How Will They End 1914 Teaching? (page 9)

Beth Sarim

Jeffro;

Yes. this is truly where and when you see victims of the Borg and it's nonsensical doctrines back-up on their heels digging-in going all out to support their sunken-lost cost. Pathetic.

Irrelevant misdirection. Though Young’s method is sound, BM21946 definitively identifies the placement of the first siege relative to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Jeremiah 52:28-29 definitively identifies the placement of the final siege relative to the first siege.

---

Nonsense. Jer.52: 28 refers to the first deportation and not the 2nd deportation of Jews in Neb's 7th year in agreement with BM 21946.

Jer. 52:29 refers to a later deportation of Jews or second deportation of Jews in Neb's 18th year which formed part of Neb's final siege of Jerusalem ending in 607 BCE

This means rather than there being three deportations of Jews taken into Exile according to COJ there were only two deportations of Jews into Exile according to the Biblical record of 2 Ki.24.

scholar JW

Refer: Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olaj Jonsson, 4th edn, pp.254;341-43

scholar

Jeffro

Poor ‘scholar’. Always on the back foot and spouting unsupported drivel.

---

Ditto!!!

scholar JW

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Nonsense. Jer.52: 28 refers to the first deportation and not the 2nd deportation of Jews in Neb's 7th year in agreement with BM 21946.
Jer. 52:29 refers to a later deportation of Jews or second deportation of Jews in Neb's 18th year which formed part of Neb's final siege of Jerusalem ending in 607 BCE
This means rather than there being three deportations of Jews taken into Exile according to COJ there were only two deportations of Jews into Exile according to the Biblical record of 2 Ki.24.

How can you be so completely wrong at every turn? 😂 Firstly, yes verse 28 refers to the first deportation and 29 refers to the second, which is plainly stated in the passage. 🤦‍♂️ And, as I correctly stated, these verses confirm the placement of the end of the second siege relative to the first. 🙄 Secondly, 607 is hopelessly wrong no matter how many times you say it, as clearly evidenced by the fact that there are contemporary records for every single year, explicitly including every transition of the known kings. Thirdly, BM 21946 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar collected tributes throughout Palestine in early 604BCE, which could have included captives (though because Daniel is fictitious it isn’t strictly necessary that captives were included). Fourthly, though it isn’t strictly necessary that there was a ‘deportation’ in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, Jeremiah 52:30 does indicate a later third deportation in 582 BCE so you’re wrong anyway. 😂

scholar

Jeffro

The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II, the king of Babylon, occurred in 586 BCE. According to the biblical account in the book of II Kings, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city and, after a long and difficult battle, succeeded in conquering it. The Temple in Jerusalem, which was considered the center of Jewish worship and religion, was destroyed, and many of the residents of the city, including the Jewish elites and skilled craftsmen, were taken into captivity in Babylon. The Babylonian captivity lasted for 70 years, after which many Jews returned to Jerusalem and began the process of rebuilding the city and its Temple. The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is considered a major turning point in Jewish history and is still remembered and studied by Jews and Christians today.

--

According to Open AI the date 586 triumphs over 587 and notice the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was a major turning point in Jewish history- hence the Exile of 70 years.

scholar JW

no-zombie

The problem that some may have forgotten is that 1914 is very closely linked to 1918; the choosing of the Organization by Jesus to be known as the true faith. Thus by openly discussing or changing the date of Jesus's enthronement in heaven, questions would also flow onto (because of other Biblical prophesy ie. the three witnesses) whether or not also 1918 is correct.

What is the big deal you might ask? Well by using 1918 as the Society's official start/blessed date, the writing committee can distance itself the most of Russell's crazy pyramid ideas. But is the 1918 is effectively moved forward, them we move in the Ruderford period, which could make some ask about the things he introduced.

No, its far better for 1914 just to die quietly and the brotherhood move on, to believe in another vague religious concept, that Armageddon is just around the corner.

Beth Sarim

"No, its far better for 1914 just to die quietly and the brotherhood move on, to believe in another vague religious concept, that Armageddon is just around the corner."

'It' will ALWAYS be 'close'

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

According to Open AI the date 586 triumphs over 587

🤦‍♂️ Aggregated data doesn’t actually make AI results magical. The reasons for various sources saying 586 is more traditional than factual, ultimately based on outdated (pre-1950s) assumptions about the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 587 is definitely the correct year.

sloppyjoe2

The 1914 problem has already been solved on Reddit.

https://old.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/hr5596/1914_the_last_days_generations_teaching_all_fixed/

no-zombie

An other thing I think about from time to time, is this. When a child born into the faith today (by that I mean literally born now in 2023) by the time he or she has lived their who life, going to meeting, witnessing and stuff ... by the time they die ... Jesus would have been ruling invisibly in heaven (doing god knows what) for 200 years.

200 years, just think about it for a moment. How relevant will that teaching be to Witnesses then ... it will not be of course.

Thus is obvious that the GB will at some time have to choice, to move away from 1914 and blame it on our Adventist past, or stay the same and let the Organization drift downward to have the same relevance of the Salvation Army, complete with marching band and uniforms.

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

Share this