3rd Wit,
Related to my dare: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/118405/1.ashx
Go play with Auldsoul, but, don't forget Skeeter1...it's the 5th post down and it's very dear to my heart. They're waiting for you...
I dare you.
Rabbit
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
saki2fifty
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
Point well taken... <quietly retreating>
-
hillary_step
Outlaw,
Point well taken... <quietly retreating>
Gosh! The man does a brain after all. Well done Saki, a humble admission worthy of respect.
HS
-
AlanF
Excellent points, smellsgood!
Your point about Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24 is devastating to Watchtower claims about endtimes scenarios. The Greek word that is usually translated "lightning" literally means "rays of light". The imagery given in Luke 17:24 is consistent with "lightning", but that in Matthew 24:27 can better be translated as "the sun's rays". Then the passage would read, "For as the sun's rays that come from the east are visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." In either case the point is clear: the coming will be extremely visible.
saki2fifty said:
: "Yet another contradiction in terms". Not really, key word there is "try".
Doesn't fly. You already loaded the dice against remaining neutral by saying that you will naturally side with the Society if things become unbalanced -- by which in a later post you say you meant something other than the obvious meaning. Having loaded the dice, you cannot logically claim even to try to maintain neutrality.
: And again, im not pretending or fooling myself... another assumption.
Yes, you are. As hillary_step said, you're obviously so steeped in JW-think that you cannot understand that by stating upfront that if things get too hot for thirdwitness you won't remain neutral, then you cannot remain neutral.
: "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?
That's not what I've said at all. What I've said can be found in post 4657 on page 10 of this thread. I've said a lot elsewhere proving that thirdwitless has deliberately misrepresented many peoples' arguments, historical sources and so forth. I've also argued in various posts that most JWs really do believe the nonsense they teach, because of their blind loyalty to the Society, and so they're not liars, just deceived (cf. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118324/1.ashx ). But I've argued that when those same sincere JWs come across solid information and they reject it based not on provable facts, but just on their misplaced loyalty, then they become liars. After all, does the Society not claim that "Christendom's clergy" are liars even when they sincerely hold their beliefs? I'm being a dood deal more charitable in calling these people liars.
Now, if you read my post 4657 and disagree with Ozziepost's assessment, then I'm afraid there's little hope for you.
: Wow, you guys are tough on people... a lions den indeed!
Best believe it. And if you manage to come through it, you'll have jettisoned your JW mindset -- something much to be worked for!
: When I was speaking of "unbalanced", I was merely talking about what I had commented on way beforehand... just being outnumbered. Thats it, simple as that.
I'll take your word for it, but if that's what you really meant, then your original statement was almost nonsensical. Why? Because you've stated an extremely obvious truth -- thirdwitless is obviously outnumbered because there are a hell of a lot more ex-JWs on this board than there are JWs. This is easy to see when I plug your revised understanding into your original sentence:
"So how about this... I will try to excercise neutrality until I see that thirdwitness is outnumbered.. at which point, I will naturally side with the society."
Actually, this rephrase even emphasizes that you really have no intentions of being neutral, because the mere fact that a poster is outnumbered should have nothing whatsoever to do with your siding with the Society. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
AlanF
-
saki2fifty
One quick off topic question to you AlanF... were you previously a witness? Elder? CO? DO? I've searched, and couldn't find.
.. and then i'll kick back and watch.
-
AlanF
TD said:
: I think you're being unusually charitable
Sometimes I try.
: . . . So it does appear that a progressive is recognized by him in the future, but only "in collocation with other linguistic features."
Exactly, and according to the grammars I've read, thoses linguistic features include context. And as various posters including me have shown (cf. my post 4655, page 8 of this thread), Luke 21 provides no context to support a progressive in Luke 21:24.
NT Greek is supposed to be a precise language, and since we can easily and unambiguously express in English action that began in the past and will continue into the future, it stands to reason that the same could be done in NT Greek. I'm no Greek scholar, so I can't say more.
Fisherman said:
: Just looking for new info. on 1914 particularly from 3w or scholar.
I am reminded of 2 Kings 18:21: "Look now, you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man's hand and wounds him if he leans on it!"
