Scholar..Mary is just one of the many,that have kicked your ass in a debate..Your not nearly as smart as Mary..You never will be..LOL!! AlanF has always beaten you in debate..You have "never" had a victory on this board..EVER!!......................................OUTLAW
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
BarefootServant
Scholar said:
Unfortunately, chronology and history has a certain amount of 'wiggle room' because our knowledge of these sunjects is far from perfect.
In which case, why did you state that "there 607 BCE was the only possible date for Jerusalem's destruction"? You are once again confirming that this previous statement of yours was untrue, since you now accept that our "knowledge of these subjects is far from perfect". Do you not see how such contradictions in your statements leave you with no credibility?
the supposed date of 538 BCE is impossible
There you go again. You cannot resist making definitive statements that you cannot actually support. If the decree was made in the spring of 538 BCE there is no reason why at least some Jews could not have returned to Jerusalem by the end of the year. To claim otherwise, especially since "our knowledge of these subjects is far from perfect" is simply dishonest. Actually, as has been shown, the most likely date from historical and biblical information is 538 BCE.
scholar believes that 537 BCE is the most likely, possible/probable date for the Return consistent with current secular.biblical.historical evidence aviailable at this time
Ah, then why didn't you say that to start with, rather than deceitfully claiming that it was the only possible date. Will you now retract your statement that "based on the bible", 607 BCE is the "only possible date" for the destruction of Jerusalem?
The clincher for such an approved methodology is the fact that the Gentile Times expired in 1914 CE based upon the scholarly determined 607-537 BCE scenario.
Scholar, you must stop telling fibs. As you well know, over the years the WTS changed its 'calculated' start date in order for the alleged prophecy to end up at the year 1914 CE. So the 1914 date was arrived at by other methods, other methodologies which took priority and were used to determine the start of the seven times. Those other methods were long ago dropped, I wonder why. As for the 'success' of the 1914 date, there was none since everything that was expected for that date did not come to pass. C T Russell's prophecy was a failure since it was obvious then, and is even more obvious now, that the 'gentile times' did not end in 1914.
BFS
-
isaacaustin
Mary
Post 10645
You write utter nonsense and the use of insulting language merely proves that your argument is weak and pathetic. Alan F and scholar have engaged in vigorous debate on chronology over many years and at every point scholar has answered his questions, solved his problems and refuted his apostate nonsense. The debate is matter of public record on this forum and it is for others to judge as to scholar's expertise or not.
Regarding the matter of whether the tree dream has a antypical fulfillment or not is clearly evident bythe very fact of the dream's theme and that is God's Kingdom which by very defintion was a future reality. The very mention of this Kingdom of God is of itself sufficient proof that Nebuchadnezzer's experience had far wider and greater significance and this is before one looks at the other evidences on this matter.
scholar JW
My reply: Pedo...I must say you are an expert at writing a whole lot of nothing. You make your ridiculous assertion but provide nothing. Now please point us to the verse(s) in Daniel 4 which indicate it has a greater fulfillment. Mary's argument is not at all weak or pathetic...but it is insulting and threatening to you since yours is based on nothing. I have looked at past threads of you and Alanf and he has decidedly kicked your butt on every question.
-
isaacaustin
pseudoscholar said:
Returning to your comments about the date 537 BCE for the Return as calculated by the 'celebrated WT scholars', the supposed date of 538 BCE is impossible for the precise Return because if the Decree was promulgated in 538 BCE then allowing for the journey, preparations and resettlement by the seventh month then it must have been in 537 BCE that the Jews returned home. This understanding of matters is supported by many other scholars and others clearly indicate that the 'wiggle room' is present for all who seek some precision on the matter. For example, in many reference works a question mark follows the listing of 537 BCE indicating some uncertainty and lack of precise historical detail. Jonsson himself expresses this uncertainty by means of a footnote relating to this matter. In short, scholar believes that 537 BCE is the most likely, possible/probable date for the Return consistent with current secular.biblical.historical evidence aviailable at this time. The clincher for such an approved methodology is the fact that the Gentile Times expired in 1914 CE based upon the scholarly determined 607-537 BCE scenario. Enjoy!
My reply: in the midst of pseudo's fluff he said "in many reference works a question mark follows the listing of 537 BCE indicating some uncertainty and lack of precise historical detail." "In short, scholar believes that 537 BCE is the most likely, possible/probable date for the Return consistent with current secular.biblical.historical evidence aviailable at this time." and he sums up with "The clincher for such an approved methodology is the fact that the Gentile Times expired in 1914 CE based upon the scholarly determined 607-537 BCE scenario. Enjoy!"
