607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gedanken

  Oh Skolarus Interuppticus, prophetism may be a word but did you use it correctly? That is the essential question. I made a bet that you didn't and looked it up. Here's the definition:

  The action or practice of a prophet or prophets; the system or principles of the Hebrew prophets. false prophetism, the practice or principles of a false prophet.

  So, tell us, pray do, how "prophetism" can be applied to something that isn't a person? How can the 70 years be robbed of their prophetism when prophetism is the action of a prophet just as pretendism is the action of a false scholar. Let the reader here use discernment.
• 

  rockhound

  Well, I have been watching this thread with keen interst on Scholars reply to Lady Liberty in reference to the Let Your Kingdom Come Appendix.

  Scholar said to Lady Liberty:

  "Your claim that the Let Your Kingdom Come Appendix does not produce any evidence in support of 607 is false. You show by reaching such a conclusion that you have not read the material carefully enough . Beginning from the last paragraph on page 187 right through to the first paragraph on page 288

  there is complelling based upon Scripture and secular authorities in support of 607 ."

  I figured Wow!!! I'll have to check this out. That's 100 pages of information from "Celebrated Watchtower Scholars" that, if I read the material carefully , as Scholar has, right through to the first paragraph on page 288 , then I would have ample proof that Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.

  It would appear that Scholar has

  carefully read right through almost 100 pages that don't exist!!!, because the Let Your Kingdom Come book only has 189 pages .

  It would seem that Scholars criticism of Lady Liberty for not carefully reading almost 100 pages of non existant material was somewhat redundant, but completely in harmony with the

  "Now you see it, Now you don't" practices of the "Celebrated Watchtower Scholars".

  I'm really having a hard time tying in the expression "Celebrated Watchtower Scholars"

  to anything the Society has said in the past or present about chronology that hasn't stumbled hundreds of thousands of their loyal followers right out of their own organization. These "Celebrated Ones" couldn't have been in Russell's time, because almost all he taught has been rejected by the present organization, and they couldn't have been in Rutherford's time either. All the dates that he predicted failed, and have also been rejected by the organization, so that would bring us into the 1940's, and then on to the big build up about 1975, when the Society's chronology fell flat on its face. About 500,000 brothers threw in the towel over the predictions of the "Celebrated Watchtower Scholars" on the subject of chronology, so I am at a loss as to exactly who, in his right mind would see the wisdom of celebrating such incompetence in first place. In looking over the track record of these "Celebrated Watchtower Scholars" on chronology, I feel that they have much in common with the famous Thomas Edison, when he said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work".

  Rockhound
• 

  Little Bo Peep

  Just a brief comment about the "celebrated Watchtower scholars". In whose eyes are they celebrated? It made me think of a scripture in 2 Corinthians 10:12. The New World Translation puts it very well. "For we do not dare to class ourselves among some or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. Certainly they in measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves have no understanding."

  Little Bo Peep
• 

  MuadDib

  But I do enjoy your posts, scholar! I enjoy the sheer sense of self-satisfaction I derive from knowing how powerfully ignorant your reasoning is, and how inferior it is to actual academic methodology. I revel in the intellectual gulf that separates fundamentalist crackpots like yourself from people who are actually capable of honestly working through the available facts and evidence in order to reach a rational conclusion. I bask in the knowledge that I am no longer like you and am able to think freely for myself instead of being mentally imprisoned in a vortex of paranoia and inadequacy. Where did I say I didn't enjoy your posts? All I said was that they indicate a weak and feeble excuse for scholasticism, not that I don't enjoy them. Come now, don't put words in my mouth.

  By the way, can you please name some of these "celebrated WT scholars"? I would be most interested in an investigation of their credentials and academic standing. What exactly qualifies these people, whose extremely poorly supported opinions contravene every accepted hypothesis relevant to history (and just about every other major discipline), "celebrated scholars"? In which peer-reviewed publications will I find their contributions to our understanding of history? Which institutions laud them as recognized authorities on ancient history and religion? To which major reference works or definitive publications have they contributed? In short: put up or shut up, you fundie lunatic. You're wasting everybody's time with your hollow delusions and, while you're good for a laugh every now and then, it would be nice to see something - ANYTHING - of substance from you. Something to justify the sheer hypocrisy in choosing "scholar" as your nickname (I might just as well have picked "Latvian" for mine).

