How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside 282 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  Phizzy

  "Scholar" said : " all of the population had left Judah leaving the Land desolate for a fixed period of 70 years until they returned home 70 years later"

  Archaeology clearly shows the land of Judah was NOT left without population during this period. Occupation and farming continued.

  ----

  Archaeology at the moment is rather open to the nature of the Land whether it was fully deserted or unoccupied as the Bible explicitly states or that it was populated to some degree. However, it is what the Bible says that overrules the opinions of archaeologists which are built on 'shifting sands'.

  The said scholar is very much aware of the matter as he has completed a short online course under the tutelage of Prof. Obed Lipschits who authored The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem -Judah under Babylonian Rule, 2013,Eisenbraums which was the principal textbook for this course. The said scholar received a Certificate for this course.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  t would be funny to watch people like ‘scholar’ if they did abandon 1914. But no, they can’t. That is to say, if they did, it would be like the Great Disappointment resulting in most leaving and a few breakaway sects with altered nutbaggery.

  ---

  Would it not be funny to watch people like Jeffro if current scholarship abandoned 586 or 587 BCE in favour of 607 BCE which validates 1914 CE as the birth of God's Kingdom.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  scholar’ would argue that the evidence is just misinterpreted (as it tends to be in all the really inconvenient places 🤦‍♂️). I suppose the modern population of Tyre are misinterpreting their existence too, since it would never be rebuilt or even found. 😂

  --

  The said 'scholar' would demonstrate that Archaeology is not an exact science but is based on available evidence such as artifacts and the interpretation of such excavated materials.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Jeffro, all you do is go off into tangent irrelevancies such as they are not anointed and mix in your commentary.

  Incorrect. Though it is true that I often tire of JW nonsense that fails at step 1 meaning there is sometimes little benefit in proceeding to step 2. 🤷‍♂️

  Also, sorry I didn’t see your imaginary purportedly implied but not actually evident in any way parentheses. 😂
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  My observation is that none of the JWs I know really believe in the 1914 date beliefs. None of them could duplicate the reasoning/arithmetic or explain it at all. They don’t seem to care much about it.
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Would it not be funny to watch people like Jeffro if current scholarship abandoned 586 or 587 BCE in favour of 607 BCE which validates 1914 CE as the birth of God's Kingdom.

  1. The preponderance of evidence positively identifies 587 BCE as the correct year. 2. If it were discovered that 607 BCE were the correct year (despite this not being plausible at all), assuming it were based on reliable evidence it wouldn’t bother me as I have no superstitious vested interest in 587 BCE (though the post-exilic compiler of Leviticus connects paying off sabbaths with a period of 49 years). 3. 1914 would remain a coincidental contrivance as just one of many years posed by Adventists for ‘something’ to happen. JWs would be left quietly ignoring the fact that there was no sudden change in world events in October of 1914, tediously remarking that something significant happen in that year. It would not be validated as a reliable doctrinal position as Babylon’s 70 years of dominance were explicitly said to end when Babylon was called to account and explicitly didn’t mean exile (Jeremiah 27:8-11).
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  1. The preponderance of evidence based on NB Chronology advocated by current scholarship positively identifies at least two dates for the Fall of Jerusalem: 586 and 587 BCE. However, Bible Chronology based on the historical reality of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile of 70 years confirmed by secular history and astronomical records prove beyond any doubt that 607 BCE is the correct year for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  2. Thus, according to your worldview the date 587 BCE is meaningless. However, true Christians as Bible students have a worldview based on Bible Prophecy and an understanding of Eschatology which not only makes 607 BCE a date of historical significance but marks 1914 CE as a year of prophetic significance creating a firm basis for faith, hope and love.

  3. The date 1914 can hardly be a contrivance as its calculation is simply marking an end of the Gentile Times or the 'appointed times of the nations- a specific statement made by our Lord, Jesus Christ. Even right now we see the current earthquake in Turkey as a confirmation that we are living in the Parousia of our Lord beginning in 1914 CE. TH expression ' Babylon's70 years of dominance' is not found in the Bible but is your interpretation originating with SDA and replicated by COJ . Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years is described by four Bible writers- Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra as a fixed, historic period of Exile in Babylon- Servitude to Babylon- Desolation of the Land of Judah and Jerusalem beginning in the historic years of two reigning Kings namely Zedekiah of Judah and Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon as 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem and ending in the historic reign of King Cyrus of Persia with his Decree releasing the Exiles to Return home in 537 CE fulfilling to the very month the prophesied period of 70 years.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  1. The preponderance of evidence based on NB Chronology advocated by current scholarship positively identifies at least two dates for the Fall of Jerusalem: 586 and 587 BCE.

  You keep making this trite assertion, because you like to make it appear as though there is ambiguity regarding the secular dating. But various sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating of 586 BCE from the 1940s before more information was available. The correct year is definitely 587 BCE. I note you never cite any modern sources that assess the date as 586 BCE rather than simply repeat that old traditional dating.