by PoppyR 49 Replies latest watchtower bible
Yes, for your information 607 is well established by the research of celebrated WT scholars under the influence of Holy Spirit.
Yes! Just when I was afraid the phrase "celebrated WT scholars" would pass out of general usage. I love this guy. He sounds so...how do you say...North Korean Ministry of Information.
SNG
I don't understand. Scholar says the wt is influenced by the Holy Spirit yet jw's I know say that the writings of the wt are not infallible. How could it be both? If something is influenced by the Holy Spirit is could not have error, yet jw's do admit to errors in the past (or what the rest of us call false prophecies). Can someone explain such thinking?
Scholar, so does that mean that the Bible, which was influenced by the Holy Spirit could be as full of errors as the wt's have been?
Scholar is usually under the influence of 'spirits' - vodka, gin, whiskey....
Yes! Just when I was afraid the phrase "celebrated WT scholars" would pass out of general usage. I love this guy. He sounds so...how do you say...North Korean Ministry of Information. SNG
I wonder if "Baghdad Bob" would also be a good comparative choice? Remember how the Iraqis were winning the war from the outset?
Robert
Im going a bit off topic but..................
I have just read the site 607v586 On there I read that Fred Franz passed some exams including one on greek !
Now I thought he was proved in court that he could NOT understand greek and this put into question the whole NWT bible and its reliability
So could he speak greek or not ?????
Does anyone know ?
Sorry Scholar, but your arguments do not hold water, I am probably one of the most likely people here to listen to a well formed argument as to WHY Jws use the 607 date and the argument that they must be right because they said so.. just doesn't work. I have always believed the bible compares well to history and it seems it does...it is the JWs that do not compare well with history and to say just because 70 years back from 537 is 607 therefore it's right.. implies to me that the 70 years interpretation is wrong. And as others have said, we cannot believe the FDS is infallible because of the holy spirit because we would be fools, as they have been proven to be wrong before.. which is fine with me, wrong is fine, it is the knowing and not admitting that I have a problem with. But I do have respect for your views and think swearing at you because you try and put across an argument is wrong.
Poppy
PoppyR:
I have always believed the bible compares well to history and it seems it does...it is the JWs that do not compare well with history and to say just because 70 years back from 537 is 607 therefore it's right.. implies to me that the 70 years interpretation is wrong
You`re absolutely right. And this is the point: NOWHERE in the OT, neither Jeremiah nor Daniel refers to the 70 years as a period where there would be no Temple, no people, no buildings, etc. The 70 years are spoken of as a period of "desolation, servitude and exile". That`s all. Nothing about "70 years with no Temple". Not even 70 years where the and would be completely desolate, in the sense "no people", which is clearly showed by Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 52:28 Nebuchadnezzar carried into exile: In the seventh year, 3,023 Jews; 52:29 in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year, 832 people from Jerusalem; 52:30 in Nebuchadnezzar’s twenty-third year, Nebuzaradan, captain of the royal guard, carried into exile 745 Jews.
The 70 years clearly refer to the period of Babylons power and influence over Judah and Jerusalem, not a period with no Temple. And even if 607 HAD been Nebuchadnessars 18th year (which it is not), that would mean that the period of "servitude and exile", which began at least no later than in Nebuchadnessars 7th year, would have lasted not 70 years, but some 81 years. So the WTS-interpretation is just ridicolous anyway. But within WTS-doctrine, it`s kind of important that there would be no Temple from 607, because in their doctrine, this would seem nice and symbolic as a "time of the gentiles", and then Christ would come back in 1914, quickly deciding that the WTS was the "one true religion", and then be declared as kind of a "new Temple", ha ha. Well, a "New Temple" in a country on the other side of the Atlantic from the original one, 2520 years later, on a continent no jew knew of at that time. Very good, WTS. HA ha
Well, the most ridicolous thing about this whole thing, is of course the "day for a year"-rule, which the WTS ripped out of its context in Ezekiel (which has to do with events happening 400 yeas before Babylon) and from the Torah (which has to do with things happening...what...1000 years before Babylon?) - and shoved it into their interpretation of Daniel and Jeremiah, although this "day for a year"-rule is NEVER mentioned in neither Daniel nor Jeremiah.
PoppyR
In your opening post you made the ignorant statement that 586 was the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. In fact, the majority of scholars state that ist was 587 rather than 586 and there are other scholars who recently advocate 588 and 589 for this historical event. So the so call secular evidence cannot and does not give you a year for this event but celebratted WT scholars using biblical and secular evidence demonstrate that the only date for this event is 607 because it is based upon the realization that the seventy years was a period of exile, servitude and desolation.
scholar JW
but celebratted WT scholars
I now suspect that with all your typos you've really meant to type celebate WT scholars all along, but never managed to spell it right yet.
bebu
the answer is here http://www.geocities.com/jerusalem607/
