Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NJK Project]

Wow tinka, the more I read your response and see with what spiritual shallowness you are operating in, the more I see that it is not (sacrificially) worth my time having a discussion with you. Indeed I could easily debunk point by point all of your statements, but that just would not be worth my time. In fact, my whole writing style and approach was to weed out non-spiritually minded persons like you. Just comparing you to the various other people who are even ‘half/partially getting my postings, even style of posting), (and even if they generally do not agree with me), confirms to me how much of a caseload a discussion with you would be. So unless you have something substantive to discuss rather than all of your wrong and judgmental assumptions and conclusion about me, my calling, my “giftings”, spiritual experience and my intentions, then do spare me your uniformed and unspiritual opinions. As much as you may dislike the analogy, it is to me all like ‘trying to teach College Calculus to a Third Grader.’

All I can recommend to you is, at the very least, read better and read more of what I have posted. [For one factual thing, you’ll also find out that I did not just have one vision/dream and posted it]. And also do read and heed God’s pointed warnings and dealing with a rebelliously wayward people...

I’ll just say this, and you can take it however you need to, I do thank God for having given me a spirit of “superiority” as you pejoratively need to deem/call it, because that very spirit is what has led me to never accept the fake facade of rightness commonly put forth by my various “superiors” in life, but rather to find out what the truth/rightness/righteousness of a matter is for myself, and that in whatever field I delved it in my life.

[NJK Project]

-Bob:

Your response about the Ahasuerus vs. Artaxerxes seems rather vexatious towards me because you quote scholars to make your point on Ahasuerus. To be specific, I do not merely “quote scholars” but only use their work when I find them to be “evidentiarily” correct/accurate. Simply mainly recalling off the top of my head, try a few SDA scholars for those who are claiming that Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 is Longimanus. (E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!

(And if you are just going to vexatiously and antogonistically, mindlessly quibble as responses, then please don’t waste my time. Study out your responses better before posting/posing them to me.)

-Ellen White did not have to write a treatise against the Sabbath, she “wrote” how she thought for a while how Bates was in error over the Sabbath. She then probably openly opposed Bates during that time when he would try to present that truth. And it was probably because he did not then try to preach that message widely to “the scattered flock” that she did not correspondingly write a message opposing it.

And, technically speaking, the earliest document which contained a (prophetic) writing of EGW was the 1847 Word to the Little Flock pamphlet. So that was after she learned the truth about the Sabbath

-The fact that EGW switch views on what took place in Christ ascensions between her 3SP account and DA is self-evident. No need for a detailed treatise there. You may want to succinctly list your “multiple explanations” because I cannot see any good reason why she would make that switch except for a wrong assumption on her part or an inadvertent and uncaught error either by her and/or by her DA editor(s). That would not be an impossibility on her part for in another place, she mistakenly attributes (in a published and never changed or corrected writing), a statement of Paul to Peter (or vice versa). (cf. Matt 23:35). For me, that does not at all affect her overall inspiration or writing. (nor that of Jesus in that Matt statement, -if it was him who made that error, and not Matthew himself.). EGW’s writing, as per her humble allowance, must still be exegetically tested and fact checked. Again, she was not inerrant nor infallible. And whether or not Paul knew the particulars of a situation did not affect that he knew that what he would be saying on it was not from a direct revelation from God, but solely on what he believed what right, based on what he Biblically knew. The same can and has been involved in certain assuming claims and counsels of EGW.  As with e.g., the prophet Nathan, sometimes a prophet of God is merely sharing, even authoritatively, their assuming opinion. And it is actually a presumptuous Capital sin if they are claiming that they know it as a fact to be the word of God. (Deut 18:18-20-22, -hindered fulfilments of (conditional) prophecies taken into consideration of course) Which is why I see that EGW knew to let all of her writings be subject to Biblical scrutiny since she did not always differentiate between explicit revelations and common knowledge ones.

-My response on your Dan 9:25 statement is most pertinent, because the start of the chronology of the prophecy pivotally revolves around the “going forth” specification for the looked for action and what action itself is. So, as I said, if you are choosing the command of Artaxerxes, the exegetically accurate understanding is when it was pronounced, which was probably the Fall of 458 B.C. The SDA “magical” claim of ‘2 month after Ezra arrive is not logically or exegetically tenable. Even a July-August 457 claim is similarly not. So I am not switching topic here, that is the focal issue in that topic and you’ll need to get up to speed on the involved paramount and intrinsic association here. And this actually all reminds me of my initial view when writing my book at that statement because I back had a similar view as yours, even while also having the Transposition view. I have since made the exegetically mandated switch.

