The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    ackack: Do JWs not use WW1 as proof of their 1914/607 logic?

    Yes, WW I as well as other events that followed shortly thereafter.



    hillarystep: I am putting on public record once again, that I have asked ThirdWitness numerous questions, including some on this thread and he has NEVER answered one of them.

    I am not debating subjects that JWs or former JWs should already know such as the Bible's inconsistencies, trinity, hellfire, etc. My goal is to reach those with doubts about JWs and 607, child abuse, ngo. Not those who have totally abandoned JWs and returned to the vomit of Christendom. Sorry I just don't have the time. My 'staff' is already overworked. HA HA.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    ringo5 and hoping4change: Can you at least point to the specific post # that addresses that question, (considering you cannot arrive at any specific dates without using secular sources) since it is directly on topic with this thread?

    Of course you cannot arrive at dates without secular sources. Even what happened in 1914 involves secular sources. Counting back 2520 years from 1914 we reach 607. Counting forward 70 years for the desolation and servitude of Babylon we reach 537. Amazingly secular history agrees that 539 was the year Babylon was conquered and so 537 fits. Starting at the reign of Tiberius according to secular chronology which all agree on, we can determine from Luke the date of Jesus' baptism and death and the Gentiles being accepted into the new covenant(29, 33, and 36CE). We can count back the 70 weeks of years from there and arrive at 455. Then using the persian chronology we can arrive at 539 which makes it all harmonize. The things that occurred with Nehemiah, Ezra, Joshua and Zerubabel help us see that the time period from 455 to 539 is in harmony with the timeline. If you need details of Tiberius, the rule of Persian kings, etc, this can be provided. So there are several ways that 607/1914 is confirmed. But of course, yes, secular chronology must be used, even if you start with 1914. Jehovah has seen to it that the needed secular chronology to calculate such dates has been provided.

  • ackack
    ackack

    ackack: Do JWs not use WW1 as proof of their 1914/607 logic?

    Yes, WW I as well as other events that followed shortly thereafter.

    I don't get it, are you just playing dumb? How can WWI be used to show the veracity of 1914 if it started before Satan's ouster from heaven? Or, just the October thing not really matter? In your mind, is the whole thing not really that precise?

    ackack

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    3W:

    So tell everyone the truth

    I always tell the truth. People on this forum are accustomed to that.

    Did you restrict and limit my posting priviledges and was there a period of time when I couldn't post anything at all?

    The answers to your two part question are: Yes and no.

    A fuller answer is that Yes, I did restrict your posting - in fact, I publicly stated that.

    However, restriction does not mean that you are unable to post, it simply means you have a more limited number of posts available. Quite honestly it's still very generous. At no time were you prevented from posting.

    I will add that I have every reason to remove this thread but I've 'allowed' (not a good word) this thread to run for the reasons aforesaid.

  • just2sheep
    just2sheep


    alanf,

    your continuing habit of calling people, who dissagree with you, derogatory names is getting to be a bore. perhaps you should read the guidelines. even if you aren't bound by them they could still be of help to you. and it would help those of us who are bound by them. it has been pointed out to me more than once that not following the posting guidelines is not on, so to keep up the appearance of equality under jwd guidelines please stick to the point. your arguments are strong enough to not have to resort to name calling.

    j2s

  • Sunspot
    Sunspot

    ack-ack said;

    I don't get it, are you just playing dumb? How can WWI be used to show the veracity of 1914 if it started before Satan's ouster from heaven? Or, just the October thing not really matter? In your mind, is the whole thing not really that precise?

    Good questions. Short, to the point, and (should be) easily understood and explained.

