They're going to have to redefine 1914 at some point. They've bought some time, though, and I don't see any major 1914 change happening until at least 2034 passes uneventfully.
You may not have read the Apologist version of 607 b.c.e.
by Terry 32 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
zoiks
Only Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 587 BCE, but in 607 BCE, but can provide no archaeological evidence to support this.
First sentence corrected. They can thank me later.
-
thetrueone
Don't put it pass them, to revert to 586 BCE. since it would give them 20 years more time to make their bullshit viable to the flock.
Assuming their overlapping generation bullshit wanes itself out they will look for new things, thats if they're still around.
Hey, it could be a new book " New Things Learned "
-
Terry
Notice the delicious use of issue framing below:
Counting back from that date, and adding up what they have discerned to be the reigns of each king, 605 BCE is found to be the first year of mighty King Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah says this King destroyed the city of Jerusalem in his 19th year of rule. Hence, counting forward 19 years bring us to 587 BCE. Incidentally, this is also the method Christendom uses.
Instead a straight-forward recitation of facts and methods, the writer tosses in a signal subliminal and prejudical for Jehovah's Witnesses to turn on their programming. Cult mind control will now commence. Nothing is more disgusting and revolting to the eye of a Jehovah's Witness than the word Christendom.
Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe something the secular historians do not.
This is where the attention is diverted from facts and methods into changing the argument entirely in another direction.
THIS IS THE SIGNAL: US vs THEM Loyalty alert!
We believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, so we take the Bible's prophecies into account when calculating ancient chronology.
A completely different topic! How smoothly this pivot has been executed! Like a magician diverting attention away from a magic trick.
Who are you going to trust? The Bible and the Governing Body or Christendom and Bible haters?
No matter what information is presented from this point there will be no way a Jehovah's Witness can be objective about the outcome.
-
thetrueone
Your absolutely right Terry
The JWS style to approach a argument or debate is to quickly instill a Argumentum ad hominem attack onto the opposing
person or persons . This 607 debate was recently discussed on a apologetic's thread (MADJW)
and when I presented to him that there have been recent archaeological findings ( Tablets ) dug up from the ancient ruins
of Babylon that when deciphered state that Babylon had conquered Jerusalem in the year 585 BCE, he wouldn't acknowledge these findings
or accept them he just pissed the off as well thats just Christendom's handy work.
In other words information that didn't have come from the WTS. was nothing but lies and deceptions, completely void of any rational or critical thinking.
-
PrimateDave
I tend to disagree, Terry. That web site is poorly written. Sure, the author pushes buttons, but who are his readers anyway? A loyal Witness won't go beyond the Watchtower publications. Questioning Witnesses will likely read many alternative points of view. I think most would find this drivel insulting to their intelligence. If they aren't satisfied with what the WTS provides by way of explanation , why would this comfort them?
-
Terry
I tend to disagree, Terry. That web site is poorly written. Sure, the author pushes buttons, but who are his readers anyway? A loyal Witness won't go beyond the Watchtower publications. Questioning Witnesses will likely read many alternative points of view. I think most would find this drivel insulting to their intelligence. If they aren't satisfied with what the WTS provides by way of explanation , why would this comfort them?
I would say poorly reasoned rather than poorly written.
The Watchtower is poory written. The syntax is execrable! But, it is effective.
-
Vanderhoven7
<Hi I revived this because I am actively engaged in a debate with a seasoned JW who writes:
<<The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 teaches us that God would set up his Kingdom in 1914.>>
My response: In your organization's collective imagination I'm sure.
Of course you know there are no dates in the Bible so you must utilize a non-inspired secular date to start your speculative calculations.
And you should know also that your organization's prophetic interpretation, which btw no biblical scholar will support, is riddled with assumptions.
Assumption 1. Daniel chapter 4 is not only about Nebuchadnezzar's physical kingdom back then, but also about Christ's 20th century spiritual kingdom.
Assumption 2. That Ezekiel's day for a year principle applies to Daniel 4.
Assumption 3. That Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE
Assumption 4. That the "gentile times" spoken about in Luke 21:24 began in 607 BCE
Assumption 5. That Jerusalem was no longer trodden down of gentiles as of October 1914 (i.e. that "gentile domination" actually ended in 1914)
Assumption 6. That 2520 (360 day) prophetic years legitimately become 2520 (3651/4 day) solar years.
Any more assumptions you can think of?
-
Rattigan350
Well Vanderhoven, people on both sides are ignorant. It is not about Daniel 4.
It is about Jehovah's promise to David that his offspring would sit on his throne to time indefinite. That was leading up to Jesus being king. But Jesus lived and died and did not become king. What gives?
David and Solomon on down were kings in Jerusalem subject to no one but Jehovah's laws. That changed when Jehoiakim became a vassel to Babylon in 607.
That would seem to end Jehovah's promise of the kings in the line of David leading to Christ. But that is where Dan 4 comes in. It says the kingdom would be paused or banded for 7 times or 2520 years. That is not from when Jerusalem was destroyed but when the kings became subject to Babylon in 607, or 606 or 605, (who knows), and that would end in 1914, 1915, 1916, then Jesus would become king.
-
kepler
Right, "Gentile times".
The term is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthnē) in the New Testament. The term "gentiles" is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible.
If the Bible is inerrant, then its translators inferences from it stand on feet of clay.
Furthermore, seventy years was applied to a desolation even earlier: Sennacherib to the devastation he wrought on Babylon. Esarhaddon reversed it on a subsequent cuneiform post. In other words, the concept is borrowed from Assyrians.