In regards to your “word for wall/moat’ statement, in case you may not be aware, since 1995, Owusu-Antwi’s work has detailedly and conclusively shown what it actually means, and from what I see, all based/derived from what was being said in the exegetical lexical works such as Theological Dictionary of the OT, TwordbookOT, etc. (In passing, since I see you do delve in exegetical works, I recommend such works over your cited BDB.)

(And again, as an advice, lose the quite evident antagonistic attitude if you want any continued or constructive conversation with me. And do know that I would be fully aware of its quite likely/manifest SDA Yahoo groups comments and discussion on my blog and comments  priming roots. So don’t feel or think that you are doing me any favor by having a discussion with me... quite to the contrary since I have to go into details here and restate what is obtainable from the proper studying of my posted expositions.)

[tinka]

  You wrote the stuff for public view not me. Most of it is smoke and I did not expect you or even fathom that you would take what I said to penetrate your character as none other you claimed that tried to help could either. Your wrong on many points and come under the heading of false teachers. yes and your one topic was "MY first visions and dream."  After reading your "superior self" the dream finally made sense.who knows but totally off the wall stuff.
I am used to reading spiritual stuff from spiritual led writers and your not one. Your the one to feel sorry for as I never thought another could be as bad as Nebuchadnezzar. but the good news is you might have a chance like Nebuchadnezzar.
I don't feel I wasted my time as it was an experience just to see how twisted one can get and then put it in the hand of 3rd grade level people from the "the superior guru" to follow your program and I think in one place of this grand organization of Superior Bible analyzers you guys want donations and expect to get paid for this.    truth is free that does not take a 3 rd grader to understand.  God did not leave his church mindless to be overpowered by a guru. Your in this position because you have battled the very best growing up and in the best places. But they were all proven ignorant by you weren't they??..as you state. and no I will not comment with you anymore either as I found what I needed to know.

[NJK Project]

Most glad to hear that you won’t be wasting my time anymore tinka. Your straw-man circular reasoning approach so that you can bubble in your spurious claims and then be able LOL is quite comical to say the least and best. And for someone who is critical of my writing style, your grammar and syntax in your response here is quite atrocious. I can’t even make sense of much of what your are saying. So since ‘you found what you were looking for’ and it would be most foolish on your part to think that I did, and have not, been openly laying it there for people like you to find, then “carry on”....Keep viewing things according to your spiritual “3rd Grader’s view, indeed just as in Isa 28:9-10 and we’ll see how far that will get you. Isa 28:11-13!! You’re side issue and comments here is actually hindering any, actually distinct discussion on this thread’s topic on the 70 Weeks/2300 days, because, as you obviously cannot realize, the interpretation of that prophecy does not depend on directly inspired instruction. Since William Miller’s initial findings right through today, its (SDA) expositor have had to deeply search the Bible and History to arrive at its Biblical and concrete meaning. So your probing “federal case” side show is completely irrelevant and has only served to side track, at least, you. The objective and transparent truth of the prophecy still stands!! When you begin to care about sharing it with Christians who have valid objections to the common SDA view and/or who do not believe at all in EGW, then you’ll just begin to appreciate ‘superior scholarly’ efforts to best interpret and prove it.

...and wherever God has seen necessary to tame my innate spirit of superiority, (-can’t deny my aspirational and effectuated life track record here/now), he has done so in the most effective way, and all so that I can be on, and maintain this present course, particularly in the foreunderstood face of people like you spuriously trying to belittle what I have done and am doing, and LOL, so that, ‘I can get back to the level of those who are suppose to be my superiors....’ Just by your blind response that ‘they have all proven to be right vs. me’, (as if you actually properly read and/or knew the facts in those issues), you self-demonstrate your “sheepish”, blind-led-by-the-blind, spirit of worshipful irrational deference. The obtainable and/or full disclosure fact is that: you just don’t know what you are talking about or (deferentially) defending... I have read in Inspiration of such a: “Who do you think you are!!” stance/attitude before, and the base spirit of type of people who have it.... HA!! I’m certainly not going to begin to deny God’s blessings, guiding, giftings, instructing and favoring in my life just to make you feel better about yourself...

[Bob Pickle]

Simply mainly recalling off the top of my head, try a few SDA scholars for those who are claiming that Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 is Longimanus.

Those scholars are wrong, since their speculations disagree with a plain, unequivocal statement in the testimony of Jesus. Jesus ought to know, you know, since He knew Ezra, Nehemiah, Artaxerxes, Ahashuerus, Cambysses, and Bardiya personally. That's more than either you or I or any of today's scholars can say.

(E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!

