absolutely obvious when the kingdom would be established. It has nothing to do with preconceived ideas.
Hi Van!
Thats what you assert. Not preconceived ideas. In all impartiality I concur with WT. WT interpretation is valid.
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Fisherman
-
Vanderhoven7
I concur with the New Testament....not a man-made, man-run organization that never did get a prophecy right.
-
Vanderhoven7
Someone on this forum a while back posted the following litany of WTS assumptions related tp 1914
Assumption 1: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from Daniel chapter 4 has a fulfillment beyond his day.
The book of Daniel makes no mention whatsoever of any fulfillment beyond his day. There is no indication that what happened to Nebuchadnezzar is some type of prophetic drama or minor fulfillment to a major future antitype.
Assumption 2: The seven times of the dream are meant to represent 360 years each.
When this formula applies elsewhere in the Bible, the year-for-a-day ratio is explicitly stated or clearly implied. Here we are assuming that it applies.
Assumption 3: This prophecy applies to the enthronement of Jesus Christ.
The point of this dream and its subsequent fulfillment was to provide an object lesson to the King, and mankind in general, that rulership and the appointment of a ruler is the sole prerogative of Jehovah God. There is nothing to indicate that the enthronement of the Messiah is indicated here. Even if it is, there is nothing to indicate that this is a calculation given to show us when that enthronement takes place.
Assumption 4: This prophecy was given to establish the chronological extent of the appointed times of the nations.
There is only one reference to the appointed times of the nations in the Bible. At Luke 21:24 Jesus made no connection whatsoever between this phrase and anything contained in the book of Daniel.
Assumption 5: The appointed times of the nations began when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were taken into exile in Babylon.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate when the appointed times of the nations began, so this is pure speculation.
Assumption 6: The 70 years refers to 70 years in which Jerusalem would be destroyed.
Based on the wording of the Bible, the 70 years could refer to years in which the Jews were under the rule of Babylon. This would include the servitude when the nobles, including Daniel himself, were taken to Babylon, but the rest were allowed to stay and pay tribute to the King of Babylon. (Jer. 25:11–12)
Assumption 7: 607 B.C.E. is the year Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah’s king slain and the appointed times of the nations began.
Scholars agree on two years: 587 B.C.E. as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, and 539 B.C.E. as the year in which Babylon fell. There is no more reason to accept 539 B.C.E. as valid then there is to accept 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.
Assumption 8: 1914 marks the end of the trampling of Jerusalem and therefore the end of the appointed times of the nations.
There is no evidence that the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations ended in 1914.
Assumption 9: Satan and his demons were cast down in 1914.
Witnesses contend that Satan caused the First World War out of anger for being cast down. However, he was cast down in October of 1914 according to WTS interpretation, and yet the war began in August of that year and preparations for the war had been going on for a considerable time before that, as early as 1911. That would mean he had to get angry before he was cast down and the woe to the earth began before he was cast down.
Assumption 10: The presence of Jesus Christ is invisible and is separate from his coming at Armageddon.
There is strong evidence in the Bible that the presence of Christ and his arrival at Armageddon are one and the same. There is no hard evidence to indicate that Jesus would rule from heaven invisibly for over 100 years before manifesting himself visibly prior to the destruction of this old system of things.
Assumption 11: The injunction against Jesus’ followers getting knowledge of his installation as king as stated at Acts 1:6, 7 was lifted for Christians in our day.
This statement of Jesus would mean that the apostles of his day had no right to know when he would be enthroned as king of Israel–spiritual or otherwise. The meaning of Daniel’s prophecy of the 7 times was supposedly hidden from them. Yet, the significance of the 2,520 years was revealed to William Miller, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists in the early part of the 19th Century? That would mean the injunction was lifted for Christians in our day. Where in the Bible does it indicate that Jehovah has changed on this position and granted us foreknowledge of such times and seasons?
In Summation
To base the interpretation of a prophetic fulfillment on even one assumption opens the door for disappointment. If that one assumption is wrong, then the interpretation must fall by the wayside. Here we have 11 assumptions! What are the odds that all 11 are true?
-
scholar
ozziepost
I myself am convinced of more orthodox Christian theology.
--
'Orthodox Christian Theology' which is rather a meaningless statement does have some reference to Eschatology so if what you believe is correct then What then is your Eschatology? For it is a an important part of the Nicene Creed.
--
ust so you’re clear, I consider the whole 1914 thing to be bunkum-
--
Nevertheless of your personal opinion What then is your Eschatology for one thing must be admitted as true is that 1914 is an expression or testament of Witness Biblical theology grounded in Eschatology, a subject not taught in Christendom further compounded by the heeding of the Lord's exhortation to 'Keep on the Watch'!
scholar JW
-
scholar
Vanderhoven 7
You list 11 Assumptions which the said scholar is able to respond to each Assumption in kind. But the difficulty that you have is that you have no Eschatology at all and the Poster of those 11 Assumptions must account for his or her Eschatology. The teaching of 1914 as doctrine is a celebration of Eschatology a subject of which is well mentioned in many leading Bible commentaries but the Witnesses because they have discerned as the Lord and the prophet Daniel lauded that God's people would be people of discernment, able to understand the times we live in today as Bible prophecy is being fulfilled and heeding the Lord's admonition to ' Keep On the Watch!1
The problem that unbelievers and sceptics alike have is that 1914 with the ending of the Gentile Times was believed to be a meaningful event at the time of 1917 when many prominent religious leaders in Christendom published a manifesto regarding the ending of the Gentile Times which in accordance with Biblical Theology introduces the subject of Eschatology and it is this simple fact that underpins 1914 as sound biblical doctrine.