So he is saying that there is wriggle room as to the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, no precision as to the detail, and 537BCE is possible/probable...but most likely because the gentile times expired in 1914! 70 years back from 537BCE would take you to 607BCE. Wow! Is that the work of a scholar or what? So you assume 1914 is correct and then make the calculations work on that. Is everyone convinced here? Talk about circular logic at its finest.
-
Mary
Scholar droned: Mary, You write utter nonsense
Ah yes. I quoted the entire chapter of Daniel that is in question with none of your "bible aids" included, so that people can see that your assertions have absolutely no merit. And in true Dub-dumb fashion, since you have nothing to fall back on, you simply claim it as "utter nonsense". Now there's a big surprise.
Alan F and scholar have engaged in vigorous debate on chronology over many years and at every point scholar has answered his questions, solved his problems and refuted his apostate nonsense. The debate is matter of public record on this forum and it is for others to judge as to scholar's expertise or not.
You're right---it is a matter of public record and you're the only one dumb enough to think that you've actually won the argument. Alan's kicked your ass on this repeatedly but you just don't seem to understand when you've been beaten. Oh well, carry on.
Regarding the matter of whether the tree dream has a antypical fulfillment or not is clearly evident by the very fact of the dream's theme and that is God's Kingdom which by very defintion was a future reality.
No it is not duffus----that is a myth perputrated by the WTS plain and simple. The entire chapter of Daniel 4 makes absolutely no mention of this referring to anything other than Nebuchadnezzar's rule as king. Verses 20-22 clearly show that the tree is referring to Nebuchadnezzar himself:
20 "‘The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong and the height of which finally reached the heavens and which was visible to all the earth, 21 and the foliage of which was fair, and the fruit of which was abundant, and on which there was food for all; under which the beasts of the field would dwell, and on the boughs of which the birds of the heavens would reside, 22 it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.
The very mention of this Kingdom of God is of itself sufficient proof that Nebuchadnezzer's experience had far wider and greater significance and this is before one looks at the other evidences on this matter.
The very mention of the Kingdom is "proof" that "seven times" equals 2520 years?
LMAO......ya okay.....That's like saying "the very mention of the word 'strong' is of itself sufficient proof that Jesus worked out at Gold's Gym 5 times a week". What you are doing 'scholar' is attempting to twist the scriptures into meaning something that they don't. This isn't a difficult thing to do as most---if not all religions like to put their own spin on scriptures in order to try and make it fit with a preconceived doctrine that they want to uphold. What you're doing is absolutely no different that the Mormons taking the scripture in Ezekiel 37:15-20 to try and "prove" that the bible and the Book of Mormon are "one" in God's hand. They quote only a part of the message, omitting the three verses immediately following their quote, that clearly expose the false interpretation they have given to it. This dishonest strategy is known as "selective quoting"---something that the WTS and their drones like you do on a regular basis. You take scriptures that mean one thing, pluck a word or two out of the entire scenario and then claim that it really means something more besides what it's really saying.
Go smoke another joint, scholar before you write more of your drivel. Your notions are as entertaining as they are muddle-headed.
-
isaacaustin
So Mary- You do not beleive Jerusalem was destroy in 607BCE? LOL
-
Mary
So Mary- You do not beleive Jerusalem was destroy in 607BCE? LOL
Ooops! My secret is out!!
-
isaacaustin
ooops...psedoscholar will be so disappointed. LOL
-
BarefootServant
Mary said:
What you're doing is absolutely no different that the Mormons taking the scripture in Ezekiel 37:15-20 to try and "prove" that the bible and the Book of Mormon are "one" in God's hand.
Hey, that's a little unfair. Scholar has a much harder job than the Mormons, since at least they aren't up to their necks in archeological evidence that disproves what they say.
But I was a bit puzzled when he said
The very mention of this Kingdom of God is of itself sufficient proof that Nebuchadnezzer's experience had far wider and greater significance and this is before one looks at the other evidences on this matter.
since the scripture says "His kingdom is a kingdom to time indefinite". The point here is God's majesty and the permanence of his kingdom, isn't it? Why state that in the context of a prophecy where (allegedly) his kingdom is transient?
-
Mad Dawg
Scolar's butt is bare and everyone is lining up to slap it!
I am STILL waiting for him to show that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era using ONLY the Bible. Oh, well, I can only hope.
