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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hillary_step

  Saki,

  "liars"? So you are saying that these JW Defenders do in fact know the actual truth (which is primarily based on your (AlanF's) own understanding and interpretations), but insist on preaching, teaching, and exclaiming something different?

  This is the point though Saki, but you seem to be unable to see it. The only reason you people have any comfort with your scriptual view is because you can pretend that people like AlanF and Carl Jonsson have invented an alternative view, when in fact they are only collating and presenting information that has for many years before either one of them was born has been accepted as the correct view of the matters at hand. For example, please fine ONE scholar, historical body, theologically or from the secular world who agrees with the WTS regarding the dating of the 1st fall of Jeruslaem, just ONE.

  JW's cannot deal with issues without tying personality into them, and this usually allows them an escape from reality. This allows them to dismiss any information bought to their notice by those they do not view as spiritually healthy. For example, an atheist points out an issue to them and the reaction is 'you are an athiest, what would you know', 'you are a homosexual, how would you know anything about morality, 'you are a Catholic, what do you know about the Bible', 'you are just AlanF, it is your interpretation'. Do you follow my drift?.

  You have fallen into this common trap as noted in your quoted statement.

  HS
• 

  AuldSoul

  But the answer is Yes, Daniel showed that Jehovah's rulership was forever and that he would put whomever he liked as ruler of his kingdom even the lowliest one of mankind which was to be Jesus that he would appoint as king.

  If Jehovah's rulership is forever can he EVER lose it? No. Therefore, he could NOT POSSIBLY correspond to Nebuchadnezzar in this prophecy. According to your own statement. More to follow, please choke nicely on your own words.

  AuldSoul
• 

  TD

  Hey Alan

  I think you're being unusually charitable

  The key phrase in thirdwitless' argument is "will be". In the Greek, this is in the future indicative tense (Gr. estai), and that tense generally signifies something that has yet to occur. However, in certain cases it can refer to an indefinite future time period that may or may not include the present. Context is the only thing that can determine what the writer had in mind. Thus, the passage might be rendered more precisely in two ways:

  Jerusalem will at some future time begin to be trampled on by the nations . . .

  Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations .

  The difference at work here has often been described in Greek grammars using the "Parade" analogy. To sit in a Helicopter 300 feet over the parade and look down on the entire event without regard to its internal points is an external (Summary) perspective. To sit by the side of the road and watch the event going by is an internal (Progressive) perspective.

  The problem here is that while Jerusalem being trampled on at some future point is an external perspective, the idea of Jerusalem continuing to be trampled by the nations is internal, because it places the speaker right smack in the middle of an event initiated in past time, continuing in the present and extending into the future. No translator (To my knowledge) renders Luke 21:24 like this because the future tense in Greek is not a progressive tense, it is summary tense with the event(s) existing outside of the speaker's temporal frame of reference, upstream in time.

  This does not mean that the future tense in Greek cannot function progressively, but as Wallace notes,

  "However, it is probably best to see the future as the temporal counterpart to the aorist: Both are summary tenses that can be used to describe an iterative or progressive action, but only in collocation with other linguistic features. The future tense's unaffected meaning does not appear to include an internal portrayal." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p. 501 Note 2)

  So it does appear that a progressive is recognized by him in the future, but only "in collocation with other linguistic features." I don't see anything in Luke 21:24 that would change the use of the future tense from anything other than a simple predictive. (I'm not counting thirdwitness' wishful thinking and antics in English.)

  Tom
• 

  OUTLAW

  Saki,it`s not possible to exercise nuetrality when you are already predisposed to siding with the WBTS.Which you said you will do..One thing puzzles me.You say you don`t understand the 607 debate..Why would you take any side,if you don`t understand the subject being debated?..The intellegent thing to do,would be to learn about the subject first.Then make a decision about what you believe..You have no idea what you believe,or why you believe it.Baised on that,your willing to side with the WBTS???..You could be my ex-wife..LOL!!...OUTLAW
• 

  Sunspot

  it doesn't matter one whit what endless drivel you spew about chronology and the year 607/1914. It doesn't relate to Jesus in any way shape or form. It doesn't relate to the second coming. The whole thing is only a power structure for the Watch Tower to operate upon. THEY ARE USING JESUS, NOT HONORING HIM IN ANY WAY. They had to retroactively fit in Jesus to a failed prophecy. They interpret the Bible only to suit their own ends, not bring about truth, glory, or honor to God.
  
  The fact of the matter is the Bible so utterly shuts down the vacuous stupidity of 1914 with these words "AS LIGHTNING SHINES FROM THE EAST UNTO THE WEST, SO SHALL THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN BE" "He will come on the clouds with great honor and glory and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM."
  
  Shuttup about invisibility

  SmellsGood;

  I totally agree with your entire post but decded to only highlight this portion of what you said.

  I have been wanting to say essentially the same thing since reading this topic but thought better of it, so I am GLAD that you did! This rehashing over the WTS drivel only detracts from the real message of the Christ.

  The WTS "message" bears no resemblance to what Jesus and the apostles delivered. The NWT is bastardized and misleading to support the WTS agenda. If a MAJOR BIBLICAL EVENT can't be proven.....it must have occurred "invisibly"..... EVERYONE else is wrong---ONLY the WTS has it "right".

