by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
As a side point, according to Matthew 4:1-2 and Mark 1:12-13, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness immediately following his Baptism, however the narrative in John 1:29 - 2:1 states that Jesus was at the wedding in Cana 3 days after his baptism.
Is it your contention that the 40 days in the wilderness was symbolic of less than 3 days? That would not seem to be symbolic of many. Anyway, John 1:29-2:1 does not state that Jesus was at the wedding in CANA 3 days after baptism.
thirdwitless, it is evident to almost all readers that you've completely failed to support your case. Although you tell yourself that you've dealt with all questions, you most certainly have not. You've simply ignored 90% of the questions posed to you -- pointed questions that you know would destroy your case if you answered them. Destroy your case, not in the sense that it has not already been thoroughly trashed, but in your own mind. Questions such as:
Why have you committed apostasty against "the faithful slave" by promoting a private interpretation at odds with its published doctrine on the meaning of Tyre's 70 years?
Why do you and the Watchtower Society not interpret Exodus literally?
"In six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them."--Exodus 20:11
"In six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth."--Exodus 31:17
There are many other questions, but these suffice to prove my point.
The reason you refuse to answer is that you know very well that giving the obvious answers would refute your claim that the Bible must be interpreted literally whenever you or the Watchtower Society say it must.
JW lurkers, please take note of thirdwitless' lack of response.
AlanF
Jeffro: It was foretold that Nebuchadnezzar would desolate Egypt for 40 years, however the reason for allowing that conquest should not be ignored. That is found at Ezekiel 29:35. The bible indicates that Jehovah would allow Nebuchadnezzar to conquer Egypt for helping to bring the foretold judgement against Jerusalem.
I understand that you mean Ezek 29:19-20 but even that reasoning is in error. If you will read the preceeding verse, verse 18, you will see that he is to be rewarded Egypt not for his service against Jerusalem but for his service against Tyre who made fun of Jerusalem. And since the foretold desolation of Egypt likely happened two years after the prophecy was made here is what you are saying:
Jehovah watched Neb desolate Jerusalem and saw how he treated the exiles for 17 years afterwards. Then he uttered the final prophecy against Egypt. Then during the 18th or 19th year of exile Jehovah suddenly realized what Neb had done to his people and changed his mind about giving Egypt to Neb. And on what do you base this illogical explanation? Pure conjecture. Make up any argument to disprove JWs regardless of how silly the argument.
Again, how much are you selling that Brooklyn Bridge for?
Thirdwitness,
You have really built up my faith in JWs having the truth. Thanks.
You came here with an agenda. Your brief was to stick to one line of argumentation, whatever explanation, evidence and proof was offered to you in answer to your questions. This was your plan from the first post to the last. You have avoided answering questions which did not support your agenda, you have ignored historical realties when bought to your notice, again in favor of an agenda.
Your claims have not just been debunked, but debunked repeatedly, but you chose to ignore the conclusions to which a thinking persons mind ( to coin a WTS phrase! ) is inevitably drawn. You then claim victory in this debate, in the desperate sounding post that you made from which I quote above.
Do you really think that you have served your Brothers and Sisters well by exposing WTS doctrine to such critical analysis?
Now, if you really believe, as you claim, that JW lurkers have had their faith strengthened in the WTS by your monotonous attempts at presenting a flawed agenda, then please invite them to write to you in private mail and pass on their comments to the Board. I am calling your bluff Thirdwitness.
I also challenged you repeatedly to allow me to open a new thread directed at proving Biblical inconsitencies. It is an important issue, as when and if one can prove that the Bible is unreliable as a book of science and chronology, then all your arguments regarding its relaibility and 'truth' are without foundation. This will clear up any issues that both yourself and Scholar may have between secular and Biblical chronology.
So, I am calling your bluff over two issues Thirdwitness. If you continue to ignore these challenges, the JW lurkers will know that you do not have the confidence in the Bible that you purport to have. Silence speaks many words.
Are you up for this challenge ThirdWitness? If you wish, you may engage the help of Scholar in this enterprise.
Best regards - HS
Death to the Pixies wrote:
: Reply: Well, if he does not do a Vol II that will be still be one book more than you and Alan will ever manage on chronology. Sorry but it's true :>)
Perhaps, but that's because neither one of us is interested in taking on such a task. However, Carl Jonsson and Rudd Persson will most certainly be taking on that task, and will no doubt trash Furuli's claims as thoroughly as they've already done with Furuli's 1st volume.
: Just a quick additonal question for clarification on the earlier question that you were generous enough to answer for me....
