Tell me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy without telling me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy. đ
Besides cut and paste, unlike TD, youâve never translated anything it seems.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Tell me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy without telling me you prefer doctrinal bias over accuracy. đ
Besides cut and paste, unlike TD, youâve never translated anything it seems.
basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.
where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?
(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .
I think that TD has so elegantly appealing to logic and reason argued the point that life is more sacred than the blood that represents it. Iâve never heard a more persuasive argument and complete coverage refuting Bible interpretation that bt are prohibited by the decree. coftyâs attempt to raise reasonable doubt is also noted. but the scripture in the decree cannot be nullified and I donât see a way around it without violating the scripture. Putting a gallon of blood into your body and saying you are not eating it and therefore doesnât violate the decree is not how JW decision makers see it.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation"
Thatâs how we see it. The Bible text integrates the 70 years with the desolation, 70 CE as a striking reminder pointed to Jerusalem. Have fun with your belief. I donât buy yours.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
This is in no way requires an equivalence of desolation to 70 years.
According to you. But the Bible says 70.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
They put Russel on trial for not being a scholar. I read the transcript of Court record of his cross examination. I think your doctorate is in theology.
I donât think the Bible can be translated using strict rules of grammar alone. I think that the translator has a belief to begin with and the grammar conforms to that belief when interpreting and translating to another language. His belief is the rule or the guide and not the grammar. It just so happened that the beliefs of the JW founders were in phase with the grammar.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
establishing that God even exists
You got it all wrong. Thatâs what the Bible is all about: âThey will have to know that I am Jehovah.â And that is what Christianity is about: âThey will see, the Son of Man.â âEvery eye will see him.â and the vindication of his church. That is miraculous proof from God which man cannot provide. Not like the miracles recorded in the Bible as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah â-which the Jewish nation rejected. But the sort of evidence that the Bible refers to as:
âin a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.â âBut that is not what this Forum is about. I am only replying to your question from the Bible. The proof that you seek cannot be provided by me.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
So, what youâre saying is, the Bible is essentially a useless âchoose your own adventureâ.
Not at all. You were told by âGodâs organizationâ what the Bible means. You reject it and have your own views instead that you believe are true. If God is not a variable in the Bible, then the Bible is only literature. If God is not behind âGodâs organizationâ then their interpretations and direction is not importantâwhich is what this forum is about. But getting back to my post, given your stated position that the Bible is not Godâs word and looking at the information in discussion prima facie, what I said applies.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
isnât âthe word spoken by Jeremiahâ at all,
Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying Godâs word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant .Before Judahâs 70 year desolation in Bavel, Zedekiah had proclaimed a Jubilee for the land and Jehovah turned back until Zedekiah backslided then the deportation.
Any written statement such as laws or Scripture can be interpreted more than one way. You have you view. Good luck.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
2 Chronicles 36:20,21 â 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovahâs word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.
It is not that complicated.
jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the gentile times are fulfilled.
â luke 21:24 .
the bible book of luke records jesus prophecy of the last day with his parousia including the verse about the gentile times.
So, the "times of the Gentiles" start in 70 CE
How could that be since Jerusalem had been under Gentile rule since the destruction of the first Temple. So therefore the Gentle times had to begin when Jerusalem lost its sovereignty and the Jews were subjugated. Even after the restoration, Gentiles ruled Jerusalem, from Babylon to Rome and beyond so the trampling must have begun in the past and Jesus must have been referring to the completion. The nature of grammar is that another meaning is possible, but trampling beginning in the future doesnât make sense for the reasons I explained.
Interestimgly, Jehoiakim was appoimted king of Judah by Nebuchanezzar in Babylon during the deportation so technically he was the last king of Judah but purely a mockery and totally insignificant and meaningless . A king over nobody.