by Lobsto 154 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Vanderhoven7
This situation to hand reminds me of a famous saying by a US military general who said: 'If everyone is thinking the same, then Who is doing the thinking?" Thus, it would appear that in contrast with the 'celebrated' WT scholars', Bible scholars do not have the same regard of the Bible as the inspired Word of God.
scholar
'If everyone is thinking the same, then Who is doing the thinking?"
You must be talking about the rank and file .. who would lose both friends and family if they had an independent thought on this or any other official teaching of the organization.
The GB/FDS does all the thinking yet there is not a scholar among them...as their record on chronology shows.
No one studying the Bible, scholar or otherwise, would come up with what the WTS has concluded on this prophesy
Good point Vanderhoven
The date setting devised by the WTS was done so by novice bible scholars who were more endeavored to create doctrines (1914) for the enhancement of literature proliferation than adhering faithfully to the bible, even to the words spoken by Jesus Christ.
Finkelstein
For a so-called group of novice bible scholars who have turned Christendom's scholarship upside down and inside out by means of not only producing outstanding scholarship with Bible Chronology but have also produced the finest and most accurate Bible translation -New World Translation ever made. Pretty good, HUH!!!!!!!
scholar
Quote ‘scholar’: “Have you not heard of the Gentile Times? Such a doctrine underscores 1914CE” unquote
Right!
The whole 607 date issue has but one purpose, namely to prove that the ‘Gentile Times’ utterance of Jesus (Luke 21:24) has reference to 1914.
But would God make eternal salvation contingent on the average Joe having to pick the right history scholar, in order to properly understand Jesus’ words?
If we read the accounts in Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, it becomes easy to see that the passage of Luke 21:20-24 corresponds to, and explains, Mat 24:15-21.
Please stop and just read those two passages side by side.
Now, the WT teaches that the “standing” of the “disgusting thing in a (a, Gr. Generic, not specific) holy place,” in order to “cause its desolation,” is yet future, and Luke 21:20 informs us that Jerusalem” is that “holy place."
Further, the “disgusting thing” is identified as the “gentiles” in Luke 21:24, and the desolation of “Jerusalem” is accomplished by means of “trampling.”
And since this desolating trampling kicks of the “great tribulation,” it follows that the “appointed times of the gentiles (nations)” – the “appointed times” of the “disgusting thing” to START trampling on “Jerusalem,” i.e. Christianity – is yet in the near future.
Hence, the “appointed times of the nations” (gentile Times) starts with the NWO trampling of Christianity at the beginning of the great tribulation and ends about 3.5 years later when Jesus ‘comes on the clouds of Heaven in power and glory’ – this is the contextual framework in which the “Gentile Times” were placed by Jesus as a comparison of Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 clearly show.
Now this raises the issue of the “Parousia” and its WT interpretation.
Parousia does NOT mean ‘presence followed by coming’ (on the clouds of Heaven,
in this case), but ‘coming (or arrival) followed by personal, bodily presence
with,’ as can be seen by Paul’s usage of the concept, where he was ‘invisibly
present’ in mind and spirit with the brothers at a distant location, not using
the term parousia, precisely because he was exactly the opposite of present.
Since presence is the opposite of absence, and parousia means the ‘coming and consequent bodily presence with,’ so that one being present cannot said to be coming again unless FIRST leaving and becoming absent again, it follows that if Jesus became present in 1914, and is still to come in the future, He has first to become absent again in order to then come on the clouds of Heaven – when exactly did Jesus become absent again in preparation for His future coming at Armageddon?
Hence, Jesus becomes present AFTER His ‘coming on the clouds of Heaven’ at the end of the great tribulation and the start of Armageddon.
Scholar
"produced outstanding scholarship with Bible Chronology..."
Are you saying that 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1919, 1925, 1975, reflect outstanding scholarship?
"...but have also produced the finest and most accurate Bible translation -New World Translation ever made."
What non WTS affiliated scholars say that the NWT is the most accurate translation?
I suspect the only people who would say that are the ones that say Jesus appointed a small group of Bible Students in Brooklyn New York as his FDS in the spring of 1919.
Vanderhoven7
Are you saying that 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1919, 1925, 1975, reflect outstanding scholarship?
Why not?
What non WTS affiliated scholars say that the NWT is the most accurate translation?
Try Jason de Buhn
scholar
Personally, I think the Bible is a load of old rubbish. But here's one to think about if you remotely think the Bible might 'have something'.......................
Was
Jerusalem
destroyed in 607 BCE or 587 BCE?
"There are only 5 Babylonian kings to deal with. It isn't hard. You don't
need to bother with VAT 4956, Josephus, Ptolemy, Anstey, Bullinger, etc. etc.
Just go by the actual kings, whose names and regnal lengths are known from tens
of thousands of cuneiform tablets from many different towns and villages all
over southern Mesopotamia. It is so simple a
child could do it.
Starting with Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, and working backward.
Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE (Date accepted by WT CD ROM 2001)
Nabonidus -- 17 years (WT agrees) For long periods he entrusted rule to his
son, Prince Belshazzar
Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months (WT says less than 9 months)
Neriglissar -- 4 years (WT in agreement)
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years (WT in agreement
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years (In the 19th year of his reign he destroyed
Jerusalem)
WT 1965 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law
Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building
operations. His underage sonLabashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and
was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite
son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus -- 17 years
17 = 539 BCE
16 = 540
15 = 541
14 = 542
13 = 543
12 = 544
11 = 545
10 = 546
9 = 547
8 = 548
7 = 549
6 = 550
5 = 551
4 = 552
3 = 553
2 = 554
1 = 555
0 = accession year = 556
Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
3 months in 556
Neriglissar -- 4 years
4 = 556
3 = 557
2 = 558
1 = 559
0 = accession year = 560
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
2 = 560
1 = 561
0 = accession year = 562
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
43 = 562 BCE
42 = 563
41 = 564
40 = 565
39 = 566
38 = 567
37 = 568
36 = 569
35 = 570
34 = 571
33 = 572
32 = 573
31 = 574
30 = 575
29 = 576
28 = 577
27 = 578
26 = 579
25 = 580
24 = 581
23 = 582
22 = 583
21 = 584
20 = 585
19 = 586 BCE
18 = 587 BCE
And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the
nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan,
captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And he
burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of
Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. 2Ki 25:8 ,9
So Jerusalem
was destroyed in 586/587 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar.
punkofnice
Your listing of the reigns of the Babylonian Kings is falsified by the biblical seventy years which proves that there is a 20 year Gap between Neo-Babylonian Chronology and Bible Chronology. The fact is that the biblical evidence proves that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem for the dates of 586 or 587BCE are impossible regardless of how impressive Neo-Babylonian Chronology appears.
scholar
scholar4 hours agoVanderhoven7
Are you saying that 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1919, 1925, 1975, reflect outstanding scholarship?
Why not?
What non WTS affiliated scholars say that the NWT is the most accurate translation?
Try Jason de Buhn
There are only two results to a Google search of Jason de Buhn. One is this forum (although not this thread strangely). The other is a Yahoo answers page:
"The watchtower always misquotes people and one of their biggest deception is from a book called " truth in translation" by Jason de buhn.
He praised their OT translation, but decimated their NT part if the bible as deceptive and the deceptive insertion of the name jehovah.
But watchtower conveniently don't mention his criticisms, hence their delusion as being the most accurate translation."
Regardless of whether the quote from Yahoo answers is true or not, I don't think you can claim scholarly acceptance of
the accuracy of the JW bible by referencing this complete unknown.