  Seriously. Time to change the record. The last one's broken.
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Reponse to post 6933

  I do not agree with your summation of matters for Jonsson makes the extravagant claim that in connection with Zechariah 1and 7 with reference to a 'seventy years' there is no reference to Jeremiah's prophecy. Such a conclusion is rejected by Applegate and other leading commenators and perhaps you should read Applegate's article before venturing an opinion based upon your ignorance.

  It is good that you publicly admit that Jonsson is no scholar so his hypothesis is simply the conjecture and opinion of an amateur who has a vendetta against WT chronology. You seem to misunderstand how scholarly literature is used by scholars because I have stated that I do share or agree with all of Applegate's conclusions therefore I should not use those points that I agree with. Such reasoning is unscholarly and I have the academic freedom to use the latest scholarship as I see fit and simply point out where I agree or disagree for that is the very nature of schol,arly debate.

  WT scholars have concentrated theitr attention on the biblical evidence in support of the seventy years but 'scholar' has gone beyond this field and utilized the very best and latest of scholarship in support of the WT understanding of the seventy years. It is correct to say that such celebrated scholars have not commented much on the secular evidence but there is no reason to because such evidence conflicts with the plain reading of scripture so there remains a twenty year gap between secular chronology and biblical chronology.

  You ask questions about Applegate's study of Jeremiah 25 and 29:10 and he does discuss such relationships and if you are so interested then Why not study the article as I have done.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Response to 6947

  I believe you are either confused about the seventy years or are being deliberately deceptive. The seventy years of Jeremiah 25 apply to Judah alone and was a fixed historic period from the Fall in 607 until the Return in 537. Such a period was of an exile, desolation and servitude. Jeremiah in 25:12 said that the nations would also serve Babylon and so they did but Jeremiah applied no fixed historic period to those Nations however Isaiah certainly applied aseventyh year period to that of Tyre as one of thos Foreign Nations but although this was a period of servitude akin to Judah's seventy years of servitude, no historic limits were stated. Therefore, scholars conclude that in the case of Tyre's seventy years were rounded whereas Judah's seventy years were fixed even though a period of servitude under Babylon was held in common as prophesied.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Rockhound

  Simply a typo error for the pages in the Appendix are from 188 to 189. If you are concerned about the celebrated WT scholars then you should just relax and enjoy the fine spiritual food coming from the faithful and discreet slave which is priviliged to use the timely contributions by such a fine company of scholars over many centuries.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Muadib

  Thank you for kind appreciation even though you are critical of my scholarship I do not mind because whatever its merits I get plenty of attention. If my reasoning or academic methodology is inferior and you may well be very correct because I am a person of humble background and limited education with a very low 1Q of about 50 it is somewhat paradoxical that my postings attract so much attention from the intellectual and mighty ones on this board. How can this be?

  I have no intention of identifying and describing the credentials of the celebrated ones for it is far better and wiser for you to benefit from their research published in WT publications over many decades.

  scholar JW
• 

  MuadDib

  "If you are concerned about the celebrated WT scholars then you should just relax and enjoy the fine spiritual food coming from the faithful and discreet slave"

  Ah, the disingenuity of the blind, unquestioning sheep, inisisting that blind faith in an institutional authority is superior to personal investigation based on objective research into scientific methodology. Seriously, aren't you embarrassed to write these words down? Isn't there something in your rational mind, stunted and primitive though it might be, that recoils against such blatantly shallow paranoia? How can you honestly claim that it is better to simply accept the assertions of a group of men with no standing other than that which exists within the personal bias of the spiritual believer, than it is to investigate the true nature of reality based on whatever critically assessed sources are available? You are telling your audience to simply accept what it they are told by a very specific group rather than seeking out the truth for themselves based on their own powers of analysis and discernment. Your attitude is perfectly reminiscent of the most sickeningly debased, twisted, insane meanderings of the human mind that have characterized all of the regressive, stagnant, toxically disfunctional systems of thought and belief in human society.

  You're killin' it, holmes! You're debating on a level far, far below that of all of your opponents in this thread. Bluster and pitiable apology is a poor match for the facts you've been presented with by these guys. Give it up, you'll only make the WTS look even worse. If you're unable to debate on even terms, which is patently obvious to even the most casual observer, then why don't you leave the point alone instead of giving them all more ammo? Are you that swept up in your own legalistic, bureaucratic belief system? How laughably pathetic.