AlanF
-
AlanF
saki2fifty said:
: One quick off topic question to you AlanF... were you previously a witness? Elder? CO? DO?
Yes, no, no and no. I maxed out at Accounts Servant in the 1970s, then wised up and went to college.
There's a long bio on me somewhere on this board, but it'll take some doing for you to find it.
AlanF
-
thirdwitness
Auldsoul said: Are you aware that the word translated "weeks" in Daniel 9 literally means "weeks of years"?
I strongly disagree with you here and so does a ton of Bible translations.
New American Standard Bible "Seventy weeks have been decreed
American standard version: Seventy weeks are decreed
New KJ: "Seventy weeks are determined
Authorized KJ: Seventy weeks are determined
Holman Christian Standard: Seventy weeks are decreed
New Revised Standard: Seventy weeks are decreed
Strong's KJV: Seventy weeks are determined
Young's Literal translation: Seventy weeks are determined
New INternational readers: "The Lord has appointed 70 'weeks'
Webster's Bible: Seventy weeks are determined
Hebrew's name version: Seventy weeks are decreed
Complete Jewish Bible: "Seventy weeks have been decreed
New World Translation: “There are seventy weeks that have been determinedThere are more.
The word used is Shabuwa` (Transliterated Word). It is translated as weeks throughout the Bible. Even in the book of Daniel at 10:2,3: In those days I, Daniel, had been mourning for three entire (shabuwa) weeks. I did not eat any tasty food, nor did meat or wine enter my mouth, nor did I use any ointment at all, until the entire three (shabuwa) weeks were completed.
Would you argue that Daniel did not eat for 3 weeks of years or 21 years?
Some Bible translations have rendered Daniel 9:24 as 'weeks of years' because they are doing more than translating, they are interpreting what was meant and they are correct in their interpretation. But I guarantee you that if Jesus would have appeared in a literal 70 weeks or just over one year not one translation would have translated it as 70 'weeks of years'. Logic and reasonableness dictates that Daniel did not just mean 70 weeks or a little over one year. These 70 weeks (by applying a day for a year) pointed to the Messiah. Likewise, using logic and reasonableness, the 7 times was not 2520 days (607 to 600) but rather 2520 years. This again pointed to the Messiah but this time as coming in his kingly power.
All Daniels prophecy are about God's Kingdom. Daniel 4 is no exception.
-
-
thirdwitness
Auldsoul: "Iddan" does not have to mean more than 7 years. It can mean less than 7 years with equal facility. It can mean "measure of time", or "season" and if you were aware of this possibility prior to posting this false statement then your statement was sophistic. Were you aware that "iddan" can be less than a year, thirdwitness? If so, then you already knew your statement that "it must mean more than 7 years" was false, since you already knew of another possibility.
The question that you should be asking is why didn't Daniel just spell out how long Neb was to be crazy. Why didn't he say 7 years or 3.5 years or 1260 days or whatever the time period. Jehovah knew the time and could have pinpointed it. The reason is obvious to those who can reason and are willing to dig into God's word and connect the dots. Daniel had to convey the length of time for Neb but also the length of time until God would place the lowliest one, the rightful king on His throne. So he used the word iddan which could convey both time periods.
The same question again: Why didn't John in Revelation just say 3.5 years or 1260 days or 42 months. He had no reason to throw 3.5 times in there. Oh but yes he did. How else could we know what the 7 times were equal to unless the Bible told us. And fortunately it did.
Now if you want to argue that the Bible does not tell us how long 7 times is then be my guest. But you have got to know that it clearly does tell us. For those who want to connect the obvious dots, it is there for you to do. For those who don't, then keep on listening to one who doesn't even believe the Bible is God's word. I'm talking about AlanF. Perhaps one day you can be like him and surpass God's word.
For those who want it on a silver platter. Sorry. Thats not how Jehovah works. The Bible was written in such a way to discern to intentions of the heart. For those not truely wanting to know. They give up and quit. For those wanting to know the truth, they dig into God's word. That is why Jesus spoke in illustrations. He could have plainly told everything so that everyone today could understand but it was his intention to cull out those not really interested, those who did not care to dig deep and learn more.
Proverbs 2:1 1 My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure up my own commandments with yourself, 2 so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; 3 if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, 4 if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, 5 in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God.