Posted by Perspective/Gary on March 15, 1999 at 12:23:55 {MWI..8PVPLcMY}:
In Reply to: Frequently Avoided Quandaries posted by J.H. on March 15, 1999 at 09:04:38:
Hi Jan,
Excellent post and observations!! I hope you don't mind if I agree with you and do my usual commentary to add a "fundie" perspective to your statements....
Regarding JWs avoiding topics:
You couldn't be more accurate!
They absolutely simply run from the topic when they see any hint that the Bible and WTS views are not going to be resolved. They are masters at coming up with excuses why they don't have to deal with this topic now. Very true
observation! I agree 100%.
And now, if you don't mind. Just some comments to add a little perspective to your summary:
>>I will outline some of the serious questions so often avoided here on H2O:
>> Blood debate.
Self-explanatory. I agree. No further comment.
>>Disfellowshipping, or more precisely, forced/coerced shunning. Do I need to say more?
No. I agree generally, something is wrong with this policy, that seems clear. No further comment.
>> Creationism. The few sparse attempts by WT loyalists to defend the outragous amount of
misquotations and dishonest claims in the WTS' Creation book were easily rebutted....
Now this topic is a little different. It's a broad subject and JWs are not the only ones involved. So I'd like to add a bit of perspective here and that is, perhaps JWs aren't defending creationism appropriately and your criticism of that is valid. But the concept of creationism I find quite compatible with my "reality" (whatever), and in lieu of that, I find the evolution theory, allegedly solidly scientific based to to be totally ludricrous, beginning with the obvious problem of abiogenesis, that is, while we may all understand how things "evolve" since we see evolution from a single cell into a fully functioning organism with every human birth, how is it that INORGANIC MATTER suddenly started creating complex organisms when they are designed to break down complex organisms that are dead? So there are some of us who look at evolution scientifically and find incredible problems with it and at the same time are not so closed minded as to exclude the possibility of an intelligent being as the source for the complex natural world we know today. Just my two cents. God is a fantasy to some, but evolution is a close second and closing as totally fancifal as well. Just my two cents. Evolution does have its problems. And I'm sure we haven't heard the last on that topic.
>> Chronology.
Oh yes, chronology, my favorite!
>>In earlier days, it was a very brave JW apologist who dared to step into this
mine field.
You can say that again! It is a complex mine field!
>The evidence is so overwhelming that nobody can seriously maintain the WTS'
607-chronology.
The evidence is not overwhelming, Jan. It's controversial and confusing. I don't think you can make this statement, which is your opinion, when your 587BCE chronology based largely upon Ptolemy's canon has detractors like Professor Robert R. Newton who in his Crimes of Claudius Ptolemy says of the canon (syntaxis), in summary, in no uncertain terms:
"It is clear that no statement made by Ptolemy can be accepted unless it is confirmed by writes who are totally independent of Ptolemy on the matters in question. All research in either history or astronomy that has been based upon the Syntaxis must now be done again.
I do not know what others may think, but to me there is only one final assessment: The Syntaxis has done more damage to astronomy than any other work ever written, and astronomy would be better off it if had never existed.
Thus Ptolemy is not the greatest astronomer of antiquity, but he is something still more unusual: He is the most successful fraud in the history of science."
So Jan, in all honesty, I don't think you can appropriate characterize any serious look at the chronology issue as one that is being settled easily or being one of "overwhelming" evidence, when this professor is so adamantly clear that Ptolemy was a total fake. We all entitled to our opinions, and I think your "mine field" assessment was much more accurate than your "overwhelming" evidence statement, as if to say the debate is over or that everything has been settled. It certainly has not. My two cents. Just some perspective.
>>Alas, anyone reasing this subject will be deluged in various conspirationalist
nonsense with huge GIFs.
