The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible (page 8)

TD

And the argument is made about 'Jerusalem will be trampled'. This is also explained thoroughly and the illustration about Elvis was used.

Sorry, no. To appeal to the indefinite nature of English verb usage is to fail to understand the objection

AlanF:"Does anybody fail to see what an ass this guy is?".....3rd Witness has no argument,without WBTS publications..In his own words;"And no I couldn`t have written it without the Aid of the WT Publications.As they are The Only Publication in the world today that explain bible truths."..There you have it!..A WBTS sock puppet,with the hand of the WBTS firmly up his ass..LOL!!...OUTLAW

AlanF

Fisherman said:

: Alan, I think that scholar silenced you on your 538 theory.

You do, do you.

That's rich, coming from someone who states that he holds opinions without facts.

Let's see if you can manage to sum up scholar pretendus' arguments that "silence" the facts I've presented.

Of course, you won't. You're going to prove that you're fishermanus mentula flaccidus.

AlanF

KW13

Thirdwitness is in his 50's, he has Kids (older) - a Wife, been a dub for most of his life and you could say he was brought up a dub. His Parents studied a long time before getting baptized, it took a while for them to stop Christmas celebrations.

Oh and he's from Texas. (in a small town there)

He's taken it upon himself to take on apostates on as many sites as he can. He's registered at a lot!

AuldSoul

Fisherman,

Only four doctrines still render 1914 a significant date:

(1) Jesus was enthroned in heaven in 1914. Although until the early-1930s this was taught to have occurred in 1878 after his having returned in 1874, the current doctrine regarding the timing of his coronation does make 1914 a significant date.

(2) Commencement of the composite sign. Until the mid-1920s the doctrine regarding the composite sign was applied to "the time of trouble" fulfilling the composite sign as spanning 40 years from 1874 to 1914. But current doctrine has the "time of trouble" (great tribulation) yet future and the composite sign commencing in 1914.

(3) The 7 times of Daniel 4. The Millerite and Watchtower Society interpretation of the 7 times of Daniel 4, the Watchtower Society's erroneous ANE chronology, and the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's rulership as somehow representative of Jehovah's rulership combines into an interpretation of 2,520 years running from 607 BC to 1914 AD during which Jehovah would have no enthroned king. (Compare Hebrews 5:8-10; Revelation 1:4-5)

(4) The choosing of his faithful slave in 1919. While this doctrine only makes 1914 significant subtractively, the doctrine does make 1914 significant. All organizational claim to divinely appointed authority hinge exclusively on the choosing that took place in 1919. The rationale for this claim rests solely on Jesus return and enthronement in 1914. This doctrine is the most likely reason for emphatic defense of the previous three.

I hope this helps.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

AuldSoul

KW13: He's taken it upon himself to take on apostates on as many sites as he can. He's registered at a lot!

Yes. And his motive could not be more straightforward. Rankings on search engines. What better possible way for him to get a boost in rankings than to have thousands of ex-JWs and JWs clicking the link from hundreds or thousands of different IP addresses and different countries from dozens of sites. I clicked on one of his links. Saw what it was. I figured out what he was doing immediately and haven't tried another of his links.

I strongly recommend not boosting his rankings.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

OUTLAW

FisherMan..AlanF is a big fish..Do you think you can real him in?..LOL!..It will be a new version of Jonah and the Wale..He`ll simply swollow you whole..You`ll make him sick,and he`ll puke you back up..LOL!!...OUTLAW

AuldSoul

Fisherman: Alan, I think that scholar silenced you on your 538 theory.

As I recall, he simply asked Alan (in a very rude manner) to explain why he disagreed with his "leader" Jonsson. The rude manner is understandable given the tone that Alan takes with scholar. Which, in turn, is understandable given the length of time that has passed with Neil promising a king's list, along with a cogent argument in its favor, that has never appeared.

What is not understandable is referring to Jonsson as someone's leader. He's an historian, an expert in his field.

What is not understandable is claiming that Jonsson disagreed with Alan without showing where the disagreement was.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

cabasilas

I have factually shown from the Bible that Daniel 4 is about God's rulership and that such rulership would be trampled on for 7 times. I have used Ezek 17, 19, 21, Rev 12, Isa 6, all of the book of Daniel, and many other scriptures connecting trees, stumps, twigs etc to Jesus' kingship.

Daniel chapter 4 says that God is the supreme ruler.

Where in Daniel chapter 4 does it specifically say that the 7 times applies to God's rulership?

Where does the Bible specifically say that the tree dream in Daniel chapter 4 has any other application?

Do the passages in Ezekiel 17, 19, 21 and Revelation 12 and Isaiah 6 specifically comment on the passage from Daniel chapter 4 or specifically connect it to what these other chapters are saying?

Is the interpretation you're offering taken from the text (exegesis) or reading into the text (eisegesis)?

barry

Gday Thirdwitness, I havent replied to any of youre posts until now so welcome,

Im an SDA and there are some similarities with in biblical interpretation with the JW positions.

Many SDAs interprete Daniel 8.14 with Daniel 9 requireing the day for a year principle to arrive at 1844

Also the three and a half years is applied to 538 to 1798 the dark ages useing the day for a year principle.

More informed scholars see no necessity to use the day year principle in Daniel 9 because in the context of this chapter the caculation is 7 times 70 years. In fact the SDA bible commentry as well as other good commentries say the day year principle is not required here.

The year day is used pragmatically.

In predictive prophecy the year day principle is not used if it looks silly. eg when Jesus said he would die and in three days he would raise it up the principle is not used. It isnt used with the three and a half years by the JWs but is used by the SDAs with the SDA interpretation. It isnt used with the millenium because the interpretation would seem too long.

Suffice to say Im an SDA who couldnt go along with such an inconsistant and strange rule.

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

Share this