by Ethos 529 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I also notice we're quietly ignoring the Watch Tower Society's shaky interpretation of "kingship" at Daniel 1:1. Snicker.
(Oh, and by the way, I've intentionally laid a trap for a strawman argument in one of my posts in this thread. 10 points* for finding it.)
*Points are not redeemable for cash, goods or services.
More ludicrous statements by Jeffro. Outright mistruths actually. I will show this next quite clearly. I will also address AnnoMoly's frivolous and nonsensical questions that show she hasn't grasped the fundamentals of my premises. A quick answer to TD and Jeffro though, obviously the 2520 years are not calculated solely from Daniel. But it is a strawman since I said I establish Revelation on its own premises, as I do Daniel. Thats why I said I teach the Gentile Times last, since I dont need it to establish 1914 and I dont necessarily agree with the biblical exegesis of the Gentile Times for reasons aforementioned.
But it is a strawman since I said I establish Revelation on its own premises, as I do Daniel. Thats why I said I teach the Gentile Times last
LOL. You're really clutching at straws now. And from your own strawman. Oh dear.
Aside from your hypocrisy of using a statement in Revelation to 'define' a period in Daniel... the "gentile times" aren't from Daniel or Revelation. It's from another entirely separate book (Luke 21:24 for those having trouble following along), and the JW interpretation of that isn't even supported by the original text! Keep digging.
Interesting discussion, but quite pointless. The beginning dates of a prophesy are only there to reinforce the fulfillment. As we are living during the claimed fulfillment, it's much easier to examine this evidence. As brought out continuously by many here and elsewhere, there is no credible evidence of any fulfillment. So, in the overall scope of things, I'd rather you argue for a recalculation of the "Gentile Times" as by all available evidence we're still in them.
well all I am waiting to see is how the date 1914 can be calculated soley from the book of revelation. If Ethos is going to get round this problem by using two revelatory books then he has to show a very very close relationship between the two so as not to be guilty of the same arbitrariness of WT schlarship.
But it is a strawman since I said I establish Revelation on its own premises, as I do Daniel. Thats why I said I teach the Gentile Times last
Not to mention that the supposed 'day for a year' 'rule' is 'borrowed' from yet another entirely separate book. Looking forward to seeing how he explains that without deferring to Numbers or Ezekiel. Still not clear on what basis he refers to Revelation (and Luke) for 'explaining' something in Daniel either. Surely he would not:
flip back and forth between two books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods and use one to qualify what the other meant.
At this point, because we've veered onto topics about the 2520 years, the apologist probably imagines he's 'established' his 'earlier' points.
However, not only have none of his previous points been established, but there are several points that have been raised that he has ignored, as well as quite a lot of information that hasn't been touched on at all.
Good luck with that.
jeffro
I have been trying to follow the arguments here and I think that the the bible can generate many interpretations and if there were many, even half baked ways of arriving at the dates under discussion it shows that during the period that Russel lived there was great interest in applying reason to the bible. This could have elicited interest from non religious people who may have simply been interested in its calculations in the same way that there was huge interest in the pyramids - magical fossils from a bygone age that needed to be studied to extract lost scientific meaning that could yield something in mans fight against obsolete oppressive religion and dynastic rule.
but as this is ethos thread and he has said he does not want to stray from the topic of analysing anti-607 rebuttals what I want to know is why he has not given his research to the watchtower society? According to Ray Franz they were already aware that their 607 BCE calculations were shaky. Surely he is interested in bolstering their confidence.
soft+gentle:
jeffro
I have been trying to follow the arguments here and I think that the the bible can generate many interpretations and if there were many, even half baked ways of arriving at the dates under discussion it shows that during the period that Russel lived there was great interest in applying reason to the bible. This could have elicited interest from non religious people who may have simply been interested in its calculations in the same way that there was huge interest in the pyramids - magical fossils from a bygone age that needed to be studied to extract lost scientific meaning that could yield something in mans fight against obsolete oppressive religion and dynastic rule.
Indeed. There was a surge of interest in biblical numerology in the 19th century, particularly with William Miller's claims in the 1830s that the period of '2300 days' of Daniel 8:14 pointed to 1843 as the year for 'Christ's return'. After what became known as the Great Disappointment, and based on Miller's Adventist ideas, various preachers - including Russell - came up with other increasingly novel combinations of biblical numerology to point to various years that always seemed to be 'just around the corner'. Russell even claimed that measurements in a pyramid pointed to 1874 as a 'significant' year, and then when he wanted to point to 1914 instead, he just changed the measurements in later revisions of his book to make the new numbers fit the desired year (Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 3, p. 342, 1904 and 1910 editions). However, it wasn't until the 1930s that JWs moved the conveniently invisible 'return of Christ' from 1874 to 1914.
but as this is ethos thread and he has said he does not want to stray from the topic of analysing anti-607 rebuttals what I want to know is why he has not given his research to the watchtower society? According to Ray Franz they were already aware that their 607 BCE calculations were shaky. Surely he is interested in bolstering their confidence.
I suppose only Ethos can answer that...
Thank you all for your contributions to this excellent thread, which shows even thus far, that the core, foundation doctrine of the WT is not supportable.
Therefore, the WT/JW version of the "Good News" is not Biblical, or from God.
I do hope Ethos returns to answer the points that have been made, and it would be interesting to see his "stand alone" from Revelation proof for 1914, perhaps on a seperate thread ? as this one concerns 607 BCE ?
[Ethos] Barack Obama (Medes) has no execution of office until he is sworn into office several months later. He has no authority or ability to change the previous administration's policy until he is sworn into office. Therefore, the nation continues subject to Bush's administration even though he is no longer president.Even when he is granted executional authority, he does not immediately make changes in policy. It takes considerable time to change an administration's policy (even in minor areas)
[Jeffro] The fact that it was a different administration doesn't actually need to be evidenced by any changed policies. It was a different administration because it was a different administration. It was a Medo-Persian administration. There was no longer a Babylonian administration. For this reason, I admit that my analogy about Obama was a bit weak, as it would be more like the US president being replaced by a communist Chinese national (or, politically speaking, maybe the other way around).
I was going to comment on the 'administration' point yesterday but ran out of time. We, of course, are not talking about democratically elected governments and presidents. This was a military invasion, conquest and take-over. One ruler out; new ruler in. The Bible says Belshazzar (acting ruler) was killed. Secular sources say Nabonidus was captured. Pfft. That was the end of the Babylonian administration.
The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that Cyrus arrived in Babylon about 16 days after his armies took it and he was readily accepted by the people - they hadn't thought much of Nabonidus anyway. Quickly, and within the same month (Month 8), new officials had been appointed. Beginning in Month 9 (so before the year 539 BCE was out), he was reversing previous Babylonian policy, starting to return the gods to their cities and temples. Obviously, the Jews didn't have gods in their temple, so it would be the sacred temple utensils which would have to be returned to them.
Anyway, point being, Ethos's contention about how long ("several months") it would take for Cyrus to get some real authority and power to change policies, and get a new administration together, etc. is NONSENSE! He's the conquering king, for crying out loud, he can do what he damn well likes, and he DID, as history shows!
