Posts by Fisherman

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

Ann, thanks for your response. Im only reading what the Scricpture says.According to the Bible the last king of Judah was Jehoiachin 2ki25:27,28 says so. not Zedkiak but YOU say ZEd. Scripture also says that he was let out offf prison and that he remained in babyl. gov Gedaliah's rule was before I think "..put his THRONE higher... compare "put on high even what is low" In fact verse 27 says JEhoi KIng of Judah. If this is so it unlinks from gentile times.

I want you to consider another point about trampling down. POssibly, the trampling down occured when the Babyl looted the temple going into the Holy, and maybe the Most Holy? In any case Jerusalem was a colony of Babyl Zed not appointed by ungering or the HS but by Babyl, paying taxes to Babyl. What I mean is that all of these possible views being correct impacts on the certainty of 1914 and if the wt unlinks from this date, we shall see new interpretation od the verses that support it.

I dont agree that will be trampled down only means inthe future but it can also mean a continuance UNTIL the gentile times are fulfiled.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

It is noteworthy that in 2Kings 24:17 , it was the King of Babylon that appointed King Zedikiah as King of Judah. Again in 2Kings 25:27,28 It was also the King of Babylon that restored king Jehoiachin to his throne AFTER King Zedekiah. According to Scripture KIng Jehoichin was the last King of Judah and not King ZED. This is significant because Jehoichin's throne should be consindered and Zed was not the last king of Judah according to scripture so it seems that Judah had a king after 607. Any takers?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

Here is another possible interpretation of Ez 21:26,27 having nothing to do with the Getile times:

Ezequiel was speaking with Zed:

Put on high even waht was low- King Jehoichin abased in Babylon would be restored to honor.

Bring low even the High one- Zedekiah occupying a high office would be degraded

ruin ruin ruin- impending disaster

it will certainly become no one's (literally this also shall be no more) Even the restoration of the crown to Jehoiachin will only be temporary. The ultimate restoration will happen at an unspecified time in the future.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

What does OLoff and Franz say about the Gentile times what are their conclusions?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

Couldn'dt EZ 21:26 apply before 537 on or about 607 finding fulfillent as stated in 2kings verse previously cited?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

Any comments on 2Kings25:28?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

"In what way would another king be brought high in 537?" Consider 2 Kings 25:27,28

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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, why do you talk to oulaw like that?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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, If the WTS changed the 1914 teaching would you still remain a JW?

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think 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

Thanks for your view outlaw. Sorry I didnt respond to you before.