by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
thirdwitless again demonstrates himself to be a gross liar. He wrote:
: There is a reason why most refuse to answer the question was Egypt desolated for 40 years by Babylon.
Many posters have given direct, detailed answers in the 18 pages of this thread.
AlanF
Here are more simple questions that neither thirdwitless nor scholar pretendus are capable of answering.
What does the word "until" mean?
If I told you categorically that I was in Tyre until January 1, 2006, does that allow that I would have been there after January 1, 2006? If you found out that I was in Tyre on January 3, 2006, would my 1st statement have been true? Give reasons for your answer.
AlanF
Thirdwitness:
Jehovah's word or secular evidence? Which do we accept? Yes, it really is just that simple.
Considering Jehovah (YHWH) wasn't worshipped as a monotheistic god by Jews until the late 8th Century BCE why on earth should anyone believe what he has to say? Before that time he was just one of a number of gods and goddesses worshipped. Oh, and by the way, how is it Jehovah had a consort? Her name was Asherah! Why is it she is never mentioned in Kingdom Halls?
The Bible tells us that the very stones will cry out - and they're certainly doing that as archaeologists discover more and more about the true origins of YHWH and even the Jews as a people.
Ask yourself why it is that Jehovah's Witnesses only use those parts of archaeology that suits them and yet masses of other information that is freely available is hushed up because it exposes Watchtower folly - and that includes the 607 BCE date!
Ian
Here's yet another simple question for thirdwitless.
Since both the Bible and secular history prove that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 B.C., why do you claim it was 537?
AlanF
Alan said: Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 B.C., and Egypt was desolate from 588 through 548 B.C. Does that desolation "fit within Nebuchadnezzar's reign",
Do you seriously want an answer to this question? As if the scripture said that Neb had to be around for the whole 40 years?
It says: ‘I will also cause the crowd of Egypt to cease by the hand of Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon. 23 And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations
Neb caused it. But since you insist on an explanation for this absurd reasoning here it is:
Jer 25: Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
What? Didn't Neb's rule only last 43 years. How did they serve him 70 years? Or let me use Alan's reasoning: Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 B.C., and Jerusalem was desolate from 607 through 537 B.C. Does that servitude "fit within Nebuchadnezzar's reign",
It is really getting tiring to have to hold your hand on every little point as if you can't use logic and figure some things out for yourself.
And another. I've asked this one three times now. Were the heavens and the earth created in six days, as Exodus states? AlanF
thirdwitless said:
: Alan said: Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 B.C., and Egypt was desolate from 588 through 548 B.C. Does that desolation "fit within Nebuchadnezzar's reign",
: Do you seriously want an answer to this question?
Of course, you moron. Do you understand what the term "fit within" means?
AlanF
I suggest if you want to talk about what it meant when it said Tyre would never be rebuilt and whether Jerusalem has been rebuilt in the same sense then start a new thread. It has nothing to do with 607. And I am really not interested in discussing questions like was Jerusalem rebuilt? I told you to choose whatever interpretation you like with Tyre, it has nothing to do with 607 unless your claim is that the Bible is false.
Is that your claim?
The Bible says Tyre would never be rebuilt. It was.
The Bible says Egypt would be inhabitable for 40 years. No proof other than the Bible says so.
Why are these subjects being discussed in a 607 thread? Because the Bible is inaccurate. What else can it be wrong on?
Thirdwitness, you say we should accept the Bible at its word, why? I'm sure if I studied the Bible a little further, I would find other things it is wrong about. But I must draw the line somewhere. Your arguements have proved to me that it is a waste of time to invest time into studying the Bible for facts.
thirdwitness: ...so they invent outlandish reasons why Jehovah's word was not fulfilled.
I missed where anyone (including myself) said it was not fulfilled. I stated that the 40 years of Egyptian desolation was not during Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and even YOU agreed with that. The date you give for the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is well prior to the date you provide for the end of the 40 years.
As I said, you are not very good with this logic thing. Pitiful at it, in point of fact.
If it was fulfilled in the way the WTS interprets the prophecy, there is no evidence of it. But then, they also have a fallback interpretation of the exact same verses where Egypt is Satan, Egypt's crowd is Satan's supporters, and Nebuchadnezzar is variously Jehovah or Jesus (depending on the reference).
Outlandish? You took the word right off my fingertips. This is the second time the WTS scholars set Nebuchadnezzar as typifying divinity. He doesn't, of course. Any such suggestion is a conjectured flight of fancy and nothing more. Outlandish is the only way to describe the interpretive prowess of the WTS leadership.
Still waiting for that EVIDENCE of OCCURRENCE you said you know of. Jonah proves that a suggestion it may NOT have been fulfilled is with clear Biblical precedent, and not outlandish at all. You don't doubt the accuracy/veracity of Jonah's account, do you? The WTS teaches that the fulfillment of every prophetic denunciation was contingent on the response of its recipients. You don't question this, do you?
AuldSoul