Easy. Cyrus. See Is. 44:28; 45:13. Or do you think Isaiah was wrong too?

(And if you are just going to vexatiously and antogonistically, mindlessly quibble as responses, then please don’t waste my time. Study out your responses better before posting/posing them to me.)

Uncalled for and inappropriate. If you're going to attack Jesus' testimony, declare that He didn't know what He was talking about, exalt your own personal opinions above what He had to say, and then respond like that to valid points of concern, go find some other forum to post your skepticism on.

-Ellen White did not have to write a treatise against the Sabbath, she “wrote” how she thought for a while how Bates was in error over the Sabbath.

After the fact she wrote what she THOUGHT. That's different than you proposing that her inspired writings were wrong about the Sabbath.

She then probably openly opposed Bates during that time when he would try to present that truth.

And so to prop up flawed skepticism, you SPECULATE that she PROBABLY opposed the Sabbath in an inspired message.

And it was probably because he did not then try to preach that message widely to “the scattered flock” that she did not correspondingly write a message opposing it.

And thus you assert without evidence that his publishing a tract on the Sabbath did not constitute preaching widely about the Sabbath.

And, technically speaking, the earliest document which contained a (prophetic) writing of EGW was the 1847 Word to the Little Flock pamphlet.

False. The earliest such document was the letter in The Day Star dated 1-24-1846, and then the issue dated 3-14-1846. Then came a broadside dated April 6, 1846. All three of these were before Ellen and James White began to keep the Sabbath in the fall of 1846.

-The fact that EGW switch views on what took place in Christ ascensions between her 3SP account and DA is self-evident.

No it isn't self-evident. And the fact that you fail to acknowledge the possibility that there are multiple explanations suggests that you are predisposed to exalt your personal opinions above a Thus saith the Lord.

Just one point: The first ascension's description could be talking about a general acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, while the second ascension's description is definitely talking about the acceptance of the resurrected representatives of the redeemed.

And for certain, Christ was not wearing the coronet of glory and the royal robe between the two ascensions, so we could be talking about an event that sort of occurred twice, or the earlier description could be taking in what happened at both ascensions.

(cf. Matt 23:35). For me, that does not at all affect her overall inspiration or writing. (nor that of Jesus in that Matt statement, -if it was him who made that error, and not Matthew himself.).

Wow oh wow. And thus you dare to stoop so low as to explicitly and publicly exalt your personal opinions above even the statements of Jesus, without any positive proof that the phrase Matthew said Jesus used, "Zacharias son of Barachias," must be wrong. Would you have declined to take your shoes off your feet at the burning bush?

Again, she was not inerrant nor infallible.

But please remember, neither are you!

In regards to your “word for wall/moat’ statement, in case you may not be aware, since 1995, Owusu-Antwi’s work has detailedly and conclusively shown what it actually means, ....

Then please address the point here if you already have an understanding of what the word means.

(And again, as an advice, lose the quite evident antagonistic attitude if you want any continued or constructive conversation with me.

If you don't want your views opposed, then stop promoting skepticism here. And if you don't care to converse on the topics you raise, then we could ask the moderators to ban you here as you were banned at Maritime.

[NJK Project]

Right, and you probably think you made valid responding points here. They all don’t point to the concrete truth of the matter. I decline wasting time talking to you since you so obviously are misconstruingly, just quibbling to pick a fight with here. Do, believe, think and speculate however you want in your selective exegesis world, I do not have time to do your thinking....

And you think banning me from discussing things with you all is a threat....it has been, and is, a God-sent relief.... i.e., I then certainly don’t have to waste my time responding that what you’ll post....just continue believing in your Laodicean lullabies... I then get a great laugh reading your spurious and endlessly looping/pointless, tire-spinning discussions. Prophecy does need to be accomplished!!

Oh yeah... buy Owusu-Antwi’s book to get that answer.

[Bob Pickle]

Oh yeah... buy Owusu-Antwi’s book to get that answer.

If Owusu-Antwi's book promotes skepticism, it isn't worth the time or money to get and read.

[Bob Pickle]

Let's see if we can cover some of NJK's points one at a time.

(E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!

Easy. Cyrus. See Is. 44:28; 45:13. Or do you think Isaiah was wrong too?

The question is whether the Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 are the Ahashuerus of Esther and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, or Cambyses son of Cyrus and Bardiya, the Magian impostor known as the false Smerdis who claimed to be Smerdis, Cambyses' brother.