Um, another poster already answered you adequately.
: So do I read you correctly when I assume from your answer (re: Ezekial's date) that you agree with the WT on the dating of the book and authorship?.(ie, not a post-exile work and forgery by later hands?)
I agree that much of Ezekiel is not a post-exilic work, but not having thoroughly explored the issue, I can't say much more. I'm entirely with Leolaia on this. However, this in no way means that I think that Ezekiel's dirges about Tyre, Egypt and so forth are inspired. Indeed, the dirges themselves show backtracking as the earlier words were not literally fulfilled, and new events forced new interpretations. It is this very backtracking that indicate that later redactors did little, if anything, to those dirges. But I'm really not interested in going into this in detail.
Now, you might take a swipe at answering the questions I posed above for thirdwitless.
AlanF
From H.S.who has pointed out:
You came here with an agenda. Your brief was to stick to one line of argumentation, whatever explanation, evidence and proof was offered to you in answer to your questions. This was your plan from the first post to the last. You have avoided answering questions which did not support your agenda, you have ignored historical realties when bought to your notice, again in favor of an agenda.
We are left with this conclusion:
As a side point, according to Matthew 4:1-2 and Mark 1:12-13, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness immediately following his Baptism, however the narrative in John 1:29 - 2:1 states that Jesus was at the wedding in Cana 3 days after his baptism.I was not suggesting that anything was symbolic of anything. That's why I said it was a "side point". The point is that the gosepl accounts are contradictory.
Is it your contention that the 40 days in the wilderness was symbolic of less than 3 days? That would not seem to be symbolic of many. Anyway, John 1:29-2:1 does not state that Jesus was at the wedding in CANA 3 days after baptism.
Hillary_Step wrote:
: Are you up for this challenge ThirdWitness? If you wish, you may engage the help of Scholar in this enterprise.
Oooh! Oooh! Yaaahh!
We really, really, really should petition Simon to reinstate Fred Hall! Three Stooges In Defense of the Watchtower, unite! Throw off your chains! Smash those wiley apostates!
AlanF
thirdwitless, it is evident to almost all readers that you've completely failed to support your case. Although you tell yourself that you've dealt with all questions, you most certainly have not. You've simply ignored 90% of the questions posed to you -- pointed questions that you know would destroy your case if you answered them. Destroy your case, not in the sense that it has not already been thoroughly trashed, but in your own mind. Questions such as:
By all means make a list of all the questions I have ignored concerning the 40 year desolation of Egypt. After all, your challenge was to bring up one point. I did. Then you want to bring up the question below which has nothing to do with the topic:
Why have you committed apostasty against "the faithful slave" by promoting a private interpretation at odds with its published doctrine on the meaning of Tyre's 70 years?
Do you know how tired we are of this argument by you and your friends? These type of questions are posed everytime you have no answer on the subject at hand. Why? To confuse the issue of course. Hoping to befuddle any who are reading, hoping that they will not see that 587 has been without question uprooted and thrown in the fire.
Why do you and the Watchtower Society not interpret Exodus literally?
"In six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them."--Exodus 20:11
"In six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth."--Exodus 31:17
Everyone knows that the Bible is full of both literal and symbolic words. You keep asking this point as if it has anything to do with the 40 year desolation of Egypt. It doesn't and you know it. But keep trying to muddy the water hoping no one will notice that you have failed to answer the problem about the 40 year desolation of Egypt. I believe your answer was something like this: Ezekiel was a false prophet.
The reason you refuse to answer is that you know very well that giving the obvious answers would refute your claim that the Bible must be interpreted literally whenever you or the Watchtower Society say it must.
I have not refused to answer any question on the 40 year desolation. If there is some biblical reason why the 40 year desolation of Egypt prophecy should be symbolic by all means present it.
JW lurkers, please take note of thirdwitless' lack of response.
JW lurkers take note that no one has been able to provide a plausible logical or reasonable answer for the problem that 587 defenders have with the 40 year desolation of Egypt. Both the Bible and a Babylonian inscription support it. Do not let them confound the issue with their attempts at sidetracking. And JW lurkers take note that one of the biggest promoters that JWs are wrong about 607 has declared that Ezekiel was a false prophet.
Thirdwitness,
The reason nobody tries to disprove the Egypt 40 year desolation, is because it never happened. It is your job to prove it did happen and you can't. All you can prove is there was a battle between Egypt and Babylon. It says nothing about who won and what happened after that. I would think a victory so great that it took the loser 40 years to recover would be something to crow about. It's that whole burden of proof thing that has been discussed over and over.
