Posts by Fisherman

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

First of all, Fisherman, I enjoy having a good friendly debate. However, I warn in advance, I may disappear for long periods, and not respond.

Me too.

I am not confused about Isa 50:1.

You stated that it was muddy to you,

Forget my interpretation, and look at yours.

None stated, only your remarks about your muddy understanding of the scripture. Same can be said of any Bible verse or the Bible as a whole when something said challenges your position.

On the contrary, I have established the sequence of events,

No you haven't

according to the bible alone.

According to you, as you say the Bible says.

If babylon fell on 539 BC (a date Watchtower agrees with) then Jerusalem fell on 587 BC

No it did not. That is a conclusion based on interpretation. Not based on evidence but interpretation of the evidence.

(a date everybody agrees with, except Watchtower).

True

Even your interpretation is consistent with, the 70 years commencing with the first captives being led from Jerusalem,

No, it is not. Isaiah was not alive at the time of the first raid. Jewish tradition holds that the prohet was sawn assunder by king Mannaseh. In any event, he was dead.

fact it contradicts Jer 27:1-6.

No it does not and not a fact. The scripture is prophetic and does not establish that Jerusalem fell on 587.

697 BC may be a valid interpretation, but not for the date of the fall of Jerusalem.

607 is a valid interpretation of when the destruction of Jerusalem occured.

That is where CT Russell stuffed up, and where Watchtower is wrong.

Wrong

Russell copied (via Balbour) the work of John Aquila Brown but didn't understand it, stuffed it up,

How does that show that 586 is the correct date?

and Watchtower has been trying to assert Jerusalem fell in 606 BC or 607 BC to hide Russell's stuff up, ever since.

How does that show that 607 is incorrect?

Let's just leave it at that. You have an agenda to convince lurkers. I don't want to get in your way since I have no agenda but only to have my say. Anyway thanks for your Bible references and your views on them.

49

Infinity versus nothing

by Fisherman in

some people like to believe in something others believe in nothing; so in what location did the substance that expanded into the time/space universe exist before the big bang?

where did the energy that caused the big band come from?

how did the substance that became the big bang change from being inert and sterile and come to life to having the properties and drive that it does?

Fisherman

the nature of the universe, and secondly a similar issue, any reference to the concepts involved have to fit in with your pre-existing paradigms.

Physical no? and conforming to scientific realism? Or do you believe that the universe is like the trinity?

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

retracted

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

539-70 is very clear. Wt 607 is a valid interpretation. And that is that.

Isaiah 50:1 is also clear:

50 This is what Jehovah says:“Where is the divorce certificate of your mother, whom I sent away?Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?Look! It was because of your own errors you were sold,And because of your own transgressions your mother was sent away.

In the above quoted scripture, the prophet Isaiah refers to God's covenanted people as a nation, as the mother of you people, God being in a husbandly like covenant with the entire nation. But the scripture also refers to the nation as being sent away at that time before the desolation actually occured, as if it already happened and the nation was already in captivity, before the desolation. Hence this scripture is prophetic, being "sent away" was future but as certain as if it had already occurred. And so, your enterpretation of the verses you cite and the interpretation of others as to when the Bible says events actually happened versus the prophetic language of the Bible. You, yourself admitting to being confused about Isa 50:1

It is well established and accepted that the king of Babylon raided Jerusalem 2x. The first time taking part of the nation captive Ez1:1.

It was to king Zedekiah that the prophet Ezeqiel said: "Remove the turban and lift of the crown..remove even the high one..a ruin I shall make it.... it shall cerainly become no one's" (the throne still having a king as Ezeqiel spoke) The "70 years" was a future event and did not begin with the first raid. But you can believe and interpret what you like, your views not invalidating WT. I respect your views and conclusions about the verses you cite but they do not establish the date of the destruction of the first Temple and of Jerusalem. I have posted a very simple method of extrapolating the date.

The desolation begins after the destruction of Jerusalem, the land rests 70 years, then a remnant is to be restored. Going back in time, Babylon falls and the Jews return; subtract 70 years from the date Jewish feet trample Jerusalem ending its rest and one arrives at circa 607. That is how I see it. And I rest my case.

19

Moral High Ground

by Spoletta in

it seems that the other threads about trump's policies are veering off into endless ideological theories about how much better we are than islam.

does anyone think there is a chance that islam can be changed in the same manner that christianity has over the centuries?

with the inflow of ideas from western countries into the middle east, will people gradually want to move away from sharia law to something less patriarchal and cruel?

Fisherman

I have dealt with a couple types of Islamics in the US. One type is passive; this type is not very observant, the other types are more observant, and the higher up you go in being observant, the more aggressive and expressions of forced change and punishment to those that break Islamic laws or do not embrace their religion.

19

Moral High Ground

by Spoletta in

it seems that the other threads about trump's policies are veering off into endless ideological theories about how much better we are than islam.

does anyone think there is a chance that islam can be changed in the same manner that christianity has over the centuries?

with the inflow of ideas from western countries into the middle east, will people gradually want to move away from sharia law to something less patriarchal and cruel?

Fisherman

So why exactly is it that Islam won't be able to change?

Your post makes logical sense but for Catholics the fiat comes from Rome and other Christian rival religions also have their heads who can dictate policy. Islam has no such ungered heads that can dictate change and the only fiat that can be expected is one with a car bomb.

19

Moral High Ground

by Spoletta in

it seems that the other threads about trump's policies are veering off into endless ideological theories about how much better we are than islam.

does anyone think there is a chance that islam can be changed in the same manner that christianity has over the centuries?

with the inflow of ideas from western countries into the middle east, will people gradually want to move away from sharia law to something less patriarchal and cruel?

Fisherman

change how? another prophet, another book? The only interpretaion of their holy book is literal, chopping of hands, stoning, and Isis, the most refined form since their holy prophet.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

Compare Jeremiah 29:10 with Isaiah 50:1.

Isaiah 50:1 is prophetic, the Jews not in exile yet. Your referenced scripture is about the completion of 70 and does not establish its start, and its interpretation must also reconcile with 539-70.

Your belief depends upon interpretation but 607 depends upon 539. So unless you can debunk 539, 607 makes sense to me.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

The land had to pay back its Sabbaths, resting 70 years not 47.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

Fisherman

Gven the historical date 539, without any other obfuscation:

Since the Jews returned to Jerusalem circa 537, being in captivity 70 years,

537 -70 = 607

This isn't because the wt says as you can see.