  Dream on.........or WAKE UP, and have the courage needed to admit you have been duped and lied to.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Fisherman

  Ann, thanks for your response. Im only reading what the Scricpture says.According to the Bible the last king of Judah was Jehoiachin 2ki25:27,28 says so. not Zedkiak but YOU say ZEd.

  Time to define terms. When you say he was the last king of Judah, do you mean he was the last king to rule over Judah? If so, that's not what Scripture says (see Jer. 22:24-30). If you mean he was the last one to have the title 'king of Judah,' OK. I guess that is similar to respectfully addressing former Presidents as 'Mr. President,' even though they no longer hold the presidency, but there is nothing to suggest Jehoiachin had his kingly authority reinstated.

  Scripture also says that he was let out offf prison and that he remained in babyl. gov Gedaliah's rule was before I think "..put his THRONE higher... compare "put on high even what is low" In fact verse 27 says JEhoi KIng of Judah.

  The lowly one of Ezek. 21 who would be exalted, whose kingship was rightfully his, is generally thought to be the Messiah.

  If this is so it unlinks from gentile times.

  There are way way bigger matters that result in 'unlinking' from the Gentile Times.

  I want you to consider another point about trampling down. POssibly, the trampling down occured when the Babyl looted the temple going into the Holy, and maybe the Most Holy?

  You're thinking in the WT box, Fisherman. The 'trampling of the nations,' that Jesus referred to in Luke's gospel, began when Jerusalem was ruined by the Romans in 70AD and this Gentile trampling is continuing today. This is what T-wit (who thinks 'will be trampled' means a continuation of a distantly past event) and the others are arguing about.

  In any case Jerusalem was a colony of Babyl Zed not appointed by ungering or the HS but by Babyl, paying taxes to Babyl.

  And Jerusalem had their kings appointed and taxed by pagans before Zedekiah (2 Kings 23:31-35; 24:1). I'm not sure of your point. Wait. Are you suggesting a 'Gentile Times' scheme of your own?

  What I mean is that all of these possible views being correct impacts on the certainty of 1914 and if the wt unlinks from this date, we shall see new interpretation od the verses that support it.

  You do realize how important this issue is? It's more than tweaking a few interpretations. If the WT unlinks from this date, many of their distinctive doctrines go down the tubes - one of them being the 1919 appointment of the 'faithful and discreet slave' class by Jesus. The claim to divinely-given authority evaporates - a thought too disturbing for leaders and adherents to contemplate.
• 

  Rabbit

  3rd Wit

  I will not comment on other subjects or questions.

  Yep. Now THAT... is a true WT corporate man. He will only talk about useless interpretable dates. That proves nothing.

  I dare him to talk about REAL things...like the REAL deaths caused by the WT gods, "Dim, Blinking, Bright, New & Old Light ™ ". Specifically, the prohibitions on vaccinations, organ transplants and the blood doctrine.

  Of course, I'd like to talk about all the "Light ™ " changes on these subjects and the loss of innocent lives because of those changes. All the people who have died, LIKE MY MOTHER, relied on WT doctrine -- that just changes constantly.

  Red > Yellow > Green, Red > Yellow > Green, Red > Yellow > Green ...just like common traffic lights.

  All these faithful JW's died over WT traffic lights. And there has never been one single apology given to the familes of the dead -- from the people who led them to their deaths. The Governing Body is blood-guilty for their false shepherding. They've run people over the cliffs and won't even say, "We're sorry, we were wrong."

  Instead, they just say, "We have New Light ™ !"

  Oh, joy. What a wonderful gift from the Faithful Slave thru Jehovah.

  Rabbit (worries about the real stuff - class)
• 

  Fisherman

  THis debate can go on forever sort of speak. No one can prove that the Gentile times ended in 1914 and no one can prove that it has not. Time will tell.

  One thing I have considered is that if the wt is correct and Jesus was in fact enthroned in1914 and is the midst of his enemies sitting at God's right hand why isn't there any solid evidence to support it?

  Certainly, God would make that clear in the minds of all. But it is not clear. If the Society is God's channel of communication, embassadors of that kingdom why did he communicate to the wts to put into the minds of people not to take lifesaving vaccines? If the society taught and printed ridiculous things, can they be trusted with utmost confidence? I would not bet life on it. And so, based on previous erroneous interpretation of scriputures by the wts in the past post 1914 I cannot be sure that the wts doctrine of 1914 is not erroneous.

  I can play devil's advocate and take your side 3w. As I am sure many on this board knw, many jws privately have doubts about 1914 and I mean people more important than you 3w. Anyway, I dont think that this topic is going anywhere from this point on.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  No one can prove that the Gentile times ended in 1914 and no one can prove that it has not. Time will tell.

  On the contrary, Fisherman, bucket loads of evidence has been presented that 1914 was not a significant year in terms of unique prophetic fulfillment. And aren't the Gentiles still trampling on Jerusalem?
• 

  Fisherman

  I disagree Ann.

  Anyway thanks for responding to my post. Again consider the last 4 verses of 2 Kings with the EZ 21: remove the turban.. I am happy that you concede that the last king of Judah mentioned in the Bible was King Jeh. That is it.

  You speak as if you are an authority . You are not. Ok with me, you are just stating what you believe. I am not going head with you or with anyone else on this thread about the GTimes. Too tired. Just looking for new info. on 1914 particularly from 3w or scholar. Same old.

  see you at another thread