Cambyses was on a military campaign far away when he heard that the false Smerdis had taken the throne. He died before he could return. Darius the Persian was one of a group of men who wanted to get to the bottom of what was happening, and who suspected that Smerdis was really Bardiya. They told one of the women in the harem to feel for Smerdis' ears when he came for the night, which she did. She reported back that he had no ears, and then Darius and the others knew that Smerdis was really Bardiya. So they staged a coup and Darius took the throne.

In Ezra 4, the men are building the walls of Jerusalem. Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra doesn't mention building city walls, and thus some have proposed that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 that stopped the building of the walls is not the false Smerdis, even though PK says that he was, and even though the passage goes on to say that the work ceased until the 2nd year of Darius.

Futurists also point to Cyrus' decree not mentioning building the city or walls to justify ignoring all the decrees until the 20th year of Artaxerxes to start the 70 weeks.

But these contentions are all wrong.

Is. 44:28  That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Is. 45:13  I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

Thus, according to Isaiah, Cyrus did indeed command the building of the city. And if you think about it, certainly this would have to be the case. The temple contained gold and such. Command the building of a temple filled with treasure and not permit the building of city walls to protect that temple? Wouldn't make sense.

Therefore, the thing to look for to start the 70 weeks is not a decree to build the city walls but a decree that restores the judiciary. And the builders in Ezra 4 were simply doing what Cyrus' decree permitted them to do.

[Bob Pickle]

I asked NJK whether he thought that Isaiah was wrong too. And he responded that answering such questions was a waste of time.

Note that NJK made the point that we've got to take what the Bible says above what Ellen White says, which of course is true. But then NJK made it clear that he thinks the Bible is wrong too in places, and that perhaps even Jesus Himself was wrong. If NJK was really making the Bible the ultimate authority, I cannot see why he would then try to say that the Bible is wrong.

In reality, what NJK should have done when confronted by Isaiah's testimony that Cyrus had commanded the building of Jerusalem is concede the point that the building of the walls in Ezra 4 cannot be used to justify saying that PK is wrong in identifying Cambyses and the false Smerdis as the Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes in that chapter.

[Bob Pickle]

NJK PM'ed me. His position on Is. 44 and 45 is that this prophecy that Cyrus would rebuild the city was never fulfilled, and that thus Ezra 4 cannot be referring to Cambyses and the false Smerdis. He maintains that we must give precedence to Ezra 1:1-4 which does not say that Cyrus commanded the building of the city or its walls.

This is easily answered. Compare Ezra 1:1-4 with Ezra 6:1-3. Note the differences between the two quotations from the decree:

• Ezra 1 says that God told Cyrus to build the temple. Ezra 6 does not.
• Ezra 1 calls for the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Ezra 6 does not.
• Ezra 1 calls for the Jews' neighbors to assist them financially in the endeavor. Ezra 6 does not.
• Ezra 6 gives dimensions for the building. Ezra 1 does not.
• Ezra 6 says how many rows of stones the foundations are supposed to be. Ezra 1 does not.
• Ezra 6 says the king is going to pay for some of the expenses. Ezra 1 does not.
• Ezra 6 calls for the return of the vessels that Nebuchadezzar took. Ezra 1 does not.

The only similarity between the two quotations of the decree is the king who gave it, and that the temple was to be rebuilt. Other than that, they appear to be different decrees.

Conclusion? We don't have the entire decree. Ezra 11 quotes part, and Ezra 6 quotes part, but we don't have the entire thing. And thus no one can say with absolute certainty that Cyrus did not command the building of the city. Therefore, in light of what Is. 44 and 45 clearly and unequivocally say, we must conclude that Cyrus did command the building of the city.

Let's not make Cyrus out to be an idiot. He ordered the building of the temple, and the return of gold and silver vessels to the temple. The city needed walls to protect these treasures, and Cyrus certainly realized that.

[Bob Pickle]

A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, you need to read a city rebuilding into the Cyrus decree when there is no textual evidence of this at all.

Seems to me that Is. 44 & 45 are Bible texts, and that thus they constitute textual evidence that Cyrus' decree did in fact command the building of the city.

Beyond Isaiah we have 2 Chr., Ezra 1, and Ezra 6. Not sure if there are any other sources that would give us hints as to the content of Cyrus' decree. Given the scarcity of sources, we really ought to include Is. 44 & 45 in the list, especially since doing so supports PK's identification of Ezra 4's Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes as being Cambyses and the false Smerdis.

(1) Your exegesis is quite demonstrably, factually, shallow, shoddy and whimsical. ... E.g., if Jesus Himself made quite harmless id mistake in Matt 25:38 then it shows me that ... (b) he was then indeed in a candid and genuine anger at the Jewish leader ... and thus misspoke on that insignificant detail ... (d) that is all according to the possible humanness involved in the prophetic office which Jesus depended upon for direct revelations from God. ... you are not going by what the text clearly says (i.e., in regards to a slight error) but what you think it should say.

A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, ... and then having a discussion with you would begin to be worthwhile for me.

... it is you who is building a fictious faith through shoddy and subjective exegesis. My critical approach to Biblical study has no only help me see the full truth ... Continue your afactual, sanctimonious way, and I’ll go by my textually factual approach ... You have been most slyly deceived into thinking that by your sanctimonious and afactual approach that you are doing God’s work, but you are “factually” not and doing a great disservice to the cause of Truth. And as many example s can gloriously show I have always approach God’s word with faith, but unlike your spurious and shallow faith, it is rather a deeper on which, when confronted with a clear inconsistency or error in the Bible or SOP, seek to find out why that is so and the Truth that is found is so much more glorious than your glossingly indifferent hedging. ... There is not an sincere infidel who will be convinced by your mindless and unrealistic “faith” nor “exegesis”. So do ‘check yourself to see if you are in the faith.’

... So at best, it is just your lack of informed knowledge/ignorance that is variously judgementally speaking into these matters.

I think the truth is supposed to be more than intellectual. It is supposed to sanctify, which should lead us to temper our speech, and not pour forth loads of verbal abuse.

As for "you are not going by what the text clearly says, ... but what you think it should say" I never gave an explanation for Mat. 23:35, and thus NJK has no basis for this accusation.

[Murcielago]

Putting down the intellectual capacity of others by inference, direct disparagement, or by use of verbosity meant to impress, in no way impresses, and in no way demonstrates your elevation, or the superiority of your points. Indeed, it can make you and your message appear to be cheap posturing.

[Bob Pickle]

Wow! The guy just does not get it. I received another PM filled with more rude, pompous remarks. The only other thing I'll say about it concerns the following:

A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, you need to read a city rebuilding into the Cyrus decree when there is no textual evidence of this at all.

Seems to me that Is. 44 & 45 are Bible texts, and that thus they constitute textual evidence that Cyrus' decree did in fact command the building of the city.

Beyond Isaiah we have 2 Chr., Ezra 1, and Ezra 6. Not sure if there are any other sources that would give us hints as to the content of Cyrus' decree. Given the scarcity of sources, we really ought to include Is. 44 & 45 in the list, especially since doing so supports PK's identification of Ezra 4's Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes as being Cambyses and the false Smerdis.

Though NJK quoted the same basic point from my PM to him, he refused to respond to the point, and resorted to insults yet again. Therefore, I think we can reasonably conclude that he has no answer for the point, and that thus Is. 44 and 45 really do tell us that Cyrus' decree commanded the building of the city, not just the temple.

[tinka]

I know one other person like this and they are schizophrenic and even though treated Their symptoms are so engrossed with their self that they go into a fit if you ask how their family is and don't point blank ask them how they are. Then you will hear this same rattle from them. People tried for years to help to explain kindly and there is absolutely no penetrating either and they just don't get it either. It is sad. I cannot understand it. But it is a sickness. They are educated as a journalist and writer. and write the same way.   I watched (them) go on public TV and about had a shocked mind when I heard all that was proclaimed.  I really don't know what you can do other then medication for them to live in society and deal with obscene characters.

What I read here in case anyone got that far as many many tried to help but negative response admitted throughout about how ignorant everyone was. That is typical symptom of illness. and you all know how genius
 Howard Hughes was.

[Bob Pickle]

NJK just wrote me yet again, and boy is he ticked! He's even threatening to sue for slander and libel. Daryl, did you have this much trouble with the guy?

Seems to me that Ellen White wrote that we aren't to sue our brethren, and if we do, God won't hear our prayers. Does NJK think that Ellen White got that wrong too?

I just can't imagine a jury deciding that it is libelious and slanderous to say that this guy comes across as pompous, arrogant, and rude. He's certainly provided a good bit of evidence to support such an opinion.

By the way, in this latest PM, NJK still refuses to respond to the point about Is. 44 and 45 being evidence regarding the contents of Cyrus' decree. Certainly "... like the infantile “reasonable” reasoning of an 8-year=old = “third grader”!" isn't a response, since these words of his are referring to my conclusion that he doesn't have an answer. Regarding his failure to provide a response, he explicitly said, "And really... my deliberate non-answer of your spurious claim ...."

Based on his admittedly "deliberate non-answer," one is free to form the opinion, absent other evidence, that he really does not have an answer, and therefore has stooped to throwing insults. Of course, there are other possible opinions that one might form, but that certainly is one possibility.