Ozz,
I saw that you are Forum Assisitant and that is why I responded to you respestfully inspite of your disrespect. Does being a Forum Assistant authorize you to bully me with your insults and to spread unfounded rumors about me?
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
Ozzi
I wish to refute any pet theories by declaring that I have no idea who 3w and scholar are. I am not interested in insults inuendo and rhectoric. I wish to examine presents that support or discredit wts teaching. I will come to my own conclusions whether they are in support of the wts or against.
Yes the creative day taught by the wts was 7000 long each. Sorry. Also that each days was of equal length. But not now.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
Ozz,
At first, I just wanted information . I lost interest . All I saw was wt bashing but I also recognized that this site has a lot of intersting stuff and links and lots of valuable contrbutions. Anyway, I seldom came on once in a while for news. A while ago I came on and saw the post about the letter to all congs and read more about it. I clicked on different threads and I was very intersted in the 3w alan and ad discussion on 607. I also saw scholar and alan discussion. Anyway, what rekindled my interest in this site was the letter about disaster and the post about the bethel elder arrangement. The topic of 1914 is of great interest to me and to other jws and xjws. I could not resist debate. Did I humor you? Anyway, that is part of it.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
3W, I also dislike these large cuts and paste as I have previously stated. As you probably know most people here are jws or xjws that know what the wts teaches. I don't want to read all this stuff, but if you provide a link I will unless it is just copy and paste from wt lit. I thought that your were going defend or show or discredit with arguments.
"...I put you at oath before God, tell us are you the Christ the son of the living God.." I am, and you will see son son of man comming ..." Did Caiphas see this in 1914 or will he see this"when the son of man is revealed"?
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
Does anyone have a reference in support of the statement in the book "GTR" which says that rashi erroneosly applyed the Gentiles times. Oloff does not support this statement in his book.
I don't know. The wts explanation of the Gentile times seem so logical. I suppose it is possible, but I also thought that each creative day was 1000 years long and I also believed in the old defintion of generation and the teaching about "all flesh". Perhaps, the wts is right about 1914 but I cannot bet my life on it. I am not sure about 1914. I am not convinced.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
AS:
I agree that doctrine makes 1914 significant to the wts because they pivot on that year and such doctrines as presently explained would not seem posible without 1914, and that is why it is not possible for wts teaching to back away from the date at present. I perceive though that many jws publicly accept the date but privately feel that there seems to be something wrong and everyone is waiting to see what the wts is going to do about the 1914 teaching,some jws still hanging on to the hope of a paradise earth in connection with 1914. From your explanation, it seems that the only thing keeping the date alive are the doctrines it supports.
Standing alone, why is 1914 NOT important or why is the wts wrong about 1914. Also, a respectful call to "scholar" to defend 1914 or to show good reason to believe that 1914 is an important Bible date. There is something wrong here, lets count the money again and see what total we get.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
Alan, I think that scholar silenced you on your 538 theory.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
Fisherman
3W,thank you for this post. Personally, I think that your initial post here is too long. A link to that information in my opinion is enough for those who care to look at it. What I am looking for is evidence or arguments that support using this as a pattern. In his book "Gentle times Reconsidered, the author shows how throughout history many have used this formula and that Pastor Russel was not the first person to come up with this idea. The author states that it was Rashi the "great" Jewish commentator who was the first one to apply it, comming up with a date corrsponding to his time. Thus far, all of those calculation used by different men using this as a pattern has proved false by the passing of time as the book that I mention shows. What a disappointment!
Many loyal jws have given their lives for the truth and after so many years of hoping for a paradise earth, they finally realize that the new definition of generation puts a different spin on 1914 and what the Bible means on generation and as it is widely accepted among jws, the endcan come 50 years from now or who knows when.
Here is the point: Jws believe what the wts teaches and if the wts changes, the jws change beliefs. And what they previously supported and PROVED, now they reject in light of the facts. Sometimes the jws dont even realize that they should no longer believe in something, the teaching having been changed in the publications sometimes without even noticing it for example the magnitude of earth quakes as sign of the last days. What the insight book says on the topic compared to what the AWake magazine wrote about it later modifying the insight. It seems to me that the teaching went unoticed.
Another example is the definition of the hebrew word yom in Genesis. The wts argued and proved for decades that a creative yom is 1000 years and that God created the universe in 6 creative days of equal length. Now, in light of the facts, as the Creation book and the Insight Book teaches, No one knows how long a creative yom is and each creative yom can be of varying length even millions of years, so the pattern, a day is 1000 years doesnt apply here anymore as it once was taught it did and neither does the argument that since a 7 day week has days of equal lengths, creative yoms must also be of equal lengths. The argument seemed so logical at the time and the evidence presented in the freedom of the sons of God book so irefutable, but sadly it was wrong.
When people believe in something, sweareing by it sort of speak concluding that what they believe is fact even "proving" it to others in fs, basing their lives on the beliefs, and then they have to readjust their thinking, after a while the person is more careful in they are told to believe and realizes that the information they received before was wrong and that puts into question a lot of things.
What I am looking for is any information, arguments, or evidence that can discredit what is shown about the Gentile times in Franz's book or in Oloff's book or any points or discussion showing concisely that 1914 is still a significant date. I dont need a rehash of waht the wts teaches but I do not obeject to using wts material or the Bible in support of an argument.Or also, information that also discredits the Gentile times pattern or evidence or arguments to that effect.
-
124
thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele
by AuldSoul inthirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars, .
firstly, i offer this disclaimer: i am not a scholar.
but i can add and subtract.
-
-
Fisherman
Alan:
All of 3w arguments have not been shown to be red herrings and what ifs. For my opinion to be worth anything, I don't have to be able to list concisely exactly what I think shows that the hs does not disprove the 607 date.
AS:
Great post in my opinion. I never heard about th HS before, thanks. I read both sides of the discussion, yours and 3w. In my opinion, 3w won. At first, I thought that you had a strong case, but after listening objectively to 3w, I became convinced of his conclusion. I do not think that ad hominin helps your argument. You have not been able to discredit his argument and his conclusion. After reading all of your information and 3w, I am convinced, again as I have previously stated, that the HS does not disprove the 607 date.
-
124
thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele
by AuldSoul inthirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars, .
firstly, i offer this disclaimer: i am not a scholar.
but i can add and subtract.
-
-
Fisherman
Thirdwitness, what makes you say that? In my opinion, you have successfully shown that the HS does not disprove the year 607 as Jerusalem's fall. However, since wts predictions have failed so far, there seems to be something wrong with the dates or patterns.