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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thirdwitness

  
  Ok, reread it a few times. And I say so what? By calling it mumbo jumbo I mean that you said nothing, nothing that disproves the WT's use of the word parousia.

  AlanF said: It disproves the notion of an extended invisible presence. That is part and parcel of the Watchtower's "Gentile times" doctrine.

  Ummm, no you didn't prove that. In fact some of the definitions you gave shows that parousia means presence and means the visit of a king. Of course for the king to be present he must first arrive. But the emphasis of parousia is not just on his arrival but on his presence afterward. His presence is felt by the things that he does or accomplishes.
  
  AlanF: Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. Are you here saying that parousia does not necessarily mean presence, but it can. AlanF said: There's a lot more to come on this subject.

  I hope so because so far my teeth are just fine. You didn't even give me a cavity.
• 

  Fisherman

  
  Alan:

  Your posts are great man! Thanks for the links you posted on n your 538 work great stuff man. Original!

  Alan

  I heard that you have some work on web pages where you comment on the ransom and other stuff. Can you give me the links to your work?

  Alan I just finished the GT reconsidered by COJ. Powerful book. I do not agree with everything he wrote though. Here is the problem that I see. Wait, first I want to say that I cannot dispute his argument that if 587 is rejected because of the position that the ancients may have tampered with with the records, then why isn't 539 also rejcted? Seems to me that's very fair. Does 3w have an answer or sholar? . Anyway he supports his finding with the HS and other evidence. I have doubts about the HS, but he gives a lot of other sources too. His sources stand unless someone can discredit them. Also his is interpreation of the Bible relating to G times and Jesus enthronement makes alot of sense to me. Jesus is king of 2 kingdoms? That doesnt mnake sense to me.

  Also, his arguments about what trapple down can mean and his explanation of the many interpretations of Gtimes formulas throught history and the concept, casts a lot of doubt on 607-1914. His examples showing that ww1 may have been a lucky coincidence is fool proof I think. I dont want to review the book here. I say, if you want to get another perspective than the wts on Gentile times, read GTR and draw your own conclusions if you are not a jw because jws cannot read apostate books. Here is my problem: COJ says that the 70 is to be applied to the Neo Babylonian rule and not to the year of the desoloation of Jerusalem. If 70 is applied to the desolation, then 587 does not line up with the Bible. Since the Bible says that the land had to pay back its sabbaths and that is the reason the Bible gives for the deportation, it seems to me that 70 is connected to the deportation and not to the Neo babyl rule, hence, if this is true then the WTS' 539- 607 lines up with the BIble and the Gx book does not on this point. Alan, I dont want to argue with you on this because I dont know. I just want to see your explantion on the 70 year application. I would take sides with the Bible on this one. But I also think, based on the GTR book, that even if 607 was the destruction of Jerus, and even if 70 year desolation began in 607 and ended in 537 and did not end in 539 as COJ suggests, that does not prove the Gx concept. COJ discredits the doctrine or better put, attempts to discredit the doctrine in his book. THe only thing keeping the Gx doctrine alive is the wts. Who am I to challenge the wts scholars on the Bible and on archeology ? A JW MUST believe this teaching not because it is true but because it comes from the slave. That is it
• 

  thirdwitness

  By the way, just wondering, do you know the greek word for 'coming'? Is it parousia? Or is there a different word?
• 

  ellderwho

  Thirdwit response to Alan:

  Ummm, no you didn't prove that. In fact some of the definitions you gave shows that parousia means presence and means the visit of a king. Of course for the king to be present he must first arrive. But the emphasis of parousia is not just on his arrival but on his presence afterward. His presence is felt by the things that he does or accomplishes.

  Alans line by line response, detailed by disection of every utterance of nonsense by yourself, you simply state "its mumbo jumbo" Why dont you show your refutations in a way that would gather at least a little bit of credence.

  But no you'll sit with your fingers in ears cryin out blah,blah blah I cant hear you.