(ROLF) Now who could he be talking about? To this I'll just say what is most characteristic to me about the 587-ers is not much recognition of ones such as Dr. Martin Anstey and others who now easily accept that the current secular chronology is defective and have settled on the 1st year of Cyrus in 455BCE. So there are others out there who value Biblical chronology more than secular chronology. Thus the 529BCE fall of Jerusalem is not a new "conspiracy" theory. The "conspiracy" date, in fact is the 587BCE date. So just for the record, some well-educated persons who have considered these issues find it quite comfortable to accept 529BCE as the date for the fall of Jerusalem. But current chronologists like to keep them under the cupboard if possible.
>>If this rubbish persuades anyone that there is any rational basis
whatsoever for doubting established chronology the damage is done.
(ROLF) Here again, your own emotions are showing. See you are
calling it "rubbish" as if there is no legitimate claim whatsoever to anything other than your own 587BCE chronology. At best this is a controversial issue. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is totally stupid or
ignorant? To me what is "rubbish" is believing that Cyrus could have been born 15 years before his own mother. Now I consider anyone believing that as being totally ignorant and stupid. The 587-ers find it easy to accept apparently,
though.
So "rubbish" is in the eye of the beholder, and it seems to fall on both sides of fence, my friend.
This debate, too, will go on. But there have been some recent evidence that makes the 587BCE argument much weaker than ever
before. Things have changed in the last two years with a closer look at the VAT4956 and SK400! It is not the same playing field by any means. So you need a new tune.
>>Last Days Madness. This is so dear at heart for almost all American
protestant sects, but
thanks to the work of COJ and others exJWs are strongly resistant to it.
Now this is interesting. I think this is the weakest of all arguments for pro-preterism. It belongs in your list as a touch-point
only because
its something THEY can't deal with. The "last days" I think unfolds quite naturally from a Biblical standpoint. You'll never win a non-last days argument with a JW, that's for sure.
>>An unwary JW
apologist (or
fundie) sometimes post something about wars or earthquakes as "end-time
signs" and are immediately drowned in hard statistical facts.
Perspective: My criticism here is that COJ and the GB have made their bed together on this
one. That is, the GB clearly indicates that the most important sign leading to Christ's return, the "great tribulation like had not occurred ever before" was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE.
That's right! JWs teach that the
"disgusting thing in the holy place" was the Roman Army and that event fulfilled Daniel's prophecy about that world event. (Excuse me if I yawwwwwwwwwwwnnn.)
But COJ needs to claim the same thing, though very "apologetically". That is, they know it is not that UNIQUE since Jerusalem had been destroyed before, so both of them claim it was unique not in intensity, but in some other way. Of course, we fundie's politely ignore both of them. This tribulation against the Jewish nation was supposed to be something that was a world event and that would let everyone know in no uncertain terms that the Messiah was about to arrive. It was supposed to be a unique and horrible event that would shock the world. 70CE does not qualify. But the HOLOCUAST is right on the money... So neither COJ and or the WTS GB get any "last days" credit for seriously considering what the Bible says. But COJ does make some clear points in his new book about how the prophecies about the "gentile times", Matthew/Mark vs Luke come together. Just when you thought you'd add another book to the fire pile, COJ comes through with some valuable insight. So I'm mixed on this one.
Anyway, Bible chronology forces us into the 20th century fulfillment of things no matter what date you use for the fall of Babylon or Jerusalem. The "last days" occurring during out times, is unavoidable as far as I'm concerned. Just my 2 cents.
>>False prophecies.
The record speaks for itself. I totally agree, GB = "false prophets".
>> New light.
This is an embarrassment as well. "New Light" for the WTS is probably a misnomer. But there is some
Biblical founding for a gradual understanding of things and even "darkness" of understanding during the last days. So everything would not be revealed at once. Of course, this would have little to do with the shut-down "channel" in
Brooklyn.
Thanks for your summary. Things do seem to be playing out a bit, huh? That's the feel I get. What has been said has splashed against the wall and has now driveled down to the floor. It's rehash time. Or time to move on.
Cheers Jan,
Gary