Further, it is a fact that if you read Bible commentaries you will notice that considerable emphasis is placed on Eschatology but it is only the Witnesses that make it relevant in their preaching and teaching ministry.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Vanderhoven
I concur with the New Testament....not a man-made, man-run organization that never did get a prophecy right.
---
If this is what you really believe then what then is your Eschatology for Eschatology is a major subject of the NT?
The Lord's people as a Church or Organization must be interested in Prophecy and its fulfilment so are you involved in Prophecy? Do you have a keen prophetic outlook as encouraged by the Apostle Peter by paying attention to the prophetic Word?
scholar JW
-
scholar
Vanderhoven
Regarding when Jesus became king, McDaniel writes:
The truth is, Jesus became king when He ascended to heaven in AD 30 and established the church. Before that time, Jesus (along with others) promised that the kingdom was at hand (cf. Matt. 4:17). The first century was the “fullness of the time” (cf. Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10), the predicted age of the Roman Empire when God would establish His eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. 2:44; 7:13-14). When the Lord returned to heaven, He possessed (and possesses) all authority (cf. Matt. 28:18), sat down on His Father’s throne (cf. Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:18-23), and admitted the saved into His kingdom (cf. Col. 1:12-14).
So Fisherman and Scholar
Notice that Paul and all Christians at the time were saved and had been transferred from darkness into an already existing kingdom, the Kingdom of Christ in century one.
Colossians 1:13 KJV — Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
---
So how do you explain Daniel 2:44 and other related texts in Daniel that refer to God's kingdom as fully developed in Daniel 4?
scholar JW
-
scholar
Vanderhoven 7
The JW theory is obviously convoluted and confusing.
- If we examine Daniel 2, it is obvious that the kingdom would be established “in the days of those kings” (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), not 1,900 years later
----
It is not obvious at all. Daniel 2: 44 clearly relates to a future time when God's Kingdom would exercise dominion over all the Earth by replacing all human governments.
---
The vision of the great tree has nothing to do, contextually or otherwise, with the Jerusalem kingdom but describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness, his abasement, and subsequent reinstatement (cf. Dan. 4:1-37)
---
Nonsense, the tree dream celebrates God's Kingdom as the fulfilment of the dream as a lesson of Sovereignty.
---
- There are no contextual links between the “times” in Daniel 4 and Revelation 12 that would necessitate an interpretative connection. It is wrong to tie different texts together simply to prove a predetermined, unscriptural poin
---
Nonsense, the exegetical links are the lexical meaning of 'times' and 'time' both in Aramaic and Greek and the simple fact that both books share the common theme of 'God's Kingdom as well as the fact that both books are prophetic and are of Eschatology- 'Lord's Day' and 'time of distress and 'time of the end'.
--
- Though in poetic and prophetic Biblical literature “days” can represent periods of times (or “years”), figurative language cannot be forced into a literal application. (Notice in the above quote that “seven times” is semi-literal but becomes 2,520 days—figurative—then to 2,520 years—literal. It is too inconsistent, and God is not the author of confusion!)
----
This is the essence of sound biblical exegesis
---
Obviously, with such flawed interpretations of Biblical prophecy, the third question—When did Jesus become king?—is answered incorrectly by Jehovah’s Witnesses WDJBK
--
The said scholar answers that question triumphantly to wit- 1914 CE
scholar JW
-
scholar
Disillusioned JW
Regarding Fisherman's claim that "There is zero empirical evidence that 586 is the destruction of Jerusalem -only an interpretation of the Stele which Scholar refuted in previous thread years ago ...." and the idea that "1914 has not been debunked", what about the research by Carl Olof Jonsson? M. James Penton in his Apocalypse Delayed book says that Jonsson "discovered that the society's contention that Jerusalem had fallen to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in 607 BC was historically, archaeologically, and astronomically indefensible". Notice there is historical and archaeological evidence against the 607 BCE date, not just astronomical evidence from one Stele.
--
There is zero empirical evidence for 586 or 587BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem because there is abundant biblical, secular and historical evidence for 607 BCE mainly based on the 70 years and through the research of Semitic scholar, Rolf Furuli has now been shown to be astronomically defensible.
scholar JW
-
Fisherman
mainly based on the 70 years and through the research of Semitic scholar, Rolf Furuli has now been shown to be astronomically defensible.
So, all feelings aside. WT interpretation of the Bible is valid and at minimum, plausible.
