đ¤Śââď¸
1914 is just one of many dates proposed by Adventists following the great disappointment. It is complete nonsense, and the convoluted selection of â2520 yearsâ doesnât even have any direct biblical basis.
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside 282 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Phizzy
"the convoluted selection of â2520 yearsâ doesnât even have any direct biblical basis." I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.
The Book of Daniel is agreed by a consensus of Scholars to be a thinly veiled political/religious tract against Antiochus Epiphanes 1V, no way was the seven times/years envisaged by the writer to be any longer than what the Chapter says, seven years of madness for the King. "Daniels" prophecies were supposed to happen very soon, apart from the vague apocalyptic stuff.
To extrapolate 2520 years from "Daniel" is a twisting and misuse of Scripture, and you have to be deranged to accept it.
-
Jeffro
Phizzy:
I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.
Well, yeah. It is only âbased on the Bibleâ in the most superficial sense. In reality, their âreasoningâ is a jumbled mess of unrelated passages without regard to the actual context of any of them.
-
Beth Sarim
1914 is a date the JWBorg has to stick to in order for it's nonsensical history to hold-up
As the new GB member tried to lay-out 'imagine it was 608 BCE'', just before the fall to the Babyllonians,,,they yet double-down on their foolhardiness of such unfounded dates to rev-up their dogma.
Clearly,,,no one but the Borg will substantiate that 607BCE fall but them and they have to become more unreasonable with that date.
Because no other Historian Scholar will support it. It's ridiculous.
-
scholar
Jeffro
1914 is just one of many dates proposed by Adventists following the great disappointment. It is complete nonsense, and the convoluted selection of â2520 yearsâ doesnât even have any direct biblical basis.
---
Nonsense. 1914 and the Gentile Times of 2520 years are based on rock-solid biblical exegesis and have been confirmed by the fulfilment of events since 1914 as part of the Sign of Christ's presence or Parousia so you cannot be any more direct than these facts.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Phizzy
"the convoluted selection of â2520 yearsâ doesnât even have any direct biblical basis." I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.
--
False for it is based on both direct and indirect evidence.
----
The Book of Daniel is agreed by a consensus of Scholars to be a thinly veiled political/religious tract against Antiochus Epiphanes 1V, no way was the seven times/years envisaged by the writer to be any longer than what the Chapter says, seven years of madness for the King. "Daniels" prophecies were supposed to happen very soon, apart from the vague apocalyptic stuff.
----
Nonsense for scholars are divided as to the time of writing or composition of the book of Daniel.
Scholars are inconsistent with their treatment of the Neb's literal 7 years vacancy from the throne which falsifies secular NB Chronology.
----
To extrapolate 2520 years from "Daniel" is a twisting and misuse of Scripture, and you have to be deranged to accept it.
--
No for it comes down to exegesis of the biblical text which clearly shows the equivalence of the Danielic 'seven times' interpreted by the dating formulas contained in the book of Revelation which contain the keys for unlocking sacred mysteries.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Beth Sarim
1914 is a date the JWBorg has to stick to in order for it's nonsensical history to hold-up
As the new GB member tried to lay-out 'imagine it was 608 BCE'', just before the fall to the Babyllonians,,,they yet double-down on their foolhardiness of such unfounded dates to rev-up their dogma.
--
1914 and its subsequent history explains the rise of the modern-day eschatological Church known as 'Jehovah's Witnesses proclaiming God's Kingdom and fulfilment of Bible Prophecy.
---
Clearly,,,no one but the Borg will substantiate that 607BCE fall but them and they have to become more unreasonable with that date.
Because no other Historian Scholar will support it. It's ridiculous.
- the celebrated WT scholars and the said scholar champion 607 BCE as the only date- the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem based on the historical reality of the Exile of 70 years.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Jeffro
Well, yeah. It is only âbased on the Bibleâ in the most superficial sense. In reality, their âreasoningâ is a jumbled mess of unrelated passages without regard to the actual context of any of them.
---
Nah. Only solid biblical exegesis will do with a nice tight fitting of stated facts nicely woven into a rock-solid doctrine or teaching that has stood up to much criticism since the 1870's.
scholar JW
-
Beth Sarim
scholar;
Please watch Telltale's videos on this subject.
-
Jeffro
Poor âscholarâ. Always on the back foot and spouting unsupported drivel.