    Combined with the fact that Jesus will be seen by "every eye", that he didn't sneak down to earth and choose the WTS as his pet religion, and that HE is the truth and THE way-----all the contrived and lofty sounding ideas put forth by the Brooklyn Boyz-in-Writing-----don't amount to anything at all.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    Fisherman: "In what way would another king be brought high in 537?" Consider 2 Kings 25:27,28 ...Couldn'dt EZ 21:26 apply before 537 on or about 607 finding fulfillent as stated in 2kings verse previously cited....Here is another possible interpretation of Ez 21:26,27 having nothing to do with the Getile times:Ezequiel was speaking with Zed:Put on high even waht was low- ; ; King Jehoichin abased in Babylon would be restored to honor.Bring low even the High one- ; ; ; ; ; Zedekiah occupying a high office would be degradedruin ruin ruin- ; ; ; impending disasterit will certainly become no one's (literally this also shall be no more) Even the restoration of the crown to Jehoiachin will only be temporary. The ultimate restoration will happen at an unspecified time in the future.....It is noteworthy that in 2Kings 24:17 , it was the King of Babylon that appointed King Zedikiah as King of Judah. Again in 2Kings 25:27,28 It was also the King of Babylon that restored king Jehoiachin to his throne AFTER King Zedekiah. According to Scripture KIng Jehoichin was the last King of Judah and not King ZED. This is significant because ; Jehoichin's throne should be consindered and Zed was not the last king of Judah according to scripture so it seems that Judah had a king after 607. Any takers?

    Anne Omally (not on my staff by the way) answered you. But just to further it you are saying that this scripture:

    Ezek 17:22

    "‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "I myself will also take and put some of the lofty treetop of the cedar; from the top of its twigs I shall pluck off a tender one and I will myself transplant [it] upon a high and lofty mountain. 23 On the mountain of the height of Israel I shall transplant it, and it will certainly bear boughs and produce fruit and become a majestic cedar. And under it there will actually reside all the birds of every wing; in the shadow of its foliage they will reside. 24 And all the trees of the field will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have abased the high tree, have put on high the low tree, have dried up the still-moist tree and have made the dry tree blossom. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken and have done [it]."’"

    and this scripture:

    Ezek 21: ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him.’

    does not apply to Jesus but applies to Jehoiachin.

    Aside from being unreasonable it contradicts the Bible in so many ways. Jesus in the scriptures is clearly pointed to as the twig, the one with the legal right to rule from the tribe of Judah. The geneology in Matthew shows this.

    Jehoiachin had already ruled with his legal right and had been disposed. The Bible says he ruled only 3 months, Not until the end of his life. And if he did rule Judah after being released from prison what exactly did he rule over. Judah was desolated and empty. Really I do not believe that you believe this at all.

    And as Ezekiel 17 shows did Jehoiachin once again become a majestic cedar providing shade for all on Jehovah's lofty holy mountain. Of course not. He was still in exile in Babylon.

    And verse 24 said: 24 And all the trees of the field will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have abased the high tree, have put on high the low tree, have dried up the still-moist tree and have made the dry tree blossom. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken and have done [it]."’"

    Did all the trees/kingdoms come to recognize the power of Jehovah because Jehoiachin was released from prison though still in exile while Judah was still deserted and desolated? Of course not.

    You have got to know what a stretch this really is. I would really be surprised if anyone here believes that Jehoiachin fulfilled these scriptures. Clearly he did not.

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    Jayhawk: Watchtower's crap that they publish? Really? They are the biggest supporters of your Gentile Times Prophecy, are they not? Please explain why you say the Watchtower publishes crap.

    When I said this I was referring to what other people were saying about the WT publications.

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    :not on my staff by the way

    You WISH someone was on your staff!

    GBL

  • saki2fifty
    saki2fifty
    2) I have invited ThirdWitness to debate me on numerous occasions on the veracity of the Bible as a whole, my point being that if I can prove that the Bible is an unreliable book where science and history is concerned *all* these issues of chronology and interpretation are immediately attended to at one stroke. All these numerous invitations have not even been acknowledged, as have not been acknowledged ONE question that I have ever posed to him, on this thread or any other.

    He mentioned in this thread he will not reply to any other topic... 607 being the main topic for discussion. Apparently he didn't accept the invitation.

    It seems that you go beyond stating facts, but actually defend ThirdWitness. Let me show you your own words :

    Can I not side with someone and present the facts as well? I've given the impression many times that I currently side with the society and TW himself.

    If he cannot keep up with his typing, perhaps he should stick to dealing with one thread completely, before he starts another.

    Which is what he is doing now... he's not referencing the past threads. He has started afresh.

    Saki, you are not proving yourself to be the neutral onlooker that you pretend to be.

    Pretending? I'm not neutral. I side with the society. The above statement appears to be a "false statement".

    Regardless of how my tone is perceived in the above, it is not my intention to be disrespectful.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit