying we believe me when I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten".

The justifications are my sense data and your agreement w/my sense data.

What is it that this person is even talking about, when he says "I believe the trinity to be true."?

The word and it's use is so ambiguous as to require a lot of qualification. Most people are satisfied, like the reasoning book says when you say "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God's power." (paraphrased) People will say "Mighty fine!, Mighty fine!". You could even preach a sermon in their church - take an outline like "God's View of Sex and Marriage" and give it in any nondenominational church and you'd get no argument.

So do they believe the trinity? I don't think they even have a clear idea as to what they're talking about. You can't teach what you can't clearly define any more than you can believe it. It reminds me of an 8 hour discussion I had w/a pentecostal minister one long Saturday - like playing whackamole w/scriptures. I ended up eating dinner w/his family - nice people and all, but at the end he just had a Mona Lisa smile on his face like some carnival worker who took all my money so I could finally get a stuffed pony.

Nice dissertation xero 🙂. I suppose what you are saying is that those who teach the Trinity, (I am talking about spiritual leaders, not laity) do so not because they can "prove" it is true, but because it is "tradition", because that is what the church was founded on and decided upon in the 4th century. It is true, if you've read any of the secular books on the inception of the trinity doctrine you realize what a political scam it was. Of course, most of these books are written by authors who are against the doctrine. There are many books though written by those who defend the trinity and present arguments for it. These theologians surely must believe with all their heart that the trinity is true. After all, they present "proof”. What then? I think the criterion for ascertaining the genuineness of such a person is; how would they react when presented with simple Biblical proof against the Trinity doctrine? Just for the sake of example, if the Pope was presented with simple, and logical Biblical proof, would he still hold on to his belief tooth and nail? That perhaps would be the deciding factor whether I should join his religion, whether this religion was the right one. That is what I meant when I said that the true religion should be able to change their erroneous teachings when finding out that they were indeed in error. So in this case, the Pope would go ahead and declare the some 1600 year held doctrine null and void and introduce Biblical truth. Obviously, for something like this to happen is unrealistic, that is why it is a strictly hypothetical example just to illustrate a point.. (what is possible of course is for the Pope to resign, but this would not change Catholicism).
So I still think that the measuring stick to finding the true religion is its willingness to change its teachings, and not whether it is teaching the truth per se. As Witness* brought out, we have not always taught the truth. Not only that, but we are still learning. The Bible itself says the light will keep getting brighter, until full daylight. Perhaps full daylight will not be achieved till the new system? You may have noticed on this forum discussions regarding 1914. There are many discrepancies regarding this “doctrine” if one cares to look. Your average brother or sister will be teaching this from how it is presented by the GB, without questioning it, or without looking at evidence against it.   

(*Witness is no longer a JW herself, so naturally most of what she says is in direct and bitter opposition to what she used to believe to be the Truth). 

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

Why not Brahma? Why not Zeus? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why not? Because Brahma was born from a golden egg...... Later to  come forth from a lotus that issued from Vishnu’s navel.

Because Zeus was a child born of a couple of Titans, whose father ate five of his other siblings.

Because the flying Spaghetti Monster is the stuff of imagination just like the two previous mythological creatures. You and I can both come up with our own imaginative being and call him god.

You obviously believe that the Bible God, as you call him, is also the stuff of imagination. Considering how imaginative people can be, then the origin of God as presented in the Bible is positively boring. The description of creation is also boring. The only time the narrative gets a little adventurous is when God and the heavens are described in books such as Ezekiel and Revelation. But then we are told that these are merely visions and symbolic depictions, not that angels really have wings and God rides in a chariot with wheels that have eyes.

The Bible presents the creator in a completely unique way, compared with the description of all other "gods" in mythological writings. The Bible is also completely unique compared with the gobbledygook of other so called spiritual texts.

2 hours ago, xero said:

Did the ones saying such things in 1907 not believe them to be true?

I agree with everything you say...but could this not be said of most religions? What they teach, do they not believe it is true? For example the trinity doctrine, do those who teach it not believe that it is true? (Now of course it would be a different matter if they believed it was false, but taught it as truth). So really, it seems that the WT is slightly erroneous in stating that "the truth" is what makes a religion right, and you have already highlighted the reason why this is erroneous.  What I see as more important is the second part, where Jesus says that those who are like greedy wolves are false teachers. So it is the behavior, and consequently the fruits of a religion, that identify it as true or false.

Also, I would say that being eager to correct previously held wrong beliefs identifies the true religion as well. 

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

that rouge congregation

Did you mean to say rogue?

Hey @xero would you also like to join the JW Only club?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But there is still a lot of prejudice against pioneering in most congregations I know.

Did you mean to say higher education?

Hmmm ....If I was married to someone like her husband I think I may have wanted someone to hurt me....

19 hours ago, xero said:

This stuff happens all the time I'm sure w/brothers

Not just brothers

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Bible God and his complement do not exist -- I've proved it.

Sorry, I missed that...

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are koalas clean or unclean animals?

But more important questions are:

How did seven pairs of koalas (or two pairs) travel from Mount Ararat to Australia? And what did they eat along the way? It is very picky in food and eats only the leaves of certain species of eucalyptus. For Koala this is actually the only food and survives, as well as two species of opossum , exclusively feeding on this plant.  Koalas consume up to 400 grams (14 oz) of leaves a day.

"Polar bear", who was not polar bear in pre-Flood time ..., Why and how did the "polar" bear leave Ararat to live at the North Pole, when they had never seen snow and ice? When did he change the color of his fur?

Did fecal gases harm human and animal health in period of 1 year captivity of Ark? Where did Noah throw the animal and human feces in that 1 year period?

..... and so on and so on?

 

The only way anything to do with the flood and the aftermath is possible, is that supernatural powers had to be involved. When all those animals came out of the ark I doubt there was any food for them after the earth had been under water for nearly a year. I don't think this reasoning (supernatural power) is far fetched if you believe that supernatural powers were used to gather all the animals into the ark, and preserve them and the people in the ark for nearly a year in the first place....without all dying of malnutrition and suffocation. If we believe God created everything, how hard could it be for him to shuffle all those creatures around the globe and keep those cute koalas fed on eucalyptus at the same time? As for the polar bear, what does evolution say about how it got its white coat? The gene was there somewhere in the post flood brown bear couple. Just miraculously speed up "evolution", and logistics, and voila, you've got a white bear family living in the north pole 😁

On 1/6/2021 at 2:53 PM, AlanF said:

The problem is what it applies to, and its beginning and its end.

Yes, and can we know for sure?

On 1/6/2021 at 2:53 PM, AlanF said:

Quote

The return, and/or the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which according to your table was 538/7) seems indicative that the 70 year period of desolation/captivity/servitude was definitely ended.

Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to.

Right, but as you said it's all up to the definition, and it depends whether you are going to use servitude or desolation as your decisive circumstance. If you are going to use desolation, as Daniel did, then it could be said that Jerusalem was desolate until the Jews returned and started building. 

It seems there is quite a bit of ambiguity and leeway in the interpretation of the beginning and even the end, and even the number of years. (Although the number of years in my opinion seem to be quite definite and I don't see a reason why they should not be literal). 
I do not see it a big problem with just a couple of years plus or minus on the beginning or end of the exile/servitude 
I think its difficult to completely rely on something that was recorded over 2500 years ago (I am talking mainly about secular archeological finds, not the Bible) to be accurate to the year or month. Yes, definite months might be mentioned and are, but it's difficult to discern what really happened on a particular date.

I was trying to think of some kind of a modern comparison: thinking of the pandemic we are experiencing right now, generally, it is recognized that the coronavirus infection was first reported to the WHO organization on Dec. 31 and on Jan 30 WHO declared the virus a global health emergency. So, hypothetically, someone 2500 years into the future would read this information from various preserved sources and would be able to come to the same conclusion. So we would be ok with that. However, if someone wanted to know 'when' the virus actually started, not when it was reported, we might run into various opinions. Also, we might need to be specific with the definitions, do we mean when the virus started, or do we mean when the pandemic started? We might also want to know where it started and what caused it. We might find various information on that, and not one definite answer. Also we will want to know when it ended, and what classified it as being "ended" was it when less than 1% of the population were reportedly infected in one given month for a specified amount of time or something else? There are so many variables.....and what will end up being written in the annals of history in the end? I am comparing a time period of superior technological and scientific knowledge with a time period of comparative primitiveness. And still there can be varying opinions drawn.  How much more so with something that happened over 2500 years ago? 

So when WT prefers to view the 70 years as literal, and start them in 607, and wants to call them desolation, would that not be acceptable? 

However, a 20 year difference in WT neo Banylonian chronology is too much. I will have to look at that next...

15 hours ago, AlanF said:

links I already gave

In one of the links you say: 

"Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah......"

Although there was not a single deportation, and the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah occurred  in stages, doesn't mean that we should disregard Jeremiah's 70 years as one continuous block of time, I don't think. That was the time set for a specific period, with a beginning and an end, regardless whether it meant captivity, desolation or servitude (since surely these terms would all apply to a people who had been invaded by a foreign army). It might be difficult to pinpoint the start of the 70 year period (because of the said various deportations) so for that reason I still do not see a problem with counting from the end of the 70 years, since the end of that period is easier to identify. The return, and/or the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which according to your table was 538/7) seems indicative that the 70 year period of desolation/captivity/servitude was definitely ended.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Had you read the links I already gave you, you'd have all your answers.