  Your crediblity is lacking by your inability to refute even the smallest of the items hashed out here.

  EW
• 

  ellderwho

  Fisherman,

  I also found GTR compelling. As well as the fact the Societies own literature makes 607 a non-workable date. Ask any witness to "connect the dots" of their dates and kings rule and one finds quickly they have none such list!

  I"ve asked this of thirdwit, and scholar(neil) and other witnesses, and this always, always shuts them down. Because the Society has no response, they have none either.

  Its just sad that they continue to follow these men.
• 

  barry

  Thanks for youre postings Third witness you may be supprised to know I agree with you on the word shabuwa the word means a seven but that can be a seven of anything. It could mean a seven of days weeks months or a seven of marbles.As I mentioned before it is the context which decides what it is a seven of. As I also mentioned before it is the context which is important to explain this chapter it is not the use of the day year principle in fact most scholars dont use the day year rule in this chapter but still get the result of 490 years by looking at the context.

  Consider the following. Daniel in chapter 9v2 is praying to the lord in fasting and in sackcloth and ashes and thinking about the 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem by the end of Daniels prayer the angel Gabriel is sent to Daniel. The Angel says in our lingo 'Look Daniel 70 years might sound a lot but there will be seven times that long for things to be settled. As I said before other churches beleive this prophecy is for 490 years but they dont use the day =year to do it.
  
  
  
  

  The Adventist church uses the rule to interpret 1844 and the 1260 days as years some use it with Daniel 9 but most commentries interpret 490 years here without application of that rule. 1844 is also a big issue among Adventists it may be an important date to Adventists but you wont find it in the bible. The same can be said for 1914.

  
  
  
  
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Fisherman
  

  Just having fun here.

  Me too! Enjoying the popcorn and the show.
  

  You are very nice.

  Why thank you.

  Since you humbly admit that you are not an authority on the Bible, then support your views, Ann.

  I did - with Scripture references as support, remember?

  What I posted is not my pet theory. By the way, let me reference what I posted. I quoted from: "Soncino Books of the Bible" EZEKIEL with Hebrew Text and English Translation, Commentary by Rabbi Dr. S. Fisch, M.A. pg 21,22 deposition of Judea's King vs29-32. What I posted on EZ 21 is not my view. I only quoted from the above-mentioned source

  . Well, I don't have access to that work, so I can't review all the rabbi's comments for myself.

  But as I said before, there's a huge mound of rocks that have snuffed the life out of the WTS' take on the Gentile Times and 607, and this issue of Jehoiachin's title is like a small pebble on the perimeter. I still don't see why you think it relevant.
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless, in my post 4678 I asked you clearly the following crucial question:

  Do you believe that the Society's reference to Josephus' use of parousia in the footnote for paragraph 11 on page 11 of the August 15, 1996 Watchtower fairly represents Josephus' actual use of the word? If so, why? If not, why not?

  Again be forewarned: Do not waffle and do not tell lies, because these will be pounced on.

  If you fail to answer, you'll again have shown your true colors -- you're afraid to answer because you know what's coming next.

  AlanF
• 

  thirdwitness

  ell:Alans line by line response, detailed by disection of every utterance of nonsense by yourself, you simply state "its mumbo jumbo" Why dont you show your refutations in a way that would gather at least a little bit of credence.

  There is nothing to refute. He quoted a lot of different sources as to what they believe the definition of parousia is. Some of which agree with the WT's use of the word. Some sources outrightly said it meant presence. Some said a visit of a king and so forth. I can't refute what I agree with. There were other definitions he provided in addition to presence such as coming. I ask a simple question. What is the greek word for coming? Is it parousia or another word? Once you find the answer to that question you will have your answer about parousia I believe.

  Josephus question? I will have to look at it.
• 

  stevenyc

  thirdwitness,

  A simple question for you. You can pretend its mere supposition if you like.

  If Daniel 4 was not about anything else but king Neb, would your seven times theory fail?

  steve