I was hoping I could get an answer in a few short paragraphs 😄

P.s. I will take a look.

On 1/4/2021 at 3:40 PM, JW Insider said:

Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).

Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).

While I have been formulating a reply to Ann’s last post on here, (which I hadn’t posted yet and probably won’t bother in view of your comments here). I had been noticing blanket statements in some of the WT publications regarding some dates. I suppose this is what you mean when you and others refer to intellectual dishonesty. In my reply to Ann I was trying to reconcile two points of view for the same event, one of servitude and the other of desolation. She says that it is “this (mis)understanding (desolation) that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme."

In my reply I wanted to say that Jeremiah does say that the land will be ruined, and it goes without saying that it’s obvious the impact an invading army would have on a sovereign state, especially if that army took victory. Although Jeremiah does not specifically use the word desolation, Daniel does: Daniel 9:2  In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. So in view of that, I don’t think it’s wrong to use desolation and servitude interchangeably. Both situations arise from the same thing; the conquest of a people.

But it seems to me, from what you say, that the understanding of what the 70 years refer to exactly is of secondary importance, and that the key to it all is not the 70 years, but Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king. I would tend to agree with that.

Insight says: Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)

Secular scholars say he ruled as king 605 BC – c. 562 BC

So where does WT get those dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s rule? Why is WT chronology regarding the Neo Babylonian period 20 years earlier than secular chronology? (and I am not looking for an answer that says in order for it to fit 1914 😄)

On 1/4/2021 at 3:40 PM, JW Insider said:

If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:

(2 Kings 24:1, 2) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.

Why doesn't it do that?

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

To call it a House of God and to do guided tours, is a form of worship.

You think a guided tour is a form of worship? How so?

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But Babylonian domination wasn't limited to over the Jews. Babylon dominated a whole host of other nations too.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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?

True, but I think WT is looking at this from the point of view of how it affected the Israelites, since the scriptures are concerned with God's people and how surrounding political and world situations impacted them, not everyone else. In this case I think WT is correct to think that way. 

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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?

Yes, that's what I wondered, and this is where I found myself favoring Ezra over Jeremiah in order to make 607 fit 🤪. (I am not familiar with how WT solved that problem. I will have to take a look....)

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

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. 🙂

Yes. Thanks.

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

The Bible does not specify the start of the 70 years, but there are enough hints in the Bible that the period was already running when Jeremiah issued several prophecies. (e.g., Jer. 29:10) Many commentators now tend to view the start as in 609 BCE,

Thanks for admitting that.

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

when the Babylonians put an end to the last of the Assyrian forces at the battle of Harran. But no one is dogmatic about it, since the Bible is silent

Right. Which means to be on the safe side,, it would be better to start at the end of the 70 years, which the Bible is more specific about.  according to..2 Chronicles and Ezra .. this happened in the first year of Cyrus. (But then the question is should we count as the return the decree to rebuild, or should we count Cyrus' conquest of Babylon).

20 hours ago, AlanF said:

Because of your JW training, you have it strongly ingrained that the 70 years are of great significance. They are not. The ONLY reason the Watchtower Society views them as significant is that without the 70 years, they cannot get to 1914.

Well yes, I will not deny that. 

Honestly, for a lay person like me, a few years plus minus do not present a big problem. I am just chuffed that something written thousands of years ago, whether it be Babylonian chronicles or the Bible, can be brought into harmony and fall within a few years of each other.

If I was to take your information regarding commentators viewing 609 as the start of the 70 years, and use Ann's 539 as the end of servitude to Babylon then there we have the 70 years. 

We can take those 70 years and slide them to the left by 2 years to get to 537 and I think it would still be fair to say that this could count as the end of servitude to Babylon. (Beginning with the decree to rebuild the temple) and so 607 could be the start of the 70 years, since as you say the Bible is silent about the exact start anyway. 

I know you will probably hate my apparent disregard for precision, but 2 years wiggle room is good enough for me. But seriously now, it seems that one cannot dogmatically claim 609 nor 607, and 539 or 537, because these dates are dependent on the interpretation of the pertinent scriptures. I do admit though, that this wiggle room automatically biases me to try to make 1914 fit, rather than actually work from available secular evidence for certain dates. I can see WT trying to do that too. 

I am still learning, as I'm sure you have guessed, so I apologize. Some of the things I say might sound ridiculous